franklin
Forum Replies Created
Austin-Fitts proposes a good plan that just says NO to the bankers.
What was most interesting is that in speaking to a group of people who practice and promote religion, she asked the question, “If you could push a button that would get rid of the present financial system,and replace it with a community based financial system, would you?”
Sadly, only ONE out of a few hundred people said they would do it. The others gave as reasons that they didn't want to see their franchise checks disappear.
It is astonishing how many people who think of themselves as good church-going, bible-thumping Christians, justified by faith, have missed the point.
A large part of their self-image as a good Christian, is that they are “law-abiding citizens”, which really means they are “code-abiding contractees with corporations acting under color of law”.
Such code-abiding Christians fail, no matter how sweetly they sing to God on Sunday morning, not to heed God's word, but fail even to hear it in the first place.
The First Commandment requires that God's people be free from servitude to earthly governments. Slaves cannot contract with anyone. And a Christian's relationship to God is a contract…which the more pious call a covenant. So, God's people must be free in order to contract with Him with full knowledge of and consent to the terms of that contract.
The Framers of the Declaration of Independence from servitude to the Mad King George III, made it clear that the People created and were above the governments they created…and therefore could not be enslaved by such governments.
But good code-abiding Christian citizens who love their franchise checks are deaf to both God and to the Framers of the Constitution, which most have never read, just as they have never read and understood the First Commandment.
The First Commandment, is a command to abandon slavery. To choose slavery is to reject God, just as many of the Israelites told God to get lost; that they were better off as slaves of the Egyptians than trusting in His promises to them.
The life of contradiction that code-abiding Christians live is mind boggling.
😆 😆
The answers no doubt will help us understand the meaning of life.
Good example of showing the hoax. But a couple of things need comment.
ON THE NATURE OF LAWYERS
1. The Juris Doctor appellation in the US is a farce. Law schools are trade schools and not part of the Arts and Science division of a university (where genuine doctorate degrees are granted for original work). That puts law schools right down there with medical school, another trade school, social work school (there is no body of knowledge called social work), nursing school, the school of education, etc. These are all widget schools where you learn trades (like horse-shoeing, or car mechanics). A university doctorate from the school of Arts and Sciences (the heart of any university) requires that you make an independent, high level contribution to your field, defend it publicly and publish it to get the doctorate. Admission requirements to trade schools are markedly lower than to University Schools of Arts and Science. The implication is that a genuine doctorate is a badge of RATIONALITY.
2. You can get out of law school, medical school etc., with a C- average (not much reasoning power there).
3. Lawyers typically received an LLB (Bachelor of Law). When lawyers decided to call themselves “doctor”, they could trade in their LLB for $25 and get a new, unearned diploma designating them Juris Doctor. There needs to be a disclaimer on those 'degrees': “For purposes of this degree the term 'doctor' shall mean a bona fide expert in irrational, contradictory doublespeak”. Law schools all have a chair called, “The Alice in Wonderland Chair of Law”. And only the most distinguished (i.e.,the most irrational) faculty member may hold that chair.
All of this is to correct Stevens' PRESUMING that the IRS lawyer is an educated person and is simply toying with him. Not at all; she is sincerely stupid (otherwise she'd be a partner in a law firm, not a low-level bureaucrat).
4. Talking reason (i.e.,relying on properly defined words) to a person who thinks and speaks in contradictions is a waste of time. Contradictions exist where A can simultaneously be Not A in violation of the law of identity which says: “A thing is what it is, not what it isn't”. Stevens points out many of those contradictions in the “doctor's” responses.
5. Contradictions are a defining characteristic of PSYCHOTIC THINKING. You cannot reason a psychotic back to sanity. Aristotle made it clear that when words lose their meaning there is only chaos and there can never be a meeting of minds.
The lawyer's psychotic irrationality will prevail…because the judge will also be a Juris “Doctor” who graduated with a C- average (otherwise she'd be a member of a law firm and not a low-level bureaucrat).
One of the members here understood how to deal with psychotic lawyers.
The member didn't try to reason with them.
He simply got inside their psychotic world by producing a better contradiction than they were offering which was to convince the psychotic prosecutor with evidence that he, the prosecutor, was the de facto defendant!! And years later the psychotic lawyers are still trying to unravel themselves from that contradiction and produce a better one.
