fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
The protections of the constitution attach to the land people stand on, not their statutory status. It doesn't matter where the money came from, including the government or federal territory. If they pay any amount of tax on it, then its either direct or indirect because of the land they stand on. The feds can't levy a tax on anything paid to those standing on land protected by the Constitution, regardless of their statutory status. Their rights are unalienable, so they can't procure a civil statutory status under a federal franchise, unless they control the land that the party is standing on and domiciled within. They can't even procure that status through their right to contract, because that would alienate their rights in relation to a real de jure government. All tax liability is a civil liability that MUST attach to domicile. All franchises are civil law. There is no private civil law divorced from domicile. McDonalds can do it with their franchise, because they aren't a government, but REAL governments only have TWO types of law: Civil and Criminal, and NO PRIVATE LAW. By Private Law, I mean contracts that don't have domicile as a prerequsite. Anyone who alleges otherwise is admitting that they are no longer dealing with a de jure government function, but private business activity that is NOT a “tax” in a classicial sense, but simply employee or contractor fees WITHIN the private, “U.S. Inc” corporation.
The only way around this limitation is for the party they are taxing who is otherwise protected by the constitution to:
1. Agree to represent an office, to tax the OFFICE instead of the officer, and move the domicile of the office to the District of Criminals, which is what they do under 7408(d) and 7701(a)(39). These provisions, like the provisions of any franchise, dictate the “choice of law” under the voluntary franchise. The officer then becomes a “resident agent” for the office, not unlike the resident agent for state corporations. He is physically present outside the forum, but he represents an entity INSIDE the forum. Hence, his effective domicile is the District of Criminals under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 17(b). AND
2. To lie on a government form about having the above status, and therefore commit perjury. He is lying because he can't lawfully occupy a public office in a place not expressly authorized, and even if he did, the IRS can't supervise his activities as it does without causing it to CEASE to be an office. If he REALLY is in a public office, then he can ONLY be supervised by the courts and NO ONE else, according to the legal definition of “public office”.
The only thing the feds have ever been able to tax was FOREIGN (constitutionally foreign, not statutorily foreign) earnings of statutory and not constitutional citizens and residents from sources abroad. The ONLY place that mentions these statutory “citizen” and “resident” statuses is section 911 of the I.R.C. The 1040 form is for foreign earnings of statutory citizens and residents and domestic earnings of foreigners (resident aliens) working on federal territory and availing themselves of the benefits of an income tax treaty with the foreign country they came from. Statutory citizens and residents abroad use the 1040 and the 2555. Foreigners working at home on federal territory use the 1040 WITHOUT the 2555. People in the states can't use EITHER. All the information returns filed on THEM are false, because they can't lawfully engage in “the functions of a public office” without BEING, in FACT and in DEED, a public officer. Otherwise, levies and enforcement would be impossible, because the property being levied upon would not be in actual possession of the office BEFORE it was levied.
You are confusing “personal payments on federal territory” with payments from “U.S. sources”. A “U.S. source”, within I.R.C. Subtitles A and C means a GOVERNMENT source. The government may instigate the payment from a place NOT protected by the constitution, but they also have a contract with the protected party on the other end of that payment standing on land protected by the Constitution, which is a contract and a trust indenture, NOT to intercept or take ANY portion of that payment without apportionment if is a reimbursement for their PRIVATE labor. So they make you sign up for a public office by applying for a number, the number can only be used, according to 26 CFR 301.6109-1, when you are engaged in the office, and hence, it is a license to represent the office. From that point, when you use the number, you are consenting to donate whatever private property it attaches to to a public use, public office, and public purpose to procure the “benefits” of the franchise. Hence, the tax is no longer direct or indirect, but upon the statutory creation of congress, which is the Social Security Trust that you are now a trustee and public officer over. The domicile of THAT office is the District of Columbia. Hence, NEITHER end of the payment is now protected by the Constitution and they own and control all the parties to the payment, and they all “live”, from a legal perspective but not physical perspective, on federal territory not protected by the constitution. All payments are to the OFFICE and not the private party acting as trustee. Hence, location is irrelevant at that point. It is a maxim of law that debt and contract know no place. They use franchise contracts to evade the restictions of the place they were operating within, and thereby “virtualize” it.
