ehudmii
Forum Replies Created
“After seeing these cards, I now realize that the problem has nothing to do with jurisdiction, courts, definitions, 861, and all the things a lot of us have studied.”
The sense in the idea of lawful appeal,…to persons in law-enforcement and courts,…who themselves do not obey the law,…
The sense in the idea that law-makers will restrain themselves in the the making of law,…
One may easily argue that the facts are out.
In fact, the facts have been out for nearly a century.
And yet, the churches in the U.S. continue to express the idea that obedience to civil law is a moral obligation, unless the civil law contradicts God's law.
Ahh,…duuhhhh,….the confiscation of property without due process is pretty clearly contrary to God's law,…
I can't offer replacement trucks, nor a new place to live,…but I am communicating with other folks in the U.S., – in the hope of providing an education in a holy manner of thinking.
The concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself hold some significance in the contemplation of the defense of one's neighbor. It's just not “good news” to your neighbor to live and act in a manner that gives strength to those who will plunder him and consume his life,…
Although one should certainly establish one's arguments well, and based on facts (if you are not determined to commit a fraud), I do not believe that the nature of the Social Security program as a contract or not a contract is relevant to the trouble Americans suffer by virtue of the legislation that created the program.
I have never agreed to participate in a social security program;
I have been forced, upon threat of death, to participate.
This one fact alone characterizes the legislation completely, in my opinion.
And everyone else in the world that is coerced into similar participation suffer the same manner of consequences.
Automobile insurance has the appearance of a contract, but is not a contract, actually, IF one holds to the idea that contracts cannot be legitimately enforced against third-persons that were not signatories to the contract.
Of course, like Social Security, non-participation is not an option; the terms established by the signatories are enforced against unwilling third-persons, so automobile insurance is not a legitimate contract, either.
By the way, to the readers of my previous posts, I wish to remark that “removing the government of Texas” is an effort in voting. The “will of the people”, thing. Regarding all other elements of philosophy regarding as issue as this and how the task is to be performed, I will permit Mr. T. Jefferson's document to speak for me.
I forgot to mention: the farm in Canada is a possible existence without registration only when the farm is owned and operated by a “church”. The law that I have read for that province of Canada illustrates that churches hold some liberty under the law in this regard.
If you think you may wish to be a farmer, – I have an offer for you!
An offer for cooperation,…
I am not a farmer, myself. I simply have recognized that farmers CAN exist without the need for identity registrations. The theme lies in the manner of life of the Amish, of American “survivalists”, etc. My own wish regarding farming is to establish a means of living for folks that have no registration at all, in the context of Revelations 19, i.e., “…get out of Babylon…”
It's all part of how I hope to help my friend in Texas, in the event that I am not elected as Governor of Texas in the next month – LOL. What is good for my friend, can also be good for other believers, too. I just do not have the resources personally to accomplish this task. Yet.
But I do have ideas, knowledge, and creativity.
Would you like to figure a riddle?
How do you imagine that one may feed goats on seawater?
The riddle is a key to unlock several ideas, which, when the technology is developed, will make possible exactly that: a goat-farm as big as the oceans.
And this manner of thinking is not necessary, either, except that my planning is constrained by what is written in the U.S. federal Constitution; specifically, that part that declares that no new State may be created within any of the existing States. Without this, and I will not act or think as a hypocrit in this, for I have always asserted verbally that I respect the U.S. federal Constitution,…so without this “feature” of the federal Constitution, I am prefectly happy to consider replacing the government of Texas altogether.
Alas, that will not be an option, no matter how strong I may become through my Father's work in my life, and so long as the Constitution remains as the plan for American government.
The square-mile property that I have identified in Canada should make for a fairly decent farm, without the complications of developing new technologies. However, I do not have PEOPLE sufficient to start a farm, even though I can buy the land.
Thus, the idea of cooperation.
And the need for enduring patience.
For although the tyranny we observe in the operations of the IRS may have ended for yourself and some few others,…this tyranny is althogether more than just the collection of revenue by force. The very philosophy of “the rule of law” must be replaced, with another philosophy that I will today refer to as “the rule of liberty”.
Law cannot EVER guarantee liberty; but a free people can.
And getting there from where the world is today,…will probably require lots of farming.
What ideas have you, as you think about farming?
I agree with your perspective and your comments 100%. Given the obvious fact that most of the people in the world today are losing their lives and fortunes through coercive actions by government, one may easily declare that most people in the world are “defeated”. This observation may lend some understanding to what is written in Revelations 18, in the verses that declare, and I paraphrase, that the beast will be given authority to wage war against the saints and to overcome them.
Although I agree with your view on the issues you speak of, your comments do not quite answer the question I am asking, – at least, not in this particular post. Capitalism is the RESULT of liberty, I believe, but is not government.
