RSS

Debt Forgiveness

01 Aug

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

If asked why I write and publish articles, most people would probably guess that I want to “teach” whatever it is that I know (or think I know).

They’d be wrong.

I don’t write to teach, I write to learn

Something interesting crosses my mind.  I’m drawn (I think by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym) to write about it.  As I do, word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, I often find new insight(s) that I never imagined before I started writing the article.  Thus, I learn from writing. 

Learning excites me.  Writing is exciting.

This is not to say that everything I “learn” from writing is true.  But much of what I learn is interesting (at least to me) and new (at least to me).

I don’t publish articles in order to teach.  I publish to share what I’ve most recently learned.

The following article is an example of the writing-is-learning process.  I started out to write a 1,200 word article.  I ended with nearly 4,200 words.  The extra 3,200 words were necessary for me to learn some lessons and insights that I found fascinating.

I hope you’ll also find the lessons I learned to be interesting and, to some degree, true.

The Cypriot financial crisis occurred between A.D. 2012 and A.D. 2013.   It was marked by bank closings and the invention of “bail-ins” where bank customer deposits were seized to support the banks. Conspiracy theorists warned that the Cyprus debt crisis could trigger a global financial collapse.  That debt crisis seemed pretty serious at the time.

However, Cyprus failed to cause a global financial meltdown and it’s largely disappeared from the news over the past two years.  Based on this absence of news, you might’ve thought that the Cyprus debt crisis had been solved and forgotten.

But, no—the French news agency (“Agence France-Presse”; AFP) recently published “Bad loans could sink Cyprus recovery”.  According to that article the Cyprus debt crisis is alive and well:

 

“Cyprus is making progress on its bailout reform commitments but bad bank loans could derail a fledgling recovery, international lenders said on Monday.”

Ohh, goody.  Cyprus is having a “recovery”!—just like we are, here in the US!  But the Cypriot recovery might be derailed by “bad bank loans”—debts that can’t be repaid.

 

“Following a review of the EU member’s economy by the ‘troika’ of international lenders [the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund], warned that bailed-out Cyprus still had obstacles in its way.

“There is tentative evidence that the slow pace of debt restructuring is picking up . . . .”

 

Q:  What is “tentative evidence”?

A:  An absence of evidence?  Imaginary evidence?  Prima facie evidence?  Evidence that has not yet been admitted into a court?  No evidence at all?

 

Q:  What is “debt restructuring”?

A:  It’s an agreement by creditors (that can be reached without an official bankruptcy proceeding) to cancel/forgive some or all of a debtors’ debt.  For example, if Cyprus owed $50 billion, seeing that it’s broke and can’t pay the full amount, its creditors might agree to “restructure” or “forgive” $20 billion and leave a remaining debt due of $30 billion.

 

Q:  Given the two previous definitions of “tentative evidence” and “debt restructuring,” what is the meaning of the sentence “There is tentative evidence that the slow pace of debt restructuring is picking up”?

A:  It means that so far, there’s virtually no evidence that “debt restructuring” (debt forgiveness) has taken place.  Cyprus is being held liable for the full, possibly unpayable, debt.

 

Q: Why is “debt restructuring” (cancellation of existing debt) going so slowly?

A: Perhaps, because:

1)  Whenever we “restructure” any existing debt, we cancel some or all of that debt.

2)  In a debt-based monetary system (which is predominant throughout most of the world including Cyprus), to cancel any debt reduces the currency supply.

 

Q:  Why does cancelling debt also reduce the currency supply?

A:  Because our debt-based monetary system is, by definition, backed by debt.  If you eliminate some of the debt you must also eliminate some of the backing for the fiat currency that’s based on that debt.

 

If we had no debt, we’d have no debt-based currency.  In order to protect the debt-based, fiat dollar, government must also protect, and even increase, the underlying debts.

 

•  The implications are bizarre. To grow richer in a debt-based monetary system, we need more debt.  To wipe out debt through bankruptcy, also wipes out part of the currency supply.

The debt-based monetary system relies on debt (debtors’ mere promises to repay) to give the currency its value.  If enough debtors simultaneously filed for bankruptcy (and thereby broke their promises to repay), so much debt and correlative amounts of debt-based currency could be destroyed, that the currency supply would be reduced.

If the currency supply is reduced, the value of each of the dollars left in the remaining fiat currency grows.  That’s deflation.

Deflation is usually a hallmark of economic depression.  Given enough currency destruction by bankruptcy, the nation could enter a deflationary spiral downward into depression, national bankruptcy and economic collapse.

In a debt-based monetary system, bankruptcy is bad and should not be allowed.

This conclusion is consistent with the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005”.  Prior to A.D. 2005, debtors could freely choose between filing a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies.  Most chose Chapter 7 because it allowed for the complete elimination of debts without repayment.

However, under the A.D. 2005 law, there’s a new, fairly complex formula for determining if you are financially eligible to file for Chapter 7.  The new law essentially prohibits most Americans with above-median level incomes from filing under Chapter 7 and completely eliminating of their debts.

Today, those who file for Chapter 7 and have any remaining “disposable income” will be obligated to continue making monthly payments or their pre-bankruptcy debts until the debts are repaid in some part of in full.  Thus, Chapter 7 now imposes a kind of post-bankruptcy “austerity” on bankrupts—just as European creditors are insisting on “austerity” for Cypriot and Greek debtors.

Again, in a debt-based monetary system, bankruptcy is bad because it destroys part of the base for the debt-based currency supply.

This argument suggests that the system can’t tolerate too much bankruptcy without destroying so much of the existing debt and correlative debt-based currency, that mass bankruptcies could potentially collapse the economy.

Thus, it appears that, in a debt-based monetary system, the Powers That Be want you and me to go ever deeper into debt (so they can create more and more fiat currency)—and never, never, never get out of debt by means of bankruptcy or frugal living.  In fact, to live an un-indebted life in a debt-based monetary system is at least antisocial.

 

•  Does those conclusions sound absurd?

Of course they do.

How could it possibly be that people are punished for not going into debt and rewarded for going into debt?

Well, look at your own credit (debt) history.  You borrowed $5,000 when you were just out of high school to buy a cool used car.  You repaid all that you owed on time.  The bank rewarded you by lending you $100,000 to buy a new home a few years later.  You repaid all that you owed on time.  A few years later, the bank loaned you $500,000 as seed capital to build a new business.

At each step, you proved yourself ready to not only go deeper in debt, but to make sure that you repaid your debts exactly as you promised.  The bank rewarded you by allowing you to borrow more and more currency.  Eventually, the bank loaned you enough to build your $2 million dream home and drive an Escalade.

But suppose that after your borrowed that first $5,000 for your first used car, you got drunk, wrecked the car, and lost your job.  You could no longer repay your $5,000 debt in full or on time.

Would the bank still reward you by allowing you to borrow another $100,000 for your first home?  Or would they punish you by refusing to lend the $100,000—or, if they did lend the $100,000, charge you a higher rates of interest?

One way or another, you’d be punished for having failed to keep your earlier promise to pay your debts in full and on time.

This hypothetical credit history is consistent with the argument that “To live an un-indebted life in a debt-based monetary system is at least antisocial and possibly anathema.”  Society rewards those who go deeply into debt (and keep their promises to repay) by allowing them to go ever deeper into debt.  Society punishes those who do not go into debt at an early age and/or repay on time by refusing to grant more loans that entitle them to buy the cars, homes and things that the world sees as essential to “living the good life”.  Good debtors tend to (apparently) prosper.  Bad debtors tend to live in poverty.

 

•  This conjecture implies that government is only enforcing bankruptcy laws as a kind of puppet show to fool the yokels into thinking that that debts can be easily repudiated.

In fact, so long as the monetary system is debt-based, the government can’t afford to allow too many debtors into bankruptcy and thereby wipe out so much of the money supply that it collapses the economy.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that you must pay your debts.  But you can’t be allowed to easily file for bankruptcy and thereby “completely eliminate” and destroy whatever debt instruments you’ve signed.

The American Bankruptcy Institute recently posted and article under the headline “Bankruptcy Filings Fall 12 Percent for the First Half of 2015.”  Perhaps that fall is due to a stronger economy where people are more prosperous and less likely to file for bankruptcy.

But it’s not inconceivable that the falling bankruptcy rate might also reflect an unpublicized governmental policy to inhibit bankruptcy and the destruction of debt-based currency.  It’s remotely possible that government and banks might prefer to let some debtors live in their homes without repaying their mortgages in order to maintain the fiction that those mortgages (debt-instruments) are still a valid basis for issuing debt-based currency.

 

•  In in a debt-based monetary system, the government doesn’t need you; it doesn’t need your productive effort; it needs your debts. Government doesn’t need you to buy things with cash and pay for purchases without debt.  In a debt-based monetary system, the government might need you to shop with credit cards to allow you to into debt, if only for a month or two, in order create more debt that can serve as a temporary basis for more debt-based currency.

This conjecture is consistent with bank policy to sometimes impose penalties on borrowers who try to repay their mortgages too soon.  Government doesn’t want you to pay for your house in ten years.  It wants you to sustain your mortgage debt for a full 30 years—or, better yet, 40.  The longer your debt lasts, the better government likes it.  Longer, larger debts are the foundation for more debt-based currency with which government can effectively buy you, your town, your state and the world.

Government doesn’t really care if you ever actually pay the debt, so long as you pay the interest on the debt so that debt-instrument (mortgage, car loan, etc.) remains “performing” and is therefore deemed suitable as collateral for making more debt-based currency.

Look at government, itself.  It’s run up an $18 trillion National Debt.  Is there any chance that debt will ever be repaid?  No.  Does anyone really believe that debt will be repaid? No.  But who cares, so long as government keeps paying the interest on the debt, maintains the illusion that the debt is valid, and is therefore suitable as collateral for maintaining some of our debt-based, fiat dollars?

(That implies that the jig is up if government ever reaches a point where it can’t continue to pay the interest on the debt. The government will be forced into bankruptcy, the debt will be destroyed as will correlative amounts of debt-based currency.)

 

•  IF the previous conjecture were roughly correct, it should follow that, in a debt-based monetary system, your standing as a perpetual debtor gives you more value than your standing as a life-long worker and producer.

The need for debt could explain the endless government deficits and the ever-growing National Debt.

 

Q:  Why don’t we ever seem pay down on the National Debt?

A:  Because destroying the “official” $18 trillion National Debt would cause us to also destroy and remove $18 trillion from our currency supply and probably collapse the economy.

 

In a debt-based monetary system the National Debt becomes our National Treasury.  The more we owe, the richer we become.  The more we owe, the more we have.

The logic of a debt-based monetary system should cause government to eschew gold and silver (payments and assets) and instead favor mere promises to pay (debts and debt-instruments)—which seems to be exactly what government is doing.

This conjecture might also explain the loss of US jobs to foreign countries by shipping US industries to third-world nations.  In an asset-based monetary system, exporting our industries would be crazy.  But, in a debt-based monetary system our principle need is for more debt rather than more productivity.  We don’t need productive workers so we don’t need jobs or industries.  We need liar-loans issued to non-productive people who will merely promise to repay their debts.

If we ship US jobs and industries to foreign countries, then US workers will become less productive, less independent, less able to support themselves.  Without jobs, they’ll be forced to borrow to get by.  With more borrowing, we’ll see more debtors, more debt and a bigger base for a debt-based monetary system.

 

•  These conclusions sound crazy, even to me.