The only thing they have to do beyond this point to maximize their revenues is refuse to distinguish between:
1. The office or “taxpayer”, and
2. The PRIVATE human being filling the office who is protected by the Constitution
… and fool you into thinking they are synonymous. What do you think would happen if the office paid ALL of its receipts to a THIRD party who was private, and without a number, and therefore claimed NO earnings. For instance, the all caps name in combination with the number reports ZERO earnings, and reports that it paid out ALL the profits to the private human being who was unenumerated. Hence, it had NO taxes due? They would collect NOTHING. Once you understand that there are actually THREE “persons” involved: 1. The US Inc; 2. The Public office, consisting of the number in combination with the all caps name; 3. The private human being outside their jurisdiction who is a nonresident but not a “person” or “individual”. If you manage the office correctly, it will never earn anything and pay no taxes, not unlike corporations, that pay all their earnings out and have no “profit” left. Many people try this approach, but mistakenly never separate the office from the human being filling it. They take deductions for the cost of their labor, but never separate out the TWO persons, nor do they make sure the private human being is unenumerated and correctly described in the “profit and loss statement” for the business trust called the 1040. For details on how to do this, see:
How the Government Defrauds You Out of Legitimate Deductions for the Market Value of Your Labor, Form #05.026, Section 2
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…efraudLabor.pdf
The reason that David Myrland (Your Remedy is In the Law, who uses this flawed approach) doesn't succeed on returns where he tries to take IRC Section 83 deductions for the cost of labor is that he never separates the office from the officer. If he did this, they would have to quit calling his approach “frivolous” and return ALL taxes withheld against the office because it would have no earnings or “profit”.
-
1. The tax can only be direct if:
1.1 It is on property and not the PROFIT from the property, meaning it is on the TREE and not the FRUIT of the tree, as the U.S. Supreme Court said in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust.
1.2 It is NOT on an activity. All taxes on activities are indirect and excise taxes.
The tax continues to be one on the “trade or business” activity. The only thing the IRS can or does collect on is earnings in connection with the activity, which means it is and always has been an indirect excise tax on profit of federal corporation.
2. The tax under I.R.C. Subtitles A and C is imposed only within federal territory and upon people domiciled on federal territory WHEREVER situated. Those so domiciled are called statutory but not constitutional “citizens”, “residents”, and “inhabitants”. All the word games they play try to disguise the nature of the tax as an indirect excise that only applies to either activities happening on federal territory or those domiciled on federal territory and therefore statutory but not constitutional citizens.
Until you can show me an example where the IRS has ever collected on PRINCIPAL and therefore PROPERTY (directly) and not INCOME (meaning “profit” and therefore INCREASE/INDIRECT), then your musings are irrelevant. We don't know of a case where that has ever done. It's not worth worrying about until they start taxing activities not connected to a “trade or business”. Even those activities identified in 26 USC 871(a) not DIRECTLY connected with the “trade or business” franchise are INDIRECTLY connected to it. The PAYOR is engaged in it but the PAYEE isn't. This is covered in:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 15 to 15.2
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Cases that relate the tax to direct or indirect are red herrings designed to fool the readers into thinking that the tax applies to those domiciled in states of the Union, foreign states in relation to the national government for the purposes of legislative jurisdiction. This ruse by corrupt judges is described in:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Sections 6.4 and 6.7
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
These phrases only have meaning in the context of states of the Union, and we know that states of the Union are not and cannot be the subject of the tax upon public offices in the U.S. goverment, because ALL public offices must be exercised in the District of Columbia per 4 USC 72. They have never been expressly authorized in states of the Union and therefore CANNOT be exercised there without violating the separation of powers. The 1040 form is for those domiciled on federal territory, not states of the Union. The Constitution does not and cannot regulate what happens on federal territory. The only section that even mentions federal territory is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Hence, “direct v. indirect” is irrelevant. It isn't EITHER. This is explained in:
Great IRS Hoax, Section 5.1.6
http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htm
This subject isn't worth arguing about. We already had this discussion and it goes NOWHERE. Most of the beginning of the Great IRS Hoax, Chapter 5 beats the subject to death. I wish we could quit revisiting old territory. This is REALLY old. Tell us what is wrong with Sections 5.1 through 5.3 of the Hoax before you re-argue such a dead horse.
-
Answers:
1. We don’t know what you mean by “federal U.S. passport”. Limit your terms that which appears on government forms and Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The term “federal U.S. passport” is not found in either of these two sources and we aren’t allowed to guess what it means. What is being sought is a USA passport, and the “states” in THAT USA are foreign states for the purposes of federal jurisdiction and therefore lower case “states”. The recipient of the USA and not US passport is a constitutional but not statutory citizen, meaning that they are a fourteenth amendment citizen, a “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21), and a non-citizen national per 8 USC 1452. This subject is exhaustively covered in the following, and you wouldn’t be asking the questions you are asking if you had taken the time to read and reread it BEFORE posting your questions:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
2. We don’t use zip codes. Even on the Mailing address found on the form, we circle it and point to the circle and write “NEAR but not IN” and next to the address we write “(NOT A DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE)”
3. Give them a money order or cash. You can’t use a debit or credit card, because these might cause additional personal information to be disclosed that can or will be used to connect the applicant to franchises.
