SEN. REID "TAXATION IS
VOLUNTARY" - YOUTUBE/ WHAT IS VOLUNTARY? FORWARDED BY ERASMUS OF AMERICA -
OCT. 17, 2013
From: legal_reality
Subj: Fwd: Sen. Reid "Taxation Is Voluntary" - YouTube | What is VOLUNTARY?
Subj: Fwd: Sen. Reid "Taxation Is Voluntary" - YouTube | What is VOLUNTARY?
16 October A.D. 2013
How the obvious remains unseen! If this weren't so painful a reality, this author would be laughing til his sides hurt. It's just not funny, yet. It will be, but we're just "not there," yet, nationally speaking.
There has been no, is no, and will be no "competent" analysis of the "income tax" scam until some fundamentals are very firmly in mind:
1.A. We do not now have and have never had a "constitution." (This author teaches courses that have helped many through this threshold transition, which is a wicked paradigm shift).
A.1. "Federal" means "federal." Language printed in a book of "statutes" doesn't apply solely because it's in print. If that language applies, it'll be because the target has engaged in Monte Hall's "Let's Make A Deal!" and then has breached the agreement, 99.9% of the time without realizing that "federal" means "federal;" hence, not realizing that s/he is playing Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" (Yes, there are courses also for the "income tax" system. Yes. Many consider this course of study "expensive." There's a lot to cover, and it can take quite a while to come to terms with the learning, which is more wicked-paradigm-shift in nature.)
Recently, a note, written by a well-meaning and intellectually competent Brit, circulated that talked about "law" v. "not law," and while there's value in starting to think along those lines, that's definitely the wrong dichotomy. Better is "agreement" v. "no agreement." "Law" v. "not law" takes one down a false trail of "statute" v. "Common Law," and that's just one more self-imposed trap set by those who are not yet thinking in terms of our present legal reality, which is a commercial reality. Those who "get it" invest their mental and emotional energy in matters legal thinking and analyzing "agreement" v. "no agreement." These are the ones who understand that "federal" means "federal."
"Federal" does not mean "national." This "federal" mechanism permeates all levels of that which passes as "government."
"Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional!" We do not now have - and have never had - a "constitution," not at the national level; not at the STATE level (present reality); not at the State level (original, Common Law reality). (Yes, there may be an exception; if so, Alabama and Texas may actually have formed "constitutional" systems, neither of which survived the War of Northern Aggression, and no "constitutional" system can survive without the general circulation of honest weights and measures, because without that as the medium of exchange, the system is not a Common Law system.)
To set the analogy, those who blast away at the Supreme Court confess, by so doing, that they haven't got any idea, at all, what is our present legal reality. To apply the analogy, as is the situation where people blast away at the Supreme Court, those who blast away at the reality that the "income tax" obligation is absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary in nature are confessing that they just don't understand (yet) our present legal reality.
There's never been such a broadcast of the absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary nature of the "income tax" obligation as is found in the recent NFIB ruling regarding the obama-nation's death/health scare programme.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (this should be the opinion, itself)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393 (an on-line, html version)
To understand the nature of our system, namely that "federal" means "federal," is to see the Supreme Court's broadcasting, on all channels, at and above full-volume ratings, our present reality that being a "taxpayer" is 100% voluntary. What does that ruling say to the STATEs? It says this: You don't have to participate in the obama-nations's death/health-scare programme, but if you get in, you get in for the whole enchilada. What does this ruling say to the "individuals?" It says this: You don't have to be a "taxpayer," but if you are a "taxpayer," you'll be obligating yourself to the obama-nation's death/health-scare programme.
The obama-nation's death/health-scare programme language doesn't qualify as "legislation" per the "Commerce Clause" doctrine, because no one may be compelled into commerce. No one may be compelled to provide insurance; no one may be compelled to purchase insurance. (In the "transportation" area? Ok. Same reality. No one is compelled into "transportation." Those, those who "drive" or "operate" a "vehicle" or "motor vehicle" are doing so 100% voluntarily, and by no other means or mechanism. "Drivers" and "operators" aren't compelled to have insurance -- they agree to that condition when they agree that they're engaging in "transportation.")
