Gustave Doré, Depiction of Satan, the antagonist of John Milton’s Paradise Lost c. 1866 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
For the past six years, I’ve been more or less obsessed with the state and federal drug laws that define drugs in terms of “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) and thereby define man to be an animal. (See, Man or other Animals #1)
As you may know, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million per year) due to my involvement with a trust that leased some furniture to a corporation that manufactured colloidal silver. The gov-co alleged colloidal silver was a “controlled substance” under the definitions of drugs. I read those definitions and realized they applied only to animals. I also understood from my study of the Bible that on the 6th day, God created man in His image, and gave man dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-28). Thus, any man made in God’s image of the Jewish or Christian faiths can’t be an “animal”. So I advanced a religious freedom defense based on the argument that, as a Christian, I can’t be subjected to laws that presume me to be an animal without violating my freedom of religion.
The Attorney General–after devoting 6 years and nearly $500,000 on pretrial investigations and hearings—dropped the case. The AG never told us why he dropped the case. But I presume that the MOOA/freedom of religion defense was the reason.
Since that case “disappeared” in A.D. 2007, I’ve had contact from radio listeners in England and Australia (or maybe it was New Zealand; I forget) also have drug laws that define the people to be animals. Thus, it appears that the presumption that the people are animals may be a cornerstone for the New World Order.
• Many of you are probably sick of hearing me tell that story. But some people “get it” and apply it, and one of them recently sent me an email that made me realize something that may be important. In fact, I’m amazed that I haven’t previously “connected this dot”:
The word “animal” (seen in the phrase “man or other animals”) is generally synonymous with the word “beast“. Thus, it’s conceivable, even arguable, that the “man or other animals” drug laws could also be described as “man or other beasts” drug laws.
If so, it’s not much of a leap to wonder if the “mark of the beast” might be translated as the “mark of the animal”. If so, is it possible that those laws that define the people to animals might be somehow construed as the “mark”? I.e., if you’re willing to accept the status of an “animal”. . . if you consent to be subject to laws that define you as an animal—have you “taken” the “mark”?
When we talk about the “mark of the beast,” does such “mark” indicate that we are property of some “beast” (Satan) who placed his mark of ownership upon us? Or, could it be that the “mark of the beast” is some sort of “mark” that identifies each of us as a “beast” or “animal” rather than a man made in God’s image?
If we consent to be identified as “animals,” is it possible that we have thereby taken the “mark of the beast”?
I’m not saying that drug laws that define us to be animals—and especially our consent to be so defined—necessarily constitute the “mark of the beast”. I’m simply exploring that hypothesis.
In fact, I can’t yet make a connection between “MOOA” and the “mark” that’s as solid as I’d like. But the two concepts have so much in common that if “MOOA” isn’t the “mark,” it seems certain to be a symptom of that mark.
Here are a few notes that explore the association between MOOA and the Mark:
Made in God’s Image
[The numbers in the following verses correspond to the Strong’s definitions of the particular words. The “H” before each number signals that the original word was written in Hebrew. If the text had been from the New Testament, the numbers would have a “G” prefix to signal that the original word was written in Greek. ]
• Gen 1:26 And GodH430 said, Let us make manH120 in our image,H6754 after our likeness:H1823 and let them have dominionH7287 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,H776 and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.H776
Gen 1:27 So GodH430 created manH120 in his own image,H6754 in the imageH6754 of GodH430 created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And GodH430 blessedH1288 them, and GodH430 said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,H776 and subdueH3533 it: and have dominionH7287 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thingH2416 that moveth upon the earth.H776
Genesis 1:26-28 clearly declares that on the 6th Day of Creation, God created mankind—both men and women—in His image and gave mankind “dominion” (authority, jurisdiction and/or sovereignty) over the earth, over the animals that move upon the earth, and over the birds and fish (created on the 5th day).
But note that the word “earth” (H776) has been defined in part by Strong’s to mean “to be firm” and/or “land”. Thus, technically, the “earth” in Genesis 1:26-28 does not appear to include the entire planet since man’s “dominion” does not expressly include the “air” or the “sea”.
Alternatively, even if the word “earth” really does mean the entire planet and not just the land, man’s God-given “dominion” (authority, jurisdiction and/or sovereignty) still extends only onto the land and the creatures of the sea and air—but not into the air or the sea, themselves. Yes, we have God-given “dominion” over the birds and the fish, but we may not be entitled to God-given “dominion” over the “air” or the “sea”.
If mankind does not have “dominion” over the air or the sea, who/what does?
What might we infer about maritime and/or admiralty laws which are intended to apply to the sea or even the air? Could it be that admiralty/maritime laws might not be “godly”? Could it be that laws might not apply to a man made in God’s image who was living, working and acting exclusively on the “land”?
Satan, the “Beast”
Popular culture sometimes describes Satan as having horns, hooves and a tail—all attributes of animals that are unknown to mankind.
So far as I know, there’s no place in the Bible that also describes Satan as having horns, hooves and a tail, but the Bible does describe Satan as a “serpent” or “dragon”.
Satan may not be “made in God’s image” (as are mankind; Genesis 1:26-28), but may be made in an image that is at least partially that of an animal or “beast”.
Insofar as the “mark of the beast” is some sort of mark that’s associated with Satan, it’s apparent that we might also refer to that “mark” as the “mark of the animal”.
Father of Lies
The Bible declares that Satan is the “father of lies”. Legal fictions are lies. Corporations are lies. Trusts are lies. The notion that men made in God’s image are animals is also a lie–and even an act of genocide.
I doubt that Satan cares if we die. It appears to me that Satan objective is to “steal souls”. His intent is to tempt and deceive us into committing acts that violate God’s law and thereby expose ourselves to damnation.
In the Ten Commandments, God did not command, “Thou shalt not die,” He commanded, “Thou shalt not murder”. It’s not a sin to die. It is a sin to murder a man made in God’s image. No one goes to Hell for dying. Some go to Hell for murdering.
Therefore, it seems that Satan gains nothing by merely causing us to die. Suppose Satan could release a plague that would kill most of mankind. What good would it do him? We’d be dead to this life, but well on our way to the next. By killing us, Satan might even come close to making martyrs out of us and thereby enhance our chances for salvation.
Fear is inversely proportional to faith. Insofar as we feel or succumb to fear, we confess our lack of faith. Therefore, Satan might use the threat of plague or the threat of war, etc., to strike fear in our hearts. It’s more important to Satan that we are fearful than that we should die.
Thus, it seems more likely that Satan’s goal is not to cause us to die, but rather to cause us to fear and even to kill each other. By killing someone made in God’s image, we might waive our “right” to salvation and thereby forfeit our souls to Satan. The victim may die in this life (which is almost inconsequential in the context of eternity), but live in the next life. The killer, however, may live in this life, but “die” in the next.
Satan isn’t after the souls of victims. He’s after the souls of the killers.
Therefore, if Satan could create circumstances (including wars, or laws that define the people to be animals) that increase the probability that some of us will murder others, Satan might thereby increase his harvest of damned souls.
Sorcery
• Speaking of “End Times” and the fall of “Babylon,” Revelation 18:23 declares,
“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”
Thus, “sorcery” need not result from supernatural powers, but can include the mere sophistries of words or images that “deceive” the people. I.e., a very effective speaker, writer or artist might be described as a “sorcerer” insofar as his talent was intended to deceive.
In Revelation 18:23, the Greek word “sorceries” was defined by Strong to be:
G5331
φαρμακεία
pharmakeia
far-mak-i’-ah
From G5332; medication (“pharmacy”), that is, (by extension) magic (literal or figurative): – sorcery, witchcraft.
The “Blue Letter Bible” defines the word “Sorceries” as:
pharmakeia
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
We can see that “sorcery”/deception was closely associated with “medication” which implicates modern “drugs”.
Modern drug laws (see Tex. Health & Safety Code §§431.002(14) and 21 USC §321(g)(1)) that define the term “drug” with the phrase “man or other animals” are devices to create the lie but legal presumption that the people are animals. Those laws are intended to deceive the people into accepting their status as animals and surrendering their status to make claims on the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”. As such, those “MOOA” laws seem consistent with “sorcery”.
Many readers might reject the argument that modern drug laws constitute acts of “sorcery” as silly. But bear in mind that by means of our drug laws, our government has changed individual men into “animals” (at least in the eyes of the law). If I could change you into a toad, I guarantee that the world would agree that I was a “sorcerer” of the supernatural variety.
Using drug laws to change the status of a man from that of being made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights to that of a mere “animal” may not be evidence of supernatural sorcery. Merely drafting definitions in law that presume a man to be a toad is a lot less impressive than turning him into an actual toad.
Even so, the secular “sorcery” of legally defining men to be animals is clearly based on deceit, treachery, treason and is evidence of spiritual warfare.
More, if I were a supernatural sorcerer, I might turn one or two men into animals, but the secular “sorcerers” in Congress have turned over 300 million men, women and children into “animals” and virtually no one has noticed or complained. Which is more impressive? My ability to, “presto-changeo!,” turn one man into a toad, or the government’s ability to turn 300 million into animals?
It’s not hard to imagine that Satan might be behind the seemingly “magical” conversion of 300 million men and women into animals.
Love Thy Neighbor?
We’re told in the New Testament to “love they neighbor as thyself”. If I have just declared you to be an animal, have I thereby denied my “love” for you? If I’m a congressman and I vote in favor of some “man or other animals” drug law, have I just degraded the people to the status of “animals” and thereby denied my “love” for all of my “neighbors”?
Insofar as I am to “love my neighbor as myself,” is it possible that by declaring you to be an animal, I effectively admit that I’m an animal? In truth, neither I nor Congress can cause another man made in God’s image to actually become an “animal”. But, by trying to do so, by trying to degrade some other man to the status of animal, would I or Congress thereby reduce ourselves—in the eyes of God—to the status of an animal? I can’t truly reduce you to the status of an animal, but if I try, does that “mark” me as an animal?
If that were true, then it might be arguable that the act of passing laws that deem the people to be “animals” ultimately condemns the legislators to be animals in God’s eyes. If, by declaring others to be “animals,” we mark ourselves as animals, it might follow that the “mark of the beast” might be the inclination to degrade others to the status of animals.
Esau and Jacob
Insofar as we “choose” to abandon our God-given, unalienable Rights, we may emulate the example of Esau who traded his birthright from God to his brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage.
Later in the Old Testament, God twice declares that “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” So far as I know, the Bible doesn’t specify why God hated Esau. But I believe the reason for God’s hatred is that Esau “turned his back” on the birthright he received from God. Esau despised the birthright (blessings) from God and treated it with contempt. In despising God’s blessing, Esau unwittingly despised our Father YHWH ha Elohiym—who is described as a “jealous God”. I suspect our Father YHWH ha Elohiym won’t put up with contempt from anyone, so He therefore “hated” Esau.