4. We modify our forms to write USA and not US. There is no “U.S.” associated with the status of such a person. Any reference to “U.S.” can be changed to USA if one wants. The important thing is to include the mandatory attachment and ensure that it is not removed, redacted, rejected, or detached from the application. That form defines all the terms so that no matter what terms are used on the form, the result will always be the same and the applicant will not be confused with a statutory citizen.
5. Why do you care whether it says “Permanent address” v. “Domicile”? I wish people would quit trying to second guess us and change a method that consistently works when the instructions are used. You KNOW what it is if you read our domicile article and the Passport Application Attachment defines all terms to give them no wiggle room. Just treat it like what you know it is and what the attachment says. In the “Permanent Address” block we write “(NO DOMICILE. See attached USA PASSPORT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT. This submission is false, fraudulent, and perjurious unless accompanied by the USA Passport Application Attachment.)” to ensure they don’t remove the attachment.
The less you have to change on the form, the better. Handing them a stock form even is fine, so long as it is accompanied by the USA Passport Application Attachment and the instructions we provide are consistently and carefully followed. Don’t ask us what changes will make a difference because then you are asking for legal advice and asking us to predict the future. We aren’t fortune tellers and we can’t offer guarantees.
We don’t have answers for the other questions. Just use your best judgment but read as much as you can from this site to inform yourself about citizenship. You aren’t free or sovereign if you need our permission or approval for anything. Read the law for yourself before engaging mouth in these forums.
When you pose questions, you should post your proposed answers and explain them based on materials on this site you have read and the law itself pertaining to citizenship. We aren’t your daddy and we can’t give legal advice. If your answer is different from what we would do, we will tell you and explain why. But you are asking us to do all the leg work for you, and we don’t do that. You have to bring something to the table and demonstrate your commitment to doing your due diligence every time you post to these forums, or we will be rewarding people for being lazy or irresponsible and encouraging other readers to pawn all their legal research off on us for free.
Quote:“Liberty Means Responsibility. That’s why most men dread it.”[George Bernard Shaw]
The content of this post is NOT intended to be legal advice and should not be regarded as such. It is what we would do in our own circumstance. What you do is entirely your choice and responsibility. Caveat emptor.
-
RemedyInLaw,
We don’t do the work for you but help you learn to do it for yourself. If you can’t or won’t at least start with exercising your choice and responsibility muscles, all we are doing is rewarding people for being lazy and irresponsible.
What do you propose to do and why and what do YOU think the answer to your question should be? Every questions should start with at least a preliminary answer based not on what anyone else says, but what you have read with your own two eyes in the law itself. AFTER you answer that question, we can tell you whether we agree or disagree and why.
Freedom and sovereignty BEGIN with taking personal responsibility and making your own decisions and governing your own life without seeking the approval of anyone, and especially a nanny government.
Quote:“The hand of the diligent will rule,But the lazy [or irresponsible] man will be put to forced labor.”[Prov. 12:24, Bible, NKJV]
If you need ANYONE’s approval for any course of action, you may as well go back to your cage on the federal plantation. Only the vigilant and educated are truly free and therefore sovereign.
Quote:“A person dependent on somebody else for everything from potatoes to opinions may declare that he is a free [SOVEREIGN] man, and his government may issue a certificate granting him his freedom, but he will not be free. … How can he be free if he can do nothing for himself? … Men are free precisely to the extent that they are equal to their own needs. The most able are the most free.“[Wendell Berry, “Discipline and Hope” in A Continuous Harmony (1972), p. 124]
-
In America, there is no “right” to health care
Giving health care is a government regulated privilege, not a right. If you practice medicine without a license (government permission) you will be prosecuted.
So if giving care without permission was criminalized, then how can you have a “right” to health care without government's permission?
You cannot be treated, unless by government permission. You cannot buy medicine without first getting a permission slip (prescription) from a government licensed person. You cannot buy permitted medicine from anyone but a government licensed person, who buys it from another government permitted seller.
In America, the people have no rights – only government granted privileges – when it comes to medical care.
And let us not forget, that government is the SOURCE of the skyrocketing medical costs.
Inflation, administrative overhead, bureaucracy, rationing, and tort abuse all stem from government. And let us not forget that all taxes on the medical industry are ultimately paid for by the customer.
