
franklin
Forum Replies Created
Neo,
I can't believe you wrote this…
Quote:Thanks for the response! I'm all for it! The problem is dealing with the “Sheep” wife and the victim mindset she has imparted on the kids!The “weaker vessel” is the biggest weapon the enemy has against me!
It's hard to believe a man of your intelligence and diligence…would act helpless and sheep-like in dealing with an issue of obvious importance to your life and well-being. Your life and body belong to you not to the “Sheep wife” or the “victim kids”.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY came online starting in Genesis when Eve tried to blame the serpent, and Adam tried to blame Eve… the Lord God saith unto them —
Quote:“Thanks for sharing…oh brother now are you gonna get whacked…all three of you! So move over here away from that Tree of Life and listen up!!! Here's how it's goin' down…”You should not be sleeping with a sheep…it's an abomination. But if you insist on staying married under such conditions then do what women are famous for doing. Play the no-sex card, no anniversary flowers card, no talk to you card…until you apologize, wake up and start thinking.
Just tell her “You made your bed…now lie in it…but there's no kissing on the lips and no sex until you shape up” Then roll over, don't forget to smile into the camera, then reach up and turn off the light.
If you're married to a sheep…become a border collie. For instructions on how to do this…watch the movie “Babe”.
Baaaah
The 9/11 conspiracy by the federal government and its foreign handlers was formed using the same cookie cutter that was used during the Kennedy Administration, including remote controlled aircraft that would attack Guantanamo and used as an excuse to invade Cuba…that was called “Operation Northwoods”. There were to be staged acts of terrorism (similar to the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the NYC taxicab bomber)to scare people and rally their support for an invasion of Cuba. Here's a summary…
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html?q=northwoods.html
franklin
MemberJune 25, 2010 at 3:11 pm in reply to: Example How Federal Government expands its authority Over YouQuote:This post has been edited by Admin: 23 June 2010 – 01:09 PMSo Admin made all those cuss words look like they used to in the comics: N@ncy P3los3, H@rry R3id, J@n3t N@polit@no.
She is sensitive to bad language. π
Thanks
Neo
Health Insurance is one of the biggest scams of all. And it will only get worse with health care reform.
First, you should understand that insurance companies are CASH COWS that provide huge cash flows to fund other investments. When Warren Buffet started his investment company the first thing he did was buy an insurance company with the first investment monies he received. (GEICO I believe).
In the 1980s Blue Cross/Blue Shield in the District of Criminals went broke because it had invested badly in highly speculative projects and its executives were paid huge salaries and had many perks including sky boxes at all the major stadiums etc., etc., etc.
Insurance companies want your cash to invest for the owners' profit not for paying for your medical care. When claims are presented they are routinely denied and it can take years for them to pay out. And when they are paid out they are usually less than the procedures cost.
So you are asking about looking after your welfare and that of your children by joining a system that is interested in everything but your health and welfare. Save your money. You would be better off paying your cash into an account that you set up for medical care and insure yourself. Then do everything you can to stay healthy.
There's a ton of information on the web on how to deal with everything from cancerous tumors to ingrown toenails. (Look up maple syrup+baking soda+cancer, or cancer+sugar, or skin cancer+eggplant). A friend is using the maple syrup+baking soda method (it's taken internally) to treat a malignant tumor on her dog's hip. The tumor is half the size it was three weeks ago. You can find out why by reading up on it.
Remember most synthetic drugs are synthetic mock ups of plants. But you can't patent a natural substance (that's why hemp the miracle substance of all time, is outlawed) Digitalis comes from a beautiful flower found in the garden, the glycoalkaloids in eggplant (a member of the nightshade family) are powerful drugs. Cancer cells thrive on sugar and you can starve them to their own death instead of yours.
Synthetic drugs have terrible side effects because the body recognizes food…it does not recognize synthetic chemicals and doesn't know what to do with them. So, cancer drugs will seek out cancer cells, make your hair fall out, give you nausea etc. If you look up any drug in the Physician's desk reference you would never take another drug in your life except maybe for aspirin. There's a birth control patch for women, which prevents life from occurring and one of the side effects is death for the user. It is the best life preventer for women on the market.