The obama-nation's death/health-scare programme does qualify as "legislation" per the "tax authority" doctrine, because there's not one single, solitary "tax" through this entire system, at any level of it, whether local, STATE, or national, that functions by any mechanism other than absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary participation.
The key is knowing, first, that we're dealing with agreements (as in Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!"), not legislatively edicted mandates, which are legally impossible to produce, but agreements, and then secondly, once one knows what one is looking at, when/where/how the obligation starts. This is the thinking and perspective that sheds "the full light" on how to stop "volunteering." And, even that isn't enough, because where those who have stopped volunteering are listed in anything "traditional" that flows through the irs's ever-expanding eye of observation of commercial activity, those not in a position to defend against a totally bogus claim by the irs are still going to be bulldozed.
This isn't a matter to engage lightly. Those who understand the reality are then in a position to stop volunteering. There's no "group think" that's going to help with this. It's an individual, commercial decision. Those who don't yet understand the reality can stumble into not volunteering any more, but they're unable to explain the reality in such a way as to make that accident for one something conscious and deliberate and successful for another.
Bottom line about "income tax," the "marketing" by the irs and that system is as 100% correct today as it has ever been. No one is a "taxpayer" who hasn't 100% volunteered into that role/office.
Picture the solitaire game called Labyrinth. The board, typically wood, is designed to rotate around two axis lines, and the objective is to move the ball from Start to Finish without dropping it in any of the holes along the path. This is the perfect description of the "tax" system. Whether the ball drops into Hole 1 (the first one) or Hole 50 (the last one, on the traditional-sized board), to drop the ball in the hole is to "volunteer." The system is designed to allow numerous and dozens and many-fold ways to "volunteer." To avoid all of them is to know how not to volunteer, and that isn't something that happens repeatedly by accident.
How the obvious remains unseen! If this weren't so painful a reality, this author would be laughing til his sides hurt. It's just not funny, yet. It will be, but we're just "not there," yet, nationally speaking.
There has been no, is no, and will be no "competent" analysis of the "income tax" scam until some fundamentals are very firmly in mind:
1.A. We do not now have and have never had a "constitution." (This author teaches courses that have helped many through this threshold transition, which is a wicked paradigm shift).
A.1. "Federal" means "federal." Language printed in a book of "statutes" doesn't apply solely because it's in print. If that language applies, it'll be because the target has engaged in Monte Hall's "Let's Make A Deal!" and then has breached the agreement, 99.9% of the time without realizing that "federal" means "federal;" hence, not realizing that s/he is playing Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!" (Yes, there are courses also for the "income tax" system. Yes. Many consider this course of study "expensive." There's a lot to cover, and it can take quite a while to come to terms with the learning, which is more wicked-paradigm-shift in nature.)
Recently, a note, written by a well-meaning and intellectually competent Brit, circulated that talked about "law" v. "not law," and while there's value in starting to think along those lines, that's definitely the wrong dichotomy. Better is "agreement" v. "no agreement." "Law" v. "not law" takes one down a false trail of "statute" v. "Common Law," and that's just one more self-imposed trap set by those who are not yet thinking in terms of our present legal reality, which is a commercial reality. Those who "get it" invest their mental and emotional energy in matters legal thinking and analyzing "agreement" v. "no agreement." These are the ones who understand that "federal" means "federal."
"Federal" does not mean "national." This "federal" mechanism permeates all levels of that which passes as "government."
"Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional!" We do not now have - and have never had - a "constitution," not at the national level; not at the STATE level (present reality); not at the State level (original, Common Law reality). (Yes, there may be an exception; if so, Alabama and Texas may actually have formed "constitutional" systems, neither of which survived the War of Northern Aggression, and no "constitutional" system can survive without the general circulation of honest weights and measures, because without that as the medium of exchange, the system is not a Common Law system.)