If we truly want inexpensive “Universal” health care, then we have to insist that government cease its counter productive activities.
Then the cost to hire medical care and buy medicine may drop to levels that are affordable by the masses.
-
SOURCE: http://keepyourhead….t-in-obamacare/
__________________________
Question: Is the mark of the beast in Obamacare?
March 23, 2010 by shaun
As a pastor, I often get questions from people about various things. Sometimes, I feel others might be asking the same questions, so I share these exchanges here. I’m not the Bible Answer Man, but I hope my answers are helpful.
Q: Obamacare supposedly has the chip system involved and could have prophetic significance and could be a sign of just how close the Lord’s return really is. Could you read (this link) and let me know your thoughts? (The link led to the following text which can now be found on numerous websites.)
“There’s a pretty starling thing in the bill that 95% of Americans won’t like.
The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section 😎 specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.” Then on page 1004 it describes what the term “data” means in paragraph 1, section B:
14 ‘‘(:cool: In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in15
formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary”
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see…Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a “implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”
This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case. Children who are “born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage” will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children’s Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). With a name like CHIP it would seem consistent to have the chip implanted into a child. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.”
A: I looked at the text of the health care bill (http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf) and it does contain the section about a “class II device that is implantable.” When you read the entire context though, right after “implantable” is “life-saving or life-supporting”. In other words, it is discussing many medical devices that are implantable. It’s about doing analysis of devices that are “life-saving or life-supporting”—not devices used for tracking people. I found a short list of Class I and Class II devices on the FDA website (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/315.cfm) and the FDA’s definition of a Class II device: “Most medical devices are considered Class II devices. Examples of Class II devices include powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits. 43% of medical devices fall under this category” (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Consumers/ucm142523.htm). I also found this page (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm072141.htm) which does discuss the “implantable radiofrequency transponder system”. That technology is very real, but it’s just one type of Class II device. In other words, the text of the health care bill that supposedly is mandating that we all get a tracking device under our skin is not saying that at all—whoever originally wrote the text for the link you sent me was deliberately misrepresenting the truth! The language in the health care bill is about how one of the new government agencies created by this health care monstrosity will be doing analysis on “most medical devices”—tools used for health care. But, this transponder thing is not being mandated by the health care bill.
I’m certainly no fan of Obamacare, but this legislation has no direct connection with prophecy or the Antichrist or the mark of the beast. I found the article on the FDA’s website about “implantable radiofrequency transponders” fascinating because this kind of technology could very well be used by the Antichrist. But, we’ve known for decades that this technology was available, so it’s not a big revelation at this point.
The mark of the beast will be voluntary and people will know exactly what they’re getting—and it won’t happen until the Tribulation. Even if it was in this legislation, an implant to get health care before the Rapture is not the mark of the beast.
For now, let me recommend you avoid websites like the one your link took me to. This world is getting crazier all the time, but we’ve got to keep our heads…and do our ministry: “But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” (2 Tim 4:5, NIV). I’m afraid reading sites like the one you sent me is going to get you sidetracked.
Let me recommend the best website out there regarding prophecy: The Pre-Trib Research Center: http://www.pre-trib.org.
And here’s a great article I hope you’ll read—it’s about the mark of the beast: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/mark-of-beast.
-
franklin,
WOW! Thank you for those kind, passionate, and inspirational words. You have summed up a whole life in a few sentences. That life is ours.
We have only seen one man say what you just said better. And he even said it with scripture in a very historic setting:
Pastor Garret Lear at the Boston Tea Party
-
Franklin,
Fabulous commentary! To this, let me add the following from the Supreme Administrative Court of black robed devil worshippers of the civil religion of socialism, that does, on occasion, tell at least a few partial truths:
Quote:“All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people.”[Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.;
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948)]
And the Bible says the very SAME thing:
Quote:” As the thief is ashamed when he is found out, So is the house of Israel ashamed; They and their kings and their princes, and their priests and their prophets, Saying to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave birth to me.' [evolutionists] For they have turned their back to Me [God], and not their face [by becoming like unto gods themselves]. But in the time of their trouble they will say, 'Arise and save us.' But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities [and the political rulers of those cities] are your [PAGAN] gods, O Judah.”[Jer. 2:26-28, Bible, NKJV]
-
322 – Secret Societies and Depopulation
And The Health Care Plan
By Jay Weidner
Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved
3-22-10
What do Skull and Bones, ancient German secret societies, the Georgia Guidestones and the Health Care bill have in common?
The answer is March 22nd.
That's right.
