RSS

Consumers are “animals”?

13 Mar

Endowed by his Creator [courtesy Google Images]

Endowed by his Creator
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’ve read my previous articles on “Man or other Animals” (“MOOA”), you know that Genesis 1:26-28 declares:

“Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

“Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

“Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Given the repetition found in those three verses, there can be no doubt that God created man (mankind) and only mankind in His image and gave man “dominion” over all animals.

Thus, under the Jewish and Christian faiths, every “man” is absolutely distinguished from all “animals” by two facts:  1) man, and only man, is made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image; and 2) man alone is given dominion over all the animals.

Therefore, a Jew or a Christian can’t be declared to be an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of his faith.

 

•  If you visit Section 321 of Title 21 of the United States Code (21 USC 321) you’ll find the current federal definitions of “food,” “drug[s]” and [medical] “device[s]”:

(f) The term “food” means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).  . . .

(h) The term “device” (except when used in paragraph (n) of this section and in sections 331(i), 343(f), 352(c), and 362(c) of this title) means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is – (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them, (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

The statements “horses or other animals” and “cows or other animals” make sense in that they convey the idea that a horse or cow is just one variety of many other “animals”.

If I wrote “horses or animals” (or “cows or animals”) the statement would not make sense because would mean that horses or cows were not animals.

The addition of the word “other” in “horses or other animals” makes clear that the specific subject (“horses”) is one kind of the larger category called “animals”.

Similarly, if the government had simply written “man or animals” in 21 USC 321, it would mean that they viewed “man” and “animals” as two distinctively-different, and mutually-exclusive classes of beings.  I.e, no “man” could also be an “animal” and no “animal” could also be a “man”.

However,  the grammar of the phrase “man or other animals” that government actually uses at 21 USC 321 means that man is deemed to be just one of an innumerable variety of “other animals”.

Thus, the federal definitions of “drugs,” “food” and (medical) “devises” presume man to be an “animal” rather than a “man made in God’s image” who is given “dominion over the animals” as per Genesis 1:26-28.

Insofar as the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our Freedom of Religion, there’s a First Amendment basis for resisting any federal law that relies on the government’s definitions of “food,”  “drugs” and (medical) “devices” found at 21 USC 321.  I.e., the government can’t lawfully subject any Christian or Jew to any law that presumes the Christian or Jew to be an “animal” without violating the Freedom of Religion of that Christian or Jew.

•  Insofar as 1) the laws of your “state” parallel federal laws and also define the words “food,” “drugs” and/or (medical) “devices” as applying to “animals” rather than men made in God’s image who are given dominion over “animals”; and 2) insofar as your “state’s” constitution includes a guarantee of Freedom of Religion; then 3) your right of religious freedom at the “state” level is guaranteed against state-legislation that presumes you to be an “animal”.

•  If you visit the federal government’s Food and Drug Administration’s website at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Whatwedo/History/default.htm you’ll find a brief description of the FDA’s history.

According to that history,

“The Food and Drug Administration is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government. Its origins can be traced back to the appointment of Lewis Caleb Beck in the Patent Office around 1848 to carry out chemical analyses of agricultural products, a function that the newly created Department of Agriculture inherited in 1862.”

Note that the primary objective and purpose for the Food and Drug Administration appears to be the protection of “consumers”.

Note that if the FDA is “the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government,” it may follow that all subsequent “consumer protection agencies” are based on the same definition of “consumer” as is found in the FDA.

Note that the current Food and Drug Administration (which is based on definitions of “food” and “drugs” found at 21 USC 321 that presume man to be an “animal”) was originally derived from the Department of Agriculture—which had to be designed to deal with farm products including domesticated “animals”.   Therefore, it’s not so surprising that the FDA began with a focus on “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image” who were given “dominion” over all animals.

Note also that the Department of Agriculture was established by Abraham Lincoln in A.D. 1862 during the Civil War under what may have been deemed a state of national emergency.

The “history” of the FDA continues:

“Although it was not known by its present name until 1930, FDA’s modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs.”  [emphasis added]

In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia.  It lasted four months.  It produced the Preamble and first seven articles of what became The Constitution of the United States.  That Preamble and first seven articles orignally included about 4,501 words.

The A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act included thirteen sections and just 2,911 words. (I frequently post articles on this blog that over 2,911 words. This article is about 2,200 words) Why do you suppose it took only four months to draft the body of the Constitution, but it took a “quarter-century” to draft the 2,911-word, A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act?

Is it possible that there’s some enormous power in that Pure Food and Drug Act?   Is it possible that it took a “quarter-century” to find the words to both include that power and also conceal that power from the American people?  Is it possible that the introduction of the word “other” in “man or other animals” is key to that power?

Is it possible that it took a “quarter-century” to find a Congress that was sufficiently ignorant, greedy or treasonous pass the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and thereby degrade the American people from the exalted status of “men made in God’s image” to the lowly status of “animals”?

If it took 25 years to enact the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, that act had to have been initially proposed back about A.D. 1881.  This implies that forces were at work within the government pushing to degrade the people to the status of animals as early as A.D. 1881—just 16 years after the end of the Civil War and passage of the 13th Amendment, and 13 years after passage of the 14th Amendment and the freeing of the slaves (who had been presumed to be animals).  Thus, the forces in favor of treating the people as animals and/or slaves have remained strong within our government despite the 13th and 14th Amendments.  Those in power have wanted to treat the people of The United States of America as animals, property and slaves for a long, long time.

And virtually no one has recognized this treason for over 130 years.

•  Note that Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act reads as follows:

“That the term ‘drug,’ as used in this Act, shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals. The term ‘food,’ as used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.”  [emphasis added]

So far as I’ve been able to learn, Section 6 of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was the first law that expressly defined both “food” and “drugs” with the phrase “man or other animals” and thereby presumed all men and women subject to that law to be “animals”.

That law has now been in effect for 108 years.  Thus, for over a century, your government has presumed you, your parents, your spouse, children and grandchildren to be “animals”.

As “animals” you have no more intrinsic rights than a chicken on a Tyson poultry-processing plant.  The only thing that really distinguishes you from the “other animals” is the fact that lots of you (unlike cow, pigs, or deer) own firearms that might be used to kill your government “masters”.  Government, of course, is working day and night to persuade you to surrender your firearms—supposedly for “public safety,” but in fact, for the safety of a treasonous government.

If your government presumes you to be an animal, you got nuthin’.  You have no meaningful rights, no hope of prosperity or liberty.  No hope for your children’s futures.  You are nothing but “human resources” to be grown and cultivated like any other domestic animal for the benefit of your “masters”.  As an “animal,” you can be used, controlled, and ultimately consumed or disposed of like a cow in a slaughter-house.

The “history” of the FDA continues:

Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind this law and headed its enforcement in the early years, providing basic elements of protection that consumers had never known before that time.” [emphasis added]

If Harvey Washington Wiley, Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, had been the driving force behind the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug act, he should be researched to discover the nature of his faith, politics and values.   Was he a Satanist? Atheist?  Associated with any globalist, one-world order, Illuminati-like groups?  What motivated Mr. Wiley to push for a law that would degrade the American people to the status of “animals”?

•  Most importantly, the FDA describes itself as “the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the U. S. federal government.”  Given that the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act defined “food” and “drugs” in terms of “man or other animals,” it’s clear that that Act applied only to “animals”.  Insofar as the FDA is a “consumer protection agency,” does it follow that all “consumers” are presumed by the government to be “animals”?

I can’t (yet) prove it, but I’ll bet that’s true.

And, again, if the FDA is America’s “oldest consumer protection agency,” it could follow that the FDA may have been the first to establish the definition for “consumers” as “animals”.

Therefore, subsequent “consumer protection agencies” may have adopted that same definition when they sought to “protect” the “consumers”.

Implication:  It may be hazardous to your health to allow yourself to be presumed to be, or defined as, a “consumer”.

How do you defeat that presumption?

You deny under oath that you are a “consumer” or another other variety of “animal” and you expressly declare yourself to be a “man made in the image of God” and given “dominion” over the “animals” by your faith as found in Genesis 1:26-28.  Back those claims with the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) and the First Amendment’s protection of your Freedom of Religion—and you may have a powerful argument against personal liability for any law that defines the words “drug,” “food” or (medical) “devices” in terms of “man or other animals”.

You might thereby be able to resist the authority of any federal bureaucracy that claimed to be involved in “consumer protection” by arguing that such agency regulates “animals” and you can’t be one under the Christian or Jewish faiths.

 
142 Comments

Posted by on March 13, 2014 in "Man or Other Animals"

 

Tags: ,

142 responses to “Consumers are “animals”?

  1. Teo

    March 13, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    for some intereting perspective to this subject watch this – WARNING – everything you know is wrong…

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:48 AM

      Teo,
      @ > Everything You Know Is Wrong

      Everything I & some others know, is wrong? EVERYTHING?? I cannot say that EVERYTHING you, Teo, know is wrong. But you sure seem to be saying that everything everybody else knows is wrong, except YOU,Teo. & YOUR KIND, everything you & your kind know is RIGHT. ok

       
    • citizenquasar

      March 16, 2014 at 7:24 AM

      “Almost everything you have ever been told has been a lie.”
      —William Cooper

       
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 5:15 PM

        citizenquasar,

        @ >“Almost everything you have ever been told has been a lie.”

        I hear you. I agree. I found this out by truly wanting to know what is truth. But, citizenquasar, I know a little more about the agenda of Teo. I know what Teo is up to.

         
  2. Mike

    March 13, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    As always, well researched and nicely written. I’m guessing you are also under the impression the 14th amendment attempted to make the people property of the state. For me, I can only live free if I think I am free, which I do. I think its best to leave the government out of it but also appreciate your information.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:35 AM

      Mike,
      @ >I think its best to leave the government out of it but also appreciate your information.

      Is that right? The problem is, government will not leave, at least some of us, out of it.

      P.S. Really do appreciate your NON response to anything BEFORE I have asked you.

       
  3. Frank Moorman

    March 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

    And He said,” Let there be light” ( but no incandescents)

     
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM

      And He said,” Let there be light” ( but no incandescents)

      No, he first said, LET THERE BE ME. Once “me” came into being, there, THEN was the light. lol

       
  4. Toland

    March 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM

    A friend of mine may soon get the chance to test your theory in the courtroom. We discussed how to go about this and concluded we’d better look at the specific definition of “animals” used in “man or other animals” ahead of time, to avoid any surprises in court.

    Our concern is preventing an exchange like the following….

    – – – – – – – – – –

    DEFENDANT: My religion says I am not an animal. Therefore your “man or other animals” law does not apply to me. Can I go now?

    GOVERNMENT: Wait just a minute. When you say you are not an animal, what do you mean by “animal”?

    DEFENDANT: What I mean by “animal” is [defendant’s definition], which excludes man made in God’s image.

    GOVERNMENT: That’s fine. We support the freedom to choose your own definitions of words. The only problem is, your definition lacks relevance here.