To set the analogy, those who blast away at the Supreme Court confess, by so doing, that they haven't got any idea, at all, what is our present legal reality. To apply the analogy, as is the situation where people blast away at the Supreme Court, those who blast away at the reality that the "income tax" obligation is absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary in nature are confessing that they just don't understand (yet) our present legal reality.
There's never been such a broadcast of the absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary nature of the "income tax" obligation as is found in the recent NFIB ruling regarding the obama-nation's death/health scare programme.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (this should be the opinion, itself)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393 (an on-line, html version)
To understand the nature of our system, namely that "federal" means "federal," is to see the Supreme Court's broadcasting, on all channels, at and above full-volume ratings, our present reality that being a "taxpayer" is 100% voluntary. What does that ruling say to the STATEs? It says this: You don't have to participate in the obama-nations's death/health-scare programme, but if you get in, you get in for the whole enchilada. What does this ruling say to the "individuals?" It says this: You don't have to be a "taxpayer," but if you are a "taxpayer," you'll be obligating yourself to the obama-nation's death/health-scare programme.
The obama-nation's death/health-scare programme language doesn't qualify as "legislation" per the "Commerce Clause" doctrine, because no one may be compelled into commerce. No one may be compelled to provide insurance; no one may be compelled to purchase insurance. (In the "transportation" area? Ok. Same reality. No one is compelled into "transportation." Those, those who "drive" or "operate" a "vehicle" or "motor vehicle" are doing so 100% voluntarily, and by no other means or mechanism. "Drivers" and "operators" aren't compelled to have insurance -- they agree to that condition when they agree that they're engaging in "transportation.")
The obama-nation's death/health-scare programme does qualify as "legislation" per the "tax authority" doctrine, because there's not one single, solitary "tax" through this entire system, at any level of it, whether local, STATE, or national, that functions by any mechanism other than absolutely, positively, 100% voluntary participation.
The key is knowing, first, that we're dealing with agreements (as in Monte Hall's, "Let's Make A Deal!"), not legislatively edicted mandates, which are legally impossible to produce, but agreements, and then secondly, once one knows what one is looking at, when/where/how the obligation starts. This is the thinking and perspective that sheds "the full light" on how to stop "volunteering." And, even that isn't enough, because where those who have stopped volunteering are listed in anything "traditional" that flows through the irs's ever-expanding eye of observation of commercial activity, those not in a position to defend against a totally bogus claim by the irs are still going to be bulldozed.
This isn't a matter to engage lightly. Those who understand the reality are then in a position to stop volunteering. There's no "group think" that's going to help with this. It's an individual, commercial decision. Those who don't yet understand the reality can stumble into not volunteering any more, but they're unable to explain the reality in such a way as to make that accident for one something conscious and deliberate and successful for another.
Bottom line about "income tax," the "marketing" by the irs and that system is as 100% correct today as it has ever been. No one is a "taxpayer" who hasn't 100% volunteered into that role/office.
Picture the solitaire game called Labyrinth. The board, typically wood, is designed to rotate around two axis lines, and the objective is to move the ball from Start to Finish without dropping it in any of the holes along the path. This is the perfect description of the "tax" system. Whether the ball drops into Hole 1 (the first one) or Hole 50 (the last one, on the traditional-sized board), to drop the ball in the hole is to "volunteer." The system is designed to allow numerous and dozens and many-fold ways to "volunteer." To avoid all of them is to know how not to volunteer, and that isn't something that happens repeatedly by accident.
"Federal" means
"federal," as in "by agreement." That's how this
entire stinkin' system functions.
