[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Feb 18 2009, 10:45 AM:

A friend sent this to me this morning…I think its a great idea

Years ago when I sometimes used unsavory language, I often used the expression “Bull Sh**.” As I grew up a bit and discovered it was not necessary to use such crude language, that expression became “BS.”

Q. What did I really mean when I used those expressions?

A. I meant that something was ridiculous, or idiotic or a half truth or just stupid. It covered any number or negative formats. The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially : foolish insolent talk…

I have decided that I no longer will use either of those expressions in the future. When I have a need to express such feelings, I will use the word “Pelosi.”

Let me use it in a sentence. “That's just a bunch of Pelosi.” I encourage you to do the same.

It is such a good word. It really packs a lot of punch.

We are no longer being vulgar. But it clearly expresses our feelings.

If enough of us use it, perhaps the word could be entered into the dictionary. What an excellent legacy for the Speaker of the House!

It's a brand new word of art. “Pelosi for purposes of this discussion shall mean bullsh**” 😛

PASS IT ON TO AT LEAST 10,000,000 PEOPLE

I am sure that Pelosi will be proud of such an honor, after all, she has worked hard to earn this distinction. As the joke goes regarding most politicians: if you want to see if politicians are lying, just check to see if their lips are moving.

“Read my lips, no new taxes”,

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”,

“There are WMDs in Iraq”

….and so it goes.

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Feb 18 2009, 10:04 AM:

Since most freedom lovers are highly independent in their thinking and behaving…it is difficult for them to band together to combine their efforts to restore the constitutional republic.

Enforcing the 10th Amendment through the states' legislatures seems an ideal way to achieve unity of purpose combined with unity of action to usurp the criminal/terrorists that make up the US, Inc.

Indeed! Moreover, it is in keeping with the original understanding of the Constitution, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

[BOBT12]

This is very interesting, it is great that a number of states are taking action to curb some of the federal government's usurpation. I am preparing to send this sort of information to my state politicians.

Here is some other interesting information:

Quote:

REFERENCE TITLE: sovereignty; tenth amendment.

State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Forty-ninth Legislature

First Regular Session

2009

HCR 2024

Introduced by

Representatives Burges, Ash, Biggs, Boone, Gowan, Mason, Montenegro, Pancrazi, Seel, Williams: Barto, Campbell CL, Court, Crandall, Crump, Driggs, Fleming, Goodale, Hendrix, Kavanagh, Lesko, McComish, McGuire, Miranda B, Murphy, Nichols, Pratt, Quelland, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Senator Harper

A concurrent RESOLUTION

claiming sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the constitution of the united states over certain powers, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in…ls/hcr2024p.htm

Many other states are joining the effort.

http://www.suijurisclub.net/citizenship-ju…nstitution.html

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.as…9&bill=4009

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=…bills/HR212.HTM

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08HB/HJR1089_int.rtf

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

http://www.suijurisclub.net/citizenship-ju…-sovereign.html

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Feb 12 2009, 10:17 AM:

One goal of the stimulus package apparently is to get rid of social security. The politicians cannot do this openly so it's been attached to the bill. The authors of the bill have adopted its provisions from a book by Daschle.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206…=aLzfDxfbwhzs##

Quote:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won't make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

Yeah, this bill seems to desire folks to die cheaply, and their estates will still owe the healthcare taxes. I suppose the thinking is that since you can't take it with you, the government will steal everything.

[BOBT12]

mcoffeetea wrote on Feb 11 2009, 02:49 PM:

I didn't think I could contact at all until I read the entire hoax book. I guess a forum is a form of contact though. I was looking for a forum I could respond to, but not having read all the literature……

The people I am around are clueless on this deception so I havn't any friends. (well, shouldn't say that, guess I mean….. true fellowship!)