    DEFENDANT: Huh???

    GOVERNMENT: This case is about what the legislature meant by “animals” when it wrote “man or other animals”. And what the legislature meant by “animals” is [government’s definition], which includes man made in God’s image. The record shows the legislative intent was to use “animal” in a way that differs from your use of this word. As it happens, the legislature used a legalese definition of “animal” that is perfectly compatible with your faith-based concept of man.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    See the potential problem? We’ve already caught government playing lots of word games, and we suspect it of some others. Examples include “person”, “this state”, “firearm”, etc.

    In standard English, “man” and “animal” are mutually exclusive terms. That is, you can be one or the other, or neither – but not both. So it’s evident that “man or other animals”, which implies a man is an animal, involves more of government’s fictitious word games.

    But which word, “man” or “animal”, did they game?

    For the phrase “man or other animals” to be logically coherent – rather than meaningless nonsense like “man or other vegetables” – the legislature must have changed at least (a) the definition of “man” so that he’s presumed to be an animal, OR (b) the definition of “animal” to include man.

    The trick is to find out which.

     
    • Adask

      March 13, 2014 at 10:08 PM

      The trick is to recognize the significance of the word “other”. That’s the word that makes “man” just an “animal” in the “man or other animal” laws.

       
    • UglyTruth

      March 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM

      The state doesn’t get to construe the legislation arbitrarily.

      “[it] is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the source itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no futher”

      Baron Parke, Becke v Smith (1836)

       
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM

      Toland, you said to me, on a prior thread.

      @ They do that because the Constitutionalist case has been so weakly presented, in their experience, that they consider it a joke.

      @ You, Toland also say, DEFENDANT: My religion says I am not an animal; AND,

      @ DEFENDANT: What I mean by “animal” is [defendant’s definition], which excludes man made in God’s image.

      And, you, Toland tell me that meritless paperwork is considered a joke ???? The trick also IS
      Understanding WHO you are, including your “friend.” i.e. the DEFENDANT. I welcome ALL reasonable objections, etc. but not from Sam Kadasky types

       
  5. Bobby Goodwin

    March 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

    I enjoyed the vido. Very informative and spot on. A question comes into focus. In the Old Testament we keep reading about the “beasts of the field”, who wear sack cloth, pray unto God, and have hands and can be hired (employed) for labor. I wonder who the “beasts” were???

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:04 AM

      Bobby Goodwin, you say & ask,

      @ > In the Old Testament we keep reading about the “beasts of the field”, who wear sack cloth, pray unto God, and have hands and can be hired (employed) for labor. I wonder who the “beasts” were???

      1. > Who are the we, in, we keep reading…………….?

      2. Be specific. At least give the Books, Chapters & verses you or “we” are referring to when you/we say, “beasts of the field who wear sackcloth.” Have you/we ever tried to do a little research into what this really means,i.e., Beasts of the field who wear sackcloth? I’m really nosy tho, I personally would like to know who the “WE” are. Is it a no no question, like, a secret?

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM

      To: Bobby Goodwin
      @ >I enjoyed the vido. Very informative and spot on.

      What or which VIDO are you, Bobby Goodwin, referring too? I like t watch & listen to “spot on” videos. Help me out here. On what thread is this “spot on” Video?

       
  6. deb

    March 13, 2014 at 7:11 PM

    Wikipedia defines Consumer (food chain) as such:

    Within an ecological food chain, consumers are categorized into three groups: primary consumers, secondary consumers, and the tertiary consumers.[2] Primary consumers are usually herbivores, feeding on plants and fungus. Secondary consumers, on the other hand, are mainly Carnivore and prey other animals. Omnivores, who feed on both plants and animals, can also be considered a secondary consumer. Tertiary consumers, sometimes also known as an apex predator, are usually on top of food chains, capable of feeding on secondary consumers and primary consumers. Tertiary consumers can be either fully carnivorous or omnivorous. Humans are one such example of a tertiary consumer.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 5:07 AM

      deb,
      @ > Wikipedia defines Consumer (food chain) as such:

      Way to go deb !!! As you undoubtedly noticed, Toland, said, “A friend of mine may soon get the chance to test your theory in the courtroom.” This theory, at least it’s my understanding, this theory, is referring to Alfred’s clear understanding of what Man or other animals,means/IS. deb, I think IF Toland & his friend include, what you deb, said, posted in your message on, March 13, 2014 at 7:11 PM, wow, I think this should be included in Toland’s & his friend paperwork. This comment alone, deb, should make the adversary attorney run for the hills. I hope Toland & his friend have the depth of perception to see what you have revealed, deb. Thanks, deb

       
  7. palani

    March 13, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    Enjoy!!!!

    English Synonyms Explained In Alphabetical Order, by George Crabb, 1818

    http://books.google.com/books?id=E3oSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA754&dq=privacy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qLUhU7K4OKSU2QWe3oG4BQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=privacy&f=false

    “Men cannot be exposed to a greater degradation than to be divested of their particular characteristics, and classed under the general name of animal”

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM

      palani,
      Thank you for providing the links. I tried to cut & paste the underlined part in the third or last link you provided but I cannot cut & paste it.the method I use to cut & paste works on other writings,etc, but not on some. Is there a way I can cut & paste the underlined part in the third link you provided?

       
      • palani

        March 14, 2014 at 4:42 PM

        @ J.M. “Is there a way I can cut & paste the underlined part”
        You might download the entire book (first link) or with the part you want to save on your screen you do a ‘PRINTSCREEN’ to save it to memory, open up PC PAINT and do a CNTRL-V to past that screen save.

         
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      palani
      March 14, 2014 at 4:42 PM
      Thank you, palani. What you said to do is all Greek to me. I know it’s second nature to you. I will save what you said to do & maybe someday, I can find somebody to show me how to do what you said to do. I am truly grateful to you, palani, for trying to help me & who knows there may be someone else your comment will help & he/she will know how to do what you said. Please don’t try to explain any further. I’ll find out how to do what you said. Thanks again.

       
    • J.M.

      March 21, 2014 at 5:55 AM

      palani,

      Do you leave any comments on any other blogs? Also, for other true Christians, ok, now with other things I have posted, here is the clincher. > Slaughterhouse Cases, > If then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment. < 14th Amendment.

      The Amendments that refer to slavery, can only have legislation made for those WHO were considered to be slaves. e.g., Hence the fifteenth amendment, which declares that "the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. 83 U.S. 36 16 Wall. 36, 71; Also, Maxwell v. Dow,S.C.R. page 571

      "…..the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment." < 14th Amendment.
      "…. the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested.< This IS what those "one people," aka We the people need to do. BUT, How is this done when there is no integrity in the gov-co?. I have seen things done in their "home" aka courts that have left me STUNNED & SHOCKED & FROZEN SPEECHLESS. REPEATEDLY !!!

       
  8. Sam Kadasky

    March 13, 2014 at 10:28 PM

    Toland,

    Yeah definitely do your homework beforehand. The stakes are too high to be sloppy. It could be that when the legislature wrote “man or other animals”, they meant:

    animal
    n.
    a living organism characterized by voluntary movement

    If the legislative intent was to use a definition like this, then being a man made in God’s image does not exempt you from the law, because men made in God’s image are obviously included in this meaning of “animal”.

    The article entitled “Animal” at Wikipedia says:

    The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans—that is, “animal” is often used to refer only to non-human members of the kingdom Animalia.… The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

    The legislative intent IS the law. So it’s essential to know what the legislature intended by the language it used, regardless of what you and I mean when we use the same words.

     
    • Toland

      March 13, 2014 at 11:41 PM

      Sam K.,

      This reminds me of the discussion about what one should say when a judge asks, “Do you understand the charges against you?”

      I’ve often thought the correct reply is, “I’ll be glad to answer that question, your judgeship, but first you’ll have to explain what you mean by ‘understand’?”

      Something similar could be called for in this case.

      Perhaps my friend should raise his concerns by saying, “Before I can understand the charges against me, I need to know what the word ‘animals’ means in the law I’m accused of violating. Specifically, does the meaning of this word include, or exclude, man made in God’s image?”

      The judge’s answer should be revealing.

       
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 14, 2014 at 2:04 AM

        Toland,

        You said: “Before I can understand the charges against me, I need to know what the word ‘animals’ means in the law I’m accused of violating. Specifically, does the meaning of this word include, or exclude, man made in God’s image?”

        I’d say this is definitely worth a try. It’s a perfectly fair question to ask the judge before you understand the charges against you.

        An obvious condition for understanding any charge is an understanding of the law alleged to have been broken. And you can’t understand the law in this case while the meaning of “animals” is unresolved.

        So ask for clarification.

         
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 4:22 AM

        Toland,
        @ > March 13, 2014 at 6:41 PM AND, March 13, 2014 at 11:41 PM

        Right, absolutely, like in DEFENDANT, says/answers. The judge’s answer should be revealing.

        It will be, but I wonder if it will reveal anything to you?

         
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 4:30 AM

        Toland, you ask & say,

        @ >See the potential problem? We’ve already caught government playing lots of word games, and we suspect it of some others. Examples include “person”, “this state”, “firearm”, etc.

        Well, do you? Do you see the potential problem? Examples also include, Defendant. I do regret telling you this. Hopefully it will be something you will disagree with.

         
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM

        Toland,
        @ > This reminds me of the discussion about what one should say when a judge asks, “Do you understand the charges against you?”

        Answer in any manner & you have just lost.unless you say, something you should “know” to say So far, what you show your answers will be, have no merit. What was it you, Toland, said to me, on a prior thread about the “merit” of MY paperwork? Remember?

         
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM

      Sam.Toland, & friends

      Man is capable of logic. < A BIG Problem for "animals." God endowed man with intellectual ability which was and is far superior to that of any animal. Anyway, I am of the strong belief that regardless of what strategy, etc., is used, it will not win for "lip service" Christians.

       
    • deb

      March 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM

      If one does some research on the word Human (Homo sapiens) one would discover that scientifically it is described as the only remaining species of the Hominids which is a branch of great apes.

      Humanbeing=other animal–Oxford dictionary–A man, woman, child of the species of Homo sapiens, distinguished from OTHER ANIMALS by superior mental development, power of articulate speech and upright stance.

      So the question begs the answer: are you a human being or a man created in the image of Yahweh God?

      Legislative intent IS to intentionally include in their definitions of animal, man made in the image of Yahweh, knowing full well that it DOES exempt man created in the image of Yahweh. Legislature is hell bent on usurping Yahweh God’s Law the author of it–and make their rules/codes/regulations superior to YAHWEH’s Law–the great I AM, in order to steal men’s souls and make them slaves. When you believe you are made in the image of God and He dwells within you, You are the Law–if it is written in your heart–that is to know and speak scripture=Law.

      But if one believes and regurgitates man made law written for those who are described as consumer/animal/human etc at nauseam, then one should obey those masters and accept the crumbs that fall off their tables.
      Some men just don’t know who they are. But if they describe themselves as “hey man i’m only human” then…they are going to be treated accordingly.

      http://www.hisholychurch.net/sermon/human.htm

      I agree with Gary’s post, that man made laws here have force and effect only in the United States and its DC territories–that is if one is or considers oneself as a US citizen.

