franklin
Forum Replies Created
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1122.pdf
Arizona v. Johnson
This is the latest development in the Terry stop. Injustice Ginsberg delivered the opinion of a unanimous court on January 26, 2009
He couldn't have put all those sentences together without a teleprompter 😆
😆 😆 😆
johnwk wrote:
Quote:In any event, we will see what happens and if Obama really does care about our nation’s laboring class people living in Harlem and if he will work to end the federal tax upon their earned wages which were never intended to be considered as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment! But I suspect he will continue to allow Congress to tax the wages which labor has earned because the tax is not really designed to raise necessary revenue. It is designed by the Washington Establishment, the leadership of both political parties, to have an iron fisted federal control over the lives of working class people who labor on what amounts to be a federal plantation.I do believe you've answered your own question.
The Path To Freedom for working father's in Harlem cannot be found by placing hope in a “black” politician who himself is a slave to those who purchased him for nearly half a billion dollars in campaign contributions. He must do their bidding even if he does care about fathers in Harlem who believe they have to pay federal income tax.
His concern right now is to establish a central government bank. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-team-w…b-14091318.html
If you haven't read about the evils of such a bank you might start with Griffith's “The Creature From Jekyll Island” and for a good synopsis read about Andrew Jackson and why he defeated the idea.
Franklin
I think the idea of having newbies talk to each other by answering someone's question is a great idea for starting dialogues and avoiding using the forums merely as a reference book you can use to avoid the drudgery of having to do your own legal research.
One of the things that impressed me when I first joined the forums was watching the dialogues between the scholars of the forum (e.g. the dialogue about whether the code was actually repealed). This was a great demonstration of how the knowledgeable researchers of the forums thought about issues, communicated about them, and developed their own thinking. All valuable lessons, in addition to the content of the discussion, for a newbie who is beginning to learn strange and complex material that you don't hear on Fox News.
But here's a new wrinkle about abruptness. <_<
Certainly it can be construed as unfriendliness by a newbie…especially one who may be in trouble and who waited too long to do anything about it.
However, if you look at the “abrupt” statements in the forums…nine times out of ten they are appropriate
Bing wrote:
Quote:Speaking only for myself, I confess that at times I may have been, how shall I say this, “abrupt”However, Bing, most all of your responses to newbies are hearty welcomes.
When you have been “abrupt” it appears to be that you have a discerning “nose” for someone coming into the forums all dressed in white as an innocent newbie but who really has another agenda. Personally I have learned from you being “abrupt” with these folks. It's a great “diagnostic skill”. Don't lose it…don't fail to use it…because you don't abuse it! (Agggh! I might have caught the “rapster virus!! <_< 🙁 )
Another forum member's abruptness seems congruent with his/her personality…is actually colorful…and cannot hide a generous mind…so carry on.
This is not meant to be flattery (which states “facts” that have little basis in reality) but it is meant to encourage the continuation of appropriate abruptness as needed.
We could start smothering each other with pointless niceness (which would reinforce incompetent behavior) when what may really be needed is an abrupt “get real” response to an inadequate post or an off point one. If new posters have a good orientation as now proposed by Admin…they soon will learn the value of this site and not take on point “abrupt” responses to mean they are not welcome (unless they are moles, of course).
Franklin
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 (I can't stop!!!)
I think it might be a good idea if it encouraged newbies to interact with the forums on a regular basis. But only if there were an economical procedure designed to accomplish that. Here's what I mean…
Many people new to anything take up a lot of time because they fail to make and act on a critical distinction. Demonstration and exposition are the job of the teacher (even boring college professors do their part in this respect)… However…understanding is always at all times the job of the student. No one can make you understand anything…ever.
Many people learning something new (except infants who want to experiment and do things themselves) keep asking questions hoping the teacher will give them understanding. This is the time consuming part. They keep asking more and more questions of the teacher. One of the things FG does so well is it directs the 'student' to the proper documents to answer the question.
As a newbie I felt well treated by the more experienced members in this respect. I remember trying to understand something complex (my job to understand) then I posted what I had understood and asked if I was on track. At least one experienced member said I was and no one else posted to correct either of us. That's different than asking a string of questions.