The Georgia Guidestones were christened on March 22 1980. The first commandment on the stones was a pledge to keep the world's population under 500,000 people.
March 22nd 2010 (Universal Time) is also the day that Health Care finally passed in the United States. (Universal Time is Greenwich Mean Time. This is the 'time' that the Illuminati use.)
3-22, or March 22nd, is also the sacred number to Skull and Bones, the secret society from Yale that produces the leaders of the United States and the world. When Tim Russert asked President George W. Bush what the Skull and Bones special number – 322 signified Bush replied that this was a secret. Senator John Kerry, who ran against Bush in 2004, is also a member of this ultra-secret society. He also refused to tell us what the number 322 meant to Skull and Bones.
Skull and Bones is a German secret organization that successfully transferred itself across the Atlantic Ocean in the early 1800's. When you back-engineer the secret societies from which the German version of Skull and Bones emerged one finds a strange fascination with Mars.
March is the only month of the year that is named after a specific planet in the solar system. It is also the first day of spring as well as the first day in the zodiacal sign of Aries, which is the Greek word for Mars, and it is where 'March' gets its name.
The number 322 is vitally important to these secret societies especially Skull and Bones, which has the number, enshrined in their tomb at Yale.
The number 322 is actually the number for March 22nd. The first day of Aries, also called Mars.
The great alchemist Fulcanelli was a member of a secret society in Europe. He tells us of a secret elite that rule the world. In his obscure book Mystery of the Cathedrals he tells us that there is a secret science called alchemy that only the elites understand. He also tells us that all alchemy begins in Aries (Mars).
For some reason these secret societies are fixated on March 22nd. Perhaps this is because of a special relationship between these secret societies and the planet Mars.
The ever stranger Georgia Guidestones were created in 1980 by a mysterious gentleman named R.C. Christian. They are huge granite columns, which have new set of 10 commandments etched into them. These are new rules for the future. While most of the new commandments appear reasonable enough there is one commandment that makes one wonder what is really happening in our world and what these secret societies are really after. That is new commandment – number one, of course – commands that the population of the world be reduced to 500,000,000 people.
The name R. C. Christian is a pseudonym and only one man named Wyatt Martin, who is in his 80's, knows Mr. Christian's real identity and Mr. Martin refuses to talk. We can be assured that this pseudonym signifies the Rosicrucian secret society founded by 'Christian' Rosenkreuz supposedly in 1407. The German Rosicrucian's are the godfathers to many other German secret societies including Skull and Bones. In keeping with this important linkage it is worth noting that the Georgia Guidestones, created as instructed by Mr. R. C. Christian, were christened on March 22nd 1980. Exactly 30 years ago today.
It isn't going too far out on a limb to say that population reduction is a major goal of these secret societies for better or worse.
Normally I wouldn't put this much time into this small curiosity of ancient German secret societies. But as I watched the Health Care Debate over the last few weeks I suddenly saw that it was beginning to appear that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were going to vote the Health Care Bill on March 22nd.
On Sunday March 21st as I watched C-Span I suddenly got a tingle up my spine. Were they purposely putting this off until the clock hits March 22nd Universal Standard Time? Is this thing being orchestrated so that it falls on 3-22, March 22nd, the Holy Day of some crazy secret society? And a secret society that has built a monument, christened on 3-22 that announces their plans?
Then that would mean the 'Health Care Plan' is something far more sinister.
Happy March 22nd America.
-
What President Obama Didn't Say
The gentleman from Ohio – the last man standing on health care, as he put it in this conversation with Esquire.com just before Sunday's vote – reveals the personal moments behind his decision, and how the fate of a nation, if not a presidency, could have turned out a lot differently had he said “no.”
By: Dennis Kucinich – as told to Mark Warren, Sunday, March 21, 2010
From Esquire.com – March 22, 2010, 2:35 pm
The meeting that took place on Air Force One was the fourth in a series of meetings that I had attended with the president in the last few months. There was a meeting on March 4 where the president called nine members to the Roosevelt Room at the White House, and eight of the members had voted for the bill when it passed the House last fall. I was the only one who voted against the bill. I thanked the president for inviting me even though I was a “no” vote. And in the more than hour-long meeting, the president covered a lot of territory about what he thought was important to consider. I sat quietly and listened carefully and took some notes. And at the end of the meeting, you know, we thanked each other, and I left.