       
      • J.M.

        March 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

        deb, hi,
        @ If one does some research ……………………….”

        IF one does “some” research, one will see & agree with “one” source. Some people understand what I’m saying & “some” do not? I wonder why?

        @ > If one does some research on the word Human (Homo sapiens) one would discover that scientifically it is described as the only remaining species of the Hominids which is a branch of great apes.

        Like in Evil-lew-shun? Scientifically speaking, is this a scientific way of saying that at least some people are the offspring of Apes? Know what I “see?” I do see the same Creator at work & showing he does have a sense of humor too. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-Hawwwwwwwww LOL

         
  9. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    March 13, 2014 at 11:09 PM

    I’m guessing that it might have been overlooked that the government “codes”, including, but not limited to Title 21, only have force and effect in the United States, clearly defined in those codes, as well as every single State (federal territory) commercial codes, as the District of COlumbia and the territories.

    That being what it is, all those ” codes” refer to “man or other animals” only in the District of Columbia or US territorial possessions:

    From the U.S. Supreme Court:
    “All legislation is prima-facie territorial”
    American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358

    “It is a well-established principle of law that all federal regulations applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears”
    [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]

    “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters[outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government”
    [Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

    “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears, [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
    U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222

    The following is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993:
    “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”

    The District of Columbia and the US territories are NOT under The Constitution For The United States of America, and, as such do NOT enjoy the constitutional protection of the first amendment or any other amendment. As the fourteenth amendment is NOT to The Constitution For The United States of America, but rather to the Constitution of the United States ( the constitution for the District of Columbia), and federal citizens ( US citizens, United States citizens, etc.) do NOT have constitutionally-protected rights, rather they have ‘civil rights’, given to them BY the United States Governemnt, the private, corporate government of the District of Columbia.

    As the District of Columbia is a foreign nation to the several states of the Union, stiled The United States of America, I think you are using the constitution from one nation, and applying it to the ‘codes’ and statutes (corporate rules) of an entirely separate and foreign nation, and vice-versa.

    In The United States of America, c.1787, you are, in fact a man, not an animal, made in the image of your creator, you just aren’t in that position in “the United States”, located in the District of Columbia.

    The “United States” is a Corporation:
    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …”
    Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
    SECTION 9301- 9342

    9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

    UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15)(A), p. 564 ”United States” means –
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States

     
  10. mike

    March 14, 2014 at 4:44 AM

    Al,
    If you really want to test this issue, without risking anyone’s sanity or freedom, I suggest getting a volunteer who desires post conviction relief. Someone who has been convicted and served his sentence and has absolutely nothing to loose by trying the argument.

    I hereby volunteer as I have a conviction from 1983 in a “man or other animals” state i.e. Louisiana and no longer live there. With your help I would be deighted to volunteer.

     
  11. jamesnicholas2047

    March 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    AD 1787, not AD 1887 for that Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

     
    • Adask

      March 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM

      Thanks for the correction.

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM

      jamesnicholas2047

      Are you related to ol Saint?

       
  12. Yartap

    March 14, 2014 at 12:58 PM

    The only thing that I have found about Harvey Wiley’s life and religion is that he was the son of a farmer and that he was “unorthodox” in his religious beliefs.

    Continuing from 21 USC 321 (General Definitions), I found these additional definitions reveling…..
    (w) The term “animal feed,”…is intended for use for food for animals OTHER THAN MAN…
    (nn) The term “major species” means cattle, horses, swine, chickens, dogs and cats,…..
    (oo) The term “minor species” means animals OTHER THAN HUMANS that are not major species.

    I did not find a definition for “animal” nor “man” in the US code (here). Al’s discovered definitions and the additional definitions (above) can be summed up to know the gov-co’s definition by deduction can only mean that “man is an animal.”

    Further, without knowing if another definition of “man” exist in the US code, we can assume that this deducted definition applies in and to all the code, because this inferred meaning is not “subject to this code section nor title section.

    Now, this code section does define “person” as an individual, corporation, etc; as it does in many other US code sections. The use and declaration that one is a “person,” implies control over one by the government corporation. Thus, if one claims to be made in the “image of God,” then it reasons that one must also claim to be a “son of God” (govt.’s per-son vs. God’s son).

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      Yartap,

      @ > Now, this code section does define “person” as an individual, corporation, etc; as it does in many other US code sections

      True. The Courts say repeatedly that words in a statute,etc., are known as to what they mean by the words they are associated with, via Noscitur a sociis.

      You,Yartap, said earlier that “all Individuals have unalienable rights.” I said, Nope, not true. Do you understand, now, why I said, Nope, not true? Personally, I like to be corrected, it helps keep me on the right path. Some people resent being corrected or disagreed with. Know what I mean?

       
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 12:17 AM

      Yartap,

      @ (w) The term “animal feed,”…is intended for use for food for animals OTHER THAN MAN…

      This only means & applies to “animal feed.” There is probably another “feed” for the man animal.

      @(oo) The term “minor species” means animals OTHER THAN HUMANS ….

      Just more confusion which is par for the author of confusion. I don’t think HUMANS, include man, unless that type of man has beastly traits. To me, HUMANS as used above are exempt from their legislation as to what a certain crime is. Man is not. Unless of course that certain man is capable of knowing what a REAL MAN IS.

       
  13. Yartap

    March 14, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    CORRECTION:
    I should have said in my 4th paragraph, “…, because this inferred meaning is not “ONLY subject to this code section or title section.”

     
  14. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 1:16 PM

    J.M. > “God endowed man with intellectual ability which was and is far superior to that of any animal.”

    Using the colloquial definition of “animal”, you are correct, and I agree. But there are many definitions of this word, some of which include man (e.g. see Wikipedia above).

    So, before applying the “man or other animals” concepts discussed on this blog, it’s important that I locate the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals”. Do you know where to find this definition?

    The trial will take place in Texas, if that matters.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      @ > Do you know where to find this definition?

      Yes

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM

      Toland,

      I also said, >Man is capable of logic. < A BIG Problem for "animals." It's also apparently a big problem for some people, or persons, or individuals too. Why is it that you didn't seem to think this is food for thought or important? Is it because it has no merit? Man IS "capable" of logic. What does this mean, man is capable of logic? Also, you,Toland, say, the colloquial definition of “animal”. Does this colloquial definition of “animal” have anything to do in any way with the grammatical equivalent definition of animal? It's me, I guess not understanding as usual. Tell you what tho, if you are sincere, & truly want to understand these colloquial definitions & grammatical equivalent terms/words of “animal” Go to the thread to your left, the one that shows a picture of a phantom & the word, WAS. & read what Alfred Adask says.

       
  15. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 2:42 PM

    J.M.

    The colloquial definition of “animal” is not relevant to this discussion, because “man or other animals” is a meaningless nonsense phrase using the colloquial definition.

    What will matter in my friend’s trial is the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals” into law. This was likely a technical definition from biology or some branch of the legal practice.

    If you know where to find the legislature’s definition, it would be helpful if you’d say where it is.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

      Toland,
      @ >The colloquial definition of “animal” is not relevant to this discussion….”

      It’s not? Then WHY did YOU bring it up?

      @ >If you know where to find the legislature’s definition, it would be helpful if you’d say where it is.

      Helpful to who?

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

      Toland, just remember this. IF it is a State initiated action,etc.,just exercise you 5th Amendment “privilege” to remain silent as any decent defendant should.

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM

      Toland, since you apparently don’t care to read & TRY to understand what Alfred Adask is saying on the Phantom/WAS thread. maybe this might be of help but I am only including the following for some others who know what logic & common sense means & for those who, at least have some degree of same. You should be able to bring up animals, in your search bar or whatever it’s called, & you should see what they are, a list of them, e.g. horse, cow, dog, cat & on & on & on. Once you can get an idea of what is being described & IF you can grasp it, Man or other animals, in legislation means man is just another animal, with the name of man. There are all kinds of birds, blue birds, red birds, black birds & on & on. BUT they are ALL BIRDS. Same applies to CATS, e.g. Tigers, Lions, Panthers, & on & on. BUT they are ALL STILL cats. Also, If your case starts out in Fed Court, e.g. U.S. District Court, & you say this proceeding will be in TX. There is a State Constitution called The Constitution for the State of Texas. now it may be worded different but just try to locate what you will know as the State of Texas Constitution. Somewhere in this Bill of Rights provision you will see something as pertaining to your right to remain silent. Use that provision if you are in U.S. District court. Try to imagine this. Try to see a horse in your mind’s eye. If you are able to do this, this is known as a horse animal. NOW, try to imagine a man, think of your friend. He is known as a man animal in the applicable legislation, Man or other animals. GOOD LUCK. you sure are going to need it. This is about all I can see going for you, LUCK. But I only know of two kinds. You are not another one of those Constitutionalists are you?

       
  16. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

    J.M.

    I brought it up the irrelevant colloquial definition to contrast it with the definition that IS relevant, namely the non-colloquial definition intended by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals”.

    Actually, the colloquial definition of “animal” was first brought up by someone else, quoting Wikipedia’s article on the word: “In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans…”

    > “Helpful to who?”

    Helpful to someone on trail for violating a “man or other animals” law. Responsible preparation for trial requires knowing what the legislature intended “animal” to mean when they wrote “man or other animals”.

    I am trying to provide this help, which is why I’m seeking the legislature’s definition of “animal”.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 5:00 PM

      Toland,
      Are you aware that Alfred Adask was involved in litigation the same as you are talking about,Toland, facing $25,000 a day fines & who knows what else? Are you aware of this Toland? YES, NO, or, DON”T KNOW

       
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 12:32 AM

      Toland,

      @ >Helpful to someone on trail for violating a “man or other animals” law.

      Will your friend allow you to post what this violation is? I fail to understand why IF IF your friend is “on trial” for ……..Ohhhhhh, now I see Toland, your friend is not on trial, your friend is on TRAIL, like in Happy trails, as performed by Roy Rogers & Dale Evans. Just goes to show tho, in trying to give the benefit of the doubt as to what is really meant, can sometimes prove to be a mistake.

       
  17. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 5:10 PM

    J.M.

    You said you know where to find the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals”. So why you are not telling me where it is even after I told how important it is that I find it?

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 5:25 PM

      Toland,
      Are you aware that Alfred Adask was involved in litigation the same as you are talking about,Toland, facing $25,000 a day fines & who knows what else? Are you aware of this Toland? YES, NO, or, DON”T KNOW

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 5:51 PM

      Toland,

      How about posting the statute or whatever it is that your friend is accused or charged with violating? Then we’ll go from there. BUT it will be only for some others to understand as to my response.There are more people on this blog who can explain it better than I can. I don’t know the true reason as to why he/she doesn’t try to explain it. Alfred has already explained it THOROUGHLY & MORE SO. Maybe trying to explain the same thing in a different way would help. As to why nobody else wants to try & explain it, could be he/she wants to see me make a FOOL of myself I don’t know, but anyway just post what your friend is charged with. We will go from there. Fair enough???.

