rattler14
Forum Replies Created
Bing,
While this might be deemed my 'favorite' thread as well, it is also the saddest for me. I research and get the word out in order to do anything I can to prevent this from continually occurring. If we don't let these corrupt soulless men and women know that this is UNACCEPTABLE, they will continue to break us a little at a time.
I also thank you for your kind words. I continue to work at this every day, hopping that my small ripples will join with others to create huge waves.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in threat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
It's certainly not an easy road, but hey… who said life was supposed to be easy! 🙂
- Bing wrote on Nov 29 2005, 07:43 AM:In the near future, a noted Professor of Physics from BYU, will publish an article in a peer reviewed journal examining the physics of the WTC collapse.
Bing
[post=”1958″][/post]This is essentially the article that will be published
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Enjoy
- Sonik Speed wrote on Nov 26 2005, 06:53 PM:Rattler –
This has turned out to a FINE post. I like the abundance of material you are providing and it is that abundance we need to demonstrate persuasion. Well done!
Sonik Speed
[post=”1953″][/post]You are most kind.
I'd also like to thank Chris for allowing me to post on such matters. I know this is his forum and his war is against the income tax fraud (as well as fighting the beast in general), but the two are interrelated as they are from the same cabal. The income tax and the federal reserve act are the mechanism by which such atrocities are financed.
Just like the income tax can be disproved via meticulous research of LAW, the 9/11 official story can be disproved by PHYSICS. Just like God's law, you can believe that the laws of physics do not exist, but you're still subject to them.
Take care
http://triallogs.blogspot.com/2005/10/dist…ike-golden.html
ouch…
I think we owe it to Irwin to get the word out.
I believe you are referring to the test for tax professionals. That can be found here
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Te…ofessionals.htm
Cheers
- Quote:I would definitely agree the “citizen of the United States of America” is better than the ambigious without attending definitions “citizen of the United States”
Stephen
Exactly. Why waste time clarifying that you're under these statutes your “insert word” while under other statutes, you are not… when you can just use one phrase all the time with impunity.
That's why I use U.S.A. instead of U.S. It just makes things so much easier and less abstract.
glad to see you back at the forums
cheers,
I posted this up about Rick Stanley
http://hammeroftruth.com/2005/10/29/rick-s…nary-coalition/
Cheers,
I know what you're thinking. A revolution? That's sooo 18th century. Well unfortunately, the same is being said for our beloved US Constitution. For most lawmakers and law enforcers, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter or a 'quant relic' of the past.
Stanley is no stranger to the Patriot movement (and no, not the George Bush definition of roll over and play patriot). He was arrested on Bill of Rights Day in 2001 for openly carrying a firearm without a permit. What ensued was one of the most well documented and disheartening cases of power abuse by the judiciary. Despite proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that both the US and Colorado State Constitutions forbid laws limiting the right to keep and bear arms, Stanley was put through the legal wringer. Last February, he gave a powerful speech to the rotary club about the ordeal, and an mp3 of this can be heard here. I've listened to it at least 6-7 times and it still gives me chills.
Rick Stanley's platform is one line – “To defend our God given (natural), unalienable, Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights.” It's that simple folks. I agree with Rick, because if we can't even support the framework of law, then getting elected as libertarians and passing or repealing laws means nothing without people actually respecting those changes.
So dismiss it as a pipe dream if you like, but we are losing the battle to an ever encroaching federal government which essentially does at it pleases. The choice is yours. I stand with Stanley.
- Apostle wrote on Oct 25 2005, 01:44 PM:Thank you for your concern Rattler,
No I use very many sources for my news. Remember the “Art of War”. Or how about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer? I have been waiting since I heard of the jury deliberations starting to hear something and this was the first I ran across. The pride of God's enemies would not allow them to keep silent on a win of such magnitude.
[post=”1890″][/post]I think in order for me to fake being friends with quatloos, I would have to eat lots and lots of cement paste, and washing it down with lots of rubbing alcohol.
sorry, “Art of War” is an excellent piece of work, but I don't have the time nor the energy to pretend to be of that flock. That seems to be a strategy they tend to use on this forum…
- Apostle wrote on Oct 25 2005, 01:02 PM:I read a DOJ release that Irwin Schiff was convicted on all counts yesterday. You can read it for yourself at http://www.quatlosers.com/irwin_schiff.htm There aren't very many options left for God's people to come out of the beast peaceably.[post=”1888″][/post]
True.
Btw, I hope you don't use http://www.quatlosers.com as your main source of information. They are, how shall we say, “biased”.
be wary…
- brazosdedios wrote on Oct 19 2005, 05:39 AM:OK, great, that makes it easier! Still trying to wrap my mind around all these concepts 😉[post=”1876″]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Hmmm. I was actually more confused. I saw the error, but I thought the correction was in the other direction. The whole “Citizen of the United States” versus “citizen of the United States” is a tricky topic indeed. It appears to me, based on the Slaughter House cases (83 US 36) that the 14th amendment was at least the first time the 2 classes of citizenship was recognized.