When I arrived home that evening – March 4 – I still had this deep sense of compassion for the president for what he was struggling with in trying to pass the bill. And it was very clear to me that there was a lot on the line here – that he didn't say. I was just thinking about the scope of American history, and here's a president who's trying to do something, even if I don't agree with him. I told my wife, “You know I kinda feel bad about the situation he's in here. This is really a tough situation – his presidency is on the line.” And I had a sense of sadness about what I saw him grappling with. I still maintained my position, still went forward in debates, arguing in meetings, arguing against the bill because it didn't have a public option, didn't have an opening for the states to pursue single-payer in a free manner. But at the same time I kinda remember the feeling that I had about watching him as he was dealing with this and, you know, trying to do what he felt was best for the nation.
Now keep something in mind about my relationship with President Obama: He and I campaigned together. A meeting with the president is always important – he and I have met dozens of times, during the campaign and since he became president – but we've met on many occasions. Four or five times about health care. So the relationship I have with him is a little bit different than other members who weren't on the campaign trail with him and who hadn't developed a relationship with him apart from the relationship that members of Congress ordinarily have with the president.
So I was really looking at Barack Obama the man, and thinking about his presidency. I've had differences of opinion with him on a number of issues. But I understand how this is a pivotal moment in America, and in his presidency. It's also a pivotal moment in American history. Of course, I carried that awareness with me into the next meeting, which took place on Air Force One on the fifteenth of March. Last Monday. So much has happened in just one week, but during that time, there had been a lot of speculation. I had done many interviews attacking the bill for its well-publicized shortcomings and I was not relenting. After we met on Air Force One, I didn't tell the president that “Look, I'm changing my position – you got me.” We didn't have that discussion.
My decision came last Tuesday morning. There's a place where I go in the Capitol, just to kind of reflect – before I have to make very important decisions. It's in the rotunda – right next to Lincoln's statue. It's just a bench. And I went over there early Tuesday morning, about seven in the morning when the sun was just coming up, and no one else was around – there wasn't a sound in the Capitol at that moment in the morning. And I just sat down there in a quiet place and thought about this decision. And that's literally where I made up my mind that, notwithstanding how much there was in the bill that I didn't like, that I had a higher responsibility to my constituents, to the nation, to my president and his presidency, to step forward and say, “We must pass this bill. And we must use this bill as an opening toward a renewed effort for a more comprehensive approach to health care reform.”
The Speaker and I also had many discussions about the bill. And I talked to her briefly on Monday night and told her that I was giving some thought to the appeals that she had made to me. And she said, “Oh, Dennis, you know, I just hope that you'll be with us on this. This is so important.” And I said, “Well I'm giving some thought to what your concerns have been, Madame Speaker.” And on Monday night, I talked to my wife, Elizabeth – at home, it was late.
Elizabeth asked how the day went. And I told her. I said, “You know I'm giving this a lot of thought.” I asked, “What would you think if I decided to support this?” And she said, “Look, I'll support – whatever decision you make, I'll stand behind you.” And it was important for me to talk to her because, you know, spouses live with the decisions that members of Congress make. I mean, I have had occasion to ask Elizabeth's opinion, and if she feels very strongly about something, I'm open to being persuaded. That's just what happens when you have a partnership. So I asked what she thought, and then I got up in the morning and headed right over to the Capitol just to meditate on all the discussions that I'd had – with the president, with Speaker Pelosi, with my wife, and with my constituents.
And then after being in the rotunda for about fifteen minutes, I left and went over to my office. That afternoon, I had a meeting with my staff, and I told them that I was going to come out in favor of the bill. But I had no discussions with anyone. And I did not notify the White House – the White House found out about it when I announced it from the press gallery. Because I just felt that this had to be a decision that I made on my own, without any coaxing one way or another. I wanted even people in the White House to know that this decision came ultimately from my own willingness to pay careful attention to the concerns that the president, the Speaker, and others had expressed to me.
This was a particularly hard decision because the private insurance model is something that I don't support. As I've said before, I don't take back any of the criticisms I've made of the bill. This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory – it makes money for not providing health care. Now, the reforms in this bill may provide some relief from that impulse. But, nevertheless, I have my work cut out for me now in continuing the effort toward a much broader approach to health care reform, which would include attention to diet, nutrition, complementary alternative medicine, and empowering states to move forward with single-payer.
When it comes to analyzing the law we've just passed, it's hard to use terms like good or bad. Because ultimately what was decisive for me was not the bill, but rather the potential to create an opening for a more comprehensive approach toward health care reform. If the bill were to go down, this whole discussion about anything we might hope to do in health care in the future is not going to happen in this generation. We had to wait sixteen years after the demise of the Clinton plan to come to this moment. And the angst that members are feeling about this bill – the temperature that's been raised in the body politic over this bill, the characterizations of the bill in a debate that's been quite distorted – all of those things argue against bringing up another health care bill in the near future if this bill were to go down.