But I’m not telling you what our Father thinks–because I don’t know. I’m only telling you my interpretation of the facts I’m seen relevant to Esau’s troubles. IF my interpretation of Esau’s problems is correct, then it may also follow that a people who were made in God’s image, but subsequently consented to abandon that status to be treated as “animals” may also have thereby expressed their contempt for God. If so, it may follow that God will become furious with such people.
Esau was not a bad guy. He was just a dummy who was hungry and willing to trade his birthright (which he didn’t understand, respect or immediately need) for a lousy bowl of pottage. The Bible does not imply that Esau intended to insult God by selling his God-given birthright. Esau’s expression of contempt for God was unwitting. Nevertheless, Esau paid a terrible price for his ignorance.
Similarly, 99.99% of the American people have no idea that their government has defined them to be “animals” (and thus, no longer “men made in God’s image”). Still, in their ignorance, that 99.99% have unwittingly consented to waive the blessing given them by God just as Esau unwittingly waived the birthright given him by God. Could the people who’ve unwittingly consented to be treated as animals rather than “men made in God’s image” be held as accountable as Esau?
I don’t know.
But if you’re willing to be treated as an animal by your government, then perhaps you should also be willing to endure God’s wrath.
• As I wrote at the top of this article, I cannot yet forge a compelling equivalence between the “Mark of the Beast” and our “man or other animals” drug laws. But I believe that there is a commonality there that’s intuitively apparent and evidence of the very same sort of spiritual warfare we can expect to see in End Times.
Again, I wonder if, when we talk about the “mark of the beast,” does such “mark” indicate that we are property of some “beast” (Satan) who placed his mark of ownership upon us? Or, could it be that the “mark of the beast” is some sort of “mark” that identifies each of us as a “beast” or “animal” rather than a man made in God’s image?
If we consent to be identified as “animals,” is it possible that we have thereby taken the “mark of the beast“?
• I’ll have more on the link between the Mark of the Beast and the “MOOA” drug laws in the future. For now, I’m wondering if any of you can provide insight or evidence that supports or refutes the existence of that link.
Frank's Blog
September 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM
In that case, could the Social Insurance Number even be the mark of the beast? Cheers, F
Peter
October 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM
I’m going to speculate that the number of the beast which is 600, 60, and 6 is representative of a type of decimation effect upon the citizens of all the westernized nations (or what used to be sovereign nations)
At the establishment of the USA (the 8th head) with its Constitution there was a type of granted Right through the Constitution represented by” 600,” after the 70 bankruptcy cycle which occured around the time of the Civil War, there was a further decimation of the peoples rights and/or status that was ushered in under the War Powers Act represented by” 60″ …this could also be defined as “Capitis diminutio media”……this is leading up to the next bankruptcy cycle ending around the time of the Great Depression and the ushering in of the New Deal and “Public Policy” and the next round of decimation of rights corresponding to your name in all caps representing ‘Capitis diminutio Maximus” and the final “6″ in this demonic trinity. So now your name in all caps as printed on the SSN card has reduced you (from their perspective) from a man/woman made in God’s image to what equates to chattel/cattle in their system of commerce. I say commerce because the scripture reads that “no man could buy or sell” which I take to be referring to commerce. It’s a jagged pill to swallow but if you work in the system you most likely use their number to do so. In other words, you became leinable. You transferred into their system. The trustee holds your deed which you or mom delivered to them and they gave you a receipt, that receipt is your birth certificate. You were hypothecated into their Babylonian commerce jurisdiction subject to their statutes and codes which consequently apply to man and other animals.
Remember, this is only my speculation.
Peter
October 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM
I meant to say (70 year bankruptcy cycle)
greg
January 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM
http://youtu.be/-gwUpmFm4DI See that box at 2:38 , that’s the same box we check mark when they ask if we are U.S CITIZENS this is a snare on God’s people, its a trap see Rev 18:4 it gives the Beast authority over all who acquiesce into this system (nimrod’s way), we are to be on the narrow way.
Chris
September 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Frank’s Blog beat me to the conclusion the SSN is the mark. If there was a cashless society then you won’t be able to buy or sell without one. Look at all the things that toss up roadblocks without an SSN. I never use the SSN as ID and it’s amazing how fast companies that ask for it find another way to ID me when I refuse to use it. It would be somewhat difficult to establish yourself somewhere if you had to move without one.
Don
September 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Hi Chris,
If we cannot buy anything, we cannot sell anything. Spiritually speaking, as per the “mark of the beast,” the forehead is the seat of the intellect/mind/brain & the right hand is the symbol of work/labor. There will be no physical branding of/in the forehead like people do to cattle with a branding iron,it will be a “mental branding.” We know that sometimes when we are asked questions we have to “think” for a second or so before the answer “comes to us” if at all.So,e.g. when someone is asked “what is your SSN” & most people in this country do have the “number,” the response is given from “memory.” I have applied for MANY jobs,& in each & EVERY instance, excepting ONE, I had to provide a SS number, & since I am not a “card carrying “SOCIALIST” No One would hire me. The SSN IS at least the forerunner if not the NUMBER itself of the “MARK.” If something else is in store ahead, it will probably be some kind of ADDITIONAL “national ID” we must have in order to buy or sell. But, The Supreme Judge of the Universe WILL divinely supply the needs of those who will not have anything to do with the “NUMBER.” Sadly this is just to much for most people to believe/grasp,etc. so they will accept the finalized number/mark so they can buy & sell SHALOM
Yartap
September 12, 2012 at 8:08 AM
I believe that the Social Security Number is the “gateway” to the Mark of the Beast. I believe that the Mark of the Beast is the Debt / Usury Money system (the Beast).
It is said that our Birth Certificates are pleaded as surety (the mark) for the U.S.’s bankruptcy. All Federal Reserve Notes are issued against our assets at interest (usury) to create our money for commerce. Thus, the bankster’s (the beast’s agents) claim (mark) against all property.
Mark
September 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM
The interesting thing about the birth certificate is that it YOU never signed it. It is not a contract between the state and you; unless, you use the corporate name that it created. So simply having a birth certificate is not bad, until you use the first and last name and identify with it.
Michael Darren
September 13, 2012 at 6:07 AM
http://real-world-news.org/numerics/english-gematria.html#find
Go to the calculator and type SSNUMBER, yes it equals 666 The mark is much bigger than just the SSN. Now type MAN OR ANIMAL, yes it equals 666. its bigger yet.
We have been brainwashed totally.
Have a look at the other results.
Thank you Al for helping me see to unseal the book further. Daniel 12:1
MIchael Darren
ok type “Michael Darren” yes its equals 666 as well.
Don
September 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Hi Michael
So does “Vicar of Christ” Add this up.
mvg-avg
September 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Here we go , I was asked to submit a statement in regards to a certain incident that took place at my place of livelihood here lately.Well knowing what I have been taught on MOOA, thanks Al.I could not refrain from using the opportunity to refute any presumption that I was presumed to be an animal by the entity.I identified myself as a “Living Man” made in the image of YHWH as per Gensis 1 26-28 ,I expessly denied that I was an aminal as it is written in U.S.C. 21 SEC 321 (g)(1),F.S. 400.003 SEC.16(b)(c),19(b)(c).Other topics were covered in order to let the entity know who I was in relation to them and the venue in which claim to exist in as a Living Man.The entity operates in “this state”. Maybe the person(s) at H.Q. will be confused with my language and definitions or maybe they will say this “Man” has a valid point,and we’ve never seen anything like this before..it will more than likely be interesting to see the responce ,if any . Oh by the way,it is a daily practice to thank YHWH seven times a day for his righteous precepts , Thank you, YHWH .The law of YHWH is sound foundational structure in order to go foward inunderstanding the Law in the land today ,a hitching post if you will.Al, you have helped alot of us out here who take baby steps and try to grow in understanding in a convoluted Babylonion system of lies and decepion .The good Lord has put teachers before us in the land and it is up to us to try to learn from them.On that note, YHWH keep you and bless you and may He continue to enlighten you so you can continue to teach the People .at arm’s length .over and out
Don
September 15, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Hi mvg-avg
Per your message beginning “Here we go,”
After 4 years of WAR with the powers that be,in a nutshell this is what I “accomplished.” I was told by an “Insider”: “They” know you are right, they see now that they are not going to break your spirit but here is something you don’t know.I you stay here ANY LONGER you are next & soon to be DEAD RIGHT.” I cannot do anything if I am dead, can I? Am I still making a stand? YOU BET!! In a different venue.
tim
September 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Alfred,
Does this law or description MOOA apply to all Americans? How many laws use this description for man. I hear you mention it only in drug laws.
Adask
September 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM
I’ve seen the “man or other animals” phrase in the definitions of “drugs” and in the definitions of “medical devices”. If similar language is found in other parts of the law, we have not yet seen it. But “drugs” and “medical devices” involve all drug laws, the war on drugs, 50% to 70% of everyone in prison, the profits taken by major pharmaceutical firms, and all of American medicine including ObamaCare. You might not find “MOOA” everywhere, but it covers a lot of legal ground.
liberty tree
September 13, 2012 at 12:59 AM
In Arizona a person is defined as a human being.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Hi liberty tree,
Do you consider yourself a “human being?” Is there a way you could post that Arizona Statue? e.g.cut and paste it ?
tim
September 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Thanks for the reply.
Lando
September 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM
I read recently on your blog that similar laws had been found in New Zealand and went looking for them. I could not find a definition that included man as an animal. I would be interested to hear from someone in New Zealand that has found that definition. Cheers.
Adask
September 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM
I don’t recall clearly if I’d heard from someone in New Zealand or Australia–but he claimed that the definition of drugs “down under” also presumed the people to be animals.
Seditious Blasphemer
September 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM
I found you and your writings from your interview with Alex Jones and am thoroughly impressed which is a compliment I don’t recall giving to anybody… ever.
So rarely does my mind get totally blown, but good Sir, you’ve thoroughly blown this Man’s mind.
Thank you, God speed and God bless you, your loved ones, and your life’s mission.
You are, quite literally, The Man.
Adask
September 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM
I appreciate the compliments, but if you’re just buttering me up to borrow some money, it probably won’t work.
Thanks.
Seditious Blasphemer
September 13, 2012 at 12:14 AM
I appreciate your humor, but assure you that my sincerity is absolute.
I’ve been a prisonplanet.tv member for many years, and watching you there on hies site solidified my perception that there is indeed a spiritual war going on here on planet Earth.
You had said that you wished you had realized this when you were in your twenties or thirties, of which I currently am and I genuinely took that to heart.
My compliments, towards you Sir, are genuine and without any shadow of greed or monetary gain.
All I would ask is that you appear as a guest on Alex Jones as soon as you are able.
Thank you.
