fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
See also:
Everything You Need to Know About Caffeine
http://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/IFIC_Caffeine_v5.pdf?ftag=MSF0951a18
-
See also:
1. The Church in Satan’s City-Dr. David Jeremiah
http://sedm.org/pastor-david-jeremiah-on-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-in-satans-city/2. Living Free in an Unfree World: Stefan Molyneux at Libertopia 2010, Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSkhR-ve8s3. Coping with Deceivers-Ben Williams. Whether to do as the romans do when living in rome.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MediaIntell/GovProp/CopingWithDeceivers-BenWilliams-st14-11&12.pdf -
George’s website just went down:
He had several radio programs online. His webmaster continued it for several months after he died, but wasn’t getting paid by George’s wife, so he eventually shut it down.
We just removed all links on this site to his now defunct site. Personally, the theological teachings of Sheldon Emry were better but Sheldon didn’t teach common law like George did:
http://sheldonemrylibrary.famguardian.org/
You can read some of the archived version at:
https://archive.org/web/*/georgegordon.org
According to the last version of his site, here are other readers who followed his theme:
______________
Links of Interest for George’s Listeners
Over the years, George has touched many lives. Many of George’s teachers, mentors, students, fans, and associates have set up their own websites, with material of common interest. George never endorsed these websites or their contents. The websites listed here don’t agree with George Gordon on every detail. But they agree with George on the fundamentals of the Faith of Israel, the Hebrew faith passed down by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and those who came after to our day.
The topics on the websites cover a wide range of things, health, law, religion, and more. The readers employment of the information on the websites below, is the responsibility of the reader only. No warrantee or guarantee is expressed or implied.
- Jason Caissie Bible Law 101 Home Page
- Peter Simpson Erwin Rommel School of Law
- Mike Brown Leviticus11.com – Dianne Miller’s Health and Strength Products
- Mike Brown Mike Brown Solutions – Alternative Energy and More
- David Love and Truth (net)
- David Lunar Sabbath (Canada)
- Fiona and Arthur Cristian Love for Life (Australia)
- Joe from the Carolinas Grow your own: the Budding Revolution (permaculture, survival, gardening).
- David Scott Lynn EdgeWork: Curing Muscle Stiffness and More
- Matthew Janzen Ministers of the New Covenant
- Troy Miller Creation Calendar
- Arnold Bowen Lunar Sabbath (info) and Lunar Sabbath (org)
- Nicklas Arthur First Amendment Radio and Cross The Border (Prophetic Reality Blog)
- Gordon Watson Bovinity: REAL milk in British Columbia
- Greg and Dawn KissellYahuah Reigns
-
SOURCE: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/draft-of-trump-religious-freedom-executive-order-signals-major-win-for-conservative-christians/ar-AAmwzrL?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp
_______________
Draft Of Trump ‘Religious Freedom’ Executive Order Signals Major Win For Conservative Christians
President Donald Trump may soon hand a major victory to conservative Christians with a “religious freedom” executive order that would cripple anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people, among others.
A draft of an executive order says the government will not force individuals or organizations to engage in activities that may “violate their conscience.” The Huffington Post obtained the draft, titled, “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” from two sources.
If signed, the order would appear to allow employers to deny employee health coverage for contraception and abortion. It also would permit federally funded adoption and family services organizations to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Further, it would protect the tax-exempt status of any religious organization or privately held company that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”
The order, first reported by The Nation and Reveal, isn’t final, and appears to be among hundreds of draft executive orders being circulated that won’t necessarily become policy, ABC News reported. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, told ABC: “We do not have plans to sign anything at this time but will let you know when we have any updates.”
The draft order defines religious freedom in broad terms, but specifically refers to organizations’ right to claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, abortion, transgender rights, contraception and premarital sex. It would require the Department of Justice to defend such “religious freedom.”
The leak of the order comes a day after Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Gorsuch sided with Christian-owned retailer Hobby Lobby in a controversial Supreme Court religious freedom case in 2013.
A pro-Christian order would stand in stark contrast to an executive order Trump signed last week to deny visas for individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries. Noah Feldman, a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, said Trump’s ban “violates the constitutional value of equal religious liberty.”
The religious freedom draft states that protected organizations would include “closely held for-profit corporations.” Individuals and organizations would not “forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments,” it says.
LGBTQ groups have been bracing or the worst as news spread that Trump’s administration was considering a religious freedom order.
Chad Griffin, president of LGBT civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, called the draft “sweeping and dangerous.”
