Title: I have a solution for the 'Debt Chrisis', the 'Debt Celling' or what ever you want to call it. Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Apr 17, 2011 Author:taxpayer Post Date:2011-04-17 10:26:52 by Itistoolate Keywords:None Views:219 Comments:13
Since there is NO backing for the $, DOLLAR, ie GOLD or Silver, just print more FRNs and pay Rothschild off.
Still reviewing software that prevents malfunctions in the "sending" process.
In this interim, a summary of fundamentals to keep firmly in mind is this.
"Constitutions" are package deals -- "all or nothing."
We do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional Government." How do we know? "Constitutions" are not severable; they are package deals -- "all or nothing." Where a part is missing, the whole is missing.
Statutes are severable. Agreements are severable. Treaties are severable. Statutes may be severable with or without the affirmative assertion of such. Agreements and treaties typically need to include a severability clause. When such is severbale, key is the standard on which severability is based. For a part of the whole to be eliminated from the rest of the language, it has to be what? Right -- illegal or "un-constitutional." What about a "constitution" is ever illegal or "un-constitutional?" In short, to have in mind the standard used for severability is to see readily that a "constition" isn't "severable."
Therefore, because a "constitution" is not severable, where we see even one part missing, we're not just seeing one part missing. We're seeing that whole, the entirety, is missing.
"Federal" means "federal."
"Federal" does not mean "national." In other words, "federal" is not limited to one "level" of government. All government at all levels is "federal." School boards, municipalities, counties, states, and the national systems are all "federal." They all operate "federally."
"Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional." There is no "constitution." Yes, there's an old (ancient) document with some words on it, but that "archived" document has the same value to us as paper on the bottom of the bird cage. If it were an active document, it would be in the Library of Congress, not the Archives. (Feel free to take a minute to reflect on that one.) The conclusion that there is no "constitution" is not a political or practical evaluation. It's a legal evaluation. Legally, there is no "constitution." Procedurally, "the People" never participated, i.e., the democratic law-making process was never activated. Substantively, the term "Citizen of the United States" was nowhere defined. The analogy is to a trust. A trust exists only where there is both a beneficiary and a trust res. The failure of either constitutes a failure of the trust. Here, there is no beneficiary; hence, no trust. It's an analogy, but it very clearly makes the point. (By the time the 14th showed up, the "federal" system had long since already "taken over," and, still, to this day, the proper procedures have never been applied.) If any language from the "constitution" is relevant to any legal analysis, it's because the Supreme Court has recognized and used that language. (Where they recognize only part of the whole, what do we learn from that?!)
At the level of a "state," i.e, a body politic, i.e., a "church," "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty."
At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by agreement."
In application, all government at all levels operates "by agreement."
This is not a political consent concept. This is a commercial consent concept, i.e., agreement. We're talking about signatures.
Politics are (largely) irrelevant.
Stewardship, stewardship, stewardship. Time, "money," and energy are limited resources.
There are, in our present reality, an issue or two solvable solely via political activity, but, on the whole, as regards the mechanism by which we defend our property and our liberty from increasing encroachment, there is no political solution. The problems are commercial. How do we know? We know because there is no "constitution" and because "federal" means, at the level of the individual, "by agreement." Since the problems are commercial, which also means individual, very, very individual, so are the solutions.
Who holds what political/elected office is irrelevant. What "political party" has what for its platform or agenda is irrelevant. What religious influence is marketed to us as "controlling" is irrelevant. (That WILL change if/when membership in any particular religious group is compelled. Right now, religious affiliation is still 100% optional.) What matters in our present reality is our signature. The legal mechanisms used against us start with what we've signed up for, i.e, the "agreements."
There's a huge part of our nation that'll always put the source of the problem "out there," somewhere. We've all been taught to play the "blame game," and those who do that the best are the ones who are the most un-likely to distance themselves from this present system. Where the "problem" is "out there," somewhere, then it's beyond our control. Where the problem is beyond our control, so is the solution. A huge number of people, including a very significant percentage of the "patriot" community, take subtle comfort in the fact that they have no control over the problem. That relieves them from having to change their minds so as to take control over themselves, i.e., over the solution. Where the "problem" is "out there," somewhere, so is the solution, and they accept their victimhood, which allows them to remain right where they are, and have been.
One of the most notable classes of people relishing in their victimhood is that of the "constitution-ists." They've thrown the "constitution" at everything in sight since at least the early 1950's, and to what benefit or result? If they were interested in a solution, they'd have started rethinking their legal premise a long time ago. They'd challenge their most foundational presumptions. This author engaged that paradigm shift exercise as a direct consequence of The Terre Haute Litigation. This author went into that litigation a "constitution-ist" and came out of it forever cured of that perspective. The experience was hell, and it's a sickening venture (e.g., to realize how badly "had" we've been and for this long), but necessary. It's a wicked paradigm shift, and the vast majority of "constitution-ists" just can't picture a world without a "constitution." Thus, they may be unreachable via discussions of the reality. But, here we are, still living under the myth of the "constitution" for approximately 220 years, now.