People who are confronting the courts and other government officials are doing the same thing. They are getting inside the psychotic judge's world or the psychotic official's world and screwing it up. Fight contradictions with better contradictions and you win. Be crazier than they are and you win. The only difference will be that you're crazy with a rational purpose while they're just crazy.
Scott
You're quite right about not enough sharing about strategies and results posted in these forums.
Even strategies that don't work well would make good educational posts about “how NOT to invent the light bulb”.
Quote:NOW it is becoming clear to me that the IRS is likely to stonewall any legitimate request for a CDPH in which case I will be forced to deal with it in Superior Court if I decide not to cave.One member has posted his court papers dealing with a federal appeals court on the site and there is much to be learned from those documents about dealing with the courts.
To be a plaintiff in a federal Article IV territorial court, or any court, is to be subject to the jurisdiction of that court. And for someone seeking justice, that would be like walking into the arena on Christian killing day and telling all the lions to “Stay”, “Sit”. All the lions just want whatever meat you can deliver and all the prosecutors and judges want whatever money you can hand over.
Being a defendant allows for a confrontation with an Article IV court that increases your chances of winning.
The above-referenced member did an identity theft on the prosecutor and turned him into the defendant
. That's like the Christian eating the lion.One reason that you may have trouble getting more help here (though not legal advice) is that the specifics of your issue are not clear, so it's hard to know if what you're experiencing mirrors what others have gone through.
So it's only possible to give general encouragement. And that would be not to rush into a federal Article IV court as a plaintiff. (The judge is a craven subject of the IRS and that means she's on their side and will offer you up to the IRS deity so she doesn't get whacked!), and to look at the litigation tools and other documents available to you from SEDM.
Your goal to stop things at the administrative level is a sound one. A good trial lawyer will tell you that if you do the administrative stuff well and forcefully, you will win your case without having to go to trial. I hope that can be true for you.
Scott,
It can indeed be intimidating when a newbie walks into the 'faculty' lounge and asks a simple question of the scholars there.
Be not afraid.
The rule for getting to the helpful side of the scholars is to have done, and demonstrated here, your homework.
Also, a better way to get help is to say what positive actions you took. That way the scholars can suggest other actions that may work better. If you just ask “what should I do”, you'll probably get the sharp side of someone's tongue.
Your approach to IRS petty tyrants, as it is suggested in your post, is passive and hoping they will treat you fairly (they will not).
The IRS tyrant was quite right not to have a telephone meeting with you. She was doing you a favor without telling you what it was.
That is, you want everything YOU say to be in writing and part of your administrative record.
Also keep in mind that the IRS is not an agency of the US gov.
Therefore, it has no more obligation to give you due process than Wal-Mart. It is a waste of time, and unnecessary to the cause of individual sovereignty, to try to force due process out of the IRS.
Also, keep in mind that you only have to have in the record that you responded to the IRS tyrant. Your response could be anything. E.g. “Before I can know how to respond to your letter of xx/xx/xxxx, I need you to confirm that Atlanta Georgia is an Internal Revenue District” or some such thing. There, you've responded. When they don't respond to your response, you've got some free time to shoot hoops.
Also, keep in mind that if your skin is so thin that you cannot stand an upper cut or two from a forum member, then you will be silly putty in the hands of an IRS tyrant or a tyrant in a black robe.
It is a bit amazing how many newbies, sincerely looking for freedom, make deference to them an issue. And when that deference is not forthcoming in exquisitely worded supportive tones, they leave the forums in a high snit, never to return.
That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not a good strategy.
In any quest for political and religious freedom, you are going to take hits from your friends, your family, these forums, as well as from the IRS.
So toughen up and hang in there.
Granted this video is a bit of a shocker in its own right given the setting and the occasion.
However, it should not be used to confine pedophilia and homosexuality and lesbianism to the RC church because of the celibacy rule (see below).
The video has also been edited to create a misleading impression — those very conservative enthusiastic nuns are not waving white handkerchiefs and taking photos of the beautiful young men or their 'hot babe' assistant.