Adask
September 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Thanks for the compliments. Thanks for listening. I’ll be on AJ’s program whenever he asks me, but it’s his call, not mine.
brady
September 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Yeah, Sed.Blast., some of us have known him for many years (me, almost 18 or so) and we think he rocks. Glad you found him, because his analysis on issues is usually very methodical and razor sharp.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 10:35 AM
To: Seditious Blasphemer
He duh main mane!!
Huey Campbell
September 11, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Alfred,
We must consider biblical definitions here.
The bible defines a beast as a political/religious power Look this verse up in the book of Daniel: These great beasts, which are four, are four kingdoms that shall arise out of the earth i.e Babylon, Mead-o Persia, Greece and then Rome. Pagan Rome became Papal Rome, which received the deadly wound when Napoleon’s General Berthier took the Pope prisoner and he died in exile. The deadly wound was later healed.
Papal Rome is/was the beast.
The mark of Papal Rome is the authority (they claim) to transfer the solemnity of the seventh day to the first day. They claim this as a mark of their ecclesiastical authority.
We (America) will form the image to the beast when we define which god is God. We have “In God We Trust “ on our money. We must identify which god it is…. Is it the god of the first day -OR- the God of the seventh day?
Those who go with the first day have received the “mark of the beast”. Those who insist the seventh day is the Sabbath and identify with the creator God are identified as enemies of the state and will suffer economic boycott… i.e. they will not be allowed to –buy or sell.
The bible identifies Satan as the Prince of the power of the Air.
NDT
September 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM
The Bible does not identify Satan. Satan simply means adversary, and the identity of that adversary depends on context.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Who was the archangel,Lucifer ?? Have any info on Lucifer??
Re:Satan simply means adversary. You are 100% correct.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM
To:Huey Campbell
Re: Your message of/on September 11, 2012 at 8:06 PM
ACCURATE & EXCELLENT !!! (Caps are for emphasis)
greg
September 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM
too big to fail= higher living entity “Their god” http://youtu.be/5Wh1LPspF6c
Anon4fun
September 11, 2012 at 8:26 PM
I would say MOOA is analogous to the mark of the Beast. They have similar functions, and probably similar intents, in different historical periods. I would not go so far as to say they are literally the same however, since my study of scripture leads me to conclude that the Beast was the Roman emperor Nero who lived in the first century AD.
The Hebrew spelling of “Nero Caesar” was NRWN QSR (using English equivalents). N = 50, R = 200, W = 6, N =50, Q = 100, S = 60, R = 200. The sum of the numbers is 666. John used this Hebrew-based code to get his message past his Roman captors on Patmos.
Revelation 17:9-10 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived at the time, tells us five emperors preceded Nero, making him the sixth. The “not yet come” emperor who followed Nero, i.e. Galba, reigned only “a short space” of about six months.
Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
The Neronic persecution of Christians began in 64 AD and lasted until Nero’s death in June 68 AD, making a 42-month interval.
Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Nero was well known to kill with a sword, and he himself was killed with a sword.
Exactly what the “mark” of this Beast was is not specified. It could have been an Imperial insignia or the like.
bandit
September 12, 2012 at 6:13 AM
the ‘right hand’ symbolizes God’s authority over His creation, and man’s authority over himself (free will) to contract or not contract with others around him, also in whom he will place his faith and trust.
The Mark of the Beast is Satan’s way of shifting the only parameter that matters – Faith – from God to man to attain those ends.
bandit
September 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM
safety, security, and subsistence.
(please add to the end of my previous post here.)
Don
September 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Hey bandit,
You say: “the ‘right hand’ symbolizes God’s authority over His creation….
This is the spiritual aspect. The physical aspect of the right hand is work/labor.
Michael
September 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM
The mark of the beast 666 is a symbol that identifies humans that knowingly or not worship Satan. Revelation 14:1 identifies another symbolic mark written on the foreheads
of obedient human worshipers of the Almighty One. Please keep in mind that all marks as indicated in Holy Writ are symbolic only. Just as in Ezekiel chapter 9 the symbolic mark was written on the forehead in order identify a humans spiritual standing before the Almighty One. The spirit creatures (i.e. angels, messengers of God) don’t need to see a physical mark on the foreheads of humans in order to determine which are deserving of life or death. Please remember that the Almighty One is in continuous contact with all His creation (nothing escapes His notice).
greg
September 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Are you a ‘person’, an ‘individual’, or a ‘human being’? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually ‘dead.’ This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, ‘person’, ‘individual’, ‘human being’, etc., are not in Christ. Words like “individual,” and “human being” do not even appear in scripture! These are ‘created’ terms by the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). These words describe the ‘old man’, but not the ‘new man’ in Christ (Colossians 3:9-10).
In Balantine’s Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as “See Monster.” On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as “a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.”
In Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as “a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others.”
From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a “Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate,” and on page 1461, Unregenerate means “not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute.”
In Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as “the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.”
In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as “a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ’s divinity; a perfectionist.”
And in the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as “any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God.”
Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a ‘human being’, or a ‘humanitarian,’ they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), “I’m an animal; I’m a monster; I’m not saved; I’m unrepentant; I’m an unregenerate sinner; I’m not converted; I’m wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I’m cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ’s divinity and the importance of a belief in God.” Dear reader, do you still consider yourself a human being?
The Septuagint uses the term “human beings” only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let’s look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, “human beings.”
Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint), “and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand…?”
The “human beings” of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
The term “human being” is also synonymous with the term ‘natural man.’
“The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor.” Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584.
And the Word confirms:
1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws.
“Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person.” Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
“Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate.” Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716.” Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.
Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he’s dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary’s dominion over him–sin (John 8:34). This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/words.html
NDT
September 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM
One of the characteristics of Ballentine’s monster is that it has no inheritable blood. This characteristic was a consequence of outlawry arising from treason or felony (attainder) as a capital crime.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Shalom, Greg
Excellent,articulate article/message,etc.
I am not a human being, but I do have human nature I am struggling with & hope to overcome to have at least some degree of “character.”
greg
September 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Thank you friend , i took that article from the link I provided in the comment its an enlightening site i shouldn’t take credit for it but you should check it out .
Don
September 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Greg, WOW! what a fast response. It looks we are both on “Mountain time” You’re my neighbor.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Greg,
re:”at law.” I don’t like or use that term. I use “in law.” There was a song called Mother IN law. It was a hit. I guess if it came out today for the first time, it would be called Mother IN legal.
Anon4fun
September 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Care is necessary here to avoid over-generalizing and thus falling into error. While it’s true that some uses of “person” indicate a non-living entity, a “person” as such is not necessarily non-living and is completely capable of being a man made in God’s image. For example:
Person – A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. (Black’s Law Dictionary up to the 4th edition, 1951)
Therefore, I don’t think one has signed up with Satan or whatnot by taking on the rights and/or duties of a certain “person” or, in other words, legal capacity.
greg
September 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM
“If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!” In other words, if someone looks like they are of “the world,” and acts like they are of “the world,” and speaks the words of “the world,” then he is of “the world!” (Remember, all are in the world, but we are not to be of the world). ‘Lawful’ has to do with the substance of Law. ‘Legal’ has to do with the shadow (or form) of Law. Similar to how ‘character’ is distinguished from ‘reputation’ (‘Character’ representing what is lawful, ‘reputation’ representing what is legal).
Don
September 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Greg,
You say:
“If it looks like a duck,acts like a duck,and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!” C’moan Greg !!! Get Real!! It’s NOT a DUCK. It’s a Penguin & U NO IT. LOL
Anon4fun
September 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM
greg: >>‘Lawful’ has to do with the substance of Law. ‘Legal’ has to do with the shadow (or form) of Law.<<
Can you cite a source for this?
legal – Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law; of or pertaining to the law; lawful. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition)
Until someone puts up something of substance to the contrary, I see no problem in using this definition.
NDT
September 14, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Lawful. The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. (Black’s 5th)
Don
September 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Anon4fun,
If we start with lawful/unlawful,what is the reason or why is it necessary to have legal/illegal? What does lawful mean? what does legal mean? I need to know “your take” on this before anymore is said, except I will say there is no lawful way to murder someone. BUT, there is a legal way to murder someone.
Adask
September 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM
My understanding is that “lawful” goes to the substance of the law, while “legal” merely goes to the form. For example, if you filled out a 1040, the resulting “form” would be “legal,” but that form would not prove that you were “lawfully” required to file the 1040 under the “substance” of the law. If I were a traffic cop and pulled you over for some alleged offense, every step in the procedure I used to stop and ticket you might be “legal” in form, even though I had no substantive right/authority to stop you. In a sense, “legal” offers the “appearance” of lawful. But legal merely means that the form or procedure is legally correct; it does not mean that the one subjected to the form or procedure is “lawfully” and substantially required to do so. “Legal” presumes that someone is subject to a particular form or procedure. “Lawful” does not presume, but instead tests whether a particular man or woman is “substantially” subject to the forms which are otherwise “legal”.
Don
September 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Anon4fun
In following up on my prior comment of “lawful/legal,” & your post of:
legal – Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law; of or pertaining to the law; lawful. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition)
IF,now keep in mind, I said IF,IF the words above were written as follows it would be easier to understand at least part of what has happened & why we are in the mess we are in,e.g.
legal – Conforming to the statutory law; according to statutory law; required or permitted by statutory law; not forbidden or discountenanced by statutory law; good and effectual in statutory law;of or pertaining to the statutory law IS LEGAL. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition)
deb
October 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Don, you’re a hoot :-)
greg
September 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Scripturally, a name represents one’s character. This is why God changed the names of his servants (Genesis 17:5,15; 32:28; 35:10, 2 Samuel 12:25, Acts 13:9), and told parents what to name their unborn child (Genesis 16:11; 17:19, 1 Chronicles 22:9, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 1:4,6,9, Matthew 1:21,24, Luke 1:13,31), and why men have chosen one name over another for their child (Judges 6:32, Genesis 35:18, Luke 1:59-60), and why name’s of cities have been changed (Genesis 28:19): to reflect their new character!
The giving of names is an act of dominion; which, therefore, parents do to their children. This is why Almighty God promises to give His children new names (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17;3:12). According to the custom of slaves, masters impose new names upon their slaves, as a sign of servitude. This change of names is a mark of their dominion and authority over them. According to the custom of conquerors, they changed the names of the great men they took captives in war, in token of their supremacy.
If somebody (i.e., kings, governments, masters, etc.) wants to acquire jurisdiction over you, the first thing they must do is re-name you; to mark you as their property. That’s the first thing that king Nebuchadnezzar did with Daniel and the three young men he brought into his kingdom. He re-named them, so that he would be able to have, or acquire, jurisdiction over them (Daniel 1:7). But all he had was jurisdiction over the name that he created. Had the young men not answered to that name, then there would be no substance behind the form that he created. Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it’s a dead thing.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Greg
You are smarter than the average bear & I say this truthfully & hopefully with a touch of humor. Has any of your knowledge made a difference/helped in any so called court proceedings,etc ?
Don
October 31, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Hi greg,
@Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it’s a dead thing.