Still, these conclusions are the result of what I, at least, regard as a logical chain of premises.   My “logic” leads me to believe these conclusions (although they sound untenable) may be true.

My fundamental conclusion strikes me as an important insight:  in a debt-based monetary system, government needs more debt and more debtors.  If the government can’t find more debtors, then government will be forced to protect the existing debtors from bankruptcy in order to protect debt-based currency from being wiped out by bankruptcy procedures.

Back to Cyprus:

 

•  “The troika agreed that it was ‘essential’ for Nicosia [the capitol of Cyprus] to increase the pace of change. Notably, addressing the excessive level of non-performing loans in the banking system remains the number one priority.”

 

How do we reduce the “excessive level of non-performing loans”?

Two ways:

 

1) Bankruptcy to destroy the loans and degrade them from the status of “non-performing loans” (“toxic assets”) that still might be paid someday—to the status of discharged loans that all agree will never be repaid.

2) Revitalize those “non-performing loans” by lending enough currency to the debtor to allow him to at least making interest payments on his debts and thereby elevate those debts from the status of “non-performing” (and possibly worthless) to the status of “performing” and therefore viable, valuable debt-instruments worthy to continue to serve as a basis for the maintenance of fiat currency in our brave, new debt-based monetary system.

 

Creditors don’t want their loans to be repudiated.  Therefore they don’t want Option #1: filing for bankruptcy.  Doing so destroys debt and some correlative amount of debt-based currency.  Bankruptcy is bad.

Instead, creditors want Option #2.  They want debtors to make some token payment that supports the pretense that the debt is valid and the debtor intends to pay—even if the creditors must lend more money to the debtors (“extend and pretend”) to maintain the illusion of solvency.

We see evidence of this in Greece where creditors may be lending Greece (which already owes €540 billion that it can’t possibly pay) another €86 billion so Greece can “pretend” to pay part of the €540 billion and thereby sustain the pretense that the €540 is still a “performing” debt able to justify the creation of more debt-based euros.

There has to be a reason for creditors to lend more currency to Greece so Greece can “extend and pretend” to pay its debts.  That reason can’t be to help Greece.  The reason has to be to protect the illusion of validity of the existing €540 debt.

 

•  A non-performing loan may be “tentative evidence” that the debtor is technically bankrupt, the loan will probably never be repaid, is probably worthless and probably can’t support the issue of fiat currency. However, it’s not really “evidence” until it’s admitted into a bankruptcy court where an official declaration that a debt has been discharged is a final determination that the debt has been cancelled, no longer exists, and can no longer support the issue of debt-based currency.

Rather than admit in bankruptcy that a debt-instrument is worthless, creditors call the loan “non-performing” in order to pretend the loan is still sufficiently valuable to be counted as an asset that can justify the issue of “debt-based,” fiat currency.

Greece hasn’t paid a significant part of its debt in five years and shows no evidence of being able to repay any of that debt in the next five years.  And yet, the creditors have struggled to “restructure” Greek debt and/or lend Greece more currency to “pretend” to repay part of its existing debt.  The whole process seems silly, absurd, and irrational.

But the Cypriot and Greek “debt crises” make sense in a debt-based monetary system, since debts—mere promises to repay—have become the basis for our fiat currency.  To cancel any of the debt must therefore also cancel however much fiat currency is based on that debt and thereby reduce the currency supply.

To protect the currency supply, Greece and Cyprus should not be allowed to file for bankruptcy.

 

•  Compare this argument to America of a century ago when our money was gold or silver coin. Suppose we lived back then and I loaned you five ounces of gold.  You would sign a promissory note (paper debt instrument) that acknowledged your debt to me and promised to repay it. If you filed for bankruptcy, the paper promissory note would become worthless and I’d lose my claim on the five ounces of gold.

Nevertheless, the five ounces of gold would continue to exist. I might not have them and you might not have them, but they’d still be available to the economy.  Because we had an asset-based monetary system, the money supply would not be reduced by your bankruptcy.  You might be broke, but the economy would be largely undamaged.

But, that’s not true today when we have a debt-based monetary system.  Whenever you cancel a debt, you also cancel whatever correlative fiat currency is based on that debt.  When the debt disappears, so does the correlative currency.

Imagine what would happen to today’s US economy if government were forced to admit that half of the “official” $18 trillion national debt could not be repaid.  According to my hypothesis, repudiating $9 trillion in National Debt would result in the destruction and withdrawal of $9 trillion in currency from our economy.  Given that the total US domestic currency supply is about $4 trillion, what would it mean if $9 trillion were “disappeared”?

There’s no rational answer.  It’s like asking for the square root of 1.

 

Q:  Why don’t we have a rational answer to questions about our domestic money supply?

A:  Because debt-based monetary system is inherently irrational.

 

Implication:  You can’t base your currency on debt and expect to come to happy, or even rational, ending.

   

  • “In previous reviews Cyprus has been praised for implementing a harsh bailout adjustment programme which it agreed with lenders. Nicosia has said it will stick to the bailout agenda no matter how unpopular.”

 

The Cypriot government has agreed with its creditors that its debts will never be forgiven (repudiated) and will be forever imposed on the Cypriot people—with or without their consent.  There’ll be no national bankruptcy procedure.

 

“Cypriots have had to endure tough austerity measures which have seen wages slashed in the private and public sectors, while consumer and property taxes have also increased.”

 

Because their government’s debts will not be cancelled (forgiven through bankruptcy), the Cypriots (and, similarly, the Greeks) have been forced to accept a kind of economic slavery under the guise of “tough austerity measures”.

 

•  I’m arguing that, in a debt-based monetary system, government needs and seeks to encourage ever-more debt. They don’t care about payments.  They want and need debt.

My argument sounds farfetched.

Still, if you stop to think about our former “gold-based monetary system,” it’s obvious that the more gold government had, the richer the government was and the more gold-based paper currency that might be available to the people to spend and stimulate the economy.

OK—then shouldn’t it follow that in a “debt-based monetary system,” it’s equally obvious that the more debt government had, the richer government became and the more debt-based paper currency that will be available for people to spend and stimulate the economy?  The logic of a “debt-based monetary” system indicates that the more debt you have, the richer you’ll become.

 

•  In the A.D. 1987 movie Wall Street the principle character, Gordon Gekko, dared to declare that “greed is good”. Audiences were shocked.

But in a debt-based monetary system, Gekko’s declaration would be wrong.  In a debt-based monetary system, “debt is good”.

Are you shocked?

You should be.

The implications aren’t just mathematical, economic or political.  They are also spiritual.

Remember the Lord’s Prayer?  There’s a phrase that says, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  That phrase is translated in some Bibles to read, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

That phrase implies that the words “debt” and “sin” are at least similar.   If we are to be forgiven by God for our “debts,” those debts must be somehow sinful.  You borrowed.  You promised (even contracted) to repay your debt.  You failed to repay.  You broke your promise/word/contract.  That’s a sin.  Maybe not a mortal sin, but a sin nonetheless.

If “debt” is a kind of “sin,” what is a debt-based monetary system?

If that system is not, in itself sinful, isn’t it at least conducive to sin?

If a debt-based monetary system results in huge, unpaid and even unpayable debt, and if debt is the foundation for our perceived wealth, can secular debts ever be substantially “forgiven” without sending the nation into secular bankruptcy, poverty and chaos?

Does it follow that in a debt-based monetary system, sin/debt can never be forgiven without going broke?  Does this explain why the creditors have treated Cypriot, and now Greek, debtors so brutally?  Aren’t all of the “austerity” programs that’ve been imposed on the Cypriot and Greek peoples evidence that their debts have not been, and will not ever be “forgiven”?  Isn’t “austerity” evidence that the debts may be non-performing, but they are still likely to be somehow, some day, repaid?  Isn’t “austerity” evidence that the underlying debts are still valid?

 

Q:  If so, how does this refusal to forgive debts through bankruptcy relate to the Lord’s Prayer that prays to God to “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”?

A:  If it’s true that, in a debt-based monetary system, we can’t forgive debts without destroying our secular wealth, then we each have a financial incentive to refuse to ever forgive each other’s debts/sins.  If that financial incentive compels us to refuse to “forgive our debtors,” can we still reasonably pray to God to “forgive us our debts/sins”?

 

Remember?  God, please “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”?

If we can’t or won’t forgive our debtors, will God forgive us?

But, in a debt-based monetary system, we can’t forgive our secular debtors—at least not en masse—without destroying our currency supply and risking an economic collapse.

Do you see the spiritual conundrum created by a debt-based monetary system?

 

•  Based on this line of conjecture, we can wonder whether the primary purpose of a debt-based monetary system is to acquire wealth, stimulate the economy or ensnare souls in the sin of refusing to forgive debt/sin.

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Could it be that the single most revolutionary and spiritually-liberating act that mortal men can perform would be to cancel, repudiate, forgive and destroy all of the existing debt?  In the Bible, God mandated such debt-forgiveness every 50 years.  It was called a “Jubilee”.

Would bankruptcy and the cancellation of all Cypriot debt give the Cypriot people a spiritual revival?

Would bankruptcy and the cancellation of all Greek debt give the Greeks a spiritual revival?

It seems irrational and impossible, but I wonder—could we expect a spiritual revival in America if Americans could somehow cancel and forgive the National Debt?

Or would forgiving the National Debt be insufficient to inspire a spiritual revival?

Would a true spiritual revival require us to do away with our debt-based monetary system that prevents or at least discourages all forgiveness of debt–and return to a monetary system based on assets like silver or gold where debt-forgiveness is relatively easy since it doesn’t destroy the money?

 

Tags: , , , ,

87 responses to “Debt Forgiveness

  1. Bart Shavitz

    August 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM

    Bible Code Predicts Economic Collapse in 2015 Alex Jones – Infowars
    Mar 28, 2015 … Bible Code Predicts Economic Collapse in 2015. Does a mystery that is 3,500
    years old hold the key to what is going to happen to global …
    http://www.infowars.com/bible-code-predicts-economic-collapse-in-2015/

     
  2. 4bluesunris

    August 2, 2015 at 12:31 AM

    To understand economics, best to follow AlMartinRaw.com, & Martin Strong Princeton Economics along with gold.

     
  3. JR

    August 2, 2015 at 7:00 AM

    If it would stop all the wars, present and future, I’d welcome a “collapse” of our current debt based fiat monetary system and return to a local asset based system. No more usury, please!
    What can an individual do? Live 100% debt free and not participate in anything that is flat out wrong, nefarious and/or immoral, simply “do no harm” will be a start.

     
    • Roger

      August 3, 2015 at 5:51 PM

      > What can an individual do?

      Good question. Let us also ask another good question:

      What can We the People, all 300 million of us acting together, do?

       
      • Bart Shavitz

        August 4, 2015 at 12:36 PM

        Roger,
        @ What can We the People, all 300 million of us acting together, do?
        Roger doancha mean 300 million ANIMALS? US? HAHHAHhahahahHAHHAHhahah U FUNNY!!

         
      • Henry

        August 4, 2015 at 5:08 PM

        “What can We the People, all 300 million of us acting together, do?”

        We can change the system. Even one percent of that much – 3 million people – acting together can make a decisive difference. While, on an individual basis, we’re not much of an obstacle to the extremely organized New World Order offensive (beyond what sitting at home wringing your hands over demoralizing YouTube videos might accomplish).

        Hence the Money Power has used its media outlets (both mainstream and astroturf) to socially engineer a me-first mentality. This is one of the few consistent themes across the Money Power’s many public-relations campaigns.