Among some conservative RC groups, waving a white handkerchief is a traditional greeting and departure act to honor a religious superior. The guy the nuns were greeting was the pope (whom no one would want to see shirtless in ballet tights :???:), not the young acrobats.
My guess is that the nuns were at best shocked and at worst, disgusted at spoiling the solemn atmosphere of what, for them, would have been the high point of their religious lives — an audience with the pope.
The other point that needs attention is
Quote:Catholic priests are child molesters and fags. They have to be, because they aren't allowed to marry.Celibacy is neither logically nor psychologically the cause of child molestation.
It is important to understand this because if that view settles the matter, then attention is directed away from the fact that children all over the world are at risk for molestation and sexual slavery from non-catholics, married men and women, homosexual men, lesbian women, politicians (google: george h w bush + pedophilia), military men and women (google: UN peacekeepers + child molestation), Jewish rabbis (google: talmud + pedophilia), and Christian ministers of all persuasions.
As noted above, to focus the issue of child rape on celibacy, is entirely irrational and creates a mindset that ignores just how vulnerable children actually are when 'ordinary' adults make up the vast majority of child sex abusers.
These comments are NOT made in defense of the RC church, whose actions with respect to child sex abuse are indefensible both in the commission of sex crimes and in their cover up.
These comments ARE made to bring discussion of the criminal sex acts against innocent children into conformity with the high level of research and rationality that characterizes this website on every other issue.
Lots of work.
Somehow they still have you in their cross hairs. But, if you ignore them that will be their cue to take action against you. If you feel that you've done everything necessary…you can respond to them any way you wish, as long as you respond. As has been said “Freedom is not a spectator sport”.
Keep going badd dogg
You're on the right track. But you need to be able to document what you say. And you need to rely on research, not your congress critter (forms are created by the executive branch, not the legislature). And there is a form to send to the IRS in order for them to understand any change in your status. Just as their is a form to let any other agency know of changes in your status…or even your address (if you have one).
Hit the “start here” button and stay motivated while you learn how to pay all the taxes you are liable for, and distinguish those from ones you are not liable for.
Let the members here know what you're learning. If you're doing the work, they will help you with any errors in your understanding.
Your first post suggests that you are working at the issue. So…
You may discover things here that others don't know.
So keep posting. People here are very clever at discerning who is sincere, who is not sincere, who is a freeloader, and who is a government mole.
If you're sincere you'll learn a lot and get a lot of help.
If you're not sincere, wear a football cup and a helmet when you post here because Admin, and others, are known for giving 'individuals' severe lashings at twenty paces or more.
Nice but irrelevant.
People love the fantasies they live.
People do not care about things like “truth” or “reality” (they watch “reality” shows to find out what reality is).
Even Oprah, according to her interview with Barbara Walters, is having a hard time convincing people that she is not a lesbian.
Even Billary Clint0n believed it when he said “I did not have sex with that woman”.
Truth is only valuable to truth seekers, and as their lives draw to a close they will have no regrets. The others will not think they have anything to regret.
The better quote would have been the one from Gore Vidal's father who said in disgust “If there was another race besides the human race, I'd join it.” Ain't that the truth?
The county attorney was an idiot. Seven months to be convinced of what any court could take judicial notice of because it is beyond proving.
Notaries cannot determine the truth of what is in the document. They can verify signatures and true copies of documents (even those containing falsehoods or mere conjecture).
If Mrs. Brown is suing Mr. Brown for divorce and says he's a philanderer and want to have her signature notarized for court purposes, how in the world could the notary verify the truth of Mrs. Brown's statement.
Fact-finding is a function of the jury, not the notary.
The county attorney is thicker than a plank. How did he get out of law school?
People might want to read wikileaks as a source of propaganda for the government.
I've wondered why Assange just hasn't been shut down long ago.
If they can shut down some patriot for investigating the law and publishing his findings, not leaking them, why is this guy still walking around 'leaking' stuff?