Thank You for your excellent “input.” In my never ending & forever learning life, I don’t know what could possibly happen next that would be a new experience,re: “Corporate Socialism Guhmunt.
I am not trying to be or get cute in what I am about to say & ask of you. You say: “only when you “answer” to a name…..” I would like to pick your brain somewhat, about the word, “answer” as I have tried everything from abalone fishing to zoo management,OR remain silent when asked ANYTHING from the “gitgo”, with the same results,e.g. 3 hots & a cot for 30 days +.” ANYTHING we say is an answer,e.g.: The Black Robed Bandit asks “Are you Greg Wilson? I,or,you,answer: NO. OR, we just don’t answer at all. Now, when it’s “Anything” you say CAN and WILL BE used against “YOU/ME,” my experience has been no matter what our “name” is, in “his/her” (<guhmunt) mind, You or I ARE under & subject to "ITS" dictatorship. I think they only ask what your/my name is,because they are so indoctrinated with asking that question they just do it out of a branded mental habit of doing so. I could give many examples (actual happenings) of why I say this.I understand that the SSN IS their way of KNOWING WHO "we" (<) are, but I also know that "they" are convinced that You & I HAVE one & YOU & I will be found in contempt of court if we don't "furnish" it. 3 hots & a cot for 30 more days. BECAUSE, EVERYBODY has a SSN in their mind. When the "probable cause" for arrest,NOW is, "Probably cause" I want to & we are escorted to the slammer & charged with criminal trespass for being in the slammer, I mean come on give me a break. Then when you are "released" & they have LOST your clothing, just as soon as your foot touches the ground outside, you are arrested again & charged with "indecent exposure" I say PLEASE, give me a break. I think I am safe in saying they only go to this extreme to "those who refuse to "quit rocking the boat." I think now, however, I know a way to stop this OPPRESSION, but I am waiting to see if it will work for sure. IF it does, I will share it with you but only via E mail,or telephone.
aannagolinska
September 12, 2012 at 8:06 PM
The following are the current New Jersey Drug Law Definitions. 2C:35-2. Definitions.
“”Drugs” means (a) substances recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (b) substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (c) substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (d) substances intended for use as a component of any article specified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section; but does not include devices or their components, parts or accessories.”
I think this assumption came straight from Darwin and it was adopted by behavioral psychology (Pavlov etc) and the results are that man is treated like a dog “and other animals”.
From Wikipedia: The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals is a book by Charles Darwin, published in 1872, concerning genetically determined aspects of behavior. It was published thirteen years after On The Origin of Species and is, alongside his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin’s main consideration of human origins. In this book, Darwin seeks to trace the animal origins of human characteristics, such as the pursing of the lips in concentration, and the tightening of the muscles around the eyes in anger and efforts of memory. Most unusually, Darwin sought out the opinions of some eminent psychiatrists in the preparation of the book and it is generally regarded as Darwin’s main contribution to psychology.
There are many authors using the fraise “man and other animals”, when comparing physiology and behavior of human and animals.
The reason you are not allowing yourself to be indifferent about that is because this is fundamental problem humanity is facing today: to be able to reject materialistic aka animalistic image of itself.
I think from all the people I read Carl Jung penetrated that subject best.
The seat of evil is our material mind that is posing to be creative but in reality can only exist within the limits of its own physiology and mythology.
I think frontier physics passed already the Rubicon of materialistic view; however progress in philosophy, physics and math for some reason has no influence on law and medicine.
The only reason I can think about would be militarization of law and medicine.
Without doubt law and medicine are a “marking systems”. Both are producing records, behavioral changes, total dependence and both are killing. Current legal system has nothing to do with justice and medical system noting to do with healing.
Drugs, legal or illicit have the same effect on brain which is destroying holographic ability of nervous system that is absolutely necessary to be able to “access” the truth therefore drugs and so called “law” are kind of prisons that hold man as hostage in the animal like state (Beast).
We are allowing evil force to treat us as “man or other animals” by consenting to lies, sin and sickness.
Jesus did not use pervasion or drugs to heal; instead he spoke truth in bold, assertive manner and pure heart.
Truthful statements heal!
Jesus healed this way man and woman but not animals or nature.
pop_de_adam
September 12, 2012 at 10:41 PM
You may think the license is yours, the social security number yours, they are not, they identify an account you don’t have. Why do you even claim any connection? Even if you attempt to distance yourself, the fiction persists. If this were any normal person you might have a charge of harassment, as it is now everyone has normalized the interference of legal fictions.
If you have the right of believing either catholicism or budhism or the right to believe in niether, I have a right to reject whatever you believe in. This espeicially includes “fair share”. You believe in government control, I don’t. You can despise catholics, baptists, jews or muslims for this but the fact remains that these people choose this control by government. It really does’nt impart any authority. Other than the mob mentality
aannagolinska
September 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM
“Mob mentality”, no doubt!
Mass hysteria, would be also good term.
Somehow this ill perception was agreed upon and led to mass consensus.
How do you escape consensus? When most of US consent; some by perpetual intoxication and some by perpetual need to be ordered? You maybe a Master Bridge Builder but to build your bridge you need workers “sober” from consensus. Even, assuming that you will manage to build the bridge to lead people out of consensus, how do you make us/them to cross without first denying MOOA consensus?
It looks like first I /man have to demolish my/ man’s own consensus. If we All are One then the difficulties are not in numbers but in perfection of method.
I can’t imagine any effective action to demolish consensus if I focus on damages/ person.
palani
October 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Wisconsin Statutes … 29.001 Definitions. (90) ”Wild animal” means any mammal, bird, fish, or other creature of a wild nature endowed with sensation and the power of voluntary motion.
29.011 Title to wild animals.
(1) The legal title to, and the custody and protection of, all wild animals within this state is vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use, disposition, and conservation of these wild animals.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/I/001
Don
October 30, 2012 at 3:40 AM
Hey Pop,
Believe it or not, I had a dream about you last night. My heart is heavy. I ask your forgiveness for any pain I have caused. It is really strange how the “time-ing” happens on this internet. “WEB” I don’t think it is coincindental that I get a message from you when I am bone tired, & trying to calm myself from being called a IDIOT by someone else,& take it out on you. I’m sorry. Gosh, I do want to hear from you. I miss you. You ARE close to me in my thoughts.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM
To aannagolinska
Re: man or other animals. It is the word OTHER that makes man also an animal. If it said “man OR animals there is a distinction.
chizeled
September 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM
New Zealand Grants River the Rights of Personhood:
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/river-new-zealand-granted-legal-rights-person.html
Don
September 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM
To: chizeled
Personhood as a “company” but I will not be satisfied until the river has the right to petition its creator for a redress of grievance if that need should ever be necessary. I believe in RIVER RIGHTS. I will stand up for river rights until I die, then after I die I will come back & haunt others to stand up for river rights. We need to make “RIVER RIGHTS” our # 1 priority. I KNOW you agree & maybe together we can WAKE UP the people who have closed their eyes on RIVER RIGHTS.
Don
September 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM
To:chizeled
With much remorse,I am going to have to put “River Rights” on the back burner for the time being even tho it makes me want to pull my hair out & I literally HATE to do it but an acquaintance just brought up something much more serious & I know this is hard to swallow because of the seriousness of “River Rights.” He has proven to me that “mosquito abatement” should be my # one priority but it would be tedious to explain how & why “River Rights” should be secondary to the more serious/surs problem of MOSQUITO ABATEMENT. I know you are disappointed but the good news is, I will not give up on “River Rights.” BUT,If we do not get this “mosquito abatement” crisis taken care of first, there will be no “RIVER RIGHTS” to fight for. Please be patient with me & I thank you for your time & patience.
Anon4fun
September 13, 2012 at 12:18 PM
aannagolinska: >>Current legal system has nothing to do with justice and medical system noting to do with healing.<<
Both systems depend on unearned trust in man. Like saying "your honor" to someone you don't even know. The equivalent applies to the "god" in a white, rather than black, vestment. These black and white magicians practice both good and evil. They sustain or destroy what God has made, depending on the situational requirements of their main objective: to serve the private money power that has exercised well-documented control over both systems in America since the early 20th century.
Saddest of all, most Christians in this country have a similar misplaced trust in their 501(c)(3) churches, also heavily influenced by the money power. These churches teach various agenda-serving, yet scripturally inexplicable, versions of Christianity to parishioners who apparently don't care enough to actually read their Bibles. For example, Prohibition was sold in this country as called for by Christian principles. Never mind that Jesus himself was a wine drinker and moreover promised his disciples there would be wine in heaven.
Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM
To:Anon4fun
Your message of September 13, 2012 at 12:18 PM
EXCELLENT Wow!! What more can I say? Yes it is not the thing that is wrong but it is the wrong use of the thing,e.g. “Do not become drunken with wine which IS in EXCESS.” this is another scripture.
mvg-avg
September 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM
It may be possible that in the days of Jesus Christ ,the Roman Civil Law closely resembled what we have in place in the land today.Could Christ have been up against the same thing we are up against today? Maybe He had a “this state” too?Could it be possible there was Jesus Christ of Nazareth and JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH ?Maybe the entity JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH was a violation of the 2nd commandment . Exodus 20:4 You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or “on earth ” beneath or in the waters under the earth.Christ may have had a problem with the fictional creation of the Living Man.I wonder if NAZARETH had a zip code ?Maybe Rome had in it’s municipal code MOOA or HOOA (humans). Christ may have been up against the same evil admiralty/maritime system as is evident in the land today or above the land more likely. “What was,will be again,what has been done,will be done again,and there is nothing new under the sun”! Ecclesiastes 1:9
Don
September 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Hello,mvg-avg
I’m surprised Christ was not arrested for walking on water without a license & for many other things he did without a license. Also, I KNOW the “Powers That Be” are not going to give him a license to travel,so his return will be a problem. LOL
sem
September 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Don:
WRONG ANSWER!
First of all, during those ‘times’, miracles were more common than paper.
The “Powers That Be” couldn’t stop Him as a baby; what-n-hell make you think they can stop Him as He Is now.
PeaceOut
Anon4fun
September 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM
mvg-avg: >>Could it be possible there was Jesus Christ of Nazareth and JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH ?<<
Everything the Romans wrote was in all-caps, since they did not have lower-case letters. However, you might be onto something where the English translations are concerned.
John 19:19-22 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Interesting how the word "title" is used here in reference to a name in all-caps.
sem
September 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM
Everything that was ‘made’ by GOD, was made ‘for’ GOD. And, nothing was ‘made’ that was not made by Him. And everything that was made was predicated by the Spirit (of GOD).
Much of the above dialogue touches upon this concept; however, (it seems) we are escaped by the reality … The Essence of Life Is Spirit; and we are all living in a Spiritual world. This fact dovetails the subject matter in such a way, as to make it clear that the physical man (Formed from the Dust of the earth), was made by GOD to be “A ‘Beast’ (of burden)” inasmuch that he would tend the Garden.