I got chapter 3 printed at staples. That is all I had printed when they said how many pages it would be. Oh, I'm not complaining, I am tickled to death to have this info. I grew up southern baptist, my father is 83 now, (still in pretty good health)was a deacon. My brother is a deacon, sister's husband a deacon. I am so separated from my family. They have no desire to be around me when out of my alarm, i tried to share the truth with them. So, who ever y'all are out here, you could be real family

and the assembly I am forsaking. “guess kinda like Jesus said the ones who listen to Him are His family…Luke I believe

I've been reading ch 3 and I have read some of my the domicile info on my computer.

To find this site, I typed in ( The new Jew you thought you Knew).

Gracious all this literature is overwhelming. Im sure it wouldn't be if i had been reading it all along instead of watching Andy Griffin!

For so long now all I could find is horrible scarry truths and nothing that could be done about it. Now there is hope for me that there is something that can be done!!! I have no IRS debt so this isn't my purpose for reading. I am reading so I can be like Joseph when he lived among the Egyptians and didn't bow to their gods. I want to be an anarchist like you guys showed me.

I'm paying student loans for a bachalor of fine arts degree. I studied my brains out for that silly stuff when I should have been studying this!!! : )

Just glad to have brothers and sisters out there. I choose this right path but I havn't actually applied any of it. My drivers license are expired. I know I'm suppose to get an international one. I also know if you do not read all of this info first you can be in a world of trouble trying to apply it. I haevn't even done the domicile thing. I'm still studying….. this is alot!!!! But I am going to hang in there. Especially knowing I'm not the only one being educated. “Power in numbers, huh?

Most interesting info I've ever read, in that it makes the Bible practical…. or vice versa.

I want to be a sovereign. (Probably have to learn to spell it first <_< ) Guess I just wanted to say thank you to the authors and thank you to the administraitors and that my best wishes are with you all, studying to show yourselves approved. Later! Mcoffeetea 🙄

It is great to see you here, Mcoffeetea. You are among friends.

However, as someone who is just getting started on the volumes of information available at this wonderful site, it might be a good idea to start by getting a firm grasp of the basics. The Path of Freedom (http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf) is a great place to start, in my humble opinion.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2162

Here is a little background information:

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…ic=2166&hl=

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…ic=2110&hl=

[BOBT12]

franklin wrote on Feb 8 2009, 02:13 PM:

I was going to post this in the humor forum…but I have a suspicion that enumerated school children are already well indoctrinated in socialism. So I'm putting it here.

From a teacher in the Nashville area

We are worried about “the cow” when it is all about the “Ice Cream”

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first. He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Every one applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.

Her speech was concise. She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat down. The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.”

She surely would say more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a land slide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other forty-eight percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the crap.

Unfortunately, with opposition like John McCain, it's like both sides are offering “ice cream”. They both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), NWO types who will go for Big Brother, Big Military Industrial Complex, and, yes, Big Ice Cream, although, there may be a disagreement regarding which flavors are best.

[BOBT12]

Admin wrote on Feb 2 2009, 08:02 PM:

What's Wrong With Fusion Centers – Executive Summary (12/5/2007)

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/32966pub20071205.html

Fusion data centers are the new vehicle to monitor you.

I agree. I like the article, however, I have a couple of comments to add.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with the government seeking to do a better job of properly sharing legitimately acquired information about law enforcement investigations

Well, it tends to lead to a breakdown of the Separation of Powers. Isn't this a large part of the problem with this Fusion Centers M.O.?

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…ersDoctrine.htm

Quote:

– indeed, that is one of the things that 9/11 tragically showed is very much needed.

Emphasis added.

Well, maybe that is why we had a 9/11?

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…496&hl=WTC7

Quote:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson

Then the ruthless government traitors, or Powers That Be (PT:cool:, and their minions (various corrupt corporations: CNN, BBC, etc.) will pull a 9-11 type scam when they really want to install another level of the coup, such as Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act. All the evidence is available, for those that wish to “see”. It looks as though it is time for another Fed inspired scam (Bailout). Just as an crude example of how abused the people are, the porn industry wants a Bailout, even though they really aren't in trouble!