We are dealing with a "Beast" system.
Even more important than understanding the "law of man" is understanding the Law of God. He follows it and applies it. He expects us to do the same.
What is a "Beast?" It's a king or government raised up by God to be an iron rod of correction in His hand. Unto the "Beast" is also given the powers of War, Famine, and Pestilence (Disease, Plague). War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" are The Four Sore Judgments. Who gets Judged? The rebellious. Measured by what standard? God's Law.
War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" are also The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. What's an apocalypse? It's a "revealing." God revealed Himself to John. God is revealing Himself to us, as well; unfortunately, it's via the form of Judgment, as He told John that it would be.
The "Beast" stays until the rebellion against God ends. What constitutes "rebellion?" Good question, but we have plenty of clues from Scripture. What was essentially the first act of rebellion engaged by Israel after being ordained as a nation (at Mt. Sinai)? Forging the golden calf. Thus, it was a religious act that defied and denied the Sovereignty of God. Consequently, we've got to dig deeply to investigate why we engage certain religious practices, such as "christmas," and "easter," and "lent." Halloween isn't that great an event, either, but at least we're not (yet) saying that Halloween is based on Scripture. Why do we recognize the "holidays" that we recognize? Thanksgiving is the one national holiday that is very close to being Scriptural. This author isn't 100% certain that we're being defiant by not maintaining the three main "gathering of the nation" feasts in this time period (post-Resurrection, pre-Kingdom), but recognizing those seems a right smart more prudent than what we're doing at present.
Regarding the "tithe," the "income tax" consumes the "tithe," as a matter of law. In other words, those with an "income tax" obligation cannot tithe, for the first legal obligation is, i.e., the first fruits are, consumed in/by the "income tax" obligation.
And, while it hasn't been "that" long, it's been since the mid to late 1960's that we've abandoned the general circulation of an honest system of weights and measures.
Yes, abortion, and porno, gambling, drugs, alcohol, and etc., are problems. But, none of the people engaging in those activities has ever compelled any of us to pursue religious activities that arise directly from paganism, or to obligate ourselves so as to divert our "tithe," or to abandon the use of an honest system of weights and measures.
We can't fix the problems evidenced by the existence of War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" by playing the "blame game." We fix the problems we can from our own backyards, and then we do what we can to set the example. It is always the reality that when the student is ready, the Teacher appears.
This author is 100% satisfied that at least trying, again, to do things God's way, in these fundamentals, will be recognized by God. The fundamentals of God's Law center on truth, mercy, and repentance.
The Believer doesn't apply God's Law for selfish gain or benefit. No one earns an admissions ticket into the Kingdom. Those are given by the Grace (Mercy) of God. The Believer applies God's Law to say Thank You to God. The Believer applies God's Law for the benefit of those s/he cares most about. God bestows Blessings on whom? On the obedient. What is it that one wants most? Blessings for those s/he cares about. Blessings come to the obedient. To set the example is to show how to obtain and maintain the Blessings.
The Founders understood a great many things, and while they came up short on the governmental structure issue, we can't blame them for our problems. They very clearly and overtly taught their Posterity, i.e., us, that Liberty is a Blessing. On whom are Blessings bestowed? The obedient.
Obedient to what standard? It'd be good to start with recognizing that God is God, and that there is no other God besides Him, and with practicing truth, mercy, and repentance. We'll see what develops from that.
"Federal" does not mean "national." In other words, "federal" is not limited to one "level" of government. All government at all levels is "federal." School boards, municipalities, counties, states, and the national systems are all "federal." They all operate "federally."
His argument here is the mere beggaring of terms. Kind of characteristic of the varieties of false logic he pursues throughout.
I have to admit, he has spent some time to develop these deeply flawed premises and conclusions.
I have to admit, he has spent some time to develop these deeply flawed premises and conclusions.
He's a long time lawyer (now ex-lawyer) from Dallas.
He resigned his bar card after defending Timothy McVeigh on appeal, which is where he discovered the initial information that led him to resign.
Why don't you explain your charge of "deeply flawed premises and conclusions" more specifically, and if you have any formal education or a law degree ???
Are you lacking the intellect to specify your disagreement ? Make your argument I'm all ears.
Your cute little quips are ad hominem slurs that serve no purpose. You probably shouldn't have responded at all if you're unable to point out the "deeply flawed premises and conclusions" as you put it.