        It can be “help yourself”, “amuse yourself”, “prepare yourself”, “play with yourself” – whatever works to redirect your mental energies toward yourself and away from the team effort needed to fight corruption in government and sustain a viable society.

         
      • Roger

        August 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM

        > “play with yourself”

        Is this a reference to the delusional mental midget of no fixed username who scrambles around Al’s blog on a secret mission to manage the discourse through “cute” and “clever” zingers! that no one under the age of 8 could ever have anticipated?

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 4, 2015 at 6:27 PM

        Roger
        August 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM
        > “play with yourself”
        Is this a reference to the delusional mental midget of no fixed username who scrambles around Al’s blog on a secret mission to manage the discourse through “cute” and “clever” zingers! that no one under the age of 8 could ever have anticipated?

        I agree Roger!! CAN YA GET “THE MAIN MAN” Henry TO GET THAT BROWSER STOPPER OF ALL LES FUCHS COMMENTS BACK TO WORKING!?. WE CAN’T HAVE THIS! I’M APPALLED!! Henry IF you are reading this PLEASE DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO STOP THIS MESS!! WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE JONATHAN CAHN VIDEOS EITHER, SO DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO STOP THIS GARBAGE ON THIS UNIQUE, OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY, AWESOME BLOG. THANKS Henry!!

         
      • Henry

        August 5, 2015 at 8:21 PM

        Not specifically, though many-times-banned Bozo’s trite and flaccid attempts at the “snappy comeback” – combined with blindness to their ineffectiveness (i.e. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging) – are classic symptoms of chronic self-abuse. Either that or Down Syndrome is the inevitable diagnosis.

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 11, 2015 at 3:36 AM

        Roger, Toland does not have a REPLY button under his comment so I send this to you to share with him & Henry. Toland said, …the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.

        Compact theory – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        The people determined that the federal government should be superior to the
        states. … Calhoun described this “right of judging” as “an essential attribute of ….
        in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_theory

        Justice James Wilson said, MAN, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect CREATOR: A State; useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a State as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that, which is divine: Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that Cicero says so sublimely, “Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe, is more acceptable to that divinity, which governs the whole universe, than those communities and assemblages of men, which, lawfully associated, are denominated STATES[*]”. Let a State be considered as subordinate to the PEOPLE: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State.

        Let a State be considered as subordinate to the PEOPLE: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State.
        SOoooooo we have always had a Pro v.Con, it seems.

         
      • Lance Pearce

        August 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM

        Roger,
        @ What can an individual do?
        DIVIDE!!

         
      • Mark Twang

        August 14, 2015 at 6:48 PM

        Roger I’m using your reply button to leave this message to share with your Brothers. Henry said, in pertinent part, > trite and flaccid attempts at the “snappy comeback” – combined with blindness to their ineffectiveness (i.e. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging) – are classic symptoms of chronic self-abuse. Either that or Down Syndrome is the inevitable diagnosis.

        I agree 100%. BUT to solve this, all ya gotta do is quit attempting to make your trite and flaccid attempts at the “snappy comebacks” – combined with blindness to their ineffectiveness (i.e. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging) which are classic symptoms of chronic self-abuse. Problem solved. All of ya are quite familiar with the words Fuchs & FLACCID. BUT!! You don’t have to STAY FLACCID. Get REAL!! OHhhhhhhhh that’s right!! you are in with Colin so you are real. D

         
  4. NicksTaxFree

    August 2, 2015 at 8:35 AM

    http://thoughts-and-stuff-zwright.blogspot.com/2011/07/hypothecation-you-own-nothing.html
    The above link explains that America, or at least the U.S. Federal government went bankrupt in 1933.
    This bankruptcy change ownership of the U.S. government from the States and people and transferred it to the Creditors. Who are the owners of the federal reserve system, or the international Banksters.
    We were a Republic and now they like to says we live in the worlds greatest Democracy.

    The Presidents can run the country/corporation with E.O. (executive orders) and the Constitution is ignored almost, except when it suits the new owners plans.Which brings us to the 14th amendment.
    In section 1 they create the United State citizen for the 1st time, for the newly freed slaves. Then in section 4 or 5 they state the U.S. citizen has no legal standing to fight against the National Debt.
    It would seem evident the Banksters had this debt problem planned for U.S. citizens back in 1868 and before the Civil war even.
    Now we hear terms like “our fair share” etc. They will pass a law/statute for U.S. citizen to be directly responsible for their fair share of the massive debt before they can get their so called freedom back from the bonded servitude evertyone will be put under. Of course debt forgiveness will be out of the question for the common man or woman.
    Don’t believe this could happen? The bible says “…and he will cause all men, free and bond, to take the mark of the beast…” Revelations 13″18 Slavery based on debt will be making a comeback, coming to a government near you. This is why they hate the “Soveriegn citizen movement so much.
    Stop being a 14th amendment U.S. citizen and reclaim the American National status of a state of the Union American. Being a U.S. citizen is voluntary for most people if you live in 1 of 50 Union States. We should talk on that subject more. That is what all this debt is really all about. End Game = Bondage

     
    • Bart Shavitz

      August 2, 2015 at 11:39 AM

      @ Now we hear terms like “our fair share” etc.
      THIS MEANS WHAT IS OURS IS THEIRS & WHAT IS THEIRS IS THEIRS!
      @ We should talk on that subject more.
      REALLY!? IS THAT RIGHT!!?? THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR MANY YEARS!! HOW MUCH LONGER DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT? EVERYTHING YOU SAY IN YOUR MESSAGE HAS BEEN REHASHED TIME & TIME AGAIN & ON THIS BLOG TOO!! SO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT SOME MORE HUH?? ok, FIRE AWAY!!

       
    • Colin

      August 3, 2015 at 3:10 PM

      That link is gibberish. Almost literally. No, the federal government didn’t go bankrupt in 1933. There’s a reason none of the crank sites claiming this ever cite any actual document to support this claim–they wave generally at a citation, but it doesn’t say that the US was declaring bankruptcy. Which is obvious from the fact that they never quote any such language. Honestly, use your common sense.

      Even if the federal government had declared bankruptcy, it wouldn’t “change ownership of the U.S. government from the states and people and transfer it to the Creditors.” A government isn’t a thing you can collateralize. Just another fantasy.

       
      • Bart Shavitz

        August 3, 2015 at 10:49 PM

        Colin,
        @ . No, the federal government didn’t go bankrupt in 1933. There’s a reason none of the crank sites claiming this ever cite any actual document to support this claim–they wave generally at a citation, but it doesn’t say that the US was declaring bankruptcy. Which is obvious from the fact that they never quote any such language. Honestly, use your common sense.

        Well Sir, Is Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. a CRANK? Based on what you say, Yes, IF I am understanding You. AND, I am not saying you are wrong. I only know somebody is not being honest, or, somebody is incompetent. I am not learned in the :law” as you are.

        United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

        Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

        “Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

        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. < There is much more said BY Rep. James Traficant, but I will not include it here. You can read what else Rep. James Traficant says if you desire.

         
      • Colin

        August 5, 2015 at 11:00 AM

        Nations don’t go into bankruptcy because one of their legislators referred to the concept of bankruptcy in a speech. “Chapter 11” isn’t a thing that applies to countries. He’s just giving a speech.

        The statutory citation is also nonsense. None of the sites claiming that this put the US into bankruptcy ever bother to cite the actual language of the statute. Why not? Because it doesn’t say what they want to believe it does.

         
  5. NicksTaxFree

    August 3, 2015 at 1:01 AM

    This Hypothecation (or assignment) of the Federal debt to each and every U.S. citizen and U.S. legal resident personally; has not been covered hardly at all. This topic has many more applications and is far more important than the vast majority of people understand.
    How many of you studied how to stop being a U.S. person or that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to U.S. persons? How not to be subject to the jurisdiction of today’s court system?

    That is why the 14th amendment is so long and seems to repeat whats in the 5th amendment etc. However, the 14th only grants privileges and immunities to the new U.S. citizen it created, so the status of the new citizenship is completely contained in the 14th itself; with the 5th section giving congress full authority over them, just like the Constitution gives them over Washington D.C. and federal territories.

    The new capital control laws where the Foreign Banks have to report accounts and balances of any U.S. person to the IRS. What do you think they want all this information for? You can bet it is not to send you a Christmas card! Now they can ask that foreign bank to turn over 30% if the U.S. person does not report that account on their schedule B. Maybe they will want it all when the collapse comes.
    The laws congress passes are not subject to Constitutional limits when it applies to D.C., territories and Congresses U.S. persons (which are also Congresses property.)
    If you want to be chattle/indentured to the whims of the U.S. Congress who are now only administrators
    for the receivership of the Bankruptcy and provide cover for the owner of the Federal Reserve System- (an illusion of legitimate gov’t continues) hey, go ahead and remain U.S. persons. I for one can never check another box on a government form that says “are you a U.S. citizen”, “are you a resident of the State of” which I know only void out the original Rights we are all supposed to have and converts them into mere Privileges granted by government and can be taken away.

    People, many anyway, may know of this concept and just dismiss it as some quacky idea that won’t work and has no legal or lawful basis. Those people are part of the problem why America will never be able to recover from this assault. That means then, only individuals can use this knowledge to benefit and help themselves avoid the coming debt bondage. Our enemy has left the keys to escape our bondage right in arms length, knowing we would not believe or learn how to use the key.
    They laugh all the more!!!

    So one way to interpret the 14th amendment is: U.S. citizens have only granted privileges and can never question what Congress decides to due with the National debt, no matter what. Because the new U.S. person created has no “legal standing” under the Constitution by virtue of being a subject and not possessing the original Rights of the State citizens had but which still exist. The original jurisdiction is on the land and the new admiralty jurisdiction over spreads the land hovering over the original jurisdiction and seems to cover the same territory in the air above the land. That is where the term “free man on the land” comes from. The other choice is a “corporate fiction U.S. citizen”.

    Bart, you obvious like being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government or don’t think it is possible to not be subject to them; short of renouncing U.S. citizenship. The 3rd option would be that of a shill for the International Banking cartel because it is they who want the ordinary person to think that there is NO way to stop volunteering to be stuck as a corporate U.S. subject. Yes, it takes effort and a lot of study to get back what has been tricked away from the American people but I think it is worth all the effort. I use Nick’s Tax Free for a reason, no IRS or State income tax for me anymore and I will not be stuck with my fair share of the unlawful but iffy legal national debt when the assignment comes. Not subject to the “mandatory vaccinations” that are also coming and the travel restrictions that will accompany them. There will be many more laws dumped on the poor U.S. citizens back that one will be able to watch it.
    And the State you live in could stop it but won’t lift a finger because they are all apart of the same team.

     
    • Colin

      August 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM

      How many of you studied how to stop being a U.S. person or that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to U.S. persons? How not to be subject to the jurisdiction of today’s court system?

      You can’t stop being a person. If you mean losing your US citizenship, 8 USC 1451 spells out the various ways to do it. Basically, you submit a declaration to a US consular officer renouncing your citizenship. You have to do it from a foreign country. (Otherwise I guess you’d be an undocumented immigrant.) There are some other ways, but they’re even harder—joining a foreign army, for example.

      Being subject to court jurisdiction can mean different things. Personal jurisdiction? That’s generally geographic, so it depends on where you are and where the court is. (It’s a lot more complicated than that, but that’s a start.) Subject matter jurisdiction? Depends on what the matter at issue is.

