<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		>

<channel>
	<title>Family Guardian | Brian Rookard | Activity</title>
	<link>https://famguardian.org/members/brian-rookard/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://famguardian.org/members/brian-rookard/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for Brian Rookard.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 02:25:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=2.21.0</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
		
								<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">ce6759fb19d91b0b0d5962b33c5936ed</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8210</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:54:07 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8210"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Quote:<br />
&#8220;HOWEVER THE RULE APPLIES WHERE YOU MUST LIST, SPECIFY, AND ENUMERATE YOUR SET LIKES I HAVE ABOVE BEFORE YOU USE THE WORD &#8220;INCLUDING&#8221; IN A SENSE OF &#8211; ALSO -&#8221;</p>
<p>Is this your own rule of grammar?</p>
<p>On what authority do you base this? Who says that?</p>
<p>Includes = &#8220;embraces&#8221; (dictionary definition.)</p>
<p>Prime numbers = the set of whole&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4288"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8210" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">a2be9d0a26c1ce75e9027d693aa21dc5</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8208</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:58:50 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8208"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>So, in other words, the phrase &#8220;the set of prime numbers includes the number 2&#8221; means that the only prime number is 2?</p>
<p>And that&#039;s how you understand the English language to be?</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">d4d0eedaea3d129d641dcde2e879244c</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8206</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:14:22 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8206"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>If I say &#8220;the recipe for brownies includes eggs&#8221; &#8230; is it safe to assume that the only ingredient to make the brownies is eggs?</p>
<p>____ Yes.</p>
<p>____ No.</p>
<p>SONIK&#039;S ANSWER: YES</p>
<p>Well, I guess nothing more be said &#8230; your answer speaks for itself.</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">f3dad3eb5b6b360a223308a742605c89</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual] in the forum 5.2.2. Quitting Social Security</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8148</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:29:33 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8148"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>An even better quote from the Fleming case &#8230;</p>
<p><span></p>
<p>Quote:<br />
&#8220;The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress&#039; power to &#039;spend money in aid of the &#039;general welfare,&#8221; Helvering v. Davis, supra, 301 U.S. at page 640, 57 S.Ct. at page 908, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those&hellip;</span><span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2020"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8148" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">6db7da7088db786c85fa4b458a0cec53</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8204</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:18:36 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8204"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>You have quoted the Montello Salt case which found a particular use of the word of the word &#8220;including&#8221; to be limiting (if the court would have found otherwise in that case an obviously unjust result would have resulted.) But the Montello Salt case itself concedes that &#8220;including&#8221; can be understood as &#8220;also.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have cited the case of&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4284"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8204" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">4240865237789f636951b50553bb88e6</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8203</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:12:19 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8203"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>While we&#039;re talking about the word &#8220;includes&#8221; &#8230;</p>
<p>Quote:<br />
The Schroeders also contend that they are non-resident aliens to the United States, seeming to interpret &#8220;United States&#8221; to mean only where the seat of its government is located, the District of Columbia. In their capacity as non-resident aliens, they assert they can have no tax&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4283"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8203" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">d0161106c5c2788bad332343f4da8dd7</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8202</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:31:13 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8202"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Sonik, do not try to evade the question I asked by adding conditions and confusion about foreigners or what some chinese or russian might understand, or whether a french guy living in antartica born on December 31, 1132, might have thought. </p>
<p>I asked you &#8230; a person who speaks english and presumably has a minimum of knowledge of the culinary&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4282"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8202" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">025e7aa6a28b3e96cf19c6c110f0a91d</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual] in the forum 5.2.2. Quitting Social Security</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8146</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:14:07 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8146"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>I&#039;ll tell you what &#8230; I have provided citations to court cases and congressional hearings.</p>
<p>You have provided &#8230; what? Your opinion?</p>
<p>I see lots of assertions &#8230; but nothing of substance. You provide no legal authority to support your position &#8230; nothing.</p>
<p>You show me where &#8220;U.S. citizenship&#8221; is founded on contract.  You show me where&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2019"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8146" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">afcd05122cea525d10e02ee7f406b666</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual] in the forum 5.2.2. Quitting Social Security</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8144</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:19:22 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8144"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>So, in other words, the Supreme Court cases, Congressional hearings, and statements of the SSA, all saying that Social Security is not contractual &#8230; well, that just doesn&#039;t matter because you *want* to believe it is contractual.</p>
<p>Tell me, when it comes down to it, whose statements carry more weight &#8230; George Mercier&#039;s &#8230; or the&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2017"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8144" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">8e4b35b3072cf1124018cd4036c23504</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual] in the forum 5.2.2. Quitting Social Security</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8142</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:04:37 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8142"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>The Social Security Administration briefly explains why Social Security is not contractual (its because Congress has reserved the right to alter, amend, or repeal the legislation.)</p>
<p><a target='_blank' href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html" class="bbcode_url" rel="nofollow">http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html</a></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">59f4a00f32d6db9249b92dbc215abec7</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual] in the forum 5.2.2. Quitting Social Security</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8141</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:54:44 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8141"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> SOCIAL SECURITY [Unconstitutionality/Contractual]</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>A contract is not merely an &#8220;agreement&#8221;- it is more than just two people agreeing to something.  Generally, a contract requires that there be a bargain, with a manifestation of assent to the bargain, and it also requires consideration (generally some type of performance or promise to perform).</p>
<p>The reason that Social Security is not a contract&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2014"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-unconstitutionalitycontractual/#post-8141" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">92035e558dc2e9c582c79c93f2e969fa</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8200</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:11:45 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8200"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Well, unfortunately, your argument went off into the hinterlands of the irrelevant. Your diversion into what lawyers know, or congressmen know, due process of law, etc. is not pertinent to the discussion of this thread &#8230; which is how the term &#8220;includes&#8221; is to be understood.</p>
<p>Please try to stick to the KISS principle.</p>
<p>If I say &#8220;the recipe&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4281"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8200" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">55a91cdefc7815e98f838e575232d447</guid>
				<title>Brian Rookard replied to the discussion New evidence on &#34;Includes&#34; in the forum 7.5. Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people</title>
				<link>https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8198</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:02:17 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8198"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> New evidence on &quot;Includes&quot;</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>The case of U.S. v. Bridges, 344 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2003,) does not show anything about the meaning of the words &#8220;includes&#8221; except that the phrase &#8220;including, but not limited to&#8221; cannot be used in a search warrant to describe what is to be searched.  Such phraseology is too open ended and does not &#8220;particularly describe&#8221; what is to be searched&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-4280"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/new-evidence-on-includes/#post-8198" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
		