<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		>

<channel>
	<title>Family Guardian | Andy-Lee | Activity</title>
	<link>https://famguardian.org/members/lee43t/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://famguardian.org/members/lee43t/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for Andy-Lee.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 04:12:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=2.21.0</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
		
								<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">c665dace533d17267fa34f93acf05d89</guid>
				<title>Andy-Lee replied to the discussion Social Security To Be Axed in the forum 2.2. Legislative Alerts and Updates</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-to-be-axed/#post-14513</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:12:49 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/social-security-to-be-axed/#post-14513"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> Social Security To Be Axed</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>Well, as the the title of this post says, I do believe it would. If they change anything in what was/is/ or can be considered the so called contract for the so called &#8220;federal-officeholders,&#8221; then the contract should void out as it would be fraud otherwise. Really though it is already fraud as it doesn&#039;t satisfy the requirements for a contract,&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2671"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/social-security-to-be-axed/#post-14513" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">ad6b2684468a889283ec1e8694784855</guid>
				<title>Andy-Lee replied to the discussion Soetor nullifies legislature, judiciary and 200 years of settled law in the forum 2.2. Legislative Alerts and Updates</title>
				<link>http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/soetor-nullifies-legislature-judiciary-and-200-years-of-settled-law/#post-14198</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:49:21 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class = "activity-discussion-title-wrap"><a href="https://famguardian.org/forums/topic/soetor-nullifies-legislature-judiciary-and-200-years-of-settled-law/#post-14198"><span class="bb-reply-lable">Reply to</span> Soetor nullifies legislature, judiciary and 200 years of settled law</a></p> <div class="bb-content-inr-wrap"><p>I am not arguing against your point, but please correct me if i am wrong on any point. The Constitution is a trust agreement/ which is a contract, so if he suspends or nullifies the contract which binds him, that is a breach of the trust, and we can sue him. I would also think that since the trust/contract has been violated that any and&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-2672"><a href="http://famguardian.org/forums/forums/topic/soetor-nullifies-legislature-judiciary-and-200-years-of-settled-law/#post-14198" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span></p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
		