Well I had to consider that. Because I have to take responsibility for that.
Someone in the media said that I was prepared to be the Ralph Nader of health care reform. If by the Ralph Nader of health care reform someone means someone who holds crooked corporations accountable, then that's a compliment. If they were referring to the 2000 presidential race, I think those who were closest in the Gore campaign realize that that campaign was death by a thousand cuts. And to try to put it all on Ralph Nader is, you know, historically glib.
But the synthesis of that argument was this: People were telling me, “Dennis, you are helping to gather momentum in the direction toward the defeat of the bill.” That's what people were telling me. That's what the message was. And: “Is this something you really want to do?” And of course I have to consider, when the vote is close, and however the final tally turns, but whether the bill passes by one vote or five votes or more, the question of momentum was something everyone was concerned about at that point. And people were concerned that if I continued to maintain my position of hammering away at the defects of the bill that I may cause its defeat. That's a legitimate criticism. It's something that I had to take into account in terms of my personal responsibility for the position that I held, and the impact that it would have on my constituents. We always have to be open to people who may hold a view that may be different than yours. Because you might learn something.
And so as we came closer, and it appeared that I would be in a pivotal position, I realized that the moment required me to look at this in the broadest terms possible. To look at this in terms of the long-term impact on my constituents, of the moment in history in which we now stand, of the impact on the country, of the impact on the Obama presidency, on the impact on the president personally. I had to think about all of this. I couldn't just say, “Well here's my position: I'm for single-payer, and this isn't single-payer, so I'm going to defeat the bill.”
Last year, seventy-seven members of Congress agreed that if the bill didn't have a public option, they were going to vote against it. And there were only two members who had kept that pledge when it was voted on the first time in the House. And I was one of them. And the other one's no longer in Congress. So I basically was the last man standing here. So I'm aware of the debate that took place in favor of the bill. My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism – or capitalism.
Those claims are just part of an effort to destroy the Obama presidency. And, of course, to produce gridlock – so that nothing can happen. Because if this bill goes down, which figured into my calculus – the bill goes down, we'll be gridlocked. We will be unlikely to pass any meaningful legislation about anything. The presidency will be weakened, the Congress will be in a place where the leadership will be undermined.
But let's go deeper than that. We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country. The Democrats will be emboldened to pass an economic agenda, which has been waiting for this bill to pass. Wrong or right, as far as a strategy, the White House invested so much in this health care bill that everything else was waiting. Now, I think there's a chance that the party will regain some momentum. And if it does, then the American people will finally have a chance to see something done about creating jobs, about keeping people in their homes, about helping small businesses get access to credit, which is a huge problem right now.
And so I think that the pivot here could be toward a very exciting time where the Obama presidency gets a chance to hit the reset button. This is my hope, at least.
All of this went through my mind as I sat in the quiet Capitol rotunda last Tuesday morning. I thought about what could happen if I was willing to show some flexibility, and to compromise for the sake of a broader progress. That was all part of my thinking as I got the point where I stepped to the podium in the Capitol to announce my decision. And right after I finished what I had to say and left the room, the president called. I understood the importance of the call, and he understood the importance of the decision that I made. There was gravity in the moment. There is a lot at stake here.
I took it all into account – everything that I hoped would happen if this were to pass, everything that I hope will happen. And if those things come to pass because of the small role I may have played in switching the momentum, then my service in Congress has been worth it.
-
So, you don't like the health care bill. According to regulation Z, you have 72 hours to refuse to contract with the United States, Inc.
A NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITHOUT DISHONOR (a rough sample below) should be sufficient to protect you. YOU ARE BEING OFFERRED A CONTRACT AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE.
The following is not legal advice . . . but it may be helpful to understand contract law.
________________________
TO: President Barak Obama, successor, heirs, assigns, assistants, aids, and employees under:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITHOUT DISHONORWhereas President Barak Obama offered the States and the American People a contract for health care known as “The Health Care Bill” on March 23, 2010 at 2:45 EST ; and, Whereas, Your living man name, living soul, mature in age and competent to testify does hereby make known for public knowledge the following PUBLIC NOTICE:
“…where rights are concerned there can be no rule making or legislation which abrogates them…”[Miranda vs. Arizona]
“…everything is simple contract…” Supreme Court of United States
Therefore offer, acceptance, and consideration are required in above offer of contract. The President of the United States, Inc. a private for-profit corporation, representing the national corporation is presenting the Health Care Bill as an offer of contract to the states that violate truth in lending Regulation Z, Fair Debt Collection 69GG provides for the return of any contract within 72 hours wishing no tract or nullifying the contract.