So…if there was a newbie section…to keep it economical and to encourage learning…there might be a rule (and we all know from the membership agreement how good FG and SEDM are at making rules :roll:). The agreement (or rule) might be this when a newbie first posts…
First post: ask a question or make a comment
First reply (this is the rule): go here (live link) and read this document. THEN repost but not with a question…but stating what you understood.
Second post (following the rule): Statement of understanding what the answer to question was after reading the link.
Second reply: “You've got it”…”you've almost got it except for this statement”…”you didn't get it…read it again and think about it in the shower until you do get it…then repost your understanding.”
If the newbie keeps at it…s/he'll probably be a viable forum member. If you never hear from them again…good riddance. If they keep asking questions instead of making statements that show how their understanding is progressing…they're violating the rule…are probably government moles and will be sent to see Bing who will place them in quarantine with someone he nicknamed Snowy (not the one who joined in Dec 08) 😀 :.
I think this might work and be helpful at the same time. And it doesn't matter whether the newbie is a mole or not. If they don't follow the rule…adios. If they do follow the rule…FG is educating the mole and by applying the rule…giving the mole a pop quiz to see if they've read and understood the material. And it can all be done quietly without using the “cheese grater.”
(I tried it in a recent post where a man wrote, dripping with sincerity, that he and his wife wanted to change things in their relationship to government but that they were fearful of reprisal. The man wanted to start “a dialogue” with the forum members on his legal issues . I replied that knowledge helped one act correctly in the face of fear and gave him a reference to start studying. Never heard from him since. No time wasted. But I think actually stating the rule above would be helpful for sincere newbies on how to proceed.)
Franklin
Thanks Sonik. 🙂
There are also at least three cases which successfully challenge illegal practice of law statutes…on the grounds that they restrict freedom of speech and association. If I can find where I put them on various memory devices I'll email them to you and you can see if and where they might fit on your list.
Franklin
Admin,
It's a tribute to your honesty and integrity that without presuming anything you analyzed some of the important work on this site for grade level and readability. AND that you drew an appropriate conclusion from your findings. Namely that you would reach a much wider audience…one that I find actually fascinated by your research when it is put to them during conversation in simple terms.
I would fully support such an effort because once you understand how the system of fraud works…it really is brilliantly simple in its design and perfectly clear in its effects.
I had a professor once…who later became a friend…who could take the most mind boggling statistical procedure and explain it to you in the simplest terms so that you never forgot it and could explain it to others. She is what is called in university circles…a star. Every graduate student in her department wants her to sit on their dissertation committee. She could also explain the same thing visually by taking a complex set of research data and using a child's magic markers to color code different parts of the data so that you could know quickly what the interrelationships were.
Well, what's the point?
The point is only that when you understand something exceedingly well…you should be able to explain it simply and elegantly to any normal listener by adapting your language and your examples to their level while remaining completely faithful to the principles or truths you are teaching.
Though I haven't analyzed the document for grade level and readability…The Gallileo Paradigm seems to me a very clear summary of just about all of the tax information on the site. And please note, the author uses a novelist's narrative technique to keep you reading (by introducing an intriguing idea that will be explained further on. Novelists call it creating dramatic questions or plot moving questions.)
I am recommending it as a starting point to two twenty year old entrepreneurs I recently met who are fascinated by the two related ideas that their new social security numbers erroneously represent them as federal officers and trustees of federal property (some of which they will be allowed to retain for their services which they understood perfectly [see how simple it is]) AND the fact that it is a voluntary and not a mandatory relationship which they can terminate.
They are all excited (i.e., motivated to learn more) about the insidious nature of other government franchises (though I didn't use that word) that can be deceptively laid on them and other people.
In addition, they are also intriqued by the distinction in their passports which I pointed out to them, (without prematurely using the word sovereign), between citizens and nationals. In a word, they are hooked and need follow up materials that they can grasp readily, check out easily and act on effectively and lawfully while pursuing their goals in life.