      If you mean just generally be immune from US courts overall, it’s not possible. If you live in the US, including living in any of the states, you’re going to be subject to the courts’ jurisdiction generally.

      However, the 14th only grants privileges and immunities to the new U.S. citizen it created, so the status of the new citizenship is completely contained in the 14th itself; with the 5th section giving congress full authority over them, just like the Constitution gives them over Washington D.C. and federal territories.

      If you mean that only some people are 14th Amendment citizens, you’re wrong. If you were born in the USA (including any state) or otherwise made a citizen of the United States, you’re a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Occasionally people go to court to try to get themselves declared something other than a 14th Amendment citizen. They always lose. Because the theory is wrong. If you disagree, please cite some actual case in which someone prevailed on a theory that they weren’t a 14th Amendment citizen.

      I for one can never check another box on a government form that says “are you a U.S. citizen”, “are you a resident of the State of” which I know only void out the original Rights we are all supposed to have and converts them into mere Privileges granted by government and can be taken away.

      Lots of people “know” things that aren’t true. This is a good example. Being a resident of a state does not convert rights into revocable privileges. You have all the same rights you would if you lived in Texas or “The State of Texas” or whatever today’s magic words are.

      People, many anyway, may know of this concept and just dismiss it as some quacky idea that won’t work and has no legal or lawful basis.

      Including every person who knows anything about law or government. It doesn’t work. It has no basis in the law. It’s another example of someone enjoying a wild fantasy, but not bothering to figure out whether that fantasy is actually true or not.

      Because the new U.S. person created has no “legal standing” under the Constitution by virtue of being a subject and not possessing the original Rights of the State citizens had but which still exist

      Nonsense. No court or government agency has ever used or tried this interpretation—it’s made up to create the appearance of a dramatic conflict that doesn’t exist in the real world. All people in the United States (including in any state) have standing under the constitution. You can look up actual court cases to verify this for yourself. It’s harder than making things up on a blog, but isn’t there some value in engaging with the real world?

      The original jurisdiction is on the land and the new admiralty jurisdiction over spreads the land hovering over the original jurisdiction and seems to cover the same territory in the air above the land. That is where the term “free man on the land” comes from. The other choice is a “corporate fiction U.S. citizen”.

      Absolute baloney. That is not at all what admiralty jurisdiction means. Admiralty still just means cases arising from maritime matters. “Corporate fiction US citizen” is the kind of gibberish people who pretend to knowledge they don’t have invent to sound like experts. It’s a meaningless term that you won’t find in actual law books. (Presumably because of some kind of giant conspiracy, right? Come on, again—use your common sense.)

       
      • Bart Shavitz

        August 3, 2015 at 6:57 PM

        Colin,
        Will you explain what this means? The 10th Circuit Court said, > See F.E.R. v. Valdez, 58 F.3d 1530, 1533 (10th Cir. 1995) (dismissing claim as moot because the explicit objective of the proposed injunction had been met).
        What does it mean when the Court said, dismissing claim as moot because the explicit objective of the proposed injunction had been met.
        Gracias

         
      • Les Moore

        August 4, 2015 at 10:08 PM

        Dearest Colin,
        There were “Citizens” of the “United States” BEFORE the 14th was even thought about. HOW did the 14th CHANGE that pre existing meaning?

         
      • Les Moore

        August 5, 2015 at 1:19 PM

        Colin,
        @ You can’t stop being a person.
        Really?
        413 S.E.2d 276 (1992)
        330 N.C. 761
        Dr. Alvis L. CORUM
        v.
        UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA Through its BOARD OF GOVERNORS;

        The text of section 1983 permits actions only against a “person.” In Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), the Supreme Court held that when an action is brought under section 1983 in state court against the State, its agencies, and/or its officials acting in their official capacities, neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are “persons” 283*283 under section 1983 when the remedy sought is monetary damages.[1] Accord Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Thus, under section 1983 plaintiff in the instant case is barred from seeking damages from UNC, ASU, Harvey Durham in his official capacity, Dr. Thomas in his official capacity, or C.D. Spangler in his official capacity.[2]

         
  6. NicksTaxFree

    August 3, 2015 at 1:49 AM

    I meant at the end ” No one will be able to bear to watch it.”

    “It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows”
    quote by Epictetus That sums up the problem of the subject

     
    • Bones Red Skeleton

      August 5, 2015 at 7:45 PM

      NicksTaxFree
      @ Stop being a 14th amendment U.S. citizen and reclaim the American National status of a state of the Union American.
      Thanks Nick. It’s too late to do anything today, but we will get to work on it first thing in the morning

       
  7. Bart Shavitz

    August 3, 2015 at 9:29 AM

    NicksTaxFree,
    @ Bart, you obvious like being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government or don’t think it is possible to not be subject to them; short of renouncing U.S. citizenship.
    It’s obvious you have not walked a mile in my Brogans.We are the sum total of our life experiences so all anyone can do is tell their side of the story.
    One of my experiences is, I don’t tell anyone comprising “gov-co” WHO or what I am, he/she tells me. “Juries are not allowed to “HEAR” “certain evidence” because the Jury is deemed to be incompetent to “hear certain evidence”. The persecuting Attorney & the Judge decide on what that “certain evidence” IS. This also applies to Affidavits. NOW!! This has been my experience.

    @ Stop being a 14th amendment U.S. citizen and reclaim the American National status of a state of the Union American.
    It’s obvious to you I am a U.S citizen. It’s also obvious to the Powers that be, & anything I say only confirms what they already “KNOW”.Same applies as already stated above, BUT!! I’ll go on what you say as you have something that works for you. IF e.g., I have written in an affidavit, I was born in the State of Texas, a Republican State of the United States of America, THIS to “them”, gov-co, IS an open admission that I have said I AM A U.S. citizen. I KNOW what needs to be done BUT as to whether or not it is honored is another story. It may work for some & not for someone else. Robert Bork, over 25 years ago said “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” He also said,”The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.” THIS has been my experience, in that Robert Bork told the truth. My “safety” lies in, Yahshua, AND if he allows me to be slaughtered, & I do expect to be beheaded, I will STILL trust in him.

     
    • NicksTaxFree

      August 7, 2015 at 10:31 PM

      I’ve been away from internet for a few days, but the disc.ussion continues.
      ” I don’t tell anyone comprising “gov-co” WHO or what I am, he/she tells me” I agree with all you said above except for this one thought. We have all been tricked into telling the Gov-corp countless times we are U.S. citizens on all the forms we fill out. We have already told government who we are, not that they tell us. Yes, I also put my trust in the ultimate authority of Yahshua.
      I will repost the link I did earlier from the Power Hour with an interview with an authority on this subject. To save time, just skip ahead 4 minutes every time they go to commercial. Ralph Winterrowd starts at 33:30 of 1st link.

      This is from The Power Hour .com interview with Ralph Winterrowd. It starts out about the IRS but quickly turned into U.S. verses State citizenship. It will be very enlightening. He even gives a Court case for Colin. I will be looking into the info he provides Kuretski 755 f3d 929 about IRS jurisdiction only in D.C. and the “Public Rights Doctrines”
      He starts at 33.30 minute mark, gets good at 46 min. but at 50 minutes he is into the meat of it.

      http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722152.mp3 ( Part one)
      [audio src="http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722152.mp3" /]

      The interview continues with more on this topic, full of real education.
      http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722153.mp3 ( part two )
      [audio src="http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722153.mp3" /]

      http://www.thepowerhour.com archives on july 22 2015 2nd and 3rd hour A MUST LISTEN !!!
      Again, this is a ” MUST LISTEN TOO” if you want to get educated on this

       
      • Colin

        August 8, 2015 at 8:58 AM

        I took a quick look at that case. Anyone telling you it supports the position that the IRS only has jurisdiction in DC is completely wrong, and completely incompetent. If you disagree, what language in it do you think supports that wacky idea?

         
  8. donnavoetee

    August 3, 2015 at 10:30 AM

    The last words of Christ at the cross were, “Tetelestai,” meaning PAID IN FULL. “Tetelestai” was an economic term that was written on debtors’ paid bills. People are looking for an “antichrist,” but I say that debt IS the antichrist. John Calvin may have refuted Catholic doctrine, but he opened the floodgate to evil when he advocated allowing USURY. This was the beginning of the end of liberty.

    People are wary of the Muslims taking over, but they are the one group left that does not hold to usury. In that, they are more righteous than “God’s people” who do not obey His clear commands. I think He will bring judgment on fiat money and its false kingdom through them.

     
    • Lance Pearce

      August 4, 2015 at 3:34 PM

      donnavoetee
      @ The last words of Christ at the cross were, “Tetelestai,” meaning PAID IN FULL.
      NOT UNLESS WE REPENT & GIVE IT OUR ALL TO OVERCOME!! AS TO WHAT OVERCOME MEANS, SEE GENESIS 4:6, &, verse 7, Btw. What translation,etc., did you get the word “Tetelestai” from? I know what it means, but, the only word I get is,teleó. Thanks.

       
      • Mark Twang

        August 13, 2015 at 3:19 PM

        @ The last words of Christ at the cross were, “Tetelestai,” meaning PAID IN FULL.
        100% TRUE!!! He DID HIS PART. BUT!!! WE HAVE A PART TO DO TOO!! His PAID IN FULL OBLIGATION ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO REPENT & TRUST & TRY TO OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS & HIS COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT GRIEVOUS! 1 John 5:3, For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous

         
  9. Bart Shavitz

    August 3, 2015 at 1:06 PM

    donnavoetee
    August 3, 2015
    @ John Calvin may have refuted Catholic doctrine, but he opened the floodgate to evil when he advocated allowing USURY.
    Usury existed thousands of years before John Calvin existed. It is written in, Exodus 22:25, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” It is written in the NLT translation, If you lend money to any of my people who are in need, do not charge interest as a money lender would.”
    Even if I am labeled as a “Bible worshiper” for using scripture to back my stand, I do not know of anything better to use. :-)

     
  10. Peg-Powers

    August 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM

    Remember the principle: “Change your money, change your law.” Might that indicate that each time “money” (legal tender OR lawful gold/silver) is changed, reformed, revalued, for whatever reason, so is the codes/laws of the land. That’s why they brought in the private Fed.Reserve System. It’s a criminal scheme. Also, the UCC changed everything between 1933-37. The people should sit up and take notice!! But perhaps it’s too late.

    I gave up debt, bank accounts, and credit cards 20 years ago. I use commodities to trade.
    The system hates the way I choose to live. The system hates me. So be it. The good book says to come out and be separate!

    So I think we are all under this world’s (Babylon’s) Admiralty/Insurance venue whether we like it or not.

    However, as for me, I will TRUST in my God who REQUIRES total liability on my part. And the system REQUIRES limited liability. I will walk rather than drive an “insured” car. I will watch my property burn to the ground rather than buy limited liability for fire or flood. I will die sitting in my recliner rather than run to a doctor who is waiting to process an ObumerCare policy number and charge 5 times what their services are worth. Under God’s LAW, admiralty or any other named limited liability insurance, is SIN and has no place in the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Not only does the INSURANCE premium rob your family of any extra money you might have, it also prevents you from assisting your neighbor in his time of need. Insurance is the antithesis of assurance and faith in your Father. Insurance has become an acceptable IDOL, set up high, exulted and revered and trusted………but in vain.

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 11:07 AM

      Remember the principle: “Change your money, change your law.” Might that indicate that each time “money” (legal tender OR lawful gold/silver) is changed, reformed, revalued, for whatever reason, so is the codes/laws of the land.