NOTICE: We are returning it timely without dishonor with the consideration, redrafted of our own choosing. Wishing no contract with you or Congress or your Successor or Assigns regarding the Health Care Bill pursuant to the restrictions of the de facto government in the 9th and 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Because of the misrepresentation or failure to represent, the debt is discharged. [You are hereby fired, fired, fired.]
“All Rights Reserved”
UCC 1-308 / 1-207
____________________________
State of New Mexico )
) ss.: Notary Attestation
County of Bernalillo )
On this _________day of ____________, 20______, for the purpose of verification, I, the undersigned Notary Public, being commissioned in the County and State noted above, do certify that _________________________________ appeared before me to attach his signature to this document.
______________________________________ Seal
Public Notary
Exp Date:__________________________
-
A2ATF
If you are going to try to start a common law court, we STRONGLY suggest that:
1. You start your own government or ecclesiastical group or join an existing group.See:
Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ArtOfConfed.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Change your domicile to that group and indicate the changed domicile on all govenrment forms.
3. Use ID issued by your own group in interacting commercially.
4. Get rid of drivers licensing. All drivers licenses presume the applicant wishes to become a resident alien domciled on federal territory. See:
Drivers License Termination Form, Form #06.025
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…LicTermForm.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Update your passport to correct your citizenship.
How to Apply for a Passport as a National
http://famguardian.o…orAPassport.htm
6. Quit filing resident tax forms. The 1040 is a resident tax forms. It represents a selection of a government protector. You want a DIFFERENT protector if you want a different court. See:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Change your bank accounts to be a nonresident alien with no number instead of a “U.S. person” and with number.
About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…SFormW-8BEN.htm
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Otherwise, you may be heading for trouble. Everything you do should be consistent with the change in protector. If it isn't, you will contradict yourself. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
If you don't want to participate or be protected by the de facto government or its de facto courts, you MUST sever all commercial ties with the de factos, make your own de jure or join an exising one, and act accordingly whenever you interact with the de factos.
-
We don't know of such a letter. If you are visiting this website for an exclusively commercial purpose, you are on the wrong website. On the other hand, if you are here to learn about the law, teach others about the law, and enforce both God's law and man's law, then you are in the right place.
Quote:“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”[1 Tim. 6:10, Bible, NKJV]
-
***Highlights of New IRS Authority***
* IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage
* IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of
your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have
purchased “minimum essential coverage”
* IRS can confiscate your tax refund
* IRS audits are likely to increase
* IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care
program this decade
* IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents
and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from
Americans
* Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid
by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family
of four)
***SPECIAL EXEMPTION***
Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these taxes and penalties on
illegal immigrants
[url url=”http://camp.house.go…S_Authority.PDF”]http://camp.house.go…S_Authority.PDF[/url]
-
Author #2 and Franklin,
Thanks to both of you for your candid observations. Couldn't have said it better. You are both absolutely right: I won't drink the government kool-aid and I do have a genuine desire to free people from unrecognized errors in their thinking and their lifestyle. Curing their thinking without curing their behavior does no good at all. BOTH have to be reformed. Education is a chief goal of this website, which we define as follows:
Quote:Education: A change in thinking that produces a corresponding change in behavior and a mutual benefit to those educated and the society as a whole.The approach that we take on this website is that we won't invest ANY time into anyone who refuses to change their behavior to bring it in line with the change in thinking that we and the information on this website bring about.
1. They have to agree IN ADVANCE, before we will spend time on them, that they will ACT upon their new learning rather than just use it as entertainment or to dissipate our energy away from achieving RESULTS instead of just talk.
2. They have to demonstrate at each step of the learning process that they are conscientiously exercising their due dilligence and putting into IMMEDATE and practical application everything they know about the law and the truth SO FAR. This is another way of saying that they have to pay their “TUITION” as they progress, and the purpose of these forums is to “GRADE” their progress and act as a mock court for them to argue their INFORMED IDEAS.
3. They have to PRACTICE what they learn by helping others in these forums, because the best way to learn any subject is to try to teach or help those who don't know or understand it.
We don't want talkers, but DOERS on this website who act on their INFORMED beliefs, who spread what they know far and wide, and who even INSIST on educating all the government employees and representatives they come in contact with about their duties under the law so that things can have even a hope of improving. The enemy is corruption, ignorance, presumption, and deception, not any one man, government, or group of men.
Me thinks the Socratic dialectic might also be employed in the profession or avocation of franklin, to a degree, or else he wouldn't have appreciated much less understood any of this interchange. But we won't go there.