Within the society the Hebrew folk enjoyed so long ago, the judges could be considered the government, but nothing is written regarding how these judges are to perform the task. Some examples are recorded,…but the law that is provided is law that applies to everyone, and not only to that select group of folk that were chosen as judges.
Who, and how, and when, and why – defines the task for judges? Within the context of the societies we may observe today, law-makers define the role of judges.
What is curious, however, as one compares modern societies to what is described in the Bible, – the task of “making law” is not defined, beyond the simple description of how to identify a true prophet. My memory is not perfect, of course, so I offer the question: IS there a biblical context for this idea that a society should/should not have “law-makers”?
Without law-makers, no means exists for the definition of taxes.
Judges, of course, can rape their own people, and deprive them of liberty, property and life, – IF such judges have available other persons that will perform their evil desire for them. In this context, the order of a judge that mandates the transfer of possession of certain property, by force if necessary, – this COULD be considered “a law”, and thereby a judge is both judge and legislator.
The role of the “king” in the societies of the past was that of judge, law-maker, and executor. This is the model of authority most Americans are presented with, in the context of English history. The judges within these historical societies did not “make-law”, but rather they applied the law made by the king against their countrymen.
The biblical context for such a king lies solely and completely in God. In the Messiah, too, in the manner that we know God and Messiah to be “one”. The role of the judges in the ancient Hebrew society can be considered to match that role we can observe in ancient English society, in the same manner that the judges did not “make-law”, but instead merely applied existing law against their countrymen.
But,…what manner of government is this?
No law-makers?
No king but Jesus?
Thank you. To undestand your comments here at this forum, in the context of how you live is helpful to me as I establish, within my own thinking, what my expectations shall be. Where I am now, among the people I live now, – I have no “picture of success”, other than farming and writing.
We understand that Sonic teaches math, to the end of “making ends meet”.
I write software.
Bing, – what do you do?
U.S. vs. Ptasynski
Seems to me that the greatest “compelling public interest” would demand that the government refuse to establish price-controls in the first place.
In fact, “compelling public interest” should move the Court to order the arrest of the President simply for presuming to issue an executive order that purports to mandate the use and distribution of private property!
Having failed to consider the public's best in these regards, the oil companies should not have been considered liable for taxes on the windfall profits.
I read the disbarment order.
And I am particularly curious that the IRS did not have Mr. Banister arrested immediately, since the IRS alleged that Mr. Banister did not file for several years, and the court accepted the assertion as valid.
Surely the IRS must be preparing an effort against Mr. Banister again.
You Americans!
You are so cool!
And one should not HAVE to read all the law in the world just to know how to live!
What you are saying is something that I will remember, but it may not apply to me for awhile yet.
On the other hand, I wish to make you aware of something particularly vexing about German law, for I have begun to discover law of the same character within some of the States of the united States: anonimity is illegal.
On this particular point, I endured my first experience with arrest and detention.
It's also remarkable that I consider myself fortunate to have endured no more than a $1000 fine.
Just for not squeeking when the cat hissed at me.
Amazing.
Slander, that seems like a reasonable crime. There's a victim.
But silence?
As in Germany, so also in the U.S., both silence and misrepresentation can be prosecuted as crimes unto themselves.
My very long reply took a long time to write. Now I have read your posting, and once again I praise your gentleness. I was pretty sure that you were not a coward, – and now I know better just how well you are not!
And the point you make regarding the preference for education over violence is good advice in all circumstances. The folk that lead the fight King George were also well educated, and demonstrably pursued all reasonable alternatives before “things got out of hand”, so to speak.
I will work to get my friend prepared, and stand by him as he faces the gorilla.
And, maybe, I will dunk my friend in a vat of oil, too – just in case the gorilla thinks it wants to squeeze.
Thank you for your encouragement.
I look forward to your response to my latest post, and the other posts you have written here.
To bring this thread back to my original inquiry, what manner of life exists by which and/or in which one may “live outside of Babylon”, – my original post asked “Care to offer a clue?”
The short answer is, for my friend in Texas, The Great IRS Hoax book.
For me, I think my mother set me up with what I need. I have only to act upon the opportunity.
However, I ask my question in a larger context than my friend's immediate circumstances, for my friend is one person within a large community of people that are engaged in a spiritual struggle over wealth. What are the real-life consequences of “rendering unto Caesar” that which is God's?
I would like to say that I do not have anything that “belongs to Caesar”. I presume that if I have nothing of his, then he truely holds no authority over me. However, I find that I, and the community of believers at large, are subject to punishment simply for NOT HAVING something that belongs to Caesar. “Not having” is not permitted, by law.