       
  18. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 6:14 PM

    J.M.

    You misunderstand, perhaps I’ve been unclear. I’m not asking you to “explain” anything, and I don’t want you to make a fool of yourself.

    All I’m asking you to do is copy-and-paste, or post a link to, the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals”.

    Once we’ve established this basic foundation, then we can intelligently discuss what the legislative intent behind this “man or other animals” phrase might have been.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 6:52 PM

      Toland,

      1. How about posting the statute or whatever it is that your friend is accused or charged with violating? Then we’ll go from there.

      2.Just post what your friend is charged with. We will go from there. Fair enough???

      3. You are trying to come up with a solution to a charge or accusation of something. What is your friend charged with? Violation of what? Is it something to do with drugs? IF not, then yes, I have misunderstood what you are trying to help your friend with.

      4. How about posting the statute or whatever it is that your friend is accused or charged with violating? Then we’ll go from there. Fair enough? Do you understand what I’m asking for?

       
      • Toland

        March 14, 2014 at 7:21 PM

        J.M.

        Maybe I’ll post those details of the case, but not without getting permission first. I’m going to talk to my friend again next week, at which time I’ll see if it’s okay.

        Meanwhile, my main purpose for posting in this thread is unfulfilled. That purpose is to discover the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature, so that my friend can go to trial prepared with an understanding of the legislative intent behind the “man or other animals” phrase.

        You, knowing this definition, refuse to share it. Why?

         
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 7:10 PM

      @ > I don’t want you to make a fool of yourself.

      Too late. I already have. I do it every day. Trying to live up to my reputation. But truly, Toland, I’m more concerned about your friend than with you unless your friend deals in drugs or is a drug addict..

      It really doesn’t matter because you can use the EXACT same thinking Alfred Adask did but if you are not a follower of YHWH ha Elohiym you & your friend LOSE. There is a scripture in the Bible where this “exorcist” was attempting to cast a demon or demons out of a certain man. The exorcist said with great vigor, In the name of JESUS Who PAUL preaches, I COMMAND YOU TO DEPART from this man. The demon answered back & said, Paul I KNOW and JESUS I KNOW BUT WHO THE HELL ARE YOU. The demon did come out of the man & beat the holy Sh.. & HELL out of the exorcist. Beat him to bloody pulp. Tore all his clothes off of him too. I’m certain this exorcist was sincere in his efforts it’s just that he was sincerely wrong. As palani says, this is for educational & entertainment purposes only.

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 7:17 PM

      Toland,
      @ >Once we’ve established this basic foundation, then we can intelligently discuss what the legislative intent behind this “man or other animals” phrase might have been.

      Intelligently discuss ?? I disagree. Not anything can be intelligently discussed with STUPID, or someone fishing. POST the STATUTE your “friend” is accused of violating. .

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 8:08 PM

      Toland,

      @ >Maybe I’ll post those details of the case, but not without getting permission first. I’m going to talk to my friend again next week, at which time I’ll see if it’s okay.

      I’m not asking for the DETAILS of the case. I’m asking for The STATUTE your friend is accused of violating. IF your friend does not want you to reveal that statute, then your r friend does not deserve any help. Posting the Statute your friend is accused of violating is not giving all the details. What is the statute your friend is accused of violating. Is this asking too much? Personally I think you are fishing & fishing ONLY. You either post the statute your friend is accused of violating or GET LOST.

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM

      Hey Toland, will this help? Does the following look familiar?

      Sec. 431.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the Texas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

      (14) “Drug” means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia National Formulary, or any supplement to it, articles designed or intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, articles, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in this subdivision.

       
  19. Toland

    March 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

    > “IF your friend does not want you to reveal that statute, then your r friend does not deserve any help.”

    You could be right about that, but we won’t know what my friend wants to reveal until I get a chance to ask him next week.

    At present, I’m simply following through on a conversation he and I had in which the Adask “man or other animal” theory was brought up.

    My friend requested aid in finding the specific definition of “animal” used by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals”, so that the legislative intent of this phase can be included in his defense.

    That’s all I’m doing in this thread for now. I call it research. You can call it “fishing” if you like. You’re under no obligation to help.

    > “Does the following look familiar?”

    All too familiar, though I don’t see how it tells us what “animal” means. It uses the word “animal” without defining it.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 9:39 PM

      It uses the word “animal” without defining it.

      Well, if you don’t know what an animal is, which I cannot grasp, I don’t see how anybody can help you & your “friend.” Maybe if you see a little child 5 or 6 years of age, the child could help you understand. Then again, with the educational system the way it is, maybe the child cannot. I have to consider the parents & how they were educated in the Public fool system. I have 6 years of this myself. & I admit, it has hurt me.But most people have been hurt in this way more than me & a LOT more than me. I have asked you several times if you were/are aware that Alfred Adask was charged with a violation of the Texas Drug laws. I don’t think I said Texas drug laws but it doesn’t matter, they are all the same everywhere. Maybe different numbers but they all say the same thing. Apparently, you,Toland, do not know what statute your “friend” is charged with so therefore I don’t see how anyone could be of any help. I believe if you will scroll to the top of the subject matter showing on the right hand side of your monitor, you will arrive at “man or other Animals.” If you study this information it will help you, I think, I hope so, anyway, to know at least something about what an animal is, & what a man is too. This just a suggestion. In the meantime until you know what your friend is charged with, I think I can safely say, No one can help you. OR, Go back to the previous thread & read over your & my exchanges. I do think you are off to a good start tho when you say, DEFENDANT SAYS. Defendant is a good word to use in their courts. They will know EXACTLY what you mean. Once again, GOOD LICK.

       
      • Toland

        March 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM

        > “Well, if you don’t know what an animal is…”

        I didn’t say that. I said the citation you posted fails to define what it means by “animal”. Big difference.

        In common with many other words, the word “animal” has a wide range of possible meanings. Which of these meanings was intended by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals” could be critical to my friend’s defense. Did the legislature intend a definition of “animal” that includes man? This important question is as yet unanswered.

        So far, no one in this thread except you knows which of the possible meanings of “animal” matches this legislative intent, but you aren’t talking.

         
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      @ >You could be right about that, but we won’t know what my friend wants to reveal until I get a chance to ask him next week.

      Why did you not wait until next week to start your inquiry? Oh, never mind.

       
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 10:25 PM

      @ Which of these meanings was intended by the legislature when they wrote “man or other animals”

      The legislative intent of who animals applied to IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

      YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” ME TOO YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” YOU & your “friend” ME TOO. The legislative intent of who animals applied to IS IS IS YOU, ME, & EVERYBODY ELSE, except moon. The reason it does not apply to moon is because moon does not have an account number. The reason moon doesn’t have an account number is because moon is of no account. supp, moon?

       
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 4:47 PM

      @ All too familiar, though I don’t see how it tells us what “animal” means. It uses the word “animal” without defining it.

      If you,Toland, are being truthful about having a friend on trial for violation of any drug law, you both will understand what is meant & defined as to what an animal is, or at least you can say your friend was found guilty of violating a drug law without anyone even trying to define what an animal is. You can always appeal the decision/judgement, etc. Just make sure you say, DEFENDANT was found guilty of violating a drug law without anyone defining what an animal is. Defendant thinks this is unfair blah blah blah blah.

       
  20. Timmy

    March 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

    Al, good argument. I would add a key dimension: you are not allowing for the Fall, which comes after Gen 1. (chapter 3) All of that status and blessing was lost to mankind at that point, and Satan became the “Prince of this world”, as Christ acknowledged. Seems logical to me then that your argument is correct, but would only hold for a born-again, Christ trusting Christian. Someone who has been restored to that original status by grace.

    Everyone is born in effect, without eternal life; an animal if you will, unless they receive the gift of Life freely and willingly. (A free will choice each of us has the opportunity to make.) This also explains why and how God Himself will destroy people in Hell. Why would He do that if they were all “His children”? He wouldn’t. The unsaved are the children of their father, the devil. As Christ Himself said, quite clearly. I suppose what I’m saying is that status was conditional and the conditions must be met for it to apply. But yes, it’s a great discovery by you.

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 10:50 PM

      Timmy,
      Al, good argument. I would add a key dimension: you are not allowing for the Fall, which comes after Gen 1. (chapter 3 All of that status and blessing was lost to mankind at that point, and Satan became the “Prince of this world”, as Christ acknowledged.

      Sounds like a good argument for the adversary. I believe tho, Abel was the 2nd child born to Adam & Eve. Emanuel aka Jesus referred to Abel, as “Righteous Abel.” Why dat? The fall DID bring a curse upon mankind & since Adam & Eve chose to believe Satan, Satan did become the present evil ruler. But, SEE, Abel could not help what his parents did. It is for people like Abel, That an atonement was provided for. You, Timmy are mixing apples with oranges. People seem to not remember that the charges against Alfred were DROPPED !!! WHY !!??!! Why were the charges dropped?????????? I am convinced I KNOW WHY. & I’m CONVINCED Alfred KNOWS WHY TOO !!!!

       
      • J.M.

        March 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM

        Timmy, once again, you say,

        @ >Al, good argument. I would add a key dimension: you are not allowing for the Fall, which comes after Gen 1. (chapter 3 All of that status and blessing was lost to mankind at that point,……”

        Chiming in here again. HOW can you say, Al, good argument. AND then say, All of that status and blessing was lost to mankind at that point,……” < e.g., made in the image of "God." LOST ???

        LOST?? Then what is the good argument about?? Help me out here. Am I in your opinion taking things too seriously?? Why am I browbeaten to the point of despair? Don't people REALLY SEE WHO is being INSULTED???

         
    • deb

      March 16, 2014 at 2:20 AM

      Timmy

      @Everyone is born in effect, without eternal life; an animal if you will…

      Yes on eternal life, but the only animals referred to in their (hidden) codes (man or other animals) are the hybrid reptilians and those who wish to become such. Maybe even those who are ignorant of the fact. Have you heard of transhumanism? going back to Noah–as it was in the days of Noah…or multiple stranded DNA?
      —————-
      JM–We can spend countless hours trying to figure out this law or that law or trying to figure out what those of their father the Devil mean through their fiction or in defining man or other animal, or what the definition of animal really means in their convoluted laws. WHO CARES! The bottom line is, is that there are two kingdoms on this earth–one is the kingdom of God. Take a guess what the other one is.

      In which kingdom are you? You cannot be in both, cannot represent both. Whose LAW are you obeying because you cannot serve two masters. Yah is a jealous God and doesn’t accept dual citizenship–never. We are Kings and Priests, Ambassadors for Yahweh and heirs to the promise, why are the so called christians taking orders from other men who are not Yah’s elect and instead of building the Kingdom based on Yah’s laws and precepts are cowering to these devils who pretend they are gods and have branded most of their chattel with their SIN numbers and licenses?