Here's an article that's worth considering when you take a leak at Wikileaks [for purposes of this post “leak” shall include “peek”]…
Question Wiki-Leaks and Plausible Lies – Where Have All The Critical Thinkers Gone? excerpts Joe Quinn, 12/2/10, Responded to by Kirwan
JQ: “The Wiki-leaks documents need to be considered in a broader context. By all means, alternative news sites should continue to expose American, British and any other government inequity that the documents reveal. But where is the criticism of the rest of the documents that confirm the standard Israeli/American narrative – that Iran poses 'an existentialist threat' to Israel and to 'moderate' Arab states? Does anyone care that these documents clearly support US and Israeli war-mongering? Does anyone else find that to be astonishing? Where is the critical thought? …”
k – For “critical-thought” to even become a factor; one must have a mind. And the “Amerikan-mind” has only one perspective. After that perspective was set, by the propaganda line of public-indoctrination in USI – the human-mechanism inside the public mind which is responsible for asking questions was smashed. So apparently it is not possible for 'Amerikans' to “interpret” anything outside the boundaries of what has been force-fed to them as the only acceptable situation – hence NO CRITICAL THINKING is ALLOWED.
JQ: “Middle Eastern leaders want the US and Israel to attack Iran.
How can this not been seen as further US and Israeli propaganda?”
k -Simply put – because Amerikans have no conception of the multi-layered world of Middle-Eastern politics that actually rules international actions in that region. In the Middle-East almost nothing is 'directly undertaken'.' To put it another way, what might appear to be the case, is very often not – not only not the case – but frequently what might appear to be true is the exact opposite of what is going on. The situation in the leaked messages revealed is a perfect demonstration of 'the parallax view.” n. An apparent change in the direction of an object, caused by a change in observational position that provides a new line of sight.
JQ: “And what Middle Eastern country in its right mind would want that considering that the entire area will be unfit for human habitation for years afterward? … And let's not forget previous Wiki-leaks 'dumps' of data,”
which included nuggets of US and Israeli government nonsense like Iraq really did have WMDs! And there you were thinking that the WMD business was a total lie! Well, guess again, thanks to some of the Wiki-leaks documents, we now know that the US was totally justified in invading Iraq and killing 1.5 million innocent civilians. And if that isn't enough for ya, then just remember…9/11! Bin Laden (who is alive and well according to previous Wiki-leaks documents) killed about 3,000 Americans that day, which leaves the US and Iraq just about even (500 Iraqi lives being equal to one American life). And don't go spouting any spurious conspiracy theories, because Mr. Assange is annoyed that such 'false conspiracies” [like 9/11] distract so many people (like you). …”
k -To put this in context it is necessary to understand the relationship between the Zionistas and the ownership of Wikipedia (and by extension – Wikileaks as well). I don't care what the “cables say” – WMD was liquidated or moved during the 1991 War on Iraq that did not end (because of the 24-7 bombing raids conducted from the no-fly zones). The “2003 War on Iraq”, was just the continuance of 1991 – and by 2003 (cables or no cables) there were no weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq.
The War on Iraq is America's longest running war since it has been going on for NINETEEN years. This explains how it is possible for the US Department of veterans Affairs to have issued their casualty reports that clearly states: 73,846 US Dead, 1,620,906 Disabled. (2)
It seems, based on the information that was “leaked,” that Israel and USI actually had a GREAT DEAL to GAIN by allowing these leaked documents to be “given to the public” – which would explain their reasons for not initially trying to arrest him or to kill him outright. What happened instead was that the totally compromised psy-ops news organizations of the US & Europe actually co-operated in the release to the information: Now why do you suppose that happened? Again it is the Parallax View that is being used to masque and to simultaneously promote the exact opposite of what is true. This is part of why I and many others refrained from jumping into this quagmire where white is painted as black and vice-versa.
JQ: “So why is no one contesting these very dubious and much more serious claims? These are claims that could be used to justify an attack on Iran and the murder of millions of Iranian civilians? …
Assange on Netanyahu – In a recent Time Magazine interview, Julian Assange stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is not a naive man” but rather a “sophisticated politician.” That's Assange's assessment of a man who is clearly a psychopath. In the same interview Assange said: “We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. … Apart from the fact that he appears to be praising a pathological war criminal, Assange displays an amazing level of naïveté. Netanyahu's comment about Middle Eastern leaders making their private opinions public was in reference to the leaked allegation that the Saudi, Jordanian and Emirati governments were privately in favor of “cutting the head of the Iranian snake”, something that Netanyahu has been cheer-leading for several years.