And if anyone can deliver those goods in a form more accessible to the masses…it's the scholars of this site who have searched out and identified a solveable problem (writing above the ability level of many potential readers who would willingly benefit from these materials) by analyzing some seminal texts like the Hoax book.
Nice going Admin et al 🙂 .
Franklin
Bing wrote:
Quote:I had no idea that 32 states had even voted on a constitutional convention question.None!
That makes two of us…and probably more.
The balanced budget rationale is a ruse for two reasons…
1. There's no way to balance a budget with deficits in trillions of dollars.
2. If they (the district of criminals) want a new amendment…the standard operating procedure is to submit the amendment to the state legislatures. A constitutional convention means they want to trash the entire document (which they're doing already) so that it cannot be quoted to them (the district of criminals). They will simply take all of their wrongdoings and turn them into fundamental law.
The original Constitution was written by educated, literate men who came out of the Enlightenment…and who loved America. This new one will be written by illiterate criminals who can't tell a “person” from a person…and who despise everything about America…with the possible exception of its line of credit at the federal reserve.
Well…maybe its time.
How could modern politicians and presidents ever live up to our present Constitution?
When in recent times we've had a playboy who now makes millions of dollars going round the world talking about his legacy…which can be summed up by his two major contributions…1. oral sex is not sex…and 2. “is” is not necessarily the present tense of the verb “to be”.
Then came an adolescent with a bad attitude 😡 😛 …a pom pom waving cheerleader from Yale…a semi literate individual who is going to have a memorial library!! 😆
And now we have a presumptive usurper elect…our first “black” president who…ironically…is a bought and paid for slave to his white masters…purchased as he was for nearly half a billion dollars in campaign contributions…and who is already doing everything he is being told to do.
It makes sense to me (sad to say) that such individuals (as defined) may well need a constitution that does not tax their brains or morals by addressing the finer angels of human nature. Rather their new constitution would have to be written in mental and moral terms that reflect their nature…so at least they would have some respect for it.
Deep sigh here.
Franklin
And here's Obama's voting record on gun control…
http://www.gunlawnews.org/senators/barack-obama.html
Year Senate Bill / Amendment Obama Stand
2006 SA4615 Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms Vote for gun owners.
2005 S.397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act Vote against gun manufacturers twice.
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban Vote against gun owners.
SA1620/ S.397 Exemption for Children Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1623 Gross Negligence Amendment Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1626 Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 Vote against gun owners.
SA1644 Update to SA1620 Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1645 Update to SA1615 Neutral vote.
Not looking good.
A brave man, Bishop Williamson, and a lone voice. He is saying the simple truth that every clergyman…from every denomination…should be teaching their congregations…
Quote:The truth will set you free…and it's corollary ..lies will enslave you. (from Bishop Williamson's sermon)American bishops from all denominations are too fearful of losing their 501( c)(3) status to speak the truth. Religious congregations are too fearful of losing the social security benefits they receive for their aging religious to speak the truth…or even to learn what the truth is.
Thanks for the post…and for your pursuit of truth…which helps all who study this site to avoid the unconscionable lies that would enslave them.
Author #5 wrote
Quote:Isn't an excise tax essentially a use tax for a privilege?The principle seems clear…that by using worthless monopoly money you can acquire valuable goods and services…and by using such “money” you are privileged…to engage in the trade or business activities of the United States. (I'm not sure how accurate that is…I only read the post once).
Conceptually…it doesn't seem clear though.
Black's defines a privilege as
Quote:A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.If everyone is forced to use federal reserve scrip (even people in communities that have their own local scrip have to use banks and federal reserve scrip outside of their communities) then there is no personal or class distinction between privilege holders and non-privilege holders.
Then too a privilege is not compelled by law or circumstance. It can be exercised or not exercised (like using or not using discount coupons at the local supermarket).
So if the use of federal reserve scrip is not really a privilege but a compelled activity how can it be taxed like privileged use activity. And if you are compelled to operate a trade or business on behalf of the United States and its banker…are you not a 13th Amendment serf?
It's like entrapment to commit a crime…only this is entrapment to commit a trade or business. <_<
Franklin
The author implies then that you should not hand over a license and registration when requested to do so.
Is that right? <_<