      Don’t you men of God know the power you have in you?? I’m so tired of hearing some of the rhetoric, diatribe and whining going back and forth instead of focusing on building some true voices for the Kingdom of God which has been here since Yahshua handed it over to His disciples 2000 years ago? Why aren’ t we turning the world=govt. upside-down as the Apostles did? Where is the fire/courage? Shame on all you Christian men but more so you Pastors who would rather have your 501c3 benefits while you’re fleecing your flock and do nothing for the poor and widows, but send them to the State for benefits.

      It is estimated that about 80% of Americans are Christians. What would happen if they all at once stood up in unison and said enough? We will serve Yahweh. Naah, everyone loves their servitude consuming all the benefits of breads and circuses, because pretty soon they’re going to be zapped outta here–beam me up scotty.

      Oh wake up and stop consuming–you don’t own anything–the time is sooooo short!

       
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 3:37 PM

        deb,
        I am not upset with you for believing or understanding any of the meaning of the “Holy Bible” scriptures the way I do. I have asked my Heavenly Father in the name of his Son, Emanuel to let me understand the scriptures the way THEY do. Apparently I do ask for understanding of some scriptures that are not, at this time, meant for me to know & this is because I need to know more about the more basic things before understanding will be given about deeper things.

        You,deb, say there are two Kingdoms on this earth. Which one is overpowering the other? IF the Kingdom of God is on this earth TODAY, it doesn’t appear to me this Kingdom is prevailing. I think it is insulting to “God” to say the his Kingdom is on this earth NOW & has been as you,deb,say, since Yahshua handed it over to His disciples 2000 years ago. So, IF the Messiah returns today, & hands over to his Father this Kingdom, what is he really handing over? I believe Emanuel will return to Bind Satan for 1,000 years. I believe this Kingdom FROM heaven will be set up & people will be TAUGHT what this Kingdom is all about. Revelation 20,21,22 should explain THIS Kingdom that THEN will be turned over to the Father. As far as you, deb, say, the power within “you” how about this verse,> And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
        John: 2:25 He – To whom all things are naked,he knew what was in man – Namely, a desperately deceitful heart.

         
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 3:46 PM

        deb,
        @ WHO CARES!

        Toland, Sam Kadasky, Bobby Goodwin, Ugly Truth, & others “seem” to care.

         
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 4:33 PM

        @ >It is estimated that about 80% of Americans are Christians. What would happen if they all at once stood up in unison and said enough?

        Even IF this should take place, I think we will still have 80% still disagreeing with one another over who is right & who is wrong about understanding the Holy Bible. How many abominations, excuse me, denominations are there today? They ALL have the SAME “Book” they take to their different churches. WHY?? Why are their so many different churches & yet have the SAME Book?

         
      • J.M.

        March 17, 2014 at 10:22 PM

        deb, you say
        @ > I’m so tired of hearing some of the rhetoric, diatribe and whining going back and forth

        So am I. Which of the following names of the Messiah is correct? And this in no way are all of them. IF one is correct, what does this say for the others?

        Yahushua v. Yahshua v. Yeshuah v. Yahuwah v. Yehowah v. Yahshuah

         
      • deb

        March 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM

        Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! Proverbs 30:4

         
      • J.M.

        March 17, 2014 at 11:47 PM

        deb,
        I am not upset with you for believing or understanding any of the meaning of the “Holy Bible” scriptures DIFFERENT from the way I do. Sorry, I did not explain this correctly in my previous comment.

         
      • J.M.

        March 17, 2014 at 11:55 PM

        @deb,
        @ Surely you know!

        NO !! I do not KNOW. But here is something I do KNOW. “HE” puts his LAW above his name. Honoring his LAW it seems to me is MORE important than just “knowing how to spell & pronounce his name.” What IF I know how to pronounce & spell his name & YET disregard his LAWS?

         
      • J.M.

        March 18, 2014 at 3:03 PM

        deb,
        @ >What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! Proverbs 30:4

        How does any man explain what the heavens cannot contain? Surely “you” know.

         
      • deb

        March 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM

        @ How does any man explain what the heavens cannot contain?

        What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of Yah, and ye are not your own? 1 Cor. 6:19

        But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, IF so be that the Spirit of Yah dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Messiah, he is none of his. Rom. 8:9

        What spirit do you have? Surely you know–right?

         
      • J.M.

        March 18, 2014 at 6:42 PM

        @ > What spirit do you have? Surely you know–right?

        Shalom,deb. Please tell me what your perception or knowledge is of this “spirit” you think or know I have. I don’t believe “spirits” bleed. I believe The Messiah WAS, at one time, composed of flesh & blood but I also believe The Messiah had the Holy Spirit within him too. What is the difference, if any, between a spirit & a “ghost?” Remember these expressions, >holy cow, holy mackerel,,etc?

         
      • J.M.

        March 19, 2014 at 10:44 PM

        deb,
        @ >Don’t you men of God know the power you have in you?

        Maybe the problem, or one of them is, we don’t have enough “women” preachers, pastors, or pastorens to teach us. Yes, it is SHAMEFUL not to have MORE REAL MASCULINE MEN Pastors, so I can see where women are sorely needed to bridge or fill the gap or whatever the emptiness is.

         
    • J.M.

      March 18, 2014 at 12:24 AM

      @ >This also explains why and how God Himself will destroy people in Hell. Why would He do that if they were all “His children”?

      This is really a merciful thing to do for all concerned. The righteous will not have to contend with the wicked any longer. The wicked will be mercifully destroyed so they will not have to reap the fruits of their wicked ways. I’s the best thing to do for ALL overall. It’s one of those simplicity in Christ ways. It’s simple for me to understand.

       
      • EDOMS THORN

        March 18, 2014 at 7:25 PM

        HEY J.M.

        Well, I went in debt and bought a new computer and a good antiVrirus and also a wireless router that I was told would help prevent getting Hacked and having my computer assassinated again.

        You mentioned …” Holy cow and holy mackerel. Did you know that the phrase Sam Hell comes from the NAME “Samael”? So when you hear someone say, …”What in Sam hell” that comes from EDOMS GUARDIAN ANGEL

        …”The biggest, most explosive secret. By studying the holiest books of the Esau/Edomite “religion” – the BABYLONIAN TALMUD and the Kabbalah (the cube) – we learn this:

        In two separate places, Sotah 10b, and Yalkut, 1,110, the TALMUD informs the Rabbis this most important fact: “Samael is the GUARDIAN ANGEL of Esau!!!” Esau/Edom, who calls themselves “Jews” today, the mighty warrior and antagonist tribe warring against Jacob/Israel and their God Jesus for eons – apparently has a very powerful spirit entity “guarding” and directing them from another dimension. Samael is their deity. Samael is their very identity. In the Edomite book Sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, Samael is also charged with being the one who tempted Eve, then seduced and impregnated her with Cain. Imagine that! In the book of Genesis, Christians understand this “Samael” is simply “The Serpent”. Now perhaps you can see and understand the ENMITY between Edomites and true Christians”.
        From Dr. A True Ott
        http://atrueott.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/righteous-blood-part-viii-uncle-samael-wants-you/

        Also see my post …”The SYNAGOGUE Of SATAN: EDOMS Playground”…
        http://www.edomsthorn.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/thesynagogueofsatanedomsplayground

         
  21. moon

    March 14, 2014 at 9:56 PM

    J.M., palani is more high tech than I am as well. Here’s a way I found to get the text you want:

    Rather than cut & paste, COPY & paste…to copy, press Ctrl & c at the same time, then Ctrl – v to paste it where you “compose” if you use gmail, or note pad, or probably anywhere else you want it.

    First, though, I copied http://i57.tinypic.com/2qjdker.jpg to open it on a different page, rather than clicking it on this page. It did take several tries to scoop up the copy in that link, but eventually it happened.

    palani, did you say the same thing, only in high tech speak?

     
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM

      moon,
      The problem is ME, not palani. ALL I know about computers is how to turn one off & on. I am, I think, learning some computer terms/words but I don’t know for sure about that. What is the latest on that arrest warrant, for failure to appear? Is that it, failure to appear? Had breakfast with the sheriff lately? again?

       
      • moon

        March 14, 2014 at 10:24 PM

        Don’t know that a warrant exists or will exist. Failure to appear is not a violation of statute…it’s WILLFUL failure to appear that isn’t in line with statute wording. Haven’t found, though, that statutes apply to me. The Sheriff is busy running for sheriff, mostly, these days. When I see him, I’ll tell him you’re thinking of him.

         
    • J.M.

      March 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM

      @ >When I see him, I’ll tell him you’re thinking of him.

      Why would you want to tell or say something that is untrue?

       
      • moon

        March 14, 2014 at 11:26 PM

        @J.M. Had breakfast with the sheriff lately? again?

        Apparently, you’re thinking of him.

         
    • palani

      March 15, 2014 at 7:45 AM

      Substantially the same. You might click on the link to open it in another page. Then right click on the image of the text and select Copy Image. Or you might right click on the image and select Copy Image URL and paste this url into your browser window. The PRINTSCREEN I use is the button on the keyboard. This pastes the video image on the display into memory where the entire screen capture can be pasted into any picture editing software.

       
    • J.M.

      March 15, 2014 at 11:30 PM

      moon,
      @ >Apparently, you’re thinking of him.

      I am thinking about all the times I asked you if you would help me out with ONE problem I still am having & you NEVER even cared enough to acknowledge I was asking you to HELP me JUST one time. I asked you repeatedly WHY do you ignore my PLEAS to YOU to help me & just pertaining to ONE matter. You, moon, would NEVER even respond to that. I am thinking about the time YOU said you “heard” that there was or may be an arrest warrant out for “whoever’s” arrest. I only wanted to know IF you had heard anymore about the arrest warrant. Now it seems like you, moon, don’t know what I’m referring to regarding an arrest warrant. NOW, when I ask palani to help me on a matter, & I DID NOT ask YOU, moon, you voluntarily offer to help anyway, BUT you WILL not even acknowledge ANY & ALL the times I asked YOU for help BEFORE & that help I was asking you for was only for ONE matter. moon, I do not want to exchange any more messages with you. As far as I am concerned you, moon are a pervert, & this is saying something good about you.

       
    • J.M.

      March 15, 2014 at 11:44 PM

      @ >J.M., palani is more high tech than I am as well. Here’s a way I found to get the text you want:

      I did not ask you for your help about this matter. Although I do understand that IS more hi tech than you are.Once again, I asked you several times before for your help on a matter & you ignored me, EVERYTIME.

       
      • J.M.

        March 15, 2014 at 11:46 PM

        @ >Although I do understand that IS more hi tech than you are.

        Although I do understand, palani, IS more hi tech than you,moon, are.

         
      • J.M.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:01 AM

        ECHO EARS,
        palani is HIGH CLASS TOO. You, ECHO EARS DO NOT HAVE ANY CLASS. Understand? I said to say you are a pervert is saying something good about you. You should like me. I know who YOUR daddy IS TOO !!!