This is no small matter; as, Satan became jealous of said man, to the point of utter destruction.
Touching The Mark of the Beast, was it not Caine who first received said “Mark”?
I will refrain from going to deep; yet, be ye wise in this – that is said.
PeaceOut
PS When a Man utters the words “Spiritual Warfare”; the affect to those (who know) is like seven times (7X) greater than the same Man uttering the word “Revolution”!
PeaceOut
sem
September 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Above comment should have been HERE.
sem
September 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM
My comments are not being filed chronologically
Don
September 17, 2012 at 4:48 PM
sem/aka SEMIRAMIS
September 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM
My comments are not being filed chronologically
Most of them should not be filed at all.
greg
September 13, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Truth is, we are Spiritual Beings in a physical world, a small part of a larger reality (10 or 11 dimensions), some speculate we are the angels that fell with Lucifer and that this existence is our only chance at redemption, either way Adam was also in a fallen state and this really is a redemption process, so it would be up to the Individual only. The collective has no part in it, except to try to control its own desires…sound familiar.
sem
September 14, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Greg:
Your reference to “(10 or 11 dimensions)” goes to the reality of Six Degrees of Separation; I can dig that! However, it is absolutely essential that we bear in mind the fact that Jesus has already ‘Redeemed’ Man (via The Cross); an event that should never be discounted.
Indeed, the collective has no part and it is an ‘individual’ thing; yet, it is the ‘individuals’ Will and Choice as to how he may be CONTROLLED…and said Choice was made by each individual at a very early age upon birth.
PeaceOut
greg
September 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM
“Choice as to how he may be CONTROLLED…and said Choice was made by each individual at a very early age upon birth” Would you expand this statement at your convenience.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Greg,
Per your statement & question:“Choice as to how he may be CONTROLLED…and said Choice was made by each individual at a very early age upon birth” Would you expand this statement at your convenience.
If you have access to a birth certificate, in pertinent part & it “sticks out like a sore thumb” you will see: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. We were made commercial commodities by our loving GUH-MUNT
greg
September 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Don,
I should have been more specific, my true query was on “choice” “upon birth” I don’t recall choosing to be “incorporated” into their false religion. I thought he may have been referring to drinking from the cup of forgetfulness…
Don
September 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Hi greg,
Re:Adam was also in a fallen state
Adam BECAME in a fallen state AFTER he was created as a flesh & blood MAN.
There are spirit demons roaming the Earth. For the “speculators” who say we are the angels that fell with Lucifer,then who are the demons? Christ cast a demon out of a man, & another scripture says that some demons “entered” into swine(pigs/hogs). Who were they. To suppose Adam & Eve were fallen angels IS BS BS BS !!!!!!!!!
greg
September 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Don,
I do not have all the answers as i am searching for Truth in all things, apparently all the unredeemable souls destroyed during noahs flood would account for all demonic/paranormal activity see Gen6:4
Don
September 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM
To greg,
your comment in pertinent part on September 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM
You wrote in pertinent part: Don,I should have been more specific,
NO greg. The confusion is my fault. I know you were quoting what “sem” said.
I wrote what I did to you for additional information that you,not sem,might not have been aware of. Wow! it is maddening what the enemy has done with words. Unalienable to Inalienable,catch this one, Berth to,Birth.
Hey Captain what are we going to do with the “ship?” Captain says: We are going to “dock it.”
I think there is a “docket” term the courts use. And, we have the BERTH,excuse me BIRTH Certificate. I wish I had the strength to shake those sneaky snakes until their teeth rattled. Cruel, Ruthless,Barbarian reprobate SAVAGES !! and, those are some of their GOOD TRAITS !!
Jeff D.
September 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Al, spiritual warfare is an interesting topic.
GovCo is implying that God’s creation is flawed by trying to force us to get vaccinations. They believe that they have a better design than the immune system that we were given. Perhaps this is the “Merck of the Beast”.
Our very existence is said to be a cancer to the Earth. Our “carbon footprints” are supposedly the sins that we must repent and ask for forgiveness in the form of carbon credits…a modern day tithe.
The corporations that exploit us and the Earths resources are idolized and given dominion by law. They seem to have all of the power over GovCo’s decisions in this democracy where they are declared to be a “person” with rights. Money is speech, so does that mean ObamaCare violates the Fifth Amendment?
If Mary were pregnant with baby Jesus today, would she be pressured into having an abortion? Would CPS take custody due to the unfit environment a manger presents? Would he be another statistic and develop autism, ADHD or juvenile diabetes? If he defied the modern day money changers, would he be tasered by the police, sentenced to a for-profit jail by a corrupt judge or court, diagnosed with “oppositional defiant disorder” by a psychiatrist and forced medicated prescription drugs?
sem
September 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Jeff:
Spiritual Warfare is a very serious matter (especially if one can image it).
I acknowlegde the impact of your comment; yet, I (sem) will refrain from building on it, due to the satirical nature (however clever) of its’ construct.
PeaceOut
Don
September 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Re your uneducated comment of:”Spiritual Warfare is a very serious matter (especially if one can image it).”
Some of us don’t have to IMAGE it We are EXPERIENCING it. You call me an IDIOT & you used all caps to emphasize it. I will let other intelligent readers whose HEARTS are right with the ETERNAL YHWH see & understand what you are
KEEP IT UP
Don
September 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Hello Jeff D
Per the last Paragraph in/of your message;September 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM
The answer is YES to every question. However,for the most part only those who have experienced these sordid acts will agree. I also believe he would have been divinely delivered out of them(sordid acts) until something was figured out to do to him where all of his blood would be drained from his body & slowly let it drip to the ground, in the presence of many others as a warning of what’s in store for ANY who want to “rock the boat.” I don’t want to ROCK the damn thing. I WANT TO SINK IT. Sorry Greg
greg
September 14, 2012 at 4:31 AM
http://youtu.be/k78KAxrj7s8 Everything that has a beginning must have an end.
sem
September 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM
In Almighty GOD, there is NO Beginning and there is NO End!
That being the EXCEPTION…I agreee.
PeaceOut
Don
September 17, 2012 at 5:21 PM
To SEM
Satan tells the truth once in a while to gain confidence so it will be easy or easier to fall for his lies. It appears you are using the same approach.
greg
September 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Firstly, it has been assumed by many that Genesis 1:26-27 is speaking about Adam and Eve only (male and female), and that those who were “begat” through and after them were simply a “by-product” of the first man and woman. With a thorough and diligent study of Genesis in the Septuagint and several chapters elsewhere in His Word, it can be revealed to us that all men (male and female) were “made” inclusive on the sixth day of creation. Just like all grass and all trees were made on the third day, and all animals were made on the fifth and sixth days.
The Septuagint says, concerning the end of the sixth day, “And the heavens and earth were finished, and the whole order of them” [Let there be...(Genesis 1:3, 6, 14), Let the...(Genesis 1:9, 11, 20, 24), Let them...(Genesis 1:15), Let us...(Genesis 1:26)]. You see, God set everything in order in the first six days of creation.
But we do not find that God “formed” any living thing until Genesis 2:7, wherein the text reads that he “formed the man” (Adam) and “the man” became a living soul. Notice that Genesis 1:26 does not read “Let us make the man…” (singular, as it is used in Genesis 2:7 when God formed Adam), it reads “Let us make man…” (plural). http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/1-2.html
sem
September 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM
We all know what they say about “ASS-U-ME-TION (assumption).
Don
November 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM
sem
September 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM
@We all know what they say about “ASS-U-ME-TION (assumption).
How do you know when it’s obvious you never ASS-U-SOOM N E thing?
NDT
September 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Genesis is a chronological account, confusion may arise because the name of the man formed in the garden is the same as the Hebrew name of the male and female beings created in Chapter 1. Conflation of the two accounts implies incest and creates a problem in accounting for the iron implement mentioned in the book of Jasher. An iron implement is hardly the product of a single family living in isolation.
sem
September 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Pah-leeese NDT:
I suppose you also believe Darwin?
Angels are harmorphadite (male and female). The ‘chronology’ is clear. And the first ‘Mark of the Beast’ was performed on Caine. End line.
Adask
September 15, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Cain may have received the first “mark,” but if I understand correctly that “mark” was from God, not from Satan. That suggests that Cain’s “mark” was something other than the “mark of the beast”. I.e., the “Mark of Cain” is not necessarily the “Mark of the Beast”.
sem
September 14, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Greg:
I don’t know where this post will position itself;
yet, it is always convienient to respond to a reasonable question! As Al always says, “Questions, Questions, Questions.
In response to your question – greg
September 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM
“Choice as to how he may be CONTROLLED…and said Choice was made by each individual at a very early age upon birth” Would you expand this statement at your convenience.
…
Man has ‘Free Will’; Man can therefore ‘Choose’. By the Wisdom of Almighty GOD, Man cannot choose not to choose. There is only ONE (1) choice in all Mans’ existence…within that choice is two (2) options: Life or Death.
Upon ‘choosing’, all decisions (based on the choice) are the esssence (Spirit) of said Man.
In other words, Every Man has (Gets) ONE (1) choice (two options), as such, by the Wisdom of GOD; The Father shall not bear the Sins of the son, nor the son the Sins of the father.
Did not Almighty GOD have it inscribed (within Scriture) that He knew what would transpire betweeen Jacob and Essau “Before” they were born?
Did not Job ask Almighty GOD, “Where do souls go?”.
PeaceOut=Graceful Exit
PS seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be answered, knock and the door shall be opened.
Don
September 16, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Sem,
Re:Angels are harmorphadite & “These female angels.” This is new to me. Please give me just one scripture to read about them,the females,that is.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Don:
I do indeed have reference material concerning ‘(a female Spirit [as indentified by Solomon])’; yet, your question is out of order. Harmorprodite defines ‘an’ organism with male and female sexual organs.
Please re-enter your question in accordance with facts.
PeaceOut
NDT
September 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM
@sem:
“I suppose you also believe Darwin?”
You suppose wrong.
“Angels are harmorphadite (male and fem”ale).”
Why do you say that? Angel means messenger.
If you are looking for hermaphrodites, you could try Lady Gaga, Baphomet, or the crucified man.
Psalm 22
6:But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
16:For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
“The ‘chronology’ is clear.”
The timeline which begins with Adam & Ave in the garden is preceeded by historical civilizations as evidenced by sites like Puma Punku and Gobekli Tepe. Occam’s razor says that the most probable explanation is that a historical text (the book of Genesis) is consistent with archeological evidence.
“And the first ‘Mark of the Beast’ was performed on Caine.”
There is no mention of a beast in the text about Cain.
Reason is the life of the law ~ Edward Coke.
sem
September 16, 2012 at 12:10 AM
NDT:
Please consider the following as a ‘Point of Reference’ in your diligence;
Angel=Watcher
Prophet=Messenger
Further, with the exception of the Book of Genesis, Scripture was not composed ‘chronologically’, it was composed by content.