We're not in America; we're in "this state," which is the brain child of The Fourth Reich types, i.e., the western european banking cartel. Thought you knew who the Nazis were/are?! They're right there in plain sight, pretending to be one thing, but truly being the exact opposite. And, all of us are assisting The Fourth Reich with every "funny money"-based transaction, whether "paper or plastic." That transition, from America to The Fourth Reich, occurred circa 1965, when the last vestiges of honest weights and measures were sucked out of circulation and replaced with "funny money," both regarding the "scrap metal" (a term heard recently and which is likely to be repeated as the context warrants) and the "funny money," whether paper or plastic.
(JFK was assassinated because he reneged on his side of the deal to allow the banking system to suck America dry of its honest system of weights and measures. It was within several months after he reneged on his cooperation with the banking cartel, within several months after he changed his mind and ultimately decided against allowing silver to be removed from circulation, that he was shot dead in a murderous spectacle that is talked about, around the world, to this day, a special anniversary for which (the 50th) occurs this November. There is no statute of limitations on homicide; the Warren Commission is not the Dallas County Grand Jury; that case is still very much open; and it's the Dallas County Grand Jury that still has 100% authority to investigate that homicide. Are there enough in the population to comprise a 1963-choice-of-law Grand Jury in Dallas County??! Does COUNTY OF DALLAS have the authority to prosecute a crime that occurred in the County of Dallas??!)
By 1965, yes, the "income tax" system was well underway, as were "all" the commercial activities necessary to make "this state" function as designed. It was an extremely, brilliantly "seamless" transition. It was all set up for that "switch-throwing." The key to that transition is in the circulation of the "funny money," another item we use 100% voluntarily. We have "bought and sold" ourselves into The Fourth Reich's choice of law, and we'll remain here for so long as "funny money" circulates generally.
Let's change gears just a little bit. Everyone has a contribution to make, and not all intending to contribute to the demise of the irs have to learn how to stop volunteering.
What is the purpose of the "income tax" system? "Funny money supply management."
There's nothing about "revenue" involved. This system borrows what it wants to borrow into existence. "Private" borrowing serves the same purpose -- bringing "funny money" into existence. When the principal of this loan or that loan is paid, that much "funny money" has to come back out of general circulation. By what mechanism are such amounts taken back out of circulation? "Income tax" is one way; fines in the "transportation" area are another. Any and all "taxes" serve this same function, this very same "funny money supply management" function.
For this reason, then, as this author has asserted, does assert, and will "forever" assert, "the" solution to that which vexes us is found in the cessation of the use of "funny money." Where there's no "funny money" the supply of which needs to be managed, there is no purpose in the "income tax" system. None whatsoever. That's just to say that those who want, genuinely and sincerely, to make a contribution toward putting "the fed" out of business, thus also the irs, are those who are trying to find ways to stop using the "funny money." Said another way, one doesn't "have" to know the legal reality of the mechanism by which the "income tax" scam works in order to make a (huge) contribution toward putting that scam out of business. What one has to grasp is the concept that the "funny money" system requires "money supply management," and that "the chief tool" for that "funny money supply management" is the "income tax." Thus, where there's no more "funny money" in general circulation, there is no justification, any more, for any "income tax," for there's no more "funny money" that needs "supply management."
Being a "taxpayer" is absolutely, positively, 100% "voluntary" in nature. The "marketing" on that point is as 100% correct today as it was 100% years ago when this scam got started (in earnest).
May The Lord, God, Almighty, bring sight to those truly wanting sight, and may He motivate just enough into sight that the use of such sight occur in time for it to matter (for the benefit of this entire nation). Nineveh figured out the value in repenting. Was that "ancient" culture really that far in advance of us, today?
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
[What is VOLUNTARY?]
We're not in America; we're in "this state," which is the brain child of The Fourth Reich types, i.e., the western european banking cartel. Thought you knew who the Nazis were/are?! They're right there in plain sight, pretending to be one thing, but truly being the exact opposite. And, all of us are assisting The Fourth Reich with every "funny money"-based transaction, whether "paper or plastic." That transition, from America to The Fourth Reich, occurred circa 1965, when the last vestiges of honest weights and measures were sucked out of circulation and replaced with "funny money," both regarding the "scrap metal" (a term heard recently and which is likely to be repeated as the context warrants) and the "funny money," whether paper or plastic.