And it seems to fit the rules of capitalization right? I mean, if We The People authored the Constitution, wouldn't a “citizen” be reference to someone outside the scope?
I will gladly debate this topic, as I thought I had this completely figured out in my head… Author #2's last post merely made me more confused. My reading and research has led me to believe that the 14th amendment didn't create the federal citizenship, but merely pointed it out for the first time. This federal government always had exclusive legislative powers over it's territories and thus it must have had citizens in such places.
EITHER WAY. I would never claim to be a “citizen of the United States” as defined by anything 🙂 “Citizen of the United States of America” is far better IMHO?
comments, rebuttals? I'm all ears… especially one what Bing, Sonik, and Author #2 have to say.
cheers,
- Bing wrote on Oct 17 2005, 07:50 AM:Lambchop, I still have not forgotten your first post, in which you arrived in this Forum and felt compelled to invite everyone to a super-secret , ahem, alleged “freedom conference” in Chicago. And lo and behold, you also “volunteered” to do the lion's share of the leg work in organizing the conference for PEOPLE YOU DID NOT EVEN KNOW. Gee, how kind of you to make such an offer.
And my intuition told me then, and it tells me now, that you are an IRS undercover agent.
And, that initial post of yours, and your request and instruction that attendees bring their “business cards” to share with others, led me to surmise that you, sir, are an IRS undercover agent attempting ingratiate yourself into the ranks of the famguardian.org Forum.
I suggested that if you were not an IRS undercover agent, then you should prove it to us by going over to the IRS website at http://www.quatloos.com, and authoring 150+ anti-IRS posts and arguing with the IRS undercover agents who post at quatloos and pretend that they are just “regular” Americans with non-government jobs.
And then I suggested after you do that, come back here and maybe we can discuss you alleged Freedom Conference.
However, you declined to write any anti-IRS posts, and that, my dear sir, makes you even more suspect than you already were.
Now, in the past week, I noted that you have once again attempted to ingratiate yourself in this Forum. I still do not trust you one iota!!!
But your tactic has backfired. You posted an article last week from http://www.supremelaw.org, that is 4 years old.
And to the unsuspecting reader, it may appear as if your html link is anti-IRS, but it is far from that and speaks more generally to the nature of the corrupt US Congress and judiciary.
And in your continuing efforts to bond with the Forum regulars, you posted an informative html link that has nothing to do with the IRS and whose information has already been widely circulated via the internet for at least 3-4 years. Moreover, a long time ago, our esteemed Sonik Speed, who is far wiser than you on these matters, authored a post in this Forum that dealt extensively with the Constitutional Right to Travel.
For me, the more posts you make Lambchop, the more certain I am that you are here under false pretenses and that you are an IRS under cover agent.
You have yet to author in this Forum, any thing that is remotely anti-IRS. Why do you think that is? Do you think that perhaps since you are employed by the IRS, it would be unwise for you or your IRS career, to author anti-IRS posts on the internet?Â
You should feel free to keep posting whatever you wish, and I likewise will feel equally free to remind the Forum readers that you are most likely an IRS undercover agent and that you should not be trusted by anyone.
Have a nice day!! 🙂
Bing
[post=”1866″][/post]Bing. You seem like your holding back. Come on… how do you REALLY feel? 🙂
To any guests reading this… never just accept someone's arguments on faith alone. You have 2 eyes. Do your research, and read with a discerning eye.
cheers
- Author #2 wrote on Oct 12 2005, 08:11 AM:Riverway,
Thanks for the feedback.? I just updated the article on how to obtain a passport as a “national” and without an SSN.? You may wish to reread it.? It deals with some of the issues you are having with SSNs and turning in older passports.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…orAPassport.htm
[post=”1847″][/post]Cool, I'll have to give it a try
The passport place has rejected my requests 3 times… making BOGUS cites that a “national' must be from the Swain or Somoa Islands. They give me the same form letter back, and take my expedite money too.
I figured calling them up is a waste of time, as their stupid INA procedure documents say incorrect things, and they follow them as if it were law.
Annoying to say the least.
- Sonik Speed wrote on Oct 6 2005, 04:25 PM:Thank you kind sir! 😀[post=”1835″][/post]
LOL. No prob… now let's get back to business 🙂
- Sonik Speed wrote on Oct 6 2005, 03:33 PM:IT HAS BEEN ONE MONTH AND I STILL DO NOT SEE MR. HENDRICKSON IN THIS DISCUSSION.
Is anyone out there? ((echo)) there….. there…… there…..
[post=”1833″][/post]I was kinda hoping this thread would die a quick and painless death 🙂
To answer you question. NO. DOJ did not send a letter on official letter head saying they wouldn't pursue. That would never happen and to ever make such a claim is due to arrogance or over confidence.
That said, their inaction could be construed as that from a pragmatic standpoint.
I'm not trying to stir this thread up anymore… I assure you!