Also, (for the sake of diligence) if you re-read the sixth chaper of Genesis, you will find that it clearly states, “Male and Female Created He Them” [emphasis mine]).
PeaceOut
sem
September 16, 2012 at 12:35 AM
*Actually it was the Sixth Day of Creation; as in, “666″ (NOT chapter six [my bad]).
NDT
September 16, 2012 at 5:18 AM
@sem:
Strong’s H4397 – mal’ak
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy
1) messenger, representative
a) messenger
b) angel
c) the theophanic angel
Strong’s H5030 – nabiy’
1) spokesman, speaker, prophet
a) prophet
b) false prophet
c) heathen prophet
The text does not exist in Genesis 6, but there is relevant text in chapter 5. Chapter 5 refers to the same creators as in chapter 1, who called their name of their male & female creations adam (in Hebrew), but continues with a genealogy that begins with the singular Adam of chapter 2. Without context, the length of time indicated by a “day” could be a solar day or a general period of time (as in the day of the triffids).
If verses one and two are interpreted as referring to the singular man formed in the garden of eden, then Genesis 1 must interpret created and formed as being equivalent, and the male and female genders of verse 26 as being equivalent with the purely male gender of the Adam of chapter 2. There are also the outstanding problems of incest and iron implements.
Reductio ad absurdum
Don
September 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM
To: NDT
Way to go for the most part NDT i.e. if your message was meant for sem
NDT
September 18, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Hi Don,
Yes, my message was directed towards sem. IMO the conflation of chapters one and two is a consequence of monotheistic thought. The idea that Elohim (translated as “God”) is a group acting with common intent or purpose is not acceptable agreeable with monotheism, but that idea is definitely present in the source text.
dasanco
September 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Food for thought.
The “Mark of the Beast”, may simply be the mentality of the beast (animals). Meaning acting collectively, as in packs, flocks, schools, herds, etc. Group thinking, or as modern man might call it, “Politics”.
God created us in his image … singularly, a piece of the one and fully responsible for our actions.
The “Mark” may simply be shrugging off our individual responsibly and acting in the limited liability of the ‘group’ or the ‘animal mentality’.
Don iversin
September 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM
My Dear and precious Brother Alfred,
Blessed are you among men to have been so mightily used by Our Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus of Nazereth. Through your trials and persecutions He has tested and refined you to become one of His wisest and most knowledgeable saints unto the pulling down of strongholds principalities and powers.
I have a gift for you and a message from Our Father that I hesitate to share with you because of our government’s egregious violations of the First through the Thirteenth (Titles and Nobilities) Amendments of our Constitution (guides to law and government of MEN) The Lord tells me that you’ll REALLY enjoy this gift and blessing that I have for you but because the Adversary has quartered spies and forces within our very homes (3rd Amendment), I ask for your indulgence to talk face to face or by snail mail.
My son Joseph was detained and incarcerated by the superior court of WA at Pierce county jail for contempt of court
on Fri. 7 Sep. and held for ransom for $600. After that the Holy Spirit began to show my what He wanted me to do. First He told me to pick up any random book and He would show me step by step what to do. 1. His love for you and me is infinite and equal. He loves us just as as much as His only begotten Son and He has proven that beyond any reasonable doubt through eye witness testimony of the actions, deeds and and miracles of His Son and adopted sons throughout history. 2. His gifts both physical and spiritual are without measure and are unleashed by faith when we love and forgive all those we have resentments, grudges and bitterness with (even the evil ones). 3. We are enlisted volunteers, commissioned officers, priests, prophets, saints, ambassadors, warriors, fitted with the whole armer of God, counselors, lawyers, and sovereign sons, kings and princes of the Almighty, One, True and Only God of the universe both seen and unseen, YHWH before Him and above Him there is no other. Gee, I didn’t mean for this to become so verbose! If you are ready now, make sure you don’t have any unforgiveness in you (FORGIVENESS is the KEY and the gates of hell and death have no power against it) then pick up any random book, turn to any page, point without looking, passionately believe and He will speak to your heart and mind. Mark the page, take notes of what you’re thinking, then grab any other random book and He will confirm His message to you. (Write that down too.) The basic Truth is that the System has been changing our through the establishment of a religion most accurately called antidisestablishmentarianism or the worship of Mammon which establishes the rule of dead PERSONS over live people and consume their life, liberty, property and steal their souls. Through every form of deception manipulation conspiracy and secrecy they’ve done this from the very beginning. Please give me a call so we can try to get together before it’s too late. 253-xxx-xxxx or mail to 5xxx S Oakes St Tacoma, Washington XXXX I am yours Truly, Don Iverson, Oathkeeper, counselor, preist, prophet, prince, and an adopted son of the Most High God through our Lord Jesus of Nazereth the Living Son of God.
________________________________
sem
September 15, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Al:
I reckon it is safe to presume that Man was made to tend the Garden; considering that is established, it is safe to presume that Man is a Beast (of burden).
Adask
September 15, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Cain may have received the first “mark,” but if I understand correctly that “mark” was from God, not from Satan. That suggests that Cain’s “mark” was something other than the “mark of the beast”. I.e., the “Mark of Cain” is not necessarily the “Mark of the Beast”.
Therefore, in response to your comment (above), GOD did put a ‘Mark’ on Cain as a symbol of protection from whatever it was that Cain was so fearful of, upon being banished. Yet, said ‘Mark’ cannot be called (termed) “Mark of Cain” as it was imposed upon him s was the ‘Thorn’ in the side of Paul. Wherefore, subjectively speaking (as pertaining to a Mark’ and a ‘Beast’) may we conclude that said ‘Mark’ is the “Mark on the Beast”.
PeaceOut
PS @dasanco…the “Mark of the Beast” is the number of Man (created man) which is clearly identified as “666″. There MAY be no mistake about that!
Don
November 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM
I reckon
Does this mean you have been in a wreck with your head on? I wreckun so.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 1:21 AM
To Sem
Re your comment in pertinent part: “Harmorprodite defines ‘an’ organism with male and female sexual organs.”
an organism!?!? What’s that?
Were the Harmorprodite organized or unorganized?
You say: Please re-enter your question in accordance with facts.
What was my question?
If I have the facts I don’t need to ask a question. I ask questions when I don’t know,or know for sure what the facts are.
since you said: “Please re-enter your question in accordance with facts.
I say: Please rephrase your reply with the correct terminology
sem
September 17, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Don:
for the sake of entertainment, please consider the following;
An organism is a living entity which occupies space and time.
The ‘SUBJECT’ harmorphrodite (Created Man) is indeed quite organized.
PeaceOut
Don
September 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM
To sem
Oh!! So that’s it !!! You are trying to be an entertainer. Well then please don’t think about quitting your regular job especially if you are wanting to be a comedian for as some of your prior responses show, you are devoid of any humor by not having the depth of perception to see that some comments are made to generate a good hearty belly laugh for those who have the “WIT” to see it.
MVG-AVG
September 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM
I believe the mark of the beast is your picture on your i.d. issued by “this state”, this image has a number attached to it like a u.p.c. barcode.Yes ,the face scan terminals will be easy to set up at your Safeway or Walmart.Coming to your town very soon! Hey Al, there was another publication that came out around the time of those early drug laws that you discovered in your Man or other Animals .They did not use the name animals ,they used the name Goyim.Ever hear of the Protocols?
Don
September 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM
MVG-AVG
September 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM
You said in pertinent part: “I believe the mark of the beast is your picture on your i.d. issued by “this state”…..”
I have spent a lot of time in jail, repeatedly for,as gov-co says, “No drivers license at all.”
I recently discovered that a “New Mexico driver license” was “created” for me by a magistrate,Bill Sadler,& an attorney, Daniel Banks, FIFTEEN YEARS AGO & immediately revoked !!! I can only presume that the picture of me,used, had to be a “mug shot.” I don’t know what it looks or looked like because I have never seen it.
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM
I haven’t studied the drivers license issue in most of a decade. But I when I did study it back in the 1990s, I read the Texas code section that declared (roughly) that “it is an offense to drive with an expired drivers license if the license was suspended or revoked at the time of expiration.” This implied that if you had a drivers license and it expired, but wasn’t suspended or revoked at the time of expiration, then it would not be an “offense” to drive “forever” on that old expired license.
More, it implied that driving without a license is not an offense. The offense only kicks in if 1) you had a license; 2) the license was suspended or revoked when it expired; and 3) you subsequently drove without a current DL.
Your story about the gov-co creating a DL for you, and then instantly revoking it seems consistent with the Texas code section I just described. You had a license, it was revoked when it expired, and you would therefore be deemed to have committed an offense. The actions of the magistrate et al were pure fraud, but it seems consistent with what I remember about the Texas traffic code.
sem
September 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM
MVG-AVG:
Scanning technology, Drone technology, Surveillence technology and Gene technology are all in simultaneous development stages (very much like the economic situation). But like inflation is a hidden taxation; so to it seems is The Mark of The Beast in its’ implementation.
Very clever observation.
PeaceOut
Don
September 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM
To Alfred
IF you or anyone had asked me a year ago if I EVER had a NM driver license, I would have
answered, NO. TODAY if you ask me the same question I would have to say I don’t know how to
truthfully answer that & you would need to know why. Anyone would need to know why. Yet people
would become suspicious & think of me as a liar by not simply answering yes or no. No one is
interested enough to ask: “How did you find out, & just recently,that a NM driver license was
created for you 15 years ago. EVERY arrest per the driver license issue was based on “No driver
license at all” beginning in 1990 & through 1994. I have been arrested MANY times since
then,1994,but NEVER was it a “traffic issue,” again, until about a year or so ago. In essence the
State Trooper informed me that I was driving on a revoked license. I asked him how can that be
when I have never had a New Mexico driver license. He went on to say “Your license was revoked
in 1997.” I asked: How can a license be revoked if you never had one. All he knew was, I was
driving on a revoked license. So with that information,I traced it back & it was created in Carlsbad
NM 3 years AFTER I left. So,do I have a revoked NM driver license? GOV-CO says YES!!!
I don’t know what to say or how to answer the question anymore based on the total confusion
involved in this issue when the only acceptable answer is Yes Or No to the question of Were you
ever issued a NM driver license.? If they can do this to me, what can they not do to others?
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM
Perhaps the correct answer is: “I don’t know if a DL was ever LAWFULLY issued in relation to me. But I do know that I’ve never APPLIED for a NM DL.”
Don
September 17, 2012 at 8:00 PM
That would not be entirely true either because I did “apply” one time upon the order of a Judge. I am going to cut & paste a message I posted before that hopefully will explain more. Trying to cut to the chase sometimes makes a confusing issue more confusing. We know who the author of confusion is.