Despite this, Assange believes that this will lead to “some kind of increase in the peace process in relation to Iran.” Say what?!”
k – A huge part of the above has to do with those in the Middle-East who “live” in the situation every day. Intrinsically the actual paradigms are known to those in charge, as well as the public in residence there: However what is voiced to the outside world makes no mention of what is actually going on. Assange floats over this reality like a surfboard without a rider – just being tossed about by every passing wave because he does not address either the reality beneath or the publically spoken substitute for that reality.
JQ: “But not everyone is fooled. On Wednesday, a senior Turkish official blamed Israel for the Wiki-leaks release. Addressing reporters, Huseyin Celik: “One has to look at which countries are pleased with these,” Celik was quoted as saying. “Israel is very pleased. Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents.” “Documents were released and they immediately said, 'Israel will not suffer from this.' How did they know that?” Celik asked. He doesn't even realize that probably many of these documents were created FOR leaking! …”
k – BINGO! Which is the reason that he should be charged and face an open and public court: But precisely because of the dangers inherent (to the powers that be) in such a course also ironically makes the case for MURDER as the only solution – because if the truth comes out then those that have benefited directly, from this series of leaks, will become the losers (the Zionistas & USI) – as it does appear (to me) – that these documents were “created FOR leaking.”
JQ: “The Wiki-leaks documents that provide evidence for what is already understood should be accepted, the documents that echo what we already know to be US and Israeli propaganda should be understood as just that – US and Israeli propaganda. Is that so hard? Why are many alternative news writers who railed against similar lies and disinformation when it came from US and Israeli 'Intel reports' now accepting, or ignoring, the same propaganda simply because it comes via Wiki-leaks?”
k – I can only speak for myself, obviously. But I stayed out of this until the dust settled – because of the vast amount of supposed information. To comment initially would have been premature to say the vey least. Now however as more and more of the substance and the garbage begins to become visible – it is at least possible to be able to form opinions and to say what that looks like to those of us that choose to have opinions – and to defend them.
JQ: “Do the Wiki-leaks documents have to be all good or are all bad? Is such black and white thinking ever a good way to discern truth from lies in a world where almost everything has some element of spin? Are we so desperate for a truth-telling hero … that we have lost our ability to critically think? What happened to our ability to understand and identify the nuances and subtitles of big government propaganda?”
k- Of course not; except that that is the way most Amerikans have come to view the world. “You're either with us or Against us – George Bush” and the dutiful little mindless fools are still stuck on that obscene language taken from a period of time that consisted only of the LIES! Reality on the other hand has to do with the gray areas but more to the point we must all deal with the full-spectrum of brilliant-color which is what the actual world attempts to live in. As to: “our ability to understand and identify the nuances and subtitles of big government propaganda?” If that had ever been present then we would not be in this mess in the first place!
JQ: “The broad view of Wiki-leaks and its documents, so far, paints a picture of a concerted effort to supplant the alternative, anti-war media with an illusion of truth. As the Western mainstream media continues to reach new heights of mendacity and obfuscation of the truth, an increasing number of ordinary people have been turning to alternative news sites for a more accurate perspective of what is happening on our planet. This has posed a clear threat to those whose positions of influence and power depend on a misinformed population. …”
k- This is also what has sped up USI's attempts to shut down or divide the internet into a two-tiered system which by definition would kill the actually valuable websites in a heartbeat. About the only real threat left to Western Mainstream Media – is the alternative media, with all of its strange and often accurate coverage of the world as it appears to those of us that have to actually live in it.
JQ: “The deception, of course, lies not in the release of official documents, but in the use of those documents, which in themselves do not constitute high crimes, as a cover to promote the same big government lies. I submit that, based on the clear evidence, Wiki-leaks is just such an organization and is designed to fulfill just such a role: the dissemination of Plausible Lies.”
k- These so-called documents deal only with the lowest form of classification: If Assange had turned out to be 'real' then quite possibly a universal demand would have arisen from the public to go after the real stuff that deals with What Really Happens at the ministerial levels & above where the actual SECRETS hide? But since this issue has been anything but substantive – when it comes to verifiable truths – as compared to documents that seem to have been written for “a clandestine-discovery” that might convince the skeptics of all sorts of crap that has nothing to do with what has been and still is going on throughout the world – the only real solution for which is to shut down the entire GLOBAL-DISORDER mechanisms that will kill the planet very soon if they are not stopped.