      No. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States of America, along with the various state constitutions. Unless they say, or each individual statute says, “The law changes whenever we change currency,” then changing the currency has no effect on the law. Laws change through new laws or revolutions, not currency changes. And an aphorism does not govern over written law.

      So I think we are all under this world’s (Babylon’s) Admiralty/Insurance venue whether we like it or not.

      Are you a boat? Do you live or work on a boat? Did you collide with a boat? Unless you answered “yes” to one of those questions, it’s very unlikely you ever have been or will be under admiralty law. That basically only applies to ships and mishaps at sea.

       
      • Les Moore

        August 5, 2015 at 12:52 PM

        1. “Law of the land” MEANS “The Common Law”. Justice O’Neal, in State v. Simmon, 2 Spears, 761/767; Also, Justice Bronson, in Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 140/146;

        2. People v. Ballard, 155 NYS 2d. 59. “Common Law consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of person and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.” Bishop v. U.S. 334 F. Supp. 415.

        3. “Statutes (ordinances, court rules, etc.) that deprive a Citizen of the rights of Person or Property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the Common Law, IS NOT The Law of The Land. Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM Dec. 677.

        4. “Law of the land,” “due process of law,” and “due course of law” are synonymous terms.” People v. Skinner, 110 P.2d, 41/45; Stoner v. Higginson, 175 A. 527/531

         
      • Les Moore

        August 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM

        Colin,
        @ Are you a boat? Do you live or work on a boat? Did you collide with a boat?
        It appears somebody is rocking the boat & we can’t have this. D

         
  11. Bart Shavitz

    August 3, 2015 at 7:03 PM

    @ Peg-Powers
    @ August 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM
    A THUMBS UP MESSAGE !!

     
  12. palani

    August 4, 2015 at 6:33 AM

    The debt of the U.S. was fixed at $346,681,016 in 1878 and has not budged a bit since then. If fact if it could be reduced in some way congress has given Treasury permission to print more notes to reach that same level again. I hold $5 of this debt myself.

    But then this debt limit established in 1878 is not for the present U.S. established under the 14th amendment but for the organic U.S. which went out of business in 1868.

    There is no bankruptcy benefit established for the U.S. Bankruptcy is for the benefit of the states. This fact is obvious when the debt crisis in Puerto Rico is considered. The benefit of bankruptcy does not extend to federal territory. Tthe organic U.S. never went bankrupt either. They simply stopped paying interest and principal on their debt and continued to operate under a different set of rules (welfare for blacks and democracy for the rest).

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 11:24 AM

      The debt of the U.S. was fixed at $346,681,016 in 1878 and has not budged a bit since then.

      Nonsense. As long as we’re making up numbers and facts, why not say it’s been fixed at $1 or $1 squintillion?

      But then this debt limit established in 1878 is not for the present U.S. established under the 14th amendment but for the organic U.S. which went out of business in 1868.

      Nonsense. The 14th Amendment doesn’t “establish” a new United States. And the US has never gone “out of business.” Same country, same constitution, amended from time to time. Which is why they’re called “amendments.”

       
      • Les Moore

        August 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM

        ANY Amendment achieved through/via the point of a bayonet is a wonderful way to get an Amendment on the books tho, RIGHT?

         
      • palani

        August 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM

        @ Colin “As long as we’re making up numbers and facts, why not say it’s been fixed at $1 or $1 squintillion? ” Because $346.681,016 is the number Congress fixed the debt at. And it hasn’t budged. It is not that the book is closed. It is that the book allows no deviation. Things that don’t deviate (aka ‘move’) after a period of time are adjudged DEAD. Just an example: LATIN is DEAD simply because it DOESN’T CHANGE.

        @ Colin “The 14th Amendment doesn’t “establish” a new United States. And the US has never gone “out of business.” SAME COUNTRY, same constitution, amended from time to time. Which is why they’re called “amendments.”” Truly English must be a second language to you. The U.S. has never been a COUNTRY. Prior to the 14th amendment the U.S. was not a COUNTRY. Under the organic constitution the U.S. was a FEDERATION. After the 14th amendment there is suddenly nunc pro tunc (a begining which began in 1868 and not before) a COUNTRY called the United States where one did not exist before (E Pluribus Unum). Since the 14th amendment actually CREATED this COUNTRY (a.k.a. The United States) then the 14th amendment is the CONSTITUTION of said COUNTRY. Q.E.D.

        Confusion by definition (mine) is trying to operate a COUNTRY with the rules of a FEDERATION.

         
      • Colin

        August 5, 2015 at 2:52 PM

        Because $346.681,016 is the number Congress fixed the debt at.

        Citation please.

        And it hasn’t budged.

        Citation please.

        It is not that the book is closed. It is that the book allows no deviation.

        Citation please.

        Truly English must be a second language to you. The U.S. has never been a COUNTRY.

        I speak the same language as the founders, who often referred to the United States as a “country.” You can search quotation databases to verify that for yourself.

        Prior to the 14th amendment the U.S. was not a COUNTRY. Under the organic constitution the U.S. was a FEDERATION.

        This assumes that (a) the US was a “federation,” (b) that a “federation” cannot be a “country,” and that (c) the 14th amendment effected some sort of change in the makeup of the nation. (A) seems reasonable (b) and (c) are just bald assertions. So what? You can believe whatever you want. I’m concerned with what happens in the real world. And in the real world this distinction isn’t made. The US is, was, and always has been a country.

         
      • palani

        August 5, 2015 at 3:09 PM

        @ Colin “Citation please.”

        I PRESUME you are asking for the act of May 31, 1878?

        United States Notes

        The principal issue of United States paper money was officially called United States notes. These were the well-known “greenbacks” or “legal tenders.” The act of February 25, 1862, authorized the issue of $150,000,-000, of which $50,000,000 were in lieu of an equal amount of demand notes, and could be issued only as the demand notes were canceled. A second issue of $150,-000,000 was authorized by the act of July 11, 1862, of which, however, $50,000,000 was to be a temporary issue for the redemption of a debtknown as the temporary loan. A third issue of $150,000,000 was authorized by the act of March 3, 1863. The total amount authorized, including the temporary issue, was $450,-000,000, and the highest amount outstanding at any time was $449,338,902 on January 30, 1864. There are still outstanding $346,681,016.

        The reduction from the original permanent issue of $400,000,000 to $346,681,016 was caused as follows: The act of April 12,1866, provided that United States notes might be retired to the extent of $10,000,000 during the ensuing six months, and that thereafter they might be retired at the rate of not more than $4,000,000 per month. This authority remained in force until it was suspended by the act of February 4,1868. The authorized amount of reduction during this period was about $70,000,000, but the actual reduction was only about $44,000,000. No change was made in the volume of United States notes outstanding until after the panic of 1873, when, in response to popular demand, the Government reissued $26,000,000 of the canceled notes.

        This brought the amount outstanding to $382,000,-000, and it so remained until the resumption act of January 14, 1875, provided for its reduction to $300,000,000. The process was, however, again stopped by the act of May 31, 1878, which required the notes to be reissued when redeemed. At that time the amount outstanding was $346,681,016, which is the present amount. The amount of United States notes redeemed from the fund raised for resumption purposes since January 1, 1879, to June 30, 1908, was $680,581,146; but the volume outstanding is undiminished because of the provisions of the act of May 31, 1878, which require the notes so redeemed to be paid out again and kept in circulation.

        The act of March 14,1900, also directed the reissue of United States notes when redeemed, but they must first be exchanged for gold as provided in the said act. The act also provides that when silver certificates of large denominations are canceled, and small denominations issued in their place, a like volume of small United States notes shall from time to time be canceled and notes of $10 and upward issued in substitution therefor.

         
      • palani

        August 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

        @ Colin “The US is, was, and always has been a country.”
        1. If William Jefferson Clinton couldn’t figure out what ‘is’ meant why should I presume to know?
        2. ‘Was’ is a verb of past tense.
        3. ‘Always’ is a perpetuity and perpetuity is a concept foreign to law.
        4. ‘Country’ is not ‘federation’ and ‘federation’ is not ‘country’. The two do not look the same, feel the same or even sound the same.

        If you are confused why don’t you go ask your law professors where they went wrong?

         
      • Colin

        August 5, 2015 at 4:46 PM

        Fixing the money supply isn’t the same thing as fixing the national debt.

        Guys, again, common sense time. A wannabe guru who spouts unbelievable facts on the internet probably actually shouldn’t be believed.

        There are a few possibilities. Maybe he’s the smartest guy in the world, the only one who’s ever figured out that we’re a whole ‘nother country and the debt isn’t what all the economists, political scientists, academics and bureaucrats think it is. But probably not.

        Or maybe all the economists, political scientists, academics and such are in on it! Maybe it’s a giant conspiracy, and only a brave few people on the internet have the courage to buck this gigantic conspiracy (of which no evidence exists). But probably that’s not true, either.

        Probably, when someone is announcing bizarre “facts” that don’t seem to line up with the real world at all, they’re just wrong.

         
      • Toland

        August 5, 2015 at 6:09 PM

        “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution…”

        – Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

         
      • palani

        August 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM

        @ Colin “Probably, when someone is announcing bizarre “facts” that don’t seem to line up with the real world at all, they’re just wrong.”

        Your ‘real world’ is called Oz. Your preferred goal is to return to Kansas. I am presuming quite a bit here. Maybe you actually do prefer the bankrupt kingdom of Oz to the insolvent Kansas republic. Anyway, that is my presumption and I am sticking with it.

        Now there are many paths out of Oz and quite a few of them don’t lead you to where you want to go. One might go to the Land of Matrix. Another takes you to Neverland (sans Michael Jackson) and yet a third takes you down the rabbit hole. The path to Waterworld has you searching for dry land and gasping like a fish while drinking your own urine.

        I don’t have any recommendations for you as to which path to take but I will tell you this. I am not planning on strolling any sidewalks adjacent to tall buildings simply because I have found no insurance companies that issue policies protecting one from falling bankers.

         
      • Adask

        August 6, 2015 at 4:29 AM

        Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that the 14th Amendment created, or at least recognized, a “new” “United States”.

        That evidence is seen in the 13th Amendment (ratified in A.D. 1865) which declares, in part, that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist with the United States, or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.”

        In the 13th Amendment, the word “their” (in “their jurisdiction”) refers back to “United States”. The word “their” is plural and implies that the “United States” in the 13th Amendment is also a “plural” entity in the sense of the “several United States” and/or States of the Union.

        The 14th Amendment (ratified just three years later in A.D. 1868), declares in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “the” in the relation to “jurisdiction” is singular. That singular jurisdiction refers back to the “United States” seen in the same sentence. This implies that the “United States” in the 14th Amendment is a “singular” entity.

        Thus, it appears that the “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment of A.D. 1865 is plural or several in nature while the “United States” seen in the 14th Amendment of A.D. 1868 is singular in nature. And that, suggests that we have two fundamentally different “United States” in the 13th and 14th Amendment.

        Whether the 14th Amendment created a new-and-improved singular “United States” is not known to me. But the 14th Amendment does at least appear to recognize a singular “United States” that is something other than the several “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment.

        Also, in one of your previous comments, Colin, you advised folks that, “Probably, when someone is announcing bizarre “facts” that don’t seem to line up with the real world at all, they’re just wrong.”

        Good advice. But, could you give us a couple of examples of “bizarre facts” that don’t “line up with the real world”?