This was just one of the issues I had in trying to explain to the 5th judicial district court judge,James Shuler,that his order,as the S.Ct of N.M.said.later was made wihout authority AND invalid,that It was impossible for me to obey his order because I do not have and never was issued a valid binding SSN. I tried to explain that S.S. IS a voluntary system and that nobody is required by ANY Law to obtain/get a SSN.Shuler responded by saying: Well if I was you I would forthwith volunteer to get a SSN because if you don’t obey my order it is not going to be a pretty picture.He said:, “Now is there anything else you don’t understand”? I said: “There is one thing I do understand.” He said: “Oh really,well tell me.” I said, I have outgoing concern for you & I don’t know for sure what the backlash consists of for I know enough to know that you do not have the authority to issue an order like this.” OH REALLY,he said. Well just don’t obey my order and we’ll see how much authority I have. Of course he said this with great emphasis. I said: I will do my best to honor & obey your order but I will do so under stress,duress & under force of arms,however,if I can prove to you that I have made a good fath effort to do so & get no where,will you grant a stay of execution pending appeal? Shuler said: “You cannot appeal my order because technically it’s an injunction and injunctions cannot be appealed. I did go to the MVD but short & sour,they will not even let you take the written test unless you satisfy the SSN demand,requirement. SO, I started on my appeal work, regardless of what Shuler said. I certainly did not want to tell him he was lying through his teeth & to kiss my grits. At that time you had 30 days to appeal. about two weeks later I had a neighbor,Alvin Morris,take me over to Walmart & lo & behold a deputy sheriff, Michael Click happened to be there too,saw me,why he was there, I don.t know, but he approached me & asked if I had obayed juh shooluh AWDUH aine ghat cho NM dryin lahsunce.He arrested me in the store, FOR not obeying Juh Shooluh AWDUHH & you know where I was “TRANSPORTED” to. If you know how to bring up cases on the internet, I don’t, the citation is:
882 P.2d 57 (1994) 118 N.M. 466 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Donald B. BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14769, 14809.
Here in pertinent part is what the top court said
Defendant was convicted in magistrate court of speeding, driving without proof of financial responsibility, driving without a current vehicle registration, and driving without a driver’s license. NMSA 1978, §§ 66-3-19, 66-5-205, 66-7-301 (Cum.Supp.1993); and § 66-5-2 (Repl.Pamp.1989). He appealed to district court where he received a trial de novo. Defendant did not deny the charges. Instead, he argued that he had an inherent, inalienable right to drive without complying with license and registration requirements of the State. Defendant had been previously stopped, warned, and cited regarding similar infractions.
The district court found Defendant guilty of all charges. In addition to fines, the court issued an injunction prohibiting Defendant from operating his vehicle until he satisfied the licensing and registration requirements of the Motor Vehicle Code. Defendant refused to comply, and soon thereafter he was brought before the court for violation of the injunction. The judge found Defendant in contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in jail, suspending all but three days. Defendant appeals both the finding of contempt and the underlying injunction.
This case presents two interesting questions. The first is whether a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and acting sua sponte may include in its sentencing order an injunction against further criminal conduct. The second is whether the injunction, even if invalid, insulates Defendant from a contempt citation for its wilful violation. We hold that the district court’s injunction exceeded its authority, but we nonetheless affirm the citation for contempt.
Alfred I said I have an UNalienable right. But the court will convert that to IN alienable
Adask
September 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM
I didn’t say you had any “UNalienable Rights”. Thomas Jefferson and the Founders started this country on the “self-evident” truth and legal premise that we are each “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” I merely quoted Mr. Jefferson.
Don
September 17, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Maybe this will help to show the corruption. The court also said:
“Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power. ”
So,they in essence said The lower court acted without authority & the order is invalid but the lower court had authority to hold me in contempt for contemptiously violating the made without authority invalid order because of the court’s “contempt power.”
greg
September 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-667605.mp3 Rod Class AIB Radio subscribe the rss lots of info on driving/traffic
greg
September 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Slavery and the eight veils http://proliberty.com/observer/20011212.htm
greg
September 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM
GREAT OVER VIEW BY THERESA G. ON THE MANIPULATED FINANCIAL MELT DOWN AND WORLD WAR 3 http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=130
Don
September 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I did not say,you,Alfred, said that. I said I said it.
Send m a cut and paste of where I said, you,said it
Anon4fun
September 18, 2012 at 2:21 AM
Don:
It is necessary to have legal/illegal because many of the people that we – and by “we” I mean actual patriots, as opposed to stealth anarchists – are trying to reach with an important message to save the Republic have legal/illegal, and they find their dictionaries to sometimes define it as a synonym for lawful/unlawful. Idiosyncratic use of terms with established meanings is an iffy area which many people reflexively locate in tinfoil territory. I do agree with the lawful vs. legal distinction made earlier. The substance vs. the form of the law IS important and should be discussed. My only suggestion is for flexibility where semantics are concerned to keep the channel open to mainstream Black’s Law users.
Don
September 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM
To: Anon4fun
There is no Republic to save. I agree with the remainder of your message because I understand it the same way, but maybe we are both wrong in the eyes of the “legal.” IF you get a chance & know how to bring up cases on the internet(I don’t),read:Dyett v Turner,439 P2d 266. I have a good reason for asking you to do this. I am going to “cut n paste” one short excerpt from the case.
We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us; and by doing so, we hope the master of the craft will heed the call and avert the dangers which confront us all. But by raising our voices in protest we, like the galley slaves of old, expect to be lashed for doing so. We are confident that we will not be struck by 90 per cent of the people of this Nation who long for the return to the days when the Constitution was a document plain enough to be understood by all who read it, the meaning of which was set firmly like a jewel in the matrix of common sense and wise judicial decisions. We shall not complain if those who berate us belong to that small group who refuse to take an oath that they will not overthrow this government by force. When we bare our backs to receive the verbal lashes, we will try to be brave; and should the great court of these United States decide that in our thinking we have committed error, then we shall indeed feel honored, for we will then be placed on an equal footing with all those great justices who at this late date are also said to have been in error for so many years.
sem
September 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM
Al:
Considering your interest in the Supremes (as an side) you may gleen from the below article what you may:
http://www.reuters.com/article/video/idUSBRE88H06X20120918?videoId=237806235
I didnt want it to escape me so I put it here.
PeaceOut
Don
November 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM
@Considering your interest in the Supremes..
Is this the quartet,called the Supremes,e.g.Diana Ross & the Supremes? Or, another “Supremes?”
I’m surs.
Anon4fun
September 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Don: >>There is no Republic to save.<<
That the Republic is already lost is what Big Brother and his anarchist little helpers want you to think. Next, they want you to assume the fetal position while sucking your thumb, or, better yet, grab some processed food and turn on the boob tube. The next sound you hear will be a bulldozer crashing though your wall.
As long as belief in the Constitution remains in the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans, especially within Big brother's own force arms, the Republic is alive and kicking.
Don
September 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM
To,Anon4fun
Re: your message-September 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Per: your 1st paragraph: Why did Benjamin Franklin say “A Republic IF you can KEEP IT.”
I, Don,don’t believe The Republic has been KEPT. We most certainly do not have & have not had a Republican form of government for AT LEAST a hundred + years.
You,Anon4fun,say:The next sound you hear will be a bulldozer crashing though your wall.
This has literally happened to me & because of doing just the opposite of everything you say will be the cause of the “bulldozer crashing through my wall.” walls, would be more accurate.& some of the destroyers, were in mockery pledging allegiance with their hands over their hearts while others were singing “God Bless America.” All in mockery.
You,Anon4fun say:As long as belief in the Constitution remains in the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans, especially within Big brother’s own force arms, the Republic is alive and kicking.
Wow !! What a statement. “Tens of millions??” You know for a fact that over one hundred million people voted for Bush OR Gore. That is proof to me that over one hundred million people have not the slightest idea of what a “Republican Form of Government is.”
P.S. Did you read the Dyett v. Turner excerpt I sent to you?
Anon4fun
September 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Don said: {I, Don,don’t believe The Republic has been KEPT. We most certainly do not have & have not had a Republican form of government for AT LEAST a hundred + years.}
We see the Republic under occupation, yet the organic structure of its law remains in place. If the occupying entity was powerful enough to overturn even this foundation, the Republic would be lost. Since the occupiers are too weak to get that done, and the express will of the people which the organic law represents continues on the books and in the hearts and minds of a significant number of Americans, the Republic lives.
“Our flag was still there,” you might say.
{This has literally happened to me & because of doing just the opposite of everything you say will be the cause of the “bulldozer crashing through my wall.”}
Sorry to hear that, but this is a rare occurrence. Due to their strategic position as occupiers, the evil-doers can get away a certain number of isolated abuses no matter what their victims are doing. However, if the majority of We the People ever believed Big Brother’s “gotcha beat, so assume the position” propaganda, bulldozers rolling over homes would be commonplace.
{You know for a fact that over one hundred million people voted for Bush OR Gore. That is proof to me that over one hundred million people have not the slightest idea of what a “Republican Form of Government is.”}
The situation is not so all-or-nothing. Being misinformed enough to believe in Bush or Gore does not prevent you from also believing in, and being willing to fight for, the Constitution when the truth finally reaches you.
{P.S. Did you read the Dyett v. Turner excerpt I sent to you?}
I did read it, and my response is included herewith. To find it online, search for “Dyett v. Turner” on Google.
Don
September 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM
To:Anon4fun
Good News !!
I am going to get out of your hair & off of your back because I feel I am hindering your “mission.” I have left my e mail address & a phone number previously so once again,if I can in anyway be of help & if I can I will. I sincerely wish you the best of everything. shalom
Anon4fun
September 19, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Sure, Don, and thanks. Though everyone here is on some kind of mission. I mean, no one gets into “patriot legal theory” for the groupies.
Richard
September 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM
The mark of the beast is in my opinion your name. The majority of people are right-handed (I am not) and we all remember (forehead) our name. Your name is the name the “authorities” use to convict you. They need you to give your name before they can “bring you up on charges”.
See an excellent explanation by the authors of the love for life website (Australia):
I have used the time-honored (American tradition) right-to-remain-silent, after being falsely arrested and placed in the cramped quarters of a police cruiser (stuffed and cuffed) – on bogus charges (fabricated lies). While walking my dog, not having identification at the time, I was released after repeatedly refusing to answer thuggish/belligerent demands for my name.
Re: Spiritual Warfare and vaccinations as per Jeff D.’s comment, see http://www.vaccinefraud.com/
Re: dasanco’s comment, The “Mark” may simply be shrugging off our individual responsibly and acting in the limited liability of the ‘group’ or the ‘animal mentality’.
Dasanco may be onto something . . . as responsibility (full liability) is a cornerstone to freedom whereas irresponsibility (limited liability) is conducive to slavery (a group of 1st class citizens – attorneys, robed attorneys and armed bureaucrats ruling over the rest of us/extorting our wealth/life-force).