“It reads like a wishlist from some of the most radical anti-equality activists. If true, it seems this White House is poised to wildly expand anti-LGBTQ discrimination across all facets of the government,” Griffin said in a statement.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) denounced the draft order in a statement, saying the president “continues his hateful attacks on the communities that comprise our nation ― this time by encouraging discrimination against the LGBT community, and by the denial of reproductive health care to women, all under the guise of so-called ‘religious freedom.’”
The 1964 Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin, but there are no federal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2014 that protected federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump’s order could circumvent these protections.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer would neither confirm nor deny reports about the religious order during a briefing on Monday. The following day, the White House released a statement touting Trump’s support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals.
Religious freedom exemptions typically offer conservative Christians the right to discriminate against gay and transgender people.
-
See also:
For details on exactly WHY the charges of “structuring” are fraudulent and therefore why this enforcement action by the government is FRAUDULENT, see:
Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
-
See also:
Google Infrastructure Security Design Overview
-
Apple to appeal EU’s $14B fine, says it’s a ‘convenient target’
The company’s general counsel told Reuters that the European Union targeted Apple because it “generates a lot of headlines.”
-
Note the key phrase:
The Maxforce concluded that Ireland allowed Apple to create stateless entities that effectively let it decide how much — or how little — tax it pays. The investigators say the company channeled profits from dozens of countries through two Ireland-based units. In a system at least tacitly endorsed by Irish authorities, earnings were split, with the vast majority attributed to a “head office” with no employees and no specific home base — and therefore liable to no tax on any profits from sales outside Ireland. The U.S., meanwhile, didn’t tax the units because they’re incorporated in Ireland.
[. . .]
The government says Ireland has no right to tax non-resident companies for profits that come from activities outside the country.
[. . .]
“Look at the small print” on an iPhone, Noonan said after the EU released its ruling in August. “It says designed in California, manufactured in China. That means any profits that accrued didn’t accrue in Ireland, so I can’t see why the tax liability is in Ireland.”
[. . .]
Ireland and Apple started to make changes a few months after the Maxforce began looking into their tax relationship. In October 2013, Finance Minister Noonan announced he would close the loophole that let stateless holding companies operate out of Ireland. And the EU says Apple changed the structure of its Irish units in 2015.
As the Maxforce stepped up its probe in June 2014, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny was wooing potential investors in California. At a San Francisco event to promote Irish entrepreneurs, Governor Jerry Brown quipped that he had thought Apple “was a California company,” but according to tax returns, “they’re really an Irish company.” News clips show Irish officials looking on stony-faced as the governor makes his jest.
A “stateless” entity is one that has no civil domicile and is therefore a “non-resident” everywhere. In effect, Apple was taking the same position as this website towards “taxes”:
1. Declaring themselves stateless and “non-resident”.
2. Choosing a small subset of their earnings that would not be stateless within one of the many jurisdictions they were operating. This allowed THEM to determine how much tax they paid.For documentation on the Apple approach, see:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdfNote that the article never addressed the legality of being stateless EVERYWHERE or not having a domicile ANYWHERE. It’s perfectly legal, and it means you are a nontaxpayer EVERYWHERE.
-
This guy’s name is Roger Sayles, and he has the same views on citizenship as we do. Here are some links to his research.
1. Main website of Roger Sayles
2. His video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFVIlP9PFkY
3. His radio show
-
What Authority Are They Acting On?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FpaL0qWC0lo -
See also:
“Weird Al” Yankovic – First World Problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlbJ0h35A -
The code clealy explains that it’s voluntary,
“42 U.S. Code § 18115 – Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs
“No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”
-
- In the video, Dean focuses on “benefits”, and thus, indirectly agrees that everything the government does is franchises.
- What he calls a “trust” we call a “franchise”. Same thing. Both are contracts.
- What he calls “fraud” we call identity theft.
- What he calls “family” we call the “collective” or “state”.
- What he calls “pledging yourself to the family” and “citizenship” we call donating to a public use.
- What he calls “exclusive beneficiary” we call “absolute owner”.
- He gives the opponents a Notice of fees at the commencement of the action and gives them (the government) a bill.
- He calls everything property.
- He says by being a citizen, you are presumed to have pledge yourself and your property to the state. That’s not completely true. By being a civil statutory ANYTHING, you are a public officer who is a servant of the state.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf - He calls the attorneys and the court “terrorists”. So do we:
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm
Most of what he talks about is contained in the following document on the SEDM sister site:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
-
Conclusions from the above:
1. “citizen” = someone domiciled in the state.
2. “resident”=citizen physically present AND domiciled.
3. You can only be a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen of one state at a time.
If we apply the above requirements, it is impossible to be a “citizen” under federal law and a state citizen at the same time. You are either a citizen physically present WITHIN the constitutional state and domiciled there and not subject to federal law, or you are a nonresident of the state subject to federal law.