        For example, after millennia of presuming the earth to be flat and/or the center of the universe, when Copernicus (?) declared that the earth rotated around the sun, was that one of the “bizarre facts” that should’ve been dismissed as “just wrong”?

        How ’bout the Theory of Evolution? When it was announced by Darwin, that theory certainly contradicted millennia of of common sense and was taken by many to be, at best, a “bizarre fact”. (Many still regard it as a “bizarre fact”.) That Theory gave us a “scientific” basis to doubt the existence of God. Still, in the context of the late 1800s, how “bizarre” was that “fact”? Is that the kind of theory that you advise was so “bizarre” from the git-go that it should have been dismissed as “just wrong” and Darwin dismissed as another crazed, self-deluded “guru”?

        Then there’s the Big Bang Theory which supported the Theory of Evolution by postulating that the entire universe was originally compressed into a single, tiny speck of matter that one day exploded into the universe we now observe. Thanks to the science that gave us the Big Bang Theory, we have no need to believe in the “bizarre” notion that God created the universe or even exists. But, instead, we could believe in the “bizarre fact” that all of the universe once fit into a speck-sized space. Given the bizarre nature of the Big Bang Theory, should it also have been ignored from the beginning at “just wrong”? Should we have dismissed Edwin Hubble as crackpot from the first moment he spoke on the subject?

        And then, there’s the Theory of Dark Matter. That’s the idea that roughly 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible and imperceptible to us. Is that “bizarre” enough to be dismissed as “just wrong”?

        Incidentally, a primary reason for the Theory of Dark Matter was that, when the Big Bang Theory was first proposed back around A.D. 1929 (?), scientists didn’t have means or the math to measure the mass and energy of the universe. Later, when science discovered the means and math to make those measurements, they realized that that the math behind the Big Bang Theory could only work if there were roughly twenty times as much mass and energy in the universe as science was able to detect.

        Rather than dismiss the Big Bang Theory as mathematical nonsense, our objective scientists instead proposed that 95% of the universe was all around us, alright, but it was (for some unknown reason) undetectable.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the premise that 95% of universe is undetectable simply a false premise designed to support the mathematical flaws in the Big Bang Theory? Can you name any other “scientific” theories that have been embraced where the evidence indicates the theory is off by a factor of 20? Should that error be treated as a “bizarre fact” sufficient to discredit the theory of Dark Matter? If Dark Matter is essentially an “bizarre fact,” doesn’t that also discredit the Big Bang Theory? Without the Big Bang Theory, how sure can we be that there is no God to create the universe? If there is a God who created the universe and, presumably, created the earth and mankind, what is the validity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? Is it just another “bizarre fact” on the ash heap of history?

        Are the premises underlying the Theories of Evolution, Big Bang and Dark Matter the kind of “bizarre facts” that you advise us to to ignore as “just wrong”?

        More, do you personally ignore and dismiss those “bizarre facts”?

        Or, do you advise us to do as you say, not as you do?

        My point is that one man’s “bizarre fact” (that you say should be dismissed) can be another man’s “brilliant insight” (which should not be automatically dismissed as too “bizarre” to be true).

        You describe some of the “facts” presented on this blog as too “bizarre” to be believed. But how can you know that your confidence that your “facts” are right is any more credible than the opinions of lofty, highly-educated scholars (they had attended and graduated from universities that were the 15th century equivalents to our modern Harvard) who first criticized and ridiculed Copernicus for his theory of Heliocentrism?

        You might be a great guy, Colin, if you only had some sense of humility and personal fallibility. Your apparent excess of confidence in the absolute certainty of the ideas you’ve been taught to parrot will one day cause you to make a huge mistake. In the meantime, your refusal to consider the possibility that some of your opinions may also be based on “bizarre facts” will deprive you of the joy of exploring the unknown and therein finding something, on your own, that’s new and original.

        You are clearly a brilliant intellectual “engineer”. But, your dedication to dogma deprives you of much of the fun of thinking and seeking. You’re like a Jesuit priest defending his faith at any cost. So long as you refuse to consider possibilities that weren’t sanctified by Harvard, you’re unlikely to see or do much that could be described as “creative” or “insightful”.

         
      • palani

        August 6, 2015 at 8:33 AM

        @ Alfred “there is some evidence to suggest that the 14th Amendment created, or at least recognized, a “new” “United States”.”

        “To be” translates in a sense to “to have an account”. The 14th amendment holds “But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

        Many people look at that sentence and think it has to do with the southern states and the civil war. You might use a notice like this when your wife takes up the bed and board of another man in order to disown her debt. It has the effect of cancelling future obligations rather than past obligations. The newly created 1868 14th amendment government is in rebellion against the principles the United States was founded upon and I contend that the FEDERALIST government disowns the debts of the 14th amendment country by this notice.

         
      • Colin

        August 6, 2015 at 11:24 PM

        Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that the 14th Amendment created, or at least recognized, a “new” “United States”. . . . Thus, it appears that the “United States” seen in the 13th Amendment of A.D. 1865 is plural or several in nature while the “United States” seen in the 14th Amendment of A.D. 1868 is singular in nature. And that, suggests that we have two fundamentally different “United States” in the 13th and 14th Amendment.

        I think this is an example of taking an extremely small piece of evidence and using it as the basis of a huge conclusion, without actually trying to figure out whether or not that conclusion is probably true. For example, we could ask, what else could explain the shift? It could be just a general change in the way people talked—language, like species, evolves over time. And when I took a couple of seconds to look into it, what I found was pretty good evidence that in fact the English language (at least, as spoken in America) did in fact experience a shift: http://io9.com/when-did-the-united-states-become-a-singular-noun-949771685

        So there’s two (at least) possible explanations for the difference: one, that it just reflects the evolution over time in the way the American dialect handled the phrase. That’s consistent with the fact that language changes over time, and the n-gram results that seriously took about five seconds to find.

        The other possibility—the one you prefer—is a giant, enormous, stupendously huge conspiracy that consists of all historians, political scientists, politicians, bureaucrats, and everyone else who would have to be in on a secret change in the government, over more than a century, not one of which ever leaked the details of this bizarre generations-long plot.

        The second possibility is a lot more exciting. Are you able and willing to look past that to see whether it’s also more probably true?

        Good advice. But, could you give us a couple of examples of “bizarre facts” that don’t “line up with the real world”?

        The Man or Other Animals idea, the idea that there’s been a secret revolution in the government, the idea that states are really shadow secret conspiracy territories where rights don’t apply, etc.

        For example, after millennia of presuming the earth to be flat and/or the center of the universe, when Copernicus (?) declared that the earth rotated around the sun, was that one of the “bizarre facts” that should’ve been dismissed as “just wrong”?

        This is a really interesting point, and something I think about a lot—how do we reliably distinguish between unpopular ideas and crackpot ideas? Copernicus is a good example. Not only was his idea in the minority, it was disapproved by the majority of learned experts at least for a little while. All big, revolutionary ideas are. So are you Copernicus?

        I don’t think so, and here’s why: Copernicus didn’t just sit around and imagine things. It wasn’t enough for him that the sun could, in his imagination, be the center of the solar system. (It’s actually more complex than that—heliocentrism is more about simplifying orbits, since in a relativistic universe there’s no center of anything, physically, but we can ignore that for our purposes.) He went on to ask, is this actually true? He tried to figure out whether his idea was more or less consistent with the known facts than the ideas of other people, and marshaled evidence for that idea. And when his evidence and ideas were put up against the mainstream evidence and ideas, his won. They worked. You could actually use Copernican theory to simplify and predict orbital paths, and they meshed with the work of other people like Kepler.

        You seem stalled at the first step: Do I like this idea? Is it interesting? Is it fun to act like it’s true, and do people give me credit for being learned and insightful if I act like it’s true? I haven’t seen you actually do the hard work of trying to see if those ideas actually are true. When I pressed you on MOOA, for example, rather than coming to terms with the glaring logical flaws in the argument, you declared that God would make it a winner regardless. Your faith is your prerogative, but that’s a big difference between you and Copernicus: his ideas worked.

        So on the one hand we have Copernicus squaring off against all the learned astronomers of his day; on the other, a few blog commenters squaring off against every law professor and lawyer and politician and political scientist, etc. Copernicus could actually engage in a serious conversation with his doubters, and marshal evidence for why he was right and they were wrong. Here, on the other hand, we’ve got, “Haven’t you seen the movie WATERWORLD?” and “But police cars are called ‘cruisers’ so they must be boats under admiralty law.”

        Alfred, I like you and I sympathize with your hobby, but you aren’t Copernicus. He worked to establish his ideas on the firmest footing possible; you won’t even take a free class that would help you distinguish between actual law and what you imagine the law might be.

        I don’t know why you think there’s no fun or imagination or creativity or insight involved in dealing with the real world. Spend some time reading The Volokh Conspiracy or Popehat and you’ll see people having tons of fun talking about real laws and real legal issues. Just not ones that will be very familiar to you, until you step out of sovereigntist world and start engaging with the real one. It’s not hard to do!

         
      • Mark Twang

        August 7, 2015 at 6:22 PM

        Dear Colin,
        In the link you posted, http://io9.com/when-did-the-united-states-become-a-singular-noun-949771685, it says in pertinent part, > There was a time a few years ago when the United States was spoken of in the plural number,” reads an article published April 24th, 1887, in The Washington Post. “Men said ‘the United States are’ — ‘the United States have’ — ‘the United States were.’ But the war changed all that.”

        The quote continues (emphasis added):

        Along the line of fire from the Chesapeake to Sabine Pass was settled forever the question of grammar. Not Wells, or Green, or Lindley Murray decided it, but the sabers of Sheridan, the muskets of Sherman, the artillery of Grant. … The surrender of Mr. Davis and Gen. Lee meant a transition from the plural to the singular.

        Yes indeed and this IS really what “the war” was over,i.e., on whether the sovereignty of the several states would remain as such or be transferred to the single entity called the Federal Government. The singular U.S. was achieved via the 14th Amendment. ONCE AGAIN, the Dyett v Turner S.Ct. of Utah explains this.
        The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system.

        the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system.

        the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system.

        federal system. federal system. federal system. federal system. federal system. federal system.

         
      • Mark Twang

        August 7, 2015 at 7:03 PM

        Colin,
        You say to Alfred Adask, “I don’t know why you think there’s no fun or imagination or creativity or insight involved in dealing with the real world.”

        Colin I understand you are saying, some of us need to get real by getting into the real world as you understand what the real world is. IF I am understanding you correctly, do you think that, in addition to what you have recommended, having a psychiatric realty check might help some of us to stop behaving as though we are living in a fantasy world, or, what do you recommend is the best thing for us to do so we can pursue becoming smart like you are? What is the least expensive way for us frontier backwoods gibberish thinkers to, “get real”? Thanks for any additional advice & recommendations, etc.

         
    • Bones Red Skeleton

      August 5, 2015 at 7:59 PM

      palani,
      @ 1. If William Jefferson Clinton couldn’t figure out what ‘is’ meant why should I presume to know?
      palani, what we have here IS, a locking of horns ordeal
      People who have a bone to pick can be said to lock horns too.
      Yours sincerely,
      Bones

       
    • Mark Twang

      August 7, 2015 at 8:25 PM

      palani,
      @ The 14th amendment holds “But neither the United States nor any State………………”
      This is & of itself SHOWS we have 2 different “cats”. Why, nor any State, IF the United States means, the several States, or any one of the several States?

       
  13. Lance Pearce

    August 4, 2015 at 12:42 PM

    Colin, May I ask you why you are selective on what you will & will not respond to? Well, yes, I can ask, but, will you please explain why you do not respond to certain questions asked of you?