         
    • J.M.

      March 17, 2014 at 8:38 PM

      @ Don’t know that a warrant exists or will exist. I’m aware that there may be a warrant issued that could prompt a police officer (or other) to feel it necessary to arrest me. < Government to cut size thread

       
  22. Charles Robert Renault©

    March 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM

    Hi guys and gals; as a new comer to this site, a researcher and investigator, investigating the piracy perpetrated by these murdering thieves located in the District of Criminals, on a tract of land 61.4 square miles in size, compared to the 3,718,800 square miles of this great country.
    The District of Criminals loaded with self-aggrandizing misanthropist attempting to lead the masses to their own self-destruction. Kindly pay attention to what Gary has posted above. Theses are facts not mere mimics or speculation. Knowledge is power, this site shows potential for absolute power, and in this “free” (only if one can afford it) country of total slavery, due to Our ancestors sleeping on the job, passing their lack of knowledge and truth on down to us, we are all guilty of allowing this crap to continue.
    We have learned to train animals via the animal’s fear of whatever the form of force is. Step out of the box for just a moment and observe exactly what the mob in DC is doing. These crooks have caused several fears not innate in children of God. They have conned us out of Our natural rights, replacing them with privileges, that can and are being removed. Men CANNOT issue rights to anyone, therefore we cannot claim constitutional rights because men wrote the contract between We The People and Our employees.
    Unfortunately, today not one “government” seat is occupied, explaining the rejection of the constitutional contract in their corporate administrative court system (scam). Corporations (nonexistent artificial entities) according to international law, cannot transact business of any kind with real flesh and blood living People. So the word sculptors came up with the scheme of changing the appearance of one’s given true name into a bastardization in the form of all capital letters. When spoken, it sounds exactly like one’s real name, a/k/a “idem Sonans” [we even allow them to use languages we don’t comprehend], thus being artificially created as corporations are, turning what you believe to be your name into a corporation soul. With this entity “they” can do business.
    Hopefully this clears up questions about the all capital lettered names on every so-called government and financially issued documents and cards. What appears on all of those documents and cards, is NOT you. This is the same MO king William the conqueror used on England when he invaded their country with his battalion of foreign language speaking a-turn-on-mes, with their paper declarations.
    I really dislike taking up so much space on another man’s site. However, I really don’t believe that Al would have a problem with it, but I really don’t want to overstep my boundary.
    Before I close, I would sincerely like to clarify the gigantic difference between the terms “legal” and “lawful”. Legalese is a foreign language used to deceive and/or mislead. This manufactured language uses words with a multitude of definitions, foreign and domestic, including Latin, Greek, French, and antiquated English. So unless you have been trained like liars (sorry I meant lawyers) to use these misunderstood words and terms, you’re simply SOL.
    “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under “color of law” (which see) is a legal process, however defective.
    “Legal, Latin; legalis: Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. ‘Legal’ looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and ‘lawful’ to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal’ is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; ‘Lawful’ for accord with ethical principle. ‘Legal’ imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been observed; ‘Lawful’ that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. ‘Legal’ is the antithesis of equitable and the equivalent of constructive.” 2 Abbott’s Law Dictionary 24.
    “Legal” matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied [presumed] rather than actual [express]. A legal process can be defective in law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you comprehend why Federal and State Rules of Civil Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to “legal” requirements of the specific juristic person(s) named, e.g., “STATE OF ARIZONA” or “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the administrative courts.
    “Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land–the law of the People–and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why true law was upheld by the generic constitutional contract, having no authority in today’s “courts”. It is impossible for any actor claiming authority, to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since authority is the “law of necessity”. 12 U.S.C. 95
    Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law”, a term which Black’s 5th Edition (page 241) defines as: “Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under color of law”.
    It appears that the terms legal and color of law are synonymous. The original organic constitutional contract, is deemed the “supreme law of the land”. This “supreme” law of the land has but two laws. Do not injure anyone or their property, and do not step on or hinder anyone’s rights. Every time a costumed, armed mercenary detains anyone, he or she has violated their liberty, impeded their travel, and/or approached a sovereign without consent. Americans are indeed sovereign, which means those who took an oath to serve and protect, are obligated to serve, even though they are NOT government employees. They merely pretend to represent the nonexistent government.
    To get a judge to perjure themselves simply ask them if they are in fact government officials or employees. If they reply “yes”, they commit perjury. They are mere corporate administrators nothing more. The only “authority” any of these actors have, is what We The People have given them. The term “value” carries the same prerequisite. Nothing on this planet has any value until you assign whatever it is, a value. If you believe (believe and trust are synonymous) a piece of paper with symbols, numbers, and depictions of dead presidents, have value, that’s what “they” want. Who told you these pieces of paper have value? Did you merely assume it? Someone or something led you to believe these things that belong to a private corporation are valuable.
    The principle of sovereignty is the exchange of earthly substance for earthly substance. If I buy a dozen eggs from you, and I give you a real silver dollar for them, we are both satisfied. I gave you substance for substance of the earth. No tax, rent, or further obligation exists. Had I given you a Federal Reserve Note, and you accepted it, I would have stolen your eggs, obligated you to pay rent or tax (same thing) for the use of a private corporations property, which I cannot lawfully use for any personal benefit.
    I am sure you folks have had enough of me. So I’ll close for now. What I have laid out here is not the practice of law, as I don’t practice anything except music. I merely educate my brethren, teaching them how to free themselves from the pirate owned plantation. These pirates have managed to steal our substance, jobs, security, and God given rights. We must take a stand, or forever be silent.
    In love, honor, and respect, simply Chuck…

     
  23. Sam Kadasky

    March 14, 2014 at 10:27 PM

    Toland,

    UglyTruth posted a cite upthread you might find interesting:

    “[it] is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the source itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no futher” — Baron Parke, Becke v Smith (1836)

    We can safely say “man or other animals”, when interpreted according to “the ordinary meaning of the words used” leads to “manifest absurdity”. This is so because the ordinary meanings of “man” and “animal” make these categories mutually exclusive.

    Therefore, either “man” or “animals” must, in “man or other animals”, assume a non-ordinary meaning.

    And the winner is… “animals”!!! – because one of its non-ordinary meanings includes man (see below), while there is no equivalent non-ordinary meaning for “man” available. Thus we make sense of the otherwise nonsensical “man or other animals”.

    Wikipedia:

    The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage the word incorrectly excludes humans—that is, “animal” is often used to refer only to non-human members of the kingdom Animalia.… The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

     
  24. Timmy

    March 14, 2014 at 11:14 PM

    I don’t think I’m mixing apples and oranges… please back up a statement like that with some facts.

    What could be clearer than the fact that there are two classes of people? (“left and right hand”, “sheep and goats”, “saved and lost”, “righteous and unrighteous” etc.) Abel was a man of faith, by the Blood. (In advance of the event.) Hence, righteous. Just as Abraham and all other righteous people in the Old Testament were so only by faith. They, along with the prophets, looked forward to the Sacrifice yet to come. Just as we look back to it in faith. Well, some of us anyway.

    Cain denied the blood sacrifice. Wanted to save himself by his own works. (“You are murderers, just like your father, the devil…”) And the same ilk, carrying on the same worldview down through the millennia, murdered Him. But that fulfilled the purpose of His coming.

    One cannot claim the blessings and standing of the pre-fall creation (Genesis 1) without coming into redemption through the Cross and His life. Then, yes, all those blessings are yours, some now and some to come. From what I understand, Al does believe and tries to follow the Scriptures. So he is entitled to take his position.

     
    • J.M.

      March 17, 2014 at 11:38 PM

      Timmy,
      @ > denied the blood sacrifice. Wanted to save himself by his own works.

      Then why was Cain advised as follows? > If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. You, Cain, will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master.”

      Our Creator DOES forgive sin IF we repent. BUT, some people do not know what repent, means.
      I do not know IF Cain overcame this downward pull to do wrong. Seems to me IF he did, he was told he would be accepted. Apparently you, Timmy know Cain did not overcome. I’m not saying you are wrong. I don’t know. I hope he did, repent & TRY at least to overcome & endure until the end, of his life.

       
    • J.M.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:14 PM

      Timmy,
      @ >I don’t think I’m mixing apples and oranges… please back up a statement like that with some facts.

      I have. Why don’t you answer? Why have you & deb chimed out on me?. Do you want to be of sincere help or not? You ask for someone to chime in & when someone chimes in, both of you chime out. You know what? I try to thank people for showing me the errors of my ways. What in your opinion is wrong with me being this way? I really desire to be humble BUT, I confess, it’s practically impossible for me to be humble with ECHO EARS continually spitting in the face of our Heavenly Father & his Son & our elder Brother. Neither one of you, Timmy OR deb seem to care one way or the other.

       
  25. palani

    March 15, 2014 at 8:01 AM

    A purlieu is land outside the border of the king’s forest. A purlieu man is one who is not in hunting in the forest but rather in this border land. A distinction is made if the man is hunting on his own land or on the land of others:

    “But yet, in some cases, a purlieu man may lawfully pursue his chase, and hunt and kill a deer in the forest for if he find such deer in his purlieu, and, in hunting it towards the forest, the dogs fasten on it before ‘tis within the bounds thereof, and the dogs still hanging on, are drawn by the force of the deer into the forest, and ‘is killed there; in this case, by reason of the first property which he had, ratione soli, and also by the pursuit and possession thereof by his dogs, before the deer entered the forest, he may lawfully follow his chase there, and take and carry away the deer, because he was actually possessed thereof by his dogs (which are his servants) before it entered the forest.”

    Now consider the case where purlieu man starts hunting on someone elses land:

    “64. In the aforesaid case, 12 H. 8 it appeareth, that if a purlieu man doth begin to hunt in another man’s grounds in the purlieu, and not in his own; this being an injury to the owner of those grounds, if his dogs fasten on a wild beast before it recovers the bounds of the forest, and are drawn in by force, and then they kill the deer there, the owner of the dogs must not enter into the forest, nor take the best so killed, because the first hunting and pursuit began by wrong; for he never had any property in the beast, ratione soli; and therefore, though he doth not come himself into the forest, yet he shall be a trespasser of the forest, because his dogs enter’d it and killed a wild beast, in which he never had any manner of property.”

    Three points:

    1) From the first text a man’s hunting dogs are his servants and are capable of taking possession.
    2) A man hunting on someone elses land may be charged with trespass even though only his dogs enter the forest.
    3) A man hunting on someone elses land is not capable of legally possessing any animal he killed.

    This might be a slight diversion from the topic but does show that law places servants in with animals and that man’s rights depends upon his status as owner. A government servant might be paid a salary or he might get a dish of dog food. Servants are classed as animals as can be clearly seen by the charges that are given you when you kill a police dog who is chewing your leg.

     
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 1:30 AM

      palani,
      @ > “Servants are classed as animals as can be clearly seen by the charges that are given you when you kill a police dog who is chewing your leg.”

