Was today's D.C. rally one of the largest recent gatherings of tax "takers"? (suspect, racist)

[africanboy]

Numbers are usually higher when you have brainless sheep being led by a manipulative herder....cough..cough... 9/12.

[parfleche]

Originally Posted by africanboy

Numbers are usually higher when you have brainless sheep being led by a manipulative herder....cough..cough... 9/12.

you should slap whoever told you to type that and tell them your not friends anymore.hope your Mom dont find out,good luck

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

I sympathize with the sentiment, and recognize the mythology, but you have to read the law sometimes, before you spout off.

Please explain what "Mythology" you are referring to, before claiming I need to better educate myself. As far as I can tell, you haven't said much that disagrees with my statements, with certain few exceptions, one of which is what a dollar is and that the dollar disappeared in 1933 which is categorically untrue.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Since 1933, no dollars have circulated. Since 1965, fractional coin have been counterfeits.

Totally untrue. Up to 1964, silver US Half Dollars, Quarters, and Dimes were still being minted, and Silver Dollars still in circulation. Dollars were denominated and came in two forms ... paper notes, and silver coins .... and you could exchange that paper note for or receive in change, silver coins of equal denomination.

What is not well known is the fact that the Denver Mint actually minted upwards of 300,000 1964 Silver Peace Dollars, but were subsequently melted down.

And according to the constitutional requirements to do so, the second congress of the United States passed the Coinage Act of 1792 establishing the US Dollar to be 371.25 grains of silver, and the relative value between silver and gold to be a ratio of 15 to 1.

Gold coin was never denominated in anything other than multiples of dollars .. the Eagle (10 Dollars) Half Eagle (5) Quarter Eagle (2 1/2), and was used as a convenience to carry more value to weight. The official US Dollar is a measure of silver, and anything else claiming to be a dollar is just that ... a claim.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

FDR, by executive order, confiscated all privately held gold coin and gave worthless "dollar bills" in exchange.
Title 12 USC Sec 411 defines dollar bills as debt obligations of the U.S. to pay face value in dollars. That promise was repudiated in 1933 - for Americans... and Nixon reneged for the rest of the world holding dollar bills.

Silver coin was minted and in circulation (legal money) right up until 1964. I have some of it.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

The public debt, denominated in dollars, can never be paid - true. But the sum of dollar bills (debt instruments) is not germane to the question of paying debt - they have a negative value (debt). Debt cannot pay debt.

You could simply have stopped at TRUE. The remainder of the comment is simply additional evidence and explanation of why the statement is true, and another way of saying the same thing.

Let's chop it down and say that only 10 Federal Reserve "Dollars" have ever been created. The interest on that 10 Dollars ... let's say 2% equals 20 cents (1/5 of a Dollar) ... the total owed is now $10.20 .... since only $10 was ever created ... there is more owned than actually exists to pay the debt ... which is precisely what I said.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Pursuant to the 14th amendment, clause 4, the public debt cannot be challenged on its validity - even when it is obviously impossible to repay - thanks to usury.

Not thanks to usury .. thanks to criminal conduct, and the overthrow