(JFK was assassinated because he reneged on his side of the deal to allow the banking system to suck America dry of its honest system of weights and measures. It was within several months after he reneged on his cooperation with the banking cartel, within several months after he changed his mind and ultimately decided against allowing silver to be removed from circulation, that he was shot dead in a murderous spectacle that is talked about, around the world, to this day, a special anniversary for which (the 50th) occurs this November. There is no statute of limitations on homicide; the Warren Commission is not the Dallas County Grand Jury; that case is still very much open; and it's the Dallas County Grand Jury that still has 100% authority to investigate that homicide. Are there enough in the population to comprise a 1963-choice-of-law Grand Jury in Dallas County??! Does COUNTY OF DALLAS have the authority to prosecute a crime that occurred in the County of Dallas??!)
By 1965, yes, the "income tax" system was well underway, as were "all" the commercial activities necessary to make "this state" function as designed. It was an extremely, brilliantly "seamless" transition. It was all set up for that "switch-throwing." The key to that transition is in the circulation of the "funny money," another item we use 100% voluntarily. We have "bought and sold" ourselves into The Fourth Reich's choice of law, and we'll remain here for so long as "funny money" circulates generally.
Let's change gears just a little bit. Everyone has a contribution to make, and not all intending to contribute to the demise of the irs have to learn how to stop volunteering.
What is the purpose of the "income tax" system? "Funny money supply management."
There's nothing about "revenue" involved. This system borrows what it wants to borrow into existence. "Private" borrowing serves the same purpose -- bringing "funny money" into existence. When the principal of this loan or that loan is paid, that much "funny money" has to come back out of general circulation. By what mechanism are such amounts taken back out of circulation? "Income tax" is one way; fines in the "transportation" area are another. Any and all "taxes" serve this same function, this very same "funny money supply management" function.
For this reason, then, as this author has asserted, does assert, and will "forever" assert, "the" solution to that which vexes us is found in the cessation of the use of "funny money." Where there's no "funny money" the supply of which needs to be managed, there is no purpose in the "income tax" system. None whatsoever. That's just to say that those who want, genuinely and sincerely, to make a contribution toward putting "the fed" out of business, thus also the irs, are those who are trying to find ways to stop using the "funny money." Said another way, one doesn't "have" to know the legal reality of the mechanism by which the "income tax" scam works in order to make a (huge) contribution toward putting that scam out of business. What one has to grasp is the concept that the "funny money" system requires "money supply management," and that "the chief tool" for that "funny money supply management" is the "income tax." Thus, where there's no more "funny money" in general circulation, there is no justification, any more, for any "income tax," for there's no more "funny money" that needs "supply management."
Being a "taxpayer" is absolutely, positively, 100% "voluntary" in nature. The "marketing" on that point is as 100% correct today as it was 100% years ago when this scam got started (in earnest).
May The Lord, God, Almighty, bring sight to those truly wanting sight, and may He motivate just enough into sight that the use of such sight occur in time for it to matter (for the benefit of this entire nation). Nineveh figured out the value in repenting. Was that "ancient" culture really that far in advance of us, today?
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
-------- Original Message --------
[What is VOLUNTARY?]
Especially see Blacks Sixth
Edition, 2nd below ('Done by
design or intention.', etc.).
In a message dated 10/14/2013 10:49:56 P.M. EDT, zzz wrote:
Here's a mealy mouth politician showing you how to pull off
doublespeak
Uploaded on Aug 23, 2008
Jan Helfeld interviews Senator Harry Reid about redistributive
taxes. Reid maintains redistributive taxes are not a problem because people are
not forced to pay taxes. He says taxation is voluntary??? How and why does
Harry Reid get into this bind and make such a preposterous statement?