“What USI has done is to overload their response-to-anything with piles of blubber in uniform, to imbed in the minds of the public that might be thinking about resisting; the idea that RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. However what they are trying to do is so blatantly weighted with overkill that the result clearly shows just how very afraid this government really is-of us!” (3)
1) Question Wiki-Leaks and Plausible Lies – Where Have All The Critical Thinkers Gone?
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218901-Wiki-Leaks-and-
Plausible-Lies-Where-Have-All-The-Critical-Thinkers-Gone-
2) Since Gulf-War 1, 73,846 US Dead, 1,620,906 Disabled
http://www.rense.com/general79/since.htm
3) Overwhelming Force, a Transparent Mirage
http://www.kirwanesque.com/politics/articles/2010/art132.htm
- Quote:What should a free People do when faced with the realization that their Constitution is being dishonored and disobeyed by their elected officials and judges, and that their creator-endowed Rights have been whittled away by elected servants who are taking over the house that the Founding Fathers designed “with reliance upon Divine Providence”?
The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.
Quote:That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…How destructive government gets abolished is left to the discretion of the people. But, then the document goes on to say…
Quote:…it is their Duty, to throw off such Government….
Again, how it is thrown off is left to the discretion of the People.
Quote:As a point of departure, to get the ideas flowing, we suggest a late January, 2011 Liberty Summit, in Washington D.C., attended in person by those with a proven passion for the Constitution, with the proceedings webcast, live. The attendees would also to be opinion leaders of fairly large groups of adherents. Their purpose would be to see if they could agree on the content of a Liberty Matrix and a course of action for the Free to restore constitutional governance.This is a bureaucratic approach to a very serious problem. A nice meeting of committed people assembled in some hotel in late January 2011 in Washington DC may be premature. We have to learn from history if we are to succeed.
History shows us that some individual, some simple event was the match that lit the fires of government change…whether that change was from a lawful government to a tyranical government, or from a tyranical government to a lawful government. Often the match is lit by ONE committed person, not committees meeting in hotels.
As examples, there are
Thomas Paine, whose Common Sense fired up a lethargic happy-slave population to support the Declaration of Independence. Then that fired up the French and brought down the divine rights of kings.
Then there was the shot at Concord Bridge that was heard round the world.
Then there were the men of the Constitution Convention who were not only passionate, but who understood the power of rhetorical language to inflame both mind and heart. [Today there are many passionate people, both government criminals and freedom doers who hardly speak grammatical English let alone know the devices of rhetorical persuasion that Aristotle laid down centuries ago…and that have been so successful in changing the world.]
More recently, there were individual freedom doers who said not a word, but acted and one drank out of a “Whites Only” drinking fountain, another individual who refused to go sit in the back of the bus,another who ordered lunch at a whites only lunch counter, another who put on her best sunday dress and showed up for the first day at a whites only high school.
Then there was Ghandi who simply sat down and said “No” to British laws…and brought the British empire down in India, which led as well to its dissolution in Africa.
The point is that committee work comes after the revolution, whatever form it takes, occurs.
Any revolution usually begins in the heart of one person and takes the form of some electrifying act that sets a revolution on its inevitable course.
A narrative example is from the first book of Maccabees.
The all powerful Macedonian homosexual Alexander only lived about 12 years after his great conquests of territory. He divided his lands up among his favorites who all crowned themselves king and who all spread pagan religion everywhere, even to Jerusalem and to a small village called Modein where Mattathias, lived with his five sons, one of whom was Judas, who was called Maccabeus.
When the kings men came to Mattathias with great praise for his prominence in the village, and asked him to make pagan sacrifice at the king's behest, the passion for God's law was inflamed in him.
In a loud voice, Mattathias that he and his sons would keep to the covenant of their fathers “God forbid that we should forsake the law and the commandments,” he said. “We will not obey the king nor depart from our religion in the slightest degree”.