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 2:57 PM

      I ignore your comments generally. Pick a name and stick with it if you want to have a conversation; using many different names is a sleazy way to make it appear that there are lots of people asking the same generally inane questions, when in fact it’s one troll.

       
      • Les Moore

        August 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM

        @ when in fact it’s one troll.
        The toe bone’s connected to the foot bone,
        The foot bone’s connected to the ankle bone,
        The ankle bone’s connected to the leg bone,
        The leg bone’s connected to the knee bone,
        The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone,
        The thigh bone’s connected to the hip bone,
        The hip bone’s connected to the back bone
        The back bone’s connected to the neck bone,
        The neck bone’s connected to the head bone,
        The finger bone’s connected to the hand bone,
        The hand bone’s connected to the arm bone,
        The arm bone’s connected to the shoulder bone,
        WE ARE CONNECTED ANYWAY!! OUR, excuse me.MY next name will be, BONES!! :-) D

         
      • Mark Twang

        August 7, 2015 at 5:24 PM

        Colin,
        @ Fixing the money supply isn’t the same thing as fixing the national debt.
        AND, per the 14th, since the “national debt shall not be questioned” it seems that we cannot question the “medium of exchange” that is used to create the “national debt”.

         
  14. Les Moore

    August 4, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    Henry,
    @ “What can We the People, all 300 million of us acting together, do?”
    Henry IF you said what can We the Animals do, what you said would have been clear. :-) D
    Anyway, definitions today are DAFFY-NISH-UNNS tomorrow. Ain’t that right? :-) D

     
    • Mark Twang

      August 14, 2015 at 12:33 AM

      Colin SAYS, @ You can’t stop being a person.
      The response to Colin saying this follows:
      The text of section 1983 permits actions only against a “person.” In Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), the Supreme Court held that when an action is brought under section 1983 in state court against the State, its agencies, and/or its officials acting in their official capacities, neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacity are “persons” 283*283 under section 1983 when the remedy sought is monetary damages.[1] Accord Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). Thus, under section 1983 plaintiff in the instant case is barred from seeking damages from UNC, ASU, Harvey Durham in his official capacity, Dr. Thomas in his official capacity, or C.D. Spangler in his official capacity.[2]
      OK BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ABOUT IN THEIR “INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY”? The S,Ct. DID NOT MENTION THAT. THE S.CT. only mentioned IN IN IN THEIR “OFFICIAL CAPACITY”

       
  15. Peg-Powers

    August 5, 2015 at 2:32 PM

    Colin needs to do more personal study and research. He relies too heavily upon his system-approved, but often refuted, edumacation.

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 2:56 PM

      Then please show me what I’m missing. Or, even better, show me where your ideas have ever prevailed in the real world. If you just want to believe in these principals and never test them, fine, that’s your business. My concern is with people who get to believing they can get out of paying taxes or whatever on the basis of this nonsense. So if your belief is that the “system” always wins, so there’s no point in ever trying to show that the “system” is wrong, there’s not much basis for a conversation here. You’re going to believe whatever fantasy makes you feel powerful and brave, and you have a built-in excuse for not ever trying to see whether your ideas are right or wrong. But if you think your notions are actually effective in the real world, please show me where and when they have succeeded.

      When you think the “system” is “edumacating” people badly, how do you know? Have you ever tried to learn what’s taught in law and government schools? The classes are free now. You can take a free law class on Coursera. Are you equipped to say the “edumacation” is wrong if you haven’t tried it? If you haven’t tried it, why not? If you won’t try it, why not?

       
    • Les Moore

      August 5, 2015 at 6:36 PM

      Peg-Powers,
      @ Colin needs to do more personal study and research. He relies too heavily upon his system-approved, but often refuted, edumacation.
      Naw! U jus joshin. :-) D
      I was recently advised that I am trying to, Ed-“Jew”-muh-Kate. ok, Yahshua/Jesus was a Judean, aka, a Jew. The Apostle Paul said he was a Jew too. I dearly love BOTH Yahshua, & Paul, & Jonathan Cahn too. I never heard of Jonathan Cahn until about a week ago. BUT, better late than never.

       
  16. Peg-Powers

    August 5, 2015 at 2:58 PM

    Seems like I remember this certain fact:

    There are two basic requirements to exist as an authentic nation. It is required that it be SOLVENT and possess a STANDING ARMY (adequate means of defense).

    I believe that is the reason for the foreign United Nations building on our soil. All its members are being “administered in bankruptcy”, and it’s convenient for the CREDITOR to have them all in one office building so close to Wall Street. History reveals, over time, each has been fooled into going in DEBT and abandoning silver/gold, and then brought to their knees in perpetual insolvency.

    INSURANCE only exists within Admiralty. For instance, you are issued a birth/berth certificate and a policy is set up by U-No-Who. Also, even your car (CARavel) is so named and is not permitted to travel on the (inland) sea unless INSURED by U-No-Who. And trains are nothing but passenger and freight CARS on the inland sea. Admiralty. Admiralty.

     
  17. Colin

    August 5, 2015 at 4:57 PM

    Seems like I remember this certain fact:

    You are not remembering an actual fact. There’s a lot of thinking about what it takes to be a nation; it’s not “solvency” and “army.” I think the requirements are generally agreed to be that you govern a fixed, certain territory, that you have the capability to engage in foreign relations, and most importantly that you be recognized as such by other nations. That last one is the only one that really matters. Countries can be insolvent and disarmed and still countries. See, i.e., the Vatican States (solvent but no standing army) and Greece (arguably insolvent but a standing army). I’m not aware of any country that is both insolvent and has no standing army, but then again, I’m also not aware of any country that lacks a flag, and having a flag isn’t a requirement for being a country.

    I believe that is the reason for the foreign United Nations building on our soil.

    Your belief is incorrect. The UN headquarters building leases space, it didn’t seize it from us.

    All its members are being “administered in bankruptcy”, and it’s convenient for the CREDITOR to have them all in one office building so close to Wall Street.

    This is another made-up fact. It is, and come on, you know this already, false. The UN members aren’t all bankrupt, and the UN isn’t their creditor. If you disagree, I’d love to see some factual basis for this belief. If you can’t give me a factual basis for it, then why do you believe it?

    History reveals, over time, each has been fooled into going in DEBT and abandoning silver/gold, and then brought to their knees in perpetual insolvency.

    Does it? Can you name half a dozen examples?

    INSURANCE only exists within Admiralty.

    Baloney. Insurance exists outside of admiralty. Again, can you say why you think this is true? If you can’t, why did you make it up and announce it as if it was true? Isn’t that dishonest?

    For instance, you are issued a birth/berth certificate and a policy is set up by U-No-Who.

    No, it isn’t. “Birth” and “berth” are homonyms, not synonyms.

    Also, even your car (CARavel) is so named and is not permitted to travel on the (inland) sea unless INSURED by U-No-Who. And trains are nothing but passenger and freight CARS on the inland sea. Admiralty. Admiralty.

    Baloney. Baloney. “Car” has an etymology you can look up for yourself. It dates back to 1300, and refers to wheeled vehicles, not ships. Cars aren’t caravels or ships, and aren’t subject to maritime law. Which is why you won’t find any support for this nonsense in any law books, or really anywhere but crackpots online.

    I honestly can’t tell if you’re pulling my leg, or if you really believe this junk. Either way, plenty of people here seem to believe anything they read as long as it’s not part of “the system,” so I think it’s worth pointing out the false witness you’re bearing.

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 5:01 PM

      Whoops, I took my own advice and looked up the actual facts behind something I said–the UN building itself isn’t leased. (It leases other office space in NY, which is what I was thinking of.) The land is considered extraterritorial, through a treaty agreement with the United States. Not some kind of bizarre bankruptcy allocation.

       
    • Les Moore

      August 5, 2015 at 6:12 PM

      Colin,
      Re: Admiralty.
      Cruiser is defined as, a large and fast military ship.I recall I was sitting in the backseat of a “Police Cruiser” arms behind my back, handcuffed. The “Peace Officer” drove the “Cruiser” up to a sliding wired gate, called the dispatcher (< I presume), then I heard a voice over a loudspeaker say, Port Gate Opening. The "Port Gate" began to slide back, & when it was open enough, the "Peace Officer" drove the "CRUISER" through the opening. When inside, A voice over a loudspeaker said, Port Gate closing.They do have their own lingo no matter what we say. I also recall when I was ushered inside the building & the handcuffs were removed, I noticed, written on the handcuffs, MADE IN ENGLAND ( in all caps). I thought that was odd. Point is, there ARE Admiralty terms used by them. Port, Gate, Cruiser. I did have a Sheriff's deputy to tell me that what we call streets, Highways, etc., are, Rivers of Tar. SOooooooo I dunno.

       
    • Les Moore

      August 5, 2015 at 10:32 PM

      @ Baloney. Baloney. “Car” has an etymology you can look up for yourself.
      Originally, Car was short for, Carriage, or, Carrier.

       
    • palani

      August 6, 2015 at 5:55 AM

      @ Colin ” Insurance exists outside of admiralty”
      Were you never taught INLAND marine as it relates to insurance? Do you understand that when the movie WATERWORLD was filmed Sark Island was the only dry land in the world and do you understand why that island was considered dry land? Unfortunately Sark has finally submerged itself in DEMOCRACY and can no longer be considered dry land.

       
      • Mark Twang

        August 7, 2015 at 8:48 PM

        palani,
        @ Were you never taught INLAND marine as it relates to insurance?

        Not for you palani, but someone else may be interested. IF he/she has to be spoon fed, it still will not help. Transportation IS a commerce term, but if I’m using my automobile only for the purpose of going to visit you, I am said to be, by the powers that be, that I am engaging in, transportation.

        So what, exactly, is inland marine insurance?
        It provides coverages to businesses for property that is mobile in nature or requires unique valuation that they own or have in their care. Many types of property are covered, including those related to construction, transportation, fine art and communications.

        Inland Marine Insurance | Travelers Insurance
        Getting a free auto, home or renters insurance quote from Travelers is easy! …
        Travelers is a leading provider of commercial inland marine insurance products …
        https://www.travelers.com/business-insurance/specialized-industries/inland-marine/index.aspx

         
  18. Peg-Powers

    August 5, 2015 at 6:05 PM

    Hey, I didn’t make up the TERMINOLOGY—–“they” did! Wake up. Even our local policeman drives a “cruiser” in this one-horse town. etc. etc. In fact, the terminology is constantly changing—-just to keep the masses (and the English bar violators/esquires/attorneys/those with titles of nobility) confused and bamboozled. Most folks believe they now “drive” a “vehicle”.

    The LAND/soil on which the U.N. bldg stands was DONATED by a Rockefeller.

    Any treaty written in violation of the original CONSTITUTION is void ab initio and obligates no agency or man to any performance.

    Thanks for the arguments—–but you are in error on many ideas and concepts.

    I pray that all truth seekers will discern and discard the mounting deception and darkness in our society. Let us be the children of the Light. Let us walk in the Light. Thank God for men like Alfred who gently assist us in our advance. Alfred’s sidebar topics cover most everything we are here discussing and leave little doubt as to a high regard for living TRUTH.

     
    • Colin

      August 5, 2015 at 9:05 PM

      Even our local policeman drives a “cruiser” in this one-horse town. etc. etc. In fact, the terminology is constantly changing—-just to keep the masses (and the English bar violators/esquires/attorneys/those with titles of nobility) confused and bamboozled. Most folks believe they now “drive” a “vehicle”.