I really mean to ask my question in this broad context, – but in the hope of finding a “pool of wealth” sufficient for peaceable living that my friend and all persons faithful to Jesus may dive into, without concern for the ingenuity of the cannibals at the IRS – or any other similar organization in the world. (Warfare is one thing; oppression under color of law is something else.)
The success stories that I am aware of so far, through all that is published here and by other tax-honesty folk, – these success stories remain success stories only for the restraint, or perhaps, the lack of motivitation, by persons holding civil authority. I do not discount the victory one may observe in these success stories, and I will help my friend to follow through on the tasks identified in “the Hoax Book”. However, because of the evidence of the LACK OF RESTRAINT on the part of persons holding civil authority, I am inclined to believe that the successes now known will become unavailable, as a natural consequence of the motivations of the powers-that-be, whenever they are active in another legislative session.
As a matter of principle, within what I hear from Christians at large, and from Americans, Germans, Greeks, Chinese, and every other cultural group that I have come to know so far, the general belief is: whatever the law says,…this justifies action against the disobedient.
My observation is: no restraint exists on law, itself. The earthly power that results from the collection of taxes by force is enjoyed by persons that increase unrighteousness, using law as the instrument of their power. And these persons today, and those who support them within the law-enforcement community, are learning from the material on this site, just as we are.
What manner of legislation will exist in the next five years? – as the “virtual cannibals” conspire to guarentee to themselves a steady diet on the financial flesh of our (their?) countrymen? Like every national health insurance plan that I know of, non-participation is not tolerable. Anyone that does not place his own pound of flesh upon the butcher's block will find his literal corpse carved up, poetically speaking, for the birds and the dogs. And for public entertainment, if the example of the practice of torture in the medival times is any example for the modern world,…
Since I do not desire such as this for myself, so I also refuse to accept this for my friend. And, you, too – in the sense that you are also my countryman and neighbor, – but I find that the alternatives I may imagine are not altogether available to me.
Do I suggest that my friend live as Apostle John, on the remote island of Patmos?
Well,…Ruby Ridge was a pretty remote place. Isolation is probably better than “living in the thick of it”, but isolation is also weak. At the very least, for the perpetrators of tyranny, the target is more easily identified, and is already isolated…
Do I suggest that my friend live peaceably, and pursue actions at law and in the courts?
I think very many Jewish folk in Germany promoted this way of life,…for as long as it lasted.
Do I suggest that my friend act like a “socialist revolutionary”, or like a Communist?
Acck,….NOT. My own conscience would prevent me.
Is the method recommended by Dr. Martin Luther King better?
Only if my friend declares that he is called to martyrdom.
What about the method(s) employed by Dietrich Bonnhoeffer and Crew against A. Hitler?
Ahh,…well, – they were obviously not successful.
Do I suggest that he become a “Benevolent Gangster”?
I think not,…that's the government's job! And they hate competition,…
Should he strive to become a very successful legitimate businessman?
That's still “feeding the beast”, unless the money is REAL money. And protected.
How about the material in “The Great IRS Hoax” book?
It's the right stuff, but has application only for Americans.
And only until the powers-that-be get fed up with what THEY consider to be shenanigans.
They already disobey the law, for as long as it takes to get the law crafted to suit their purpose. Without a freedom train,…without adequate physical defense,…there's only tears to cry when the disobedient slaves are put down.
Was there no one to help the families in Waco, when they appealed to the American society for help against the injustice? What about Family Guardian? He really was just “making change”. And the man on the N.Y. subway, that became a victim of the courts, for having sucessfully defended himself from thugs? On the tableau of victims to the beast that consumes men's lives, (either literally, or “virtually”, in the form of hours of life lost to coercive taxation) the names accumulate. And I am afraid for my friend.
I have been both poor, and out-of-country,…so my own conscience has had a convenient salve. Very convenient, but hardly soothing. What about the other folk, in-country? Among those with adequate means, was there no desire? Was there no one with adequate means? Have there been people with adequate means that simply have not known how to apply it effectively? (This I rather doubt, for no one gets the means without cleverness, i.e., boldness and insight.)
I read many excellent documents and books. I hear “the sound of water and trees and rocks”, but I do not see power. The purveyors of law and justice have a bee in their pants, but no allergy to it's stings. Or, perhaps, like a silly hobbit, I have looked into a far-seeing stone, and do not have the real picture,…
I am no longer quite so poor, and no longer quite so ignorant, and as I consider to whom I will connect myself, as I consider where in the world I will live next,…I am looking for that place in the mountain where the Ring of Power gets melted.
I am really asking, how may ANYONE live and “make ends meet”, if such a place, or such a life now exists any where in the world, without the danger of prosecution for working and trading without a mandatory civil identification?