Some find it hard to believe such a thing (9-11, Financial Crisis, etc.) might be planned (by the PT:cool:, yet, we see this sort thing all the time.

Quote:

“Strange times are those in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods' school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and a fool.” –Plato 427-347 B.C.

[BOBT12]

Indeed, it saddens me to hear of his passing.

[BOBT12]

It is amazing, it seems Congress never heard of the Second Amendment?

Quote:

“Who are these militia? [A]re they not our selves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” –Coxe, Tench (1755-1824)

[BOBT12]

neo wrote on Jan 26 2009, 10:46 PM:

Where is the authority for levies by the IRS to accompanied by a court order? A friend of mine received an adverse notice at a CDPH and he has 30 days to appeal in tax court. He will not attend of court. He's expecting a 668W to make an appearance at any time. Perhaps there is some logical correspondence he can send the payroll department to get them to require a court order. What is a possible remedy here? I believe this was a CtC related incident.

Perhaps you should look here,

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instruct…geAllLevies.htm

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2162

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…ersDoctrine.htm

[BOBT12]

Author #5 wrote on Jan 23 2009, 03:31 PM:

What is real money and what is fiat currency?

http://www.npn.net/

Here is a little feedback on the issue of honest money.

Quote:

It's incorrect to claim, as the PowerPoint presentation does, that paper money is unconstitutional. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court 125 years ago:

Quote:

“By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to congress either of these powers…

…It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary consequence, that congress has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of merchandise and the payment of debts, as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power, as incident to the power of borrowing money, and issuing bills or notes of the government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing and adopting of the constitution of the United States… The exercise of this power not being prohibited to congress by the constitution, it is included in the power expressly granted to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

This position is fortified by the fact that congress is vested with the exclusive exercise of the analogous power of coining money and regulating the value of domestic and foreign coin, and also with the paramount power of regulating foreign and interstate commerce. Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the nation government or private individuals.” Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446-448 (1884) (emphasis added)

Thanks for your information. However, the Supreme Court is not more powerful than the Supreme Law of the government, the Constitution!

Quote:

“Every act [contrary to] a delegated authority…is void. To deny this would affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize but what they forbid.” -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

It was abundantly clear that the Constitutional Framers did not want the chaos that is the result of paper money.

Quote:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -Constitution

Roger Sherman, A Caveat Against Injustice (1752)

http://www.suijurisclub.net/success-storie…erman#post11604

http://www.suijurisclub.net/success-storie…erman#post12087

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our conferated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet… We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then … I will say, that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm …

“Having found, from experience that impeachment is an impractical thing, a mere scarecrow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion … An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning…

“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independent of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” –Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Emphasis added.

http://www.suijurisclub.net/taxation/1615-…Miners#post7748

http://www.suijurisclub.net/court/3724-law….html#post16358

[BOBT12]

Riverway wrote on Jan 19 2009, 09:06 PM:

Quote:

So far as I could tell, there was no discernible, organized, collective outrage. Just small groups of Citizens bitching and moaning to each other and an occasional Letter to the Editor of your local newspapers.

The congress critters I talked with said their offices were flooded with calls and letters against TARP. Who knows what the term “flooded” means. I probably should of asked for a definition!

That was the first go-around. Then the Senate caved and Congress was threatened, and you know the rest of the story.

Quote:

I mean, where is the responsibility and accountability in Government????

GAO 🙄

Riverway

Exactly!

Why should the Congress cave in to such tactics? I think that they hope for some understanding from the boss.

Quote:

“To a slave, a good man is one who does not go to the extremity of injustice and oppression.” –Gibbon, 420.

However, as evidenced by this thread, that is not the likely result!