Then think about the healthiness of health care.
Hospitals are the best place in the country to get infections. Staph infections occur from skin contact. Physicians, nurses, etc. put a stethoscope on one person's skin, then the next and so on. I'm the only person I know that has the health care pro swab the stethoscope and their hands before touching me.
Next, health care is so expensive because hospitals and doctors' offices require significant staff to process the insurance paper work.
So, if you think working with natural substances with the natural body is bogus medicine, and you want synthetic drugs for your synthetic straw man…and want to stick with the medical industry and avoid the insurance industry…you might consider that some traditional physicians have dropped out of the insurance industry and provide service for a predetermined set fee…which is much cheaper because there is no insurance paper work to do. And everyone knows what the service costs so there is no waiting to see if the insurance carrier will pay up…and the physician does not have to have a large capital reserve to rely on while waiting for the insurance company to pay up etc., etc.
(BTW you use the eggplant raw…you don't rub eggplant parmigian on your skin π )
A votre sante π
franklin
MemberJune 23, 2010 at 5:09 pm in reply to: Example How Federal Government expands its authority Over YouBing,
Thanks for the following SC quote. It is the simplest statement of the federal enslaving franchise scam I have seen so far. I've been looking for a simple way of explaining this to people who have no idea that they are subjects of the federal government.
And your legal posts are helpful as always.
Quote:“. . .Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy. E.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974); Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U. S. 127 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 (1937); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548 (1937).. . “Legal language is so bland it often fails to focus the reader's attention on important points.
So this is how I explained it to family and friends…
1. Congress borrows money in your name (like they were using your credit card) from the private Federal Reserve Bank. You and your descendants must pay this money back at interest. (Congress' spending power).
2. Congress wants to further its broad policy objectives (like making America a socialist state under a “unitary executive”…or invading another country for its natural resources…using your sons and daughters to do so.) (Broad policy objectives).
3. So it offers private people and state and foreign governments BRIBES using the money borrowed in your name in #1. above… (receipt of federal monies by non-federal parties)
4. On condition that those private people and state and foreign governments cooperate “VOLUNTARILY” with federal policy. (The bribe “technique” of giving money for voluntary compliance with federal gov. because federal civil law cannot compel compliance without consent of the 'bribee'.)
5. Federal policy is whatever federal judges and other bureaucrats say it is. (As in this court has repeatedly protected the federal government from any complaint of constitutional injury by a 'bribee')
Notice the word “voluntarily” in the quote.
The federal government cannot coerce a state citizen not living on federal land and not taking money from King Congress.
The only way the federal government can make you a subject of itself and rule over you, and tax you, is by your CONSENT in taking federal benefits (bribes… to entice you to agree to its jurisdiction β The Declaration of Independence requires the federal government to get your consent in order to exercise its powers).
Parents tell their children: “As long as you live in my house…you play by my rules.” The children's consent is not required.
The federal government says, and the Supreme Court agrees that your consent to federal policy is not required: “As long as you take money from me…you play by my rules (e.g. compulsory health care…compulsory flu injections…compulsory education for your children in government schools…federal income tax…etc.) not by constitutional rules.
Now ask yourself…are you a free self-determining citizen of your state?…or are you a subject of the federal government (which the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prevent)?
Did you sign the social security APPLICATION (giving your consent to federal government jurisdiction) for your newborn children to be subjects of the likes of N@ncy P3losi…H@rry R3id…B@r@ck oB@m@…J@n3t N@polit@no?
If you are a subject of the federal government, and have made your children subjects of the federal government, the Supreme Court has said over and over that you cannot bring constitutional challenges against the federal government in federal court. Federal judges will dismiss you… and rightly so… for “lack of standing”.
Since the Constitution offers no remedy to subjects of the federal government when Rights [which state citizens have surrendered for a bribe] are violated, what is it precisely that federal subjects (who think they are state citizens) actually celebrate on the 4th of July by waving those federal flags made in China? Hmmmm…
P.S. I'm using “state citizen” in the sense that an ordinary person understands it (as in “I'm from Tennessee”, or “I'm from New York where's Tennessee? How do you spell that?”