One of the sheeple, a Jew from the village came forward and began to offer pagan sacrifice as an example for the rest to follow.
And then all hell broke loose [so to speak].
Mattathias, his heart filled with zeal, and his just fury aroused, sprang forward and struck down the sheeple and the kings messengers.
Mattathias then went shouting that anyone who was zealous for the law should follow him.
And then wisely he and his sons and his followers went into hiding. But some of their followers were found, and refusing to obey the king, were killed. And so the battle was joined.
That was a violent revolution, just as the one's in America and France were in the 18th century. While Ghandi, on the other hand, preached the necessity for non-violence so as not to trigger the king's legal right to act violently in self defense.
But, the point in both violent and non-violent revolutions is the same.
Any revolution starts with a passionate person acting in justice as a sovereign who is above arbitrary statutes of would-be tyrants.
Revolutions are not thought up in committees. 'Where to go from here' is the question for committees after a revolution, peaceful or violent, is underway.
A person with a passion for the law stopped a frivolously liberal circuit court in its tracks and inspired hundreds of thousands of others to learn and apply the law to everyday dealings with government.
One pilot stopped the TSA in its tracks…and made it back track.
John Tyner stopped the TSA in its tracks.
A committed person threatened the TSA with a boycott of its procedures on Thanksgiving eve, and the TSA decided not to scan or sexually molest people at major airports like LAX that day.
Then there was one person who convinced local people all over the country to send a tea bag to the criminals in Washington DC. The simple idea captured the imaginations of many and a movement was born that has had a powerful initial effect…[which may fizzle when the new representatives learn how many unlawful perks their job brings with it.]
Everyday citizen reporters on Twitter, or videos that go viral, or in courtrooms invoking the common law, are all revolutionaries for truth.
And the Constitution is only a dead letter for those who do not invoke it and only vaguely acknowledge it over a six pack on the 4th of July.
The Constitution is only a dead letter for those who do not invoke it and whine that government is not invoking it against itself, using it like the penance cords that penitential saints used to whip themselves for behaving badly.
No government is too large or too oppressive for one person, or a committed minority, to capture the imagination of the people…and create change for lawful governance.
Revolutions do not start with burying oneself behind a committee. They all start with one person stepping out of line and inspiring others to follow.
Committee formulations are nothing but compromises between power driven people trying to influence the group.
Revolutions, whether on an individual or national level, come about because by definition a revolution is a statement of no compromise.
The indictment of George III, found in the Declaration of Independence, implies that compromises offered to tyrants do not work [The US gov has violated every treaty it ever made with the Native Americans].
To tyrants, compromise is a sign of weakness.
What is needed is not expensive trips to enemy territory, where gov ops will be attending and taking names.
What is needed is a way of simple resistance and a symbol to sum up that resistance.
Just what is an American eagle to do when faced with a teabag?
Prollins,
I think you have found the principle on which FG and SEDM operate.
They are not anti-government and do not shout “unconstitutional” at every law that seems to violate the Bill of Rights. Nor are they opposed to taxes. Members or not, we all pay constitutionally valid excise taxes under the commerce clause when we buy a gallon of gasoline.
Those sites have made it plain that one need only know a few things [and how to demonstrate and defend them] such as one's true political status, citizenship status, domicile status. And whether one is dealing with a corporation (which has no territorial jurisdiction) or an organic government which has territorial jurisdiction because law runs with the land. And the federal gov is confined to its own land in DC, ceded land in the states, and the territories.
Those sites have made it plain that the federal income tax laws are to be followed scrupulously by taxpayers and that non-taxpayers have to be able to know what a state is and what a State is, what a “person” is and what a human being is, what a bakery shop is and what a “trade or business” is…they need to know these things…
NOT TO AVOID PAYING FEDERAL INCOME TAX…
But to avoid illegally representing themselves as federal officials who are unlawful receivers and trustees of government property and then making claims on that property through deductions or by stealing that property through tax evasion.
I think you're spot on about the mistaken idea of nullifying laws that are perfectly constitutional when they are executed against the right people in the proper jurisdiction.
There is one exception. In the jury room, any sovereign for any reason can nullify any law. People need to know about jury nullification for sure.