Don
September 21, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Richard
@While walking my dog, not having identification WHAT !!?? NO ID !!! YOU HEINOUS CRIMINAL !!!
SHAME ON YOU !!! Now I am going to watch the video & maybe I can cool off.
Richard
September 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Hello Don, Some concepts in the video may need clarification, such as Arthur’s (guy in video) proposed “kindom”. A brief perusal of the love for life site should clear that up.
The Christian family is basically advocating self-sustainability by returning to nature (reality is based in nature) and forming do-no-harm communities with the intent of providing “community immunity” to those participants. – from the harm-doers or as shrub (george bush jr.) says the “evil-doers”.
Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. BTW it is important that we not accept the labels the system tries to slap on us – for example – they want you to think you are a criminal if you got busted with no license, insurance, etc. when in fact they are the criminals violating not only black-letter law but also the intent and spirit of the law.
The law (and government) are supposed to be good things. But I tell you the longer I live and the more I study, the more disgusted I am by it all (words on paper). “They” are using words on paper to extort our life-force from us. It is simply disgusting.
MIKE
September 25, 2012 at 6:13 PM
reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 12:13 PM by geobro
look up BLACKS LAW BOOK 1933 EDITION Human being is a beast unfit to own property ?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread877260/pg2
Don
October 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Palani,
re:(57) ”Motor vehicle,” In your opinion, what is the difference between an engine & a motor? To your knowledge, are there, “Engine vehicle codes?”
palani
October 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM
I know of no “engine vehicle codes”.
Transmission (n.) 1610s, “conveyance from one place to another,” from L. transmissionem (nom. transmissio) “a sending over or across, passage,” from transmissus, pp. of transmittere “send over or across” (see transmit). Meaning “part of a motor vehicle that regulates power from the engine to the axle” is first recorded 1894.
Mark
October 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Shouldn’t the argument be “how does their mumbo jumbo apply to me?” They write their laws for their employees and they change the meaning of the words to mean something different than in the common law jurisdiction. So an engine or motor in their jurisdiction can mean whatever they want it to mean. We shouldn’t have to read their codes at all because we don’t speak their language, instead we should question what authority they have over us. In other words, we should always challenge the jurisdiction, and not argue what their codes say.
If they can prove that they have jurisdiction over us, then we can look at the codes. In the case of “man or other animals” they are defining a man to be an animal in their jurisdiction; which is not the case in common law jurisdiction, but more importantly how does their law apply to me a man made in God’s image having dominion over the animals?
Donald
October 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Hello, Mark,
You have been in court a lot. I can tell. By this, I mean, you have been pulled over,(emergency stop) asked for the big 3,& handled it correctly so the officer(s) apologized for interfering with your freedom & right to travel and asked you if you would forgive them. I believe you have a big heart & so you forgave them. Do you have seminars? If so, what is your fee? I want to learn how to be able to forgive them too.
Don
October 30, 2012 at 3:14 AM
deb
October 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Don, you’re a hoot :-)
Thank you deb. I indeed feel honored,not for being a hoot but that you would take the time out to even respond. Hoot has diverse definitions.But I don’t give a hoot. I used to love the song: My ol Kentucky Home, until someone told me what “GAY” really meant.
deb
October 30, 2012 at 5:48 PM
It was meant as in “seriously amusing” :-) But of other adjectives I could have used, it seemed most appropriate in light of the subject matter. I couldn’t help thinking of an intuitive wise owl perched on a niche of wasted ruins of what was once a beautiful beacon of hope for the world–the church–America. Perhaps MOOA is not so far fetched considering sheeple–sheep are docile and follow their shepherds. Is this a reason perhaps why the first animal (that we know of) to be cloned was a sheep? Are they easier to brand with a special mark if their shepherds lead them?
Re: “GAY”(ety)– I don’t know why, it reminded me of an old poem about Melrose Abbey, specifically the part which says:
“For the gay beams of lightsome day
Gild, but to flout the ruins gray.”
Don
October 30, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Shalom, deb
@… the first animal (that we know of) to be cloned was a sheep? Wow !! You are RIGHT !! I never thought of that & yet I have known for many years that Satan counterfeits everything that the Eternal “God” (<notice the quotes) does. I see "Dolly" in my mind vividly & my heart went out to her when I first saw her picture years ago, but I was either too dense, shallow, superficial, etc to have the depth of perception that you do. Wow !!!
@ It was meant as in “seriously amusing” :-)
In all honesty, when I saw "hoot," I saw in my "mind's eye" an Owl perched on a limb "hootin" at me.
This IS why I answered you by saying: Thank you deb. I indeed feel honored.
But what is much more important than you saying I am a hoot is what I wrote when I said: "that you (deb) would take the time out to even respond." Your "DEPTH" of perception is above that of a hoot. I am not trying to flatter you. It is sincere appreciation.
As far as seriously amusing goes,I do try to insert a little humor in some of my "serious"(<heartfelt) comments but that may not be a good (wise) thing to do.
@“GAY”- I was being fuh C shus in my comment. It's just one more word that has been perverted. I love My ol Kentucky home, but see what I mean about trying to insert a little humor may not be a "wise" thing to do?
I am going to "cut and paste" the following:
Re: “GAY”(ety)– I don’t know why, it reminded me of an old poem about Melrose Abbey, specifically the part which says:
“For the gay beams of lightsome day
Gild, but to flout the ruins gray.”
Like beautiful butterfles dancing in a gentle breeze.
I certainly would like to keep in touch with you.
Don
November 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM
deb
@October 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM (your comment)
Either you or one of two others (2 other “debs”) “impersonating” the deb I thought I knew to some degree,also say I’m totally unbiblical & Bizarre. Can’t be both ways. The truth is,I am none of the things you or the other 2 describe.But,above all, I don’t need to know if you are married. Even if you were not, I would not be interested.I am already overloaded with problems. I knew even as a child what a NET was used for & the purpose of a WEB. Knew about it then,but obviously age has dulled my senses.
Don’t worry,nobody will understand this message.Besides,if it is not a message to “them” commenting on something he/she said, they are not interested anyway.Have you detected this yet?
No response to this message is necessary. In fact I ask you not to to respond. As for me,I don’t want to be “associated” with anyone who is totally unbiblical & Bizarre, & neither should you. Did you have your NET & WEB problems to the degree you did, BEFORE John asked you for your E mail address? You will have your hands full with him anyway, I will not be an additional burden.
The reason I am sending this message to you on this thread is because I think it will be harder to “alter,” like on,the E mail. But, I’m probably wrong about that too.
Don
November 4, 2012 at 8:56 PM
hoot & unbiblical & Bizarre.This is what I meant by saying, it can’t be both ways, at least, to me.
Don
November 4, 2012 at 9:35 PM
@”…..within this state is vested in the state…..”
I know I’m practically brain dead but if it read (red) “…..within this state is vested in this state…..”
or, “…..within the state is vested in the state…..” or, “…..within the state is vested in this state…..”
mean 3 different things?
Adask
November 5, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Only 3?
Don
November 5, 2012 at 6:07 AM
@ Only 3?
I love you ! You make me gay, but I’m not “Gay.”
Adask
November 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Aaah . . . I betcha say that to all the guys.
Don
November 5, 2012 at 3:55 AM
@Only 3?
uht oh, Thanks.Well,at least 4. I did say what my problem is.
If I could only be a master of brevity.
Don
November 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Aaah . . . I betcha say that to all the guys.
I am not promiscuous !!! It’s only for you, Alfred,only for you. My dog & I communicate mentally. She wants to send you a message. bow z wow z bow z wow z, which is a warning to all, everyone, & when translated in English it means: Don’t tread on Don. You have been warned.
Don
November 5, 2012 at 9:09 PM
GAY-At present it is clear that researchers are confused as to what they are studying when they assess sexual orientation in their research. (PBS) (Confused ? Why?)
gay-A type of squirrel that lives in Latin America. (Urban Dictionary)
squirrely-When a person loses his or her mental stability. (A variation on going nuts or crazy)
There was a hit song entitled: “Make the world go away.” Even tho I sing through my nose, BY EAR, no formal training was necessary,it’s a natural gift. Anyway, re:Make the World go away, & if you see me coming,just change one word of “Make the World go away & sing it this way: Make the squirrel go away.I’ll understand. I’m only looking for nuts anyway.
Peter
January 19, 2013 at 8:42 PM
http://www.tirnasaor.com/07/08/courts-names-and-the-cestui-que-vie-trust/
Dan Glash
March 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM
I suspect that everyone has gotten the so-called “Mark” of the beast, and the beast and the beast’s image, completely wrong! From my interpretation of the texts, studying both in Hebrew and Greek, I have come to the conclusion that Satan has deceived almost everyone, specifically Christians.
The word beast in Greek, as used in the 13th chapter of Revelation, is the word Thera. The definition of Thera means “Trap/destruction”. (See Strong’s Concordance of the Greek Dictionary). The beast system is a trap, designed to sucker people into it. It is a destuctive trap because it is contrary to the laws of Yahuweh (some say Yahweh). The beast is a religious system, not a political system.
The beast system has an “image”, i.e. a leader/idol, and he is a man. People are made (tricked) to “worship” the image. Notice the word “worship” denotes religion. People did not worship Hitler, or any other political leader. So, we know the beast is a religious entity and it has a religious hero/image/representive, etc who people worship. This image also has a “mark”, which is written in the Greek texts as the word Caragma, which means symbol. It is the symbol that not only represent him, but also the religion itself. . Another clue is that the image/man will have a name that has the numerical value of six hundred and sixty six. Also, this man wil have a deadly wound, but will still live. Now that we have the clues and attributes, it becomes very clear that the beast (trap) is the religion of Christianity. The image is Christos (in Greek), or it’s shorter form Christ.
Using the Hex Code, where each letter of the alphabet gets the number 6, progressively (A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24, etc., adding 6 to each additioal letter) we take the name Christos, which is the correct english translation of the Greek name Xpotos, and the value is 666. If you use the numerical alpha Code using the number 9 (A=9, B=18, C=27, C=36, etc.) the name Jesus has the number value 666. Does Jesus have a fatal would but still lived? Yes!. What is his symbol? the Cross (a graven/molten image of idolatry) which also represents the religion of Christianity, i.e the beast.
To be honest, the religion of Christianity turned the worship of Yahuweh into the worship of Jesus, under the guise that they are one and the same person. The New Testament more or less nullifys the Old Testament. Christians worship the created, not the creator. Satan pull off a great deseption when he invented Christianity. INstead of praising the name of Yahuweh, Christians praise the name of “Jesus”. Are we to believe that Yahuweh actuall changed his name to Jesus? If so, then he lied when he said that his name was his memorial unto all generations. Did he also lie when he said “I change not”?
Not that I have presented my theory on who is the beast, the mark, etc., can anyone disprove any of my findings?