      They do drive a vehicle. Look up what those words mean, please–when you get in your car and go from A to B, you’re driving a vehicle. Calling something a “cruiser” doesn’t make it a ship, any more than calling a nightstick a “billy club” makes it a goat. Synonyms are a thing.

      What makes something to admiralty jurisdiction is not whether its name is a synonym for some nautical thing. The limits of admiralty jurisdiction are set out in actual law books, which you can read. Or you can make stuff up as you go along. Up to you.

      The LAND/soil on which the U.N. bldg stands was DONATED by a Rockefeller.

      What makes the land extraterritorial (i.e., not subject to US law) is not the name of the donor, or the fact that it was donated. Only a treaty with the United States can make any place within our borders “extraterritorial.” The US could even revoke the treaty if it wanted to.

      Any treaty written in violation of the original CONSTITUTION is void ab initio and obligates no agency or man to any performance.

      Sort of true–the amended constitution trumps the original constitution. Because the original constitution provided for amendments. Other than that, I agree! The United States has always vested the power for testing constitutionality with the courts per Article III. So the question is, how do we as a country decide whether something violates the constitution? The answer is, the Supreme Court (or the inferior courts). You don’t have to agree with what the courts say, of course, but as a country that’s our metric.

       
      • Mark Twang

        August 6, 2015 at 3:42 PM

        Colin,
        There MUST be a REASON “they” call their vehicle a Cruiser. Personally, i think it must be what they are TRAINED to say, & also, they ARE trained to refer to US as, SUBJECTS. I recall reading a U.S.Supreme Court decision, don’t know if it’s dicta, dictum,or, as you have said, out of context, in a repository out-of-context citation, ANYWAY, it is written in the Case, “the Fourteenth Amendment was the final turn in reversing the original order of things as established by the founding Fathers of our Country. NOW!! We should keep in mind that these S.Ct. Justices DIED. The new born are taught the “truth” as it stands BUT it is a reversal of the ORIGINAL ORDER of things. It goes on like that. We have had 150 + years to REVERSE everything originally established. Colin, there are a FEW RARE-BIRDS that want to get back to the way things were originally, at least as best as we can & we know you look at us as Backwoods frontier dark ages gibberish thinkers. This IS WHY you continually say, Nonsense, Baloney, Gibberish, etc. Well YES IT IS, TODAY. BUT, Originally, what YOU say NOW, would have been thought of the same way, i.e., Nonsense, Baloney, Gibberish, etc. Yes, some of us ARE STUBBORN in that we do not want ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR REAL WORLD. I guess what I said, is in contempt of court & warrants at least 30 days, RIGHT?

         
  19. Les Moore

    August 5, 2015 at 10:18 PM

    Colin,
    @ Sort of true–the amended constitution trumps the original constitution.
    More, or, less?

     
  20. Peg-Powers

    August 6, 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Les is More: Isn’t it a bit absurd? Just about anybody can now identify themselves as a “Jew” and come off like jam on toast. But if someone says they are a “Christian”—–everyone yells “What sort of Christian are you?” Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? Evangelical?

    One had better ask more questions and also look behind the stage curtains. Why does Jew veracity always get a front seat in the bus of popular opinion? No questions asked. Are we not the least bit curious as to why we are confronted by the Lion of Judah to this very day?
    (Rev. 2:9, 3:9)

    In fact, Jesus was of the bloodline of his mother, Mary, not of Joseph. Why is the Bible unclear on this point—-but very clear as to “legalities” concerning Joseph, a step-father. Looks almost like a cover-up to me. One friend says that Mary was of the tribe of Ephraim, the boy who received the greater blessing.

    But then, all of this subject matter is a waste of our time and a trap set to ensnare us. What’s real is this “All who believe the GOSPEL of our Savior and abide in the faith are the children of those who went before us in the faith” (book of Hebrews), no matter what the DNA, tribe, or adopted religious rite.

     
  21. Mark Twang

    August 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM

    Peg-Powers,
    @ But if someone says they are a “Christian”—–everyone yells “What sort of Christian are you?” Catholic? Presbyterian? Methodist? Baptist? Evangelical?
    IGNURNT &/or STUPID people ask questions like that. Why is it that I have asked certain people, & I not knowing anything about him/her, but, When I ask certain people if they are Christians, they say, No, I am Catholic. Why dat, Peg? Also, Colin said, answers YOU by saying what YOU said IS “Sorta true”. Does this also mean, sorta false? Does sorta true mean more true than false, or, more false than true?
    @ Mary, not of Joseph. Why is the Bible unclear on this point—-
    The Bible IS CLEAR on this point!!! IF you can UNDERSTAND what is written in Matthew Chapter ONE, & Luke Chapter THREE, verses 23 through 38. People PRESUMED Yahshau/Jesus was the Son of Joseph and SO WOULD YOU & I IF we lived at that time did not KNOW any better. I knew I knew my Dad. When I was 18 years old I knew better than that. He was really my Step Dad. He adopted me BUT, I NEVER KNEW THAT until HE told me!! SEE what I’m trying to say?
    @ “All who believe the GOSPEL of our Savior and abide in the faith are the children of those who went before us in the faith” (book of Hebrews), no matter what the DNA, tribe, or adopted religious rite.
    AND Everybody SAYS what BELIEVE MEANS & THEY ALL SAY IT MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT & EACH ONE HAS THE RIGHT BELIEF & UNLESS YOU & I BELIEVE HIS/HER WAY THEN WE ARE WRONG!!

     
  22. NicksTaxFree

    August 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    This is from The Power Hour .com interview with Ralph Winterrowd. It starts out about the IRS but quickly turned into U.S. verses State citizenship. It will be very enlightening. He even gives a Court case for Colin. I will be looking into the info he provides Kuretski 755 f3d 929 about IRS jurisdiction only in D.C. and the “Public Rights Doctrines”
    He starts at 33.30 minute mark, gets good at 46 min. but at 50 minutes he is into the meat of it.

    http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722152.mp3 ( Part one)

    The interview continues with more on this topic, full of real education.
    http://archives2015.gcnlive.com/Archives2015/jul15/PowerHour/0722153.mp3 ( part two )

    http://www.thepowerhour.com archives on july 22 2015 2nd and 3rd hour A MUST LISTEN !!!

     
  23. Mark Twang

    August 7, 2015 at 5:48 PM

    Adask,
    @ That evidence is seen in the 13th Amendment (ratified in A.D. 1865) which declares, in part, that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist with the United States, or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.”
    Exactly. Also, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, means, subject to ITS jurisdiction.It does not make sense to say subject to its jurisdiction applies to the several states. It makes sense to say subject to THEIR jurisdiction.

     
  24. palani

    August 7, 2015 at 6:26 PM

    Note to self … Never attempt to operate a country using the constitution of a federation. It tends to confuse an awful lot of people.

     
    • Mark Twang

      August 7, 2015 at 7:25 PM

      palani,
      I cannot grasp that the founding Fathers created anything that would be a curse upon them & especially their children, grandchildren, & so on. E.g., We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
      palani, what is bad or wrong about what is stated? I see good intentions, but is that the problem, in that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

       
      • palani

        August 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM

        @ D.B. Cooper “what is bad or wrong about what is stated?”

        “We the People” would seem on its’ face to exclude any non-signers. Then when we consider the signers it seems they sign as the agents of a principal known generally as ‘the several States’. The makes People synonymous with State so the expression becomes “We the States, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,…”. This then places a rather more interesting slant upon this opening remark then presuming People to be, well, people.

         
    • Mark Twang

      August 9, 2015 at 11:10 AM

      palani,
      @ “We the People” would seem on its’ face to exclude any non-signers.
      Well once upon a time there was something known as REPRESENTATIVES TOO! YOU can SIGN for ME if I give you the authority to do so. I believe the SIGNERS were given authority to sign for others. However, I am probably wrong as usual.It doesn’t seem to make any difference anyway. We are where we are. There must be a reason WHY we are where we are.I believe I know WHY!

       
  25. D B Cooper

    August 7, 2015 at 9:03 PM

    palani,
    @ D.B. Cooper “what is bad or wrong about what is stated?”
    Well this I do know. This U.S.o A became the greatest Nation ever & was richly blessed. The Forefathers died. Their children inherited the blessings & had need of nothing, or so they thought. They enjoyed the blessings & disregarded the giver.Their false beliefs led into being immoral/debauchery & here we are.

     
  26. Peg-Powers

    August 10, 2015 at 6:59 PM

    Mark Twang:
    The question remains: Of what tribe/family was Mary, the natural mother of Jesus the Christ?

     
    • Lance Pearce

      August 10, 2015 at 11:24 PM

      Peg-Powers,
      @ The question remains: Of what tribe/family was Mary, the natural mother of Jesus the Christ?
      JUST CONSIDER THE RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION & NOT THE RESPONDER. IF THE SAME RESPONSE CAME FROM SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? IT SHOULDN’T. HOWEVER !!! It is like this. As I said a LONNNNNG TIME AGO. I came across something I read in the scripture that I though was solid as a rock. I told this “certain” man about it.He said NOW THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN TAKE TO THE BANK!! THAT IS SOLID AS A ROCK!! He asked me where I “got” that information. I said from the Apostle Paul! THEN HE SAID WELL YOU CAN JUST FORGET IT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DEPEND ON ANYTHING PAUL SAYS!! PAUL WAS A LUNATIC!!

       
    • Mark Twang

      August 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM

      Peg-Powers
      @ The question remains: Of what tribe/family was Mary, the natural mother of Jesus the Christ?
      Yahudah (Hebrew) = “praised” a son of Jacob/Israel, or his descendants, – (incorrectly translated as Judah, Judah(s), Jew(s) in many English Bibles).

      Numbers 36:5 And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. 6 This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. < There were no exceptions.

      This also applied to the other Families of Israel. Some Israelites ignored the command. It's not within my ability to grasp that Mary was regarded "pure" enough to "God" the Father to choose her to conceive Yahshua IF she was not in the lineage of Yahudah aka Judah. Paul says, For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah………………. Hebrews 7:14. Since "Jesus" did not have a "physical" Father BUT he DID HAVE a Physical Mother, what does this tell you? I know what it tells me, but who am I?! The Troll aka, The DECEIVER. Ain't that right Henry, Roger, Toland?

       
  27. Lance Pearce

    August 10, 2015 at 11:10 PM

    Peg-Powers,
    @ The question remains: Of what tribe/family was Mary, the natural mother of Jesus the Christ?

    There should be no question if people could understand Ethnic Purity was adhered to. There WERE people ONCE UPON A TIME who KNEW WHO TO MARRY & WHAT “God” commanded about MARRIAGE! Doubters, scoffers, mockers, & ridiculers are going to steadfastly hold on to there beliefs REGARDLESS of what anyone else says. I used COMMON SENSE & COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES To SAY that MARY WAS A JUDEAN ISRAELITE & SO WAS JOSEPH!! Take it or leave it. Joseph would not have married anyone OUTSIDE of his “OWN TRIBE”. I say this BASED on what is written in the scriptures about Joseph.
    Luke’s genealogy, Luke’s genealogy must list Jesus’ ancestors through his mother:

    Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luke 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the PRESUMED “father” of Jesus) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.

    Reading through Luke’s genealogy, we, OR AT LEAST I can see how Jesus, through his blood relationship with his mother and her ancestors, becomes the true son of “God”.

     

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