But things like repeal the 16th Amendment movements are a waste of time based on misunderstanding of where and to whom such things apply.
Prollins,
Well said. And it is astonishing that even well educated people do not rebut anything but simply try to disparage the messenger.
Quote:I have personally talked with police officers, county sheriffs, local judges, criminal defense lawyers, multiple DEA agents, the Food and Drug Administration, the IRS, CPA professionals, and many “freedom” activists regarding many of the topics found here on FG and NONE of them could support their beliefs or reasons for their beliefs unless it was based on nothing more than “policy”.My favorite strategy with such people is to let them have their little diatribe and then, depending on what they've actually said, say something like the following: “Well, being rude and calling me names is not a rebuttal. Can you actually show where I'm wrong?” Or another one:
Them: “I don't know that what you've said is true, I don't believe it.”
Me: “It's not a matter of faith and belief in what I say, it's not about religion, I'm not a priest. It's about facts, which are things that exist outside of you and me that you can verify. No one believes in the moon, it's a fact. (And in the nicest voice possible I say…)So are you going to verify what I've said or stay ignorant? Either choice is ok with me.”
Then I change the subject or leave the discussion with them accused of choosing ignorance.
I actually have a bit of fun with the “educated” by not trying to convince them of anything, just pointing out that their ignorance is not a rebuttal of what I say, but a choice not to think?
The Jerry Springer Show type of ignorant person I don't bother to dialogue with since they're just noisy and don't speak in sentences.
The point is that if you do not have a way of dealing with such people you can become demoralized very quickly. It's my way of keeping my spirit up.
This leads to my point [at last].
Quote:The public officials in charge of enforcing the law have, in general, no idea what the laws actually are and what jurisdiction is, or how to apply the law. This is the country that we live in presently.The self-styled “authorities” are indeed completely ignorant of law, and enforce “rules” and “policies” that they even make up on the spot [as did the TSA agent who said to an objecting passenger while groping him “In here I can do anything I want”.]
And I use the TSA as an example because the country is now effectively under martial law without the machine guns of the military pointing at people. And the criminals who have taken over control of the population do not cite law as the reason for their actions, they cite “safety”.
And most TSA agents probably are unaware that there are no statutes that allow even for screening passengers. Most probably think they have police powers to detain passengers (which is a seizure), when their own policy manual says they cannot.
And no one has even floated the fact that the TSA, with no authority to do anything it's doing, is actually interfering in the obligations of contracts between passengers and airlines, when they decide in their personal capacity, that a contracted passenger may not fly.
The second point is…
We must enforce the law on the spot…when it is being violated. Everyone who has confronted the TSA on the spot has stopped them in their tracks (though the contract issue seems to elude both TSA and passenger).
After Jesus was seized he simply refused to give the Jews, the Romans, or Herod jurisdiction to try him. Ghandi simply sat down and said “No” and brought the British Empire in India to its knees.
We can elect politicians to do the People's work in legislatures, but in correcting their mistakes and malfeasance, we cannot expect them to correct themselves. We must do it for them.
So everyone who claims to be free, when faced with tyranny, has to exercise that freedom right then and there.
Can they beat you up for doing so? Certainly, look at the horrendous things that happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. They murdered Jesus. They assassinated Ghandi. But that's about death. Freedom is what you do when you're alive.
So the prospect of death cannot deter acts of freedom for the simple reason that both criminals and free men and women are at the exact same risk for death by mere accident.
So, the prospect of being killed by criminals has no more meaning than the prospect of dying by accident, and is not a legitimate reason for someone not to take freedom action.
Of course prudence is necessary in making freedom actions effective [Jesus was known to get out of town when things got heated up, Mt 21:17, just as is the element of surprise [as when John Tyner said to the TSA agent “If you touch my junk I'll have you arrested!”].
So, being an active freedom doer does not mean being a martyr. Prudence asks the question: “How can I be most effective in this tyrannical situation?” [E.g. See the CH strategy for making the prosecutor the defendant.]
Live freely and enjoy life…it doesn't matter how you die.
BobT
Quote:Where did Becraft state that “governments are not corporations”?Check out privatization and corporatization forum for the last few days. You'll find it there.
. That's like the Christian eating the lion.