The Aussies need freedom, too. And Canadians. And Brits. And Germans. And,…
And maybe I just don't have the right picture.
Maybe there is no tunnel to the lava.
But then, maybe, – maybe there are folk ready to make one.
Still looking for a clue,…
but at least for the next several months, I know how to make a few important, if small, changes.
Your advice is gracious, and I actually hope for the opportunity to engage Sonic in his math skills, rather than his law skills. His letter to his employer regarding the mandatory disclosure of personal information is clear evidence of his law skill – but I have a hope that lies outside of “the rule of law”, and requires mathematics, instead. In fact, my hope requires more than math – and that is why I am not already enjoying the fruit of my labor, in the context of this hope.
Although your advice is gracious, I must believe that you are a coward. Please do not be insulted, for I apply the same manner of measure regarding myself – in the contrast between the attitude of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and other patriots of earlier days and the attitude of most contemporary persons – and especially “Western” persons.
The attitude that is evidenced in Samuel Adams' statement, which I paraphrase as “If you love the comfort and security of wealth more than the boisterous contest of liberty,…”, – this comment demonstrates an attitude that is not consistent with your statement:
“Don't even consider doing anything violent to any person or property.”
I have rejected violence as “the best option” BECAUSE I have considered it.
And I do not mean to say that I have thought only about the injury part of violence, but I mean that I have evaluated the effectiveness of this course of action, and although history demonstrates that violent action has been effective sometimes, – most occasions in which violence has been the choice demonstrate that very little long-term change in public policy results from the employment of violence.
And I am not in this issue for short-term satisfaction.
When I remark that your attitude, as evidenced by your comment, gives me reason to consider you to be a coward, I say so because you assert:
“Defending your friend is secondary to making certain that he or she is educated about the law and the regulations.”
Perhaps you mean to make this assertion within a particular context, and do not mean to demote “defending my friend” below the task of “educating” my friend in a general sense, – but without additional clarification from you, I cannot be certain that you think differently than what I interpret within your assertion.
Contrary to what you assert, I will declare that the defense of my friend is the foundation for any and all movitation to HAVE a Constitution! Without a wish and desire to see my friend living well and living well in liberty, – I have no wish to insist upon constitutional limitations for government!
Granted, when I am personally oppressed, I am angered by the action that is perpetrated against me. However, the instruction that Jesus has provided to us, regarding “turning the other cheek”, has legitimate application to how I am to act when I am oppressed. When the pain and trouble is brought to me, I can act according my Lord's instruction, regardless of the emotional condition that results from the injustice of the action against me.
But,…in no way do I imagine that Jesus will speak well of me, to God or to anyone, if I should fail to act when I see YOU oppressed. The subjective evaluation of what is oppression vs. what is a legitimate act by persons holding authority or strength in arms,…this is something that I must do because of the Lord's instructions in these verses:
Deuteronomy 16:20
Exodus 23:2
Other verses apply as well, of course, and I will likely identify these verses as well if this thread continues very long at all, but for the sake of brevity, simply permit me to state that outside of my wish for the liberty of my friend, loved ones, and my countrymen, – including the hypothetical “posterity” Samual Adams refers to, – without this desire, I have no reason to act at all.
Hypothetically, IF my Father had already provided to me the means to remove the tyranny that we easily observe today, I would have done so already. Nuclear bombs? Ain't got none. Deadly chems and bios? Nope, none of that, either. In fact, I don't even have a posse. My Father is not limited in what He may provide to accomplish his will, and for SOME persons in history, he provided military means and ability to effect His will. Lots of people suffered the sad consequences of such warfare,…but in spite of these sad consequences, I do not find that violence in the defense of my friend to be beyond all consideration. It's just not what my Father has provided,….except within the very limited sense of his personal security.
If anyone is determined to do violence against my friend, I most certainly do have a righteous obligation to act in his defense. In spite of what the current law in Texas says.
SAYS! What a remarkable comprehension exists in this simple statement.
Just what, exactly, does law “do”?
Any and every “body of law” that has ever existed…what has this “body of law” done?
Is there any activity that may be observed, as performed by a body of law?
Within the context of what may be “the image of the beast”, one should certainly consider that the ONLY activity possible for a “body of law” is to SPEAK.
And the idea that I should not even CONSIDER violence as a option, in the defense of my friend, – this idea is neither righteous, nor holy, nor from the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, the idea that my friend is to be encouraged to get an education in all that is presented here at this site, – THIS idea is certainly from the Holy Spirit. You may have every confidence that I do read what is here, and do also encourage my friend to do likewise. With great zeal, in fact, I encourage all of the Americans I know to get this education, and ESPECIALLY the Christians.
And I sure hope that Henry Bowman is as skilled as that character in the book,…