      The police dog has been & IS granted/given a LICENSE by a so called “superior authority” to CHEW on our legs. Anyway, if we in self defense overcome the licensed to chew on legs dog, the peace officer will ask to see your driver license. Know what I mean?

       
      • J.M.

        March 19, 2014 at 9:07 PM

        Because of my Grandmomma’s raisin, I need to be more specific about this. When the “peace officer” knocked on the door, it was drizzlin rain. I invited him in & as I said, he wanted to know if I had noticed a certain individual in the “area.” He, the “peace officer” described what this individual looked liked. I told him, not that I can recall. Anyway, I had a LOT of batteries on the floor & all for a legitimate purpose. The peace officer asked me about WHY so many batteries. I explained WHY. He started looking around like he was trying to “find something.” The thing I did not mention before in my previous statement, IS, my wheelchair WAS/IS motorized. I am presuming the “peace officer” noticed that AND the TWO wheels & he, the “peace officer” assumed I was in a motor vehicle & this is why he asked to see a driver license. I’m not trying to be cute or funny, He did NOT, however, ask to see proof of insurance or registration papers. WHEN I told him I did not have a driver license, YES he did get on his “HORN” & called somebody & the peace officer was asked, is he (me) on the road. Anyway no use in getting into the rest of it. I was not arrested in THAT particular. I think since the “Timothy McVeigh stop” after the Oklahoma City Bombing, ALL peace officers are trained to notice more carefully, suspicious vehicles. YES, there are suspicious vehicles, to them. Here is a vehicle, for example, PARKED at a 7-11 & there is something suspicious about it ??? IT’S in their TRAINING.

         
  26. Timmy

    March 15, 2014 at 9:14 AM

    I can only hope that some of you who can actually think clearly and reason are reading, but rarely posting. Please chime in anytime…

     
    • Toland

      March 15, 2014 at 4:49 PM

      Timmy,

      The clear thinkers have stayed out because this debate is not ready for prime time. It lacks the basic requirement of well-defined terms, e.g. “animals” (as the legislature meant it, of course). So we could talk back and forth for years and not get anywhere.

      “How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subject to strictest scrutiny and definition.”

      — Will Durant, in The Story of Philosophy

       
      • J.M.

        March 15, 2014 at 10:51 PM

        Toland
        @ >The clear thinkers have stayed out ………..

        Yes Toland, as I have said before, even a blind hog can root up an acorn every now & then. See, I clearly saw FINALLY, I was trying to reason with, “at best” unclear thinkers.

         
      • J.M.

        March 18, 2014 at 12:04 AM

        Toland, you say,

        @ > What a luxury it is to simply scroll past a chronic troll’s latest nonsense without reading it, that much sooner getting to one of the intelligent comments.

        You Betcha. You Finally came up with something that makes sense.

         
    • J.M.

      March 15, 2014 at 11:06 PM

      Timmy,
      You said in a subtle way that Alfred’s understanding of man being made in the image of “God” was LOST when Adam & Eve partook of the fruit that “God” told them not to partake of. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I fail to understand how the second child, Abel, can be called, “righteous” by the Messiah & NOT be in the image of “God.” Also you & your kind want to mislead by getting this “seed” understanding mixed up. SOME of The “Seed” of Abraham wanted the Messiah DEAD. This “seed” of Abraham took up stones to kill the Messiah. This seed was ALSO the “seed” of Satan because of their lifestyle. THEY were the physical seed of their Father Abraham, BUT they were the spiritual seed of their spiritual Father, Satan. This IS not my opinion, this IS what Emanuel, aka Jesus SAYS.

       
    • J.M.

      March 15, 2014 at 11:11 PM

      Timmy, you say,
      @> I can only hope that some of you who can actually think clearly and reason are reading, but rarely posting. Please chime in anytime…

      I just chimed in. It’s in my message of > March 15, 2014 at 11:06 PM. Please, Timmy, don’t chime out on me, you or deb either.

       
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 1:03 AM

        @ >Prey or be preyed.

        It’s because of beastly people like you, Adrian, that we, all of us, live/exist in a predatory society. Prey, or be preyed upon IS because of a word being unknown, called, prayer, & this is because the Author of Prayer is unknown because for the most part no one WANTS to know about the Author. AND, those that DO find out about the Author, REJECT the Author because what the Author says to do to have happiness in each life is not believed. SEE !!! the created KNOW more than the Creator.
        This comment IS NOT for Adrian. Adrian IS an Atheist. It’s his kind that make a predatory society aka survival of the fittest, aka dog eat dog, etc. Prey or be preyed upon. I think praying for Adrian is a waste of time.

         
  27. Adrian

    March 15, 2014 at 3:20 PM

    One thing is certain about consumers,they are all part of the circle of life.
    Animals or plants make up the food chain.
    Prey or be preyed.

     
  28. Sam Kadasky

    March 15, 2014 at 11:53 PM

    Toland,

    Checked out the 1st edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, which was current when the 1906 “man or other animals” act was passed.

    This dictionary has two definitions of “animal”. One of them includes man, the other does not. So, yes, it’s entirely possible that the legislative intent behind “man or other animals” had nothing to do with denying man is made in God’s image.

    We’ll know for sure if and when someone finally puts up the specific definition of “animal” used by this legislature. Until then, this topic is mostly speculation.

     
  29. J.M.

    March 16, 2014 at 1:16 AM

    Sam, > We’ll know for sure if and when someone finally puts up the specific definition of “animal” used by this legislature. Until then, this topic is mostly speculation.

    How is it that Alfred Adask KNOWS for SURE what it means & maybe ONLY one or two more KNOW what it means. WHY were the charges DROPPED when Alfred Adask WAS charged with a violation of the DRUG laws? Do I expect you,Sam, or Toland, OR ANY of your kind to respond to this message? If I say, yes, you will not respond. If I say no, you will respond. BLIND GUIDES.

     
    • Sam Kadasky

      March 16, 2014 at 2:30 AM

      As far as I’m concerned, the only people who know what the legislature intended by the word “animals” are those who can cite the definition. So far, no one has done so, despite this definition’s importance to the theory.

      And don’t ask me why the charges were dropped. Ask whoever dropped the charges.

       
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM

        Sam, you say,
        @And don’t ask me why the charges were dropped

        I hoped you would be honest & humble enough to say you did not know. Before you breathe another breath of air, define what the air is.

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM

        “I hoped you would be honest & humble enough to say you did not know.”

        That’s a funny statement coming from an arrogant liar, Les Fuchs.

        Then again, “J.M.” is probably short for “Judgement Is Mine”, because every new thread in this blog is quickly littered with multiple postings of “J.M.” passing judgement on the virtues and shortcomings of others.

         
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 4:07 PM

        Sammy, you say,
        @ >That’s a funny statement coming from an arrogant liar, Les Fuchs.

        Martens/Jetlag have already used ths stragety REPEATEDLY. It failed. But, keep trying. If you throw enough MUD some will stick. citizenquasar has given the correct response that applies to you,Sammy,& Toland, & some others like you. As Harry Skip Robinson said, the ONLY way to “deal” with people like me, is to RIDICULE people like me. Problem IS, there not enough people like me. Skip Robinson ridicules Neil Degrasse for Degrasse saying there IS “something” existing they have no answer for. Skip Robinson says There IS NOTHING existing & Degrasse needs to be ridiculed for saying there IS “SOMETHING” Keep up the good work SAMMY,Et.Al. KEEP on showing what you really are. citizenquasar SEES.

         
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 4:21 PM

        Sam,
        @ As far as I’m concerned,

        This is the way it IS about EVERYTHING with you & your ILK. It’s as “far” as YOU are concerned. Your concern doesn’t reach out very FAR whatsoever.

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 16, 2014 at 4:24 PM

        J.M.

        I’m not using a “strategy” with you, Les Fuchs, so stop deluding yourself. You’re not worth the time, and trolls like you thrive on attention. My only purpose in revealing your trolling career is to give notice where notice is due, to clean up the place.

        You admitted earlier in this thread that you make a fool you yourself daily. This claim seems credible since it was you who recommended the page with an exposé on your chronic trolling, and multiple bannings, under different usernames.

        I see your mission to lower the value of this blog goes back over a year.

        Thanks for the heads up, Les Fuchs.

         
      • J.M.

        March 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM

        Sam,
        @ > I see your mission to lower the value of this blog goes back over a year.

        Martens/Jetlag said the same thing. Most people like to say it’s somebody else’s fault when he/she shows what a heardhearted “acting” like a dummy, because of his/her idiocy. As far as I’m concerned, Sam, when you say,”This claim seems credible as to your chronic trolling, since it was you who recommended the page with an exposé on your chronic trolling….. DARN, Sam, this is to me, EXACTLY what you are doing. But I guess you already know no one else can “see” this. Hey, look, regardless of what you say, sammy, I am going to quit being the fool I have been trying to reason with you. Fools do not have to remain foolish. Keep putting out your jewels that you have been doing and show all interested like minded experts just how bright you are.

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

        J.M. “Keep putting out your jewels that you have been doing and show all interested like minded experts just how bright you are.”

        Another ironic remark, considering what you did to Toland in this very thread. He’s under the gun with a drug charge against him and/or a friend. Then you claim to have the answer he’s looking for, but never deliver. Instead you string him along.

        The curious thing is, you yourself recommended the page where others expose you as a chronic troll. Why did you do that, Les Fuchs, a.k.a. Sparky, a.k.a. Sparks, a.k.a. Sparky the Dullard, a.k.a. Don, a.k.a. Don Bailey, etc.?

        https://adask.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/mooa-fights-the-phantom-was

        Are you so stupid and full of yourself that you can’t see how obvious their case against you is?

        Are you motivated by a desire to get caught and punished by your daddy Alfred, with whom you are clearly infatuated?

        Or does your extended campaign at this blog, which includes the circumventing of multiple bans, elevate you to a troll rock-star in your mind?

        You said earlier in this thread that you are trying to maintain the reputation of being a fool. Is this also a factor in your trolling, Les Fuchs?

         
      • chuckrenault

        March 16, 2014 at 9:39 PM

        It would behoove you to eliminate nonsense the children have posted above. This could be a great site with People of intelligence helping each other. Not attempting to fight with one another quibbling over such crap. The reference in the 1930 Brilliantine Law Dictionary for human being, referred one to “monster”. Who cares what the difference is between animal and man? Words mean absolutely nothing, actions and reactions, with the physical approach have their effect until the perpetrator meets his or her match. This bickering has been going on for some time now, and I personally cannot be a part or party of such crap. I’m outta here, it really was an experience. Al should you wish to contact me personally I will be happy to converse with you personally, but not with the children on your site. Thanks! Simply Chuck… PS: If you want to preach, take it to your synagogue, temple, mosque, or church. It has no place on an educational site attempting to wake People up. In this Country, we have freedom of and FROM religion. Let’s keep it that way!