Quote:

“To a tyrant, the whole riches of a great nation will be no more than sufficient wages for cheating and oppressing it.[L] Cato's Letters, #130, p.901.

The Bailout is nothing more than taxation without just representation.

Quote:

“When men are oppressed more by taxes than by enemies, taxes are unconstitutional.” –Thomas Paine, “Rights of Man”, 14

The Bailout goes against the will of the people.

And the threaten use of the federal military to nothing more than Threats, Duress, and Coercion (TDC)! Now what is in store for the nation if this sort of madness is allowed to be the “modius operendi” federal government uses to obtain its desires?

Quote:

A tyrant's whole reliance must be upon his soldiers he must increase them in proportion to his distrust of his people; which is a confession of mutual enmity: Neither is it enough that his soldiers oppress and famish his people, for his sake and their own (for both he and they are supported by the spoils of the people), but he must keep them as constantly employed as he can; because if they be not employed in plundering, invading, and shedding of blood, they will grow unfit for such beneficent and necessary work, and may probably degenerate into humanity and mercy; than which a more terrible change could not befall their royal master; so that in mere duty they must be constantly practicing mischief and rapine at home or abroad. [L] Cato's Letters, #73, p. 539.

Quote:

“The experience of past ages may inform us that when the circumstances of a people render them distressed, their rulers generally recur to severe, cruel, and oppressive measures. Instead of endeavoring to establish their authority in the affection of their subjects, they think they have no security but in their fear. They do not aim at gaining their fidelity and obedience by making them flourishing, prosperous, and happy, but by rendering them abject and dispirited. They think it necessary to intimidate and awe them to make every accession to their power, and to impair the people's as much as possible.” –“The Farmer Refuted,” February 5, 1775

Quote:

“A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; instead, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!” –Friederich

Much of this is the result of the premeditated attacks on 9-11, which were supported by some of the people in government. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Obama's Chief of Staff. Of course, history is full of such planned, and unplanned events. These events are designed, or exploited, in order to change the outlook and attitudes of the people.

Still, the people must follow what the dictates of their conscience demands of them!

Quote:

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it… Where do you stand Citizen?” –Judge Learned Hand (1961)

[BOBT12]

Bing wrote on Jan 16 2009, 11:42 AM:

Make no mistake, in HR 45 the lying and corrupted US Congress is trying to get around the US Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, wherein that Court struck down as unconstitutional, Congress' weak assertion that it had the police power to regulate gun possession within 500 feet of a school zone, because said gin possession affected interstate commerce.

Bing

You are on point. Write Congress (www.DownsizeDC.org:Support Ron Paul's “American Freedom Agenda Act”), let them know this is illegal and unjust.

Quote:

“To watch the progress of such endeavor is the office of a free press. To give us early alarm and put us on our guard against encroachments of power. This then is a right of utmost importance, one for which, instead of yielding it up, we ought rather to spill our blood.” –Alexander Hamilton, 1803, quoted by Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, p. 670

Speak to the Powers That Be (PT:cool:.

Quote:

Americans are almost alone in being armed. It gives them the advantage of resisting usurpation and oppressions. -James Madison

[BOBT12]

Bing wrote on Jan 15 2009, 01:48 PM:

Admin wrote on Jan 15 2009, 06:09 PM:

So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?

“[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court”.

Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of “income” [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of “income” – and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

o

. . .

In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:

“…I therefore recommend an amendment imposing on all corporations an excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity”

Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

That is one superb synopsis. Cogent and correct. Thank you.

I strongly suggest that all FG Forum newbies read and study Admin's lead post so they can understand the real history and meaning behind the 16th Amendment and what the term “income” means in a “constitutional sense”.

Thanks for an awesome post!!!

Bing

I agree, this is a great post!

I find that it is extremely useful too:

http://www.suijurisclub.net/taxation/3672-….html#post15993

[BOBT12]

Wow! Now that's what I call taking a bite out of crime. This is an example of how one defends the law.