)
JeannieW
Quote:I do know its not very Christian-like behavior. How many people have you driven away?I think the last post was an invitation to post your materials so we could read them and possibly be helpful. Quite Christian-like I think.
Your high snit and reluctance to give us something to work with besides having to surf the web for you, suggests that our professor Bing may have been right to caution the forum members about your sincerity and good will.
You can always go “elsewhere” of course. Whatever you mean by “elsewhere”.
No one is “driven away” from this site…not even known government moles…. However, people sometimes depart in a high dudgeon because forum members don't perform exactly as the newbie poster requires and demands.
Good luck (because luck is what you'll need) “elsewhere”.
JeannieW
You can scan your documents and save as pdf files and upload them right here so people can read and learn from them.
So that's what CH looks like π
Prollins
Thanks for that post on the non-existent AA flights.
I have a number of A/L pilot friends who think anyone who questions the government's conspiracy theory is a…conspiracy theorist.
Ironically, they believe that the military shot down TWA flight 800 over New York several years ago.
They say that the eye witness evidence from pilots taking off and landing in the area was suppressed during the 'investigation'.
The 'logical' principle is apparently this…if a pilot says a plane was shot down then that's a fact. If engineers, eye witnesses, and film show the towers being imploded by explosions along the 79th floor then, to question the government is a conspiracy theory (even though a question is neither a theory nor a conspiracy). Go figure.
Good post.
I've read much of this before and was fascinated at the time that Henry Ford had made a hemp car.
The problem is that what we call capitalism isn't really capitalism at all. As a natural product, hemp cannot be patented the way artificial drugs can. So those 'capitalists' need to protect their oil based plastics, synthetic fabrics, synthetic drugs, etc.
Those who control those synthetic interests want to stay rich without the competition of a real capitalist society, and the ensuing excellence competition brings. They also invented synthetic money to use to pay huge prices for their synthetic products and wrote synthetic laws to govern that money and its users. And they will destroy…even murder…anyone who competes by making real money available to the public. JFK tried it…enuf said.
The story of hemp is astonishing and the story of its suppression not at all astonishing.
BTW Admin what exactly don't “we” approve of in the original post? :huh: That it demonstrates the many miracles the plant is capable of…or the fact that it has been sold as a deadly poison to body and mind? (Just the way the drug companies that make statin drugs have sold people the incredible idea that cholesterol is a poison when it is actually manufactured in the body [with any excess excreted] and is essential to brain and other organ functions).
Going back in time to grow and use hemp for its well known personal and commercial benefits (imagine a hemp car far stronger than steel π ) can be thought of as a sovereignty issue.
Sovereignty is not just about government and politicians who seek to control the masses.
Government and politicians are handily controlled by the drug companies.
Slaves who would be sovereigns are the property of the banking and other commercial industries it is true.
But government and politicians are as enslaved to those enormous commercial interests just as much, and maybe moreso, than the unknown average citizen.
The average citizen can refuse to do business with the commercial giants. The politicians cannot if they want the necessary millions to get elected and reelected. The politician's slave collar is far heavier than the average citizen's even if it is silver plated (with synthetic silver [aluminum foil] of course).
So the ability to choose to wear hemp jeans instead of synthetic jeans (or in the case of Queen Elizabeth to wear non-hemp hats designed by Dr. Seuss π )is the prerogative of the sovereign.
franklin
MemberJune 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm in reply to: Oh, good, a new crisis. Letβs take away some more freedoms.The politicians are extremely afraid of even the slightest sign of useful freedom.
And well they should be for nearly every one is guilty of treason and multiple felonies on a daily basis. And some like Bobby Etheridge will even stoop to assault and battery against a polite teenager asking a tough question politely.
This can't go on much longer.
What in the world will they do when both terrorists and freedom fighters go back to smoke signals? π π :ph34r:
franklin
MemberJune 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm in reply to: LETTER OF INTENTION TO BECOME A FREE INHABITANT UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1777While Ed Rivera's research may be sound, this letter…or “your version of it”…sent to the de facto 'president' will sound like the rantings of a mad man.
The de facto 'president' does not appear even to know of what country he is the de facto 'president' because…
The de facto 'president' said during his campaign that he had visited all “57 states”.