         
      • EarlatOregon

        March 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM

        I agree with the children arguing over Nonsense,
        On the other hand,
        if you dont want to read about Religion,
        Ignore the comments,
        or,
        dont let the door hit you on the way Out

         
      • J.M.

        March 17, 2014 at 5:17 PM

        Sammy, & ALL of your kind,

        @ >Are you motivated by a desire to get caught and punished by your daddy Alfred, with whom you are clearly infatuated?

        Infatuation is delusional. Not real. Infatuation is, being controlled by brain chemistry, not the heart, loss of ability to make rational evaluations of what is true, valuable and worthy. the state of being completely lost in the emotion of unreasoning lust. Feels like All-consuming euphoria similar to recreational drug use (addictive chemical reactions in the brain), stupidity (cupidity). Can risk everything for the next hit of adrenalin. Person to Person Reckless commitment to satisfy one’s all consuming lust. INFATUATION Takes off fast and furious like a spark in dry grass burns out quickly and can leave feelings of emptiness.

        An admiration definition A decision to commit oneself to another and to work through conflicts instead of giving up.

        Faithfulness, loyalty, confidence. Willingness to make sacrifices for another. Working at settling differences. Able to compromise so that either both win or at least give the other person’s opinion a chance.Think about other person’s feelings before acting.Requires a lot of selflessness and polite assertiveness.A deep affection, contentment, confidence. OR, you will know them by their fruits

        Commitment to another. Genuine intentions Sammy,& his kind have their commitments & genuine intentions, & I,whoever you want me to be, have mine.OR, you will know them, him/her by their fruits

         
      • Toland

        March 17, 2014 at 11:31 PM

        Sam K.,

        Lol, that was a humorous go around with Poo-Poo Boy.

        However, feeding a troll is a disservice to this fine blog. The best course is to not reply to, or even read, their posts.

        What a luxury it is to simply scroll past a chronic troll’s latest nonsense without reading it, that much sooner getting to one of the intelligent comments.

        :)

         
      • Sam Kadasky

        March 18, 2014 at 1:48 AM

        Toland,

        Sounds like my kind of luxury, especially since I’m nearly out of Troll-B-Gone.

        You know that rattling sound when a spray can is near empty?

         
      • J.M.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:50 AM

        @ > Are you motivated by a desire to get caught and punished by your daddy Alfred, with whom you are clearly infatuated?

        I betcha “Big Daddy” is pleased with “me”. I am only writing what HE inspires me to write, at least most of the time. Alfred Adask is my Big Brother in the Good LORD, at least I hope he still is. But, if not, I’ll survive. Sometimes tho, I do think I’m being inspired to let well enough, or bad enough alone as it IS baffling why demented idiots like you are allowed to continue.. I AM on this blog ALSO for a TEST. It will all be revealed at & on “that day.” It will be better for you NOT at that time, to say you are sorry. It WILL be too late THEN, IF you do not come to see the errors of your ways BEFORE THEN. You & your ILK are only making it WORSE on yourselves. BUT STILL, NONE of you will ever top ECHO EARS.

         
  30. citizenquasar

    March 16, 2014 at 7:26 AM

    “People who will not use their minds are no different from beasts of the field, steaks on the table for those who do.”

    —William Cooper

     
    • citizenquasar

      March 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM

      “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

      Benjamin Franklin

       
      • J.M.

        March 18, 2014 at 12:49 AM

        @“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

        I am a hard worker, or try to be. I’ma lurnunn tho. I do appreciate your comment. Indeed I do.

         
  31. Adrian

    March 16, 2014 at 3:57 PM

    If GOD made man in his own image HE must be a GOD of many faces.

     
    • J.M.

      March 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

      @ > If GOD made man in his own image HE must be a GOD of many faces.

      IF ?? How many faces did Adam have. Did he have at least 4 eyes, ears, lips & 2 noses?
      Just food for thought for anyone who has the sense to understand, not for Adrian.

       
  32. Peter

    March 17, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    no one who lacks aptitude can be taught. Book of Wisdom.

     
    • J.M.

      March 17, 2014 at 6:57 PM

      Peter, hello out there,
      @ > no one who lacks aptitude can be taught. Book of Wisdom.

      Peter, tell me more about this “Book of Wisdom” you are referring to. I ask this sincerely. There is a Teo who tried to persuade me to study up on, “Books of Wisdom” too. I may be wrong, Peter, but, I have a gut feeling you are referring to “another” Book of Wisdom. I sorely need to try & understand this true Book of Wisdom. I think I will know after you tell me, what you, Peter, mean by, Book of Wisdom, if it is a book I need to study. Help me out here.

       
  33. J.M.

    March 17, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    @ chuckrenault
    @March 16, 2014 at 9:39 PM
    @ >”Al should you wish to contact me personally I will be happy to converse with you personally, ..”
    @ > It has no place on an educational site attempting to wake People up. In this Country, we have freedom of and FROM religion. Let’s keep it that way!

    I’m sure if you, chuckrenault, will post your personal phone number &/or email address, Alfred will be “more than happy” to have you converse with him & bring him up to snuff on who’s who & what’s what, or you, chuckrenault, can advise him on the who, what, why, when & where of anything. On the other hand, Alfred just might chuck it, chuckrenault,

     
  34. J.M.

    March 17, 2014 at 10:37 PM

    . @ > “Thanks! Simply Chuck… ”

    Or, simply chuck it, or chalk it up as to just not being your cup of tea

     
  35. J.M.

    March 18, 2014 at 12:44 AM

    EarlatorinOregon
    @ I agree with the children arguing over Nonsense,

    I don’t think trying to be of help to someone is arguing over nonsense. I was not trying to argue I was trying to be of HELP. However, if you want to say what I tried to do was nonsensical in the sense of me being foolish & idiotic, I think you are right. I try to go the extra mile to my own hurt. But guess what? I get credit for at least trying. How many others tried to help. I think no one else did because they knew something I wish I had the depth of perception to know. I wish somebody could have cared enough to let me know I was only making a fool of myself. But some people get their kicks this way watching someone beat a dead horse or horses. It turns umm on.

     
  36. J.M.

    March 18, 2014 at 1:21 AM

    To Who it may concern,

    There is a lady, in, The State of Texas, Barbara Ann Martins, or Martens, who has a case arguing who she is, etc. I had this case but somehow I lost it & cannot bring it back up. The Judge told her that HE TOO is a tax protestor & said he wished there were a million or more like him & her. The U.S. District Judge also told her that the ONLY thing voluntary about the S.S. issue IS that we can voluntarily choose not to accept the benefits. BUT we MUST have a S.S.N. & PAY into it. Anyway, it would be VERY interesting reading IF anyone can bring up the transcript of this case. I thought she, Barbara stood her ground very well, on who she really is, in spite of ALL the foul blows she had to contend with. I also know WHY she lost in her efforts to be REASONABLE with her adversary.

     
  37. J.M.

    March 19, 2014 at 1:02 AM

    E.T.
    I truly am sorry to hear about your computer problems. There is apparently no way I can express my heartfelt remorse to anyone who can grasp I am being honest. People seem to take what I try to say anyway other than what I mean but when I say I am truly sorry to hear about your computer problems, I mean it. Wish there was something to do to help out but I don’t know what to do. You did not seem to believe me when I said I tried to email you but I did try to & several times. Anyway, as far as Eve becoming pregnant,& Cain being the first born, I believe the following;

    And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

     
  38. Peter

    March 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

    J.M.

    You freely gave and I freely received, once again, thank-you. I would always try to give to you because of that which thou gave to me. You asked about the “Book of Wisdom” I find it in my New Jerusalem Bible it precedes “The Book of Ecclesiasticus” this bible is useful when it is used in conjuction with the New American Standard version, they both use different words, some more pronounced than others.

    My apologies J.M. the verse that I quoted was not from Wisdom it was from Ecclesiasticus:
    21:12 “No one who lacks aptitude can be taught, but certain aptitudes give rise to bitterness”.

    Ecclesiasticus:

    There are many wise verses that may pertain to the content chronicled on this forum;
    4:28 “Fight to the death for truth, and the Lord God will be on your side”.

    6:18 ” My child, from your earliest youth choose instruction, and till your hair is white you will keep finding wisdom”.

    8:13 ” Do not stand surety beyond your means; if you do stand surety, be prepared to pay up”.

    11:25 “In prosperous times disasters are forgotten and in times of disaster no one remembers prosperity”.

    14:20 ” Blessed is anyone who meditates on wisdom, and reasons with intelligence”.

    18:32,33 “Do not indulge in luxurious living, do not get involved in such society.
    Do not beggar yourself by banqueting on credit when there is nothing in your pocket”.

    20:24 ” The wise gains advancement by words, the shrewd wins favor from the great”

    21:16,17 The talk of a fool is like a load on a journey, but it is a pleasure to listen to the intelligent [Adask]. The utterance of the shrewd will be eagerly awaited in the assembly, what he says will be given serious attention [Adask], [Adask.wordpress and the many that share their wisdom].

    Wisdom:

    6:3 ” For sovereignty is given to you by the Lord and power by the Most High, who will probe your acts and scrutinise your intentions”.

    J.M. certainly hope this is helpful for you, my sincere thoughts for today, from the mind of a “living man” in search of wisdom and understanding.

     
    • J.M.

      March 19, 2014 at 5:02 PM

      .Shalom, Peter,

      Thank you for your reply. I knew in my heart, at least I thought so, what “Book of Wisdom” you were speaking of. I was right. Sometimes my heart is not right. This time, it was. I said, to you, Peter;

      .”I think I will know after you tell me, what you, Peter, mean by, Book of Wisdom, if it is a book I need to study. Help me out here.”

      You did, Peter, & thanks. I LOVE to be right about some things.

      There is a big difference in having knowledge & wisdom, at least I think so. I KNOW I have SOME TRUE knowledge. AND, the most IMPORTANT TRUE KNOWLEDGE TOO !!! but, I do not have apparently ANY WISDOM. I am RICHLY blessed however, in being a babe & BONDSERVANT of Emanuel, aka Jesus. Thanks again for your message, Peter. & once again, you are most welcome. Wish I could have had the “wisdom” to have handled it some other way. Don’t bring it up anymore tho.

       
    • J.M.

      March 19, 2014 at 6:53 PM

      Peter
      @ “…………..the shrewd wins favor from the great”

      Shalom, Peter. Have you noticed one “shrewd” operator still at work? I mean in this sense; Disposed to artful and cunning practices; tricky.

       
  39. Peter

    March 24, 2014 at 8:19 AM

    J.M., there are a bunch of them. My suspicion is the most vile of them all comes through the television via a graven molten image on the silver screen most of which is in the form of a “fiction”. There are people ( persons?) I know that watch movies all the time, and base reality on the programing they are subject to. My statement to them is they are essentially watching Mickey Mouse and Cinderella, and for an adult to waste valuable time on such nonsense is beyond logical.
    Most people have been captivated in their mind.
    Maybe you can tell me who you are talking about, insofar as it is a collective or a specific entity?

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s