--
Posted By Charleston Voice to Charleston Voice at 10/14/2013 10:49:00 PM
_____________________________________________________________________
FOR THE LEGAL REFERENCES THAT WERE
CITED TO SHOW HIS POSITION THAT TAXES ARE VOLUNTARY UNDER LAW, SEND EMAIL TO US
AT FASTBOOMAMERICANECONOMY.COM@GMAIL.COM
AND ASK FOR "LEGAL REFERENCES THAT TAXES ARE VOLUNTARY." LARGE
LISTING OF LAW REFERENCES TOO BIG FOR THIS REPORT TO BE POSTED, BUT WILL SEND
TO YOU FOR FREE UPON REQUEST BY EMAIL.
FORWARDED BY ERASMUS OF AMERICA. THIS HAS MANY INTERESTING LEGAL ANGLES WHICH THIS LAWYER STATES THAT MAKES PAYING TAXES IN AMERICA A VOLUNTARY ACT AND NOT REQUIRED AS A COMPULSORY ACT UNDER LAW. I DIFFER WITH HIM ON ONE KEY LEGAL POINT. I JUDGE THAT WE DID START WITH A VALID CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR STATES IN THE BEGINNING. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORED ITS CONSTITUTION AND ACTED ANY WAY THE LEGAL WHIMS OF THOSE IN POWER WANTED IT TO, THE LEGAL CHARTER CALLED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS CANCELLED. THAT MEANS IT IS TIME TO EITHER HAVE THE CALL ISSUED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO WRITE A NEW NATIONAL CONSTITUTION FOR AMERICA TO BE RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES OR ELSE PASS MY OMNI LAW SHOWN ON MY WEBSITE TO RETURN AUTHORITY FOR THE USURPED GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. PASS THE OMNI LAW AND WE CAN STRAIGHTEN OUT THE MESS IN WASH., D.C. ALSO, IN THE PROCESS, WE WILL REESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE AT THIS MOMENT.
THE PROPOSED OMNI LAW IS POSTED ON MY WEBSITE AND CAN BE COPIED AND SENT OUT
ALL OVER AMERICA. FINANCIAL SUPPORT IS WELCOME. THE OTHER SIDE HAS THE SUPER
RICH ON THEIR SIDE. WE HAVE THE PEOPLE WHICH ACCORDING TO COMMON POLITICAL
WISDOM MEANS THAT WE PICKED THE WRONG SIDE TO WIN WITH. HOWEVER, EXPOSE
ENOUGH SCANDALS OF THE OTHER SIDE AND SHOW ENOUGH POSITIVE ANSWERS ON OUR SIDE
HOW TO SOLVE THE KEY PROBLEMS OF AMERICA, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN ENOUGH
OF PUBLIC OPINION TO WHERE FINALLY WE WIN IN AMERICA DESPITE THE
CENSORSHIP OF THE REGULAR NEWS MEDIA BOUGHT AND PAID FOR AND THE RICH MADE
RICH THROUGH CORRUPTION DON'T WANT TO BACK US TO CREATE AN HONEST NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA. OUR REAL SECRET IS BAD GOVERNMENT BY THE OTHER SIDE
WILL DRIVE THE PEOPLE INTO MASS BACKING US AND AT THAT MOMENT WE CAN WIN!
YOU
KNOW THE RIGHT LEGAL ANGLES AND YOU CAN WIN AGAINST ENTRENCHED EVIL, POWER, OR
WHATEVER. FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
(1414-18) DEPOSED THREE CLAIMING TO BE POPE AND ELECTED A FOURTH TO
BE POPE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AS VALID BY CATHOLIC EUROPE THEN. THAT IS HOW
YOU LEGALLY DEPOSE A POPE IF EVER NECESSARY TO GET RID OF AN IMPOSTER POPE BY
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. THE UNITED AUTHORITY OF
CHRISTIAN EUROPE BANDED TOGETHER TO GET RID OF THE DISUNITY AND BAD LEADERSHIP
IN CHRISTIANITY THEN. FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., THE POWER BASE OF AUTHORITY
TO GET RID OF THE PRESENT WHORE GOVERNMENT OF WASH., D.C. BY LEGAL MEANS WOULD
BE BY RATIFICATION OF A NEW NATIONAL CONSTITUTION BY THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
STATES. THE OTHER POWER BASE OF AUTHORITY WOULD BE TO PASS THE OMNI LAW AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND USE THE OMNI LAW TO RESTORE TO POWER "FOR,
BY, AND OF THE PEOPLE" OF AMERICA.
IF WE GO BEYOND STANDARD PROCEDURES OF LAW, WE CAN GO TO THE STREETS
SHOWING THAT THE TOTAL PEOPLE OF THE NATION NO LONGER SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT IN
POWER AND WITH THIS VOTE BY WALKING THE STREETS SHOWS A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE
OR SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN POWER. DICTATORSHIPS BOTH COMMUNIST AND
NON-COMMUNIST COLLAPSED AS GOVERNMENTS IN OUR AGE WHEN THIS TACTIC OF THE
PEOPLE WAS USED AGAINST THEM. AND IF DRIVEN TO DESPERATION AGAINST A
BRUTAL DICTATOPSHIP, PEOPLE CAN REVOLT AGAINST A DICTATORSHIP BY FORCE OF ARMS,
BUT I HOPE THAT AMERICA NEVER HAS TO FACE SUCH A CHOICE FOR THIS NATION.
PASS THIS REPORT AROUND. I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO
ONCE COMMENTED, "WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THEN WE HAVE
TYRANNY! WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THEN WE HAVE FREEDOM!"
OUR WEBSITE IS WWW.FASTBOOMAMERICANECONOMY.COM
OUR EMAIL IS FASTBOOMAMERICANECONOMY.COM@GMAIL.COM THE SALE OF PRODUCTS
AND OUR LOAN PROGRAMS FOR THE OMNI LAW HELP FINANCE OUR OMNI LAW DRIVE TO PASS
THIS AS THE NATIONAL LAW OF AMERICA AND ADDED TO THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS. IF
YOU WANT TO USE THE MAIL FOR PRODUCT ORDERS OR ELSE THE LOAN PROGRAMS ON OUR
WEBSITE, OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS NIFI, P.O. BOX 1465, SENECA, SC. 29679. MAKE
ANY CHECKS, ETC. OUT TO NIFI AND TELL US WHAT THE ORDER IS FOR.
YOURS FOR GOD AND COUNTRY, ERASMUS OF AMERICA (PEN NAME FOR ONE WHO THINKS IT
IS LATE BUT NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE FREEDOM IN AMERICA AND SAVE AMERICA AS A
NATION. ALSO, HAVING STUDIED ECONOMICS WITH SIX OF THE MOST BRILLIANT
ECONOMISTS OF AMERICA AND EUROPE INCLUDING A GERMAN ECONOMIST PERSONALLY
ENDORSED BY ALBERT EINSTEIN WHILE ALIVE. THE MOMENT THE OMNI LAW IS PASSED, I
HAVE ECONOMIC ANSWERS THAT WILL SKYROCKET THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FAST. WE HAVE
THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND LABOR FORCE. BUT ONLY BAD ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT FROM
WASH., D.C. GIVES AMERICA A ROTTEN NATIONAL ECONOMY TODAY! THE SOLUTION? PASS
THE OMNI LAW!)
1 comment:
Hello, excellent post! I’ve been reading your site for about a week now and am hoping you continue updating it. Passed it along to a few people too, think you’re providing an awesome resource here.
Hope you don't mind me dropping a link, but I’m working on putting together a Legal News site. Check it out and drop me a link if you like it! Cheers.
Post a Comment