There is no evidence that he was ever admitted to or ever graduated from any university anywhere on the planet.
No living soul remembers him from his alleged time at Columbia university.
There is no evidence that he has been, as he claims, a “professor” of constitutional law at the University of Chicago,
He set an unheard of precedent because he published nothing as “editor” of the Harvard Law Review,
We know that he can read two teleprompters at once and that lightweight multi-tasking skill is the sole evidence for any intelligence at all.
There is no evidence that he is anything but an Indonesian citizen with the legal name of Barry Soetoro who makes a point of not saluting the American flag on public occasions.
There isn't a shred of even prima facie evidence that he or his handlers would have a clue as to what such a letter meant.
Therefore…
It is an incredible assumption to believe that he would know what the Articles of Confederation are.
As an Israeli citizen his chief of staff won't know what the articles of Confederation are either.
And the speaker of the house…well what is there to say about that sorry individual without repeating oneself?
How could any intelligent person assume that these outlaws…who think the Constitution is just a gd piece of paper…would know of…or even care about…the Articles of Confederation.
There isn't a government psychiatrist who would not agree that the submitter of such a letter…to such a 'president'…is anything but nuts and should be confined in the gulag as a subversive enemy combatant.
Ed Rivera should be submitting his research to scholarly journals if he is as legally brilliant as he claims. That would lay a sound and credible foundation for his assertions which could be used in support of such a letter (assuming anyone wanted to communicate rationally with the de facto 'president'.)
Hi Prollins,
It seems clear from your description of events that the bank wants your cooperation to legitimize its alleged “legal right” to your property (if you would please show up with the keys).
They may have a “legal” right but it seems to me that you are right in making them demonstrate their right with appropriate paperwork.
Sometimes organizations do not want to assert their “legal” right with proper legal procedures because it may cost them more to send their lawyers to court than they would collect on a loan…and so with threats etc. they try and get their victim to do their dirty work.
It's interesting that the bank asserts a right to call in all loans, if only one is in default. The interesting part is…do they have a right to refuse federal reserve notes tendered in payment of a debt not in default and still assert the unpaid portion as a debt on which they could get a judgment? Money is owed…payment is tendered…payment is refused. Are there any material facts in dispute in that scenario?
Honest people even with a relatively small amount of the material on this site under their belts can usually find the right words to say and the right questions to ask (as in “where's the paper work to take the truck? π Or as in “fine take the property and you pay the taxes on it” π ).
It is ironic that what you are trying to do…to cooperate with the bank and help the bank get what is due them by renegotiating with them…they want to do by force…taking the property without due process and asking you to cooperate with them in doing that by bypassing legal paperwork and handing them the keys.
They don't seem to want your lawful cooperation but prefer your cooperation to help them assert their alleged rights over the property without conforming to any requirements of commercial law that may apply to them.
There is nothing wrong with keeping them honest as you work out this matter. There is nothing wrong with refusing to help them bypass any laws that apply to them as they proceed in this matter. This site is all about everyone complying with any law that applies to them…or with any lawful contractual agreement they make.
Even God must do his specified part in any covenant he makes with mankind…whether he must apply a penalty clause and remove Adam and Eve's access to the Tree of Life for violating the covenant…or whether he must protect the descendants of Esau from Moses…or make the fabulously wealthy Abraham even more prosperous for adhering to the terms of the covenant.
Thanks for sharing these events…your reactions demonstrate that we do well to take the admonition “Fear not for I am with you…” literally.
This looks like an excise taxable activity. Hope the guy is an IRS agent and can present this picture as admissable evidence in court when the lady claims a common law right to nurture beachgoers with the lemonade of human kindness. π
franklin
MemberJune 7, 2010 at 7:55 pm in reply to: Obamacare will tax value of your company paid health insuranceQuote:So if your private sector employer paid $15,000 in insurance premiums for you in 2011, then that means one's taxable income, if you are a taxpayer ( and I am a nontaxpayer) you will now, starting in 2011, begin paying a federal tax on the value of your health insurance.Quote:Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get.Quote:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)Sec.9002. “requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income.”
Am I misreading something or does the third paragraph contradict the assertions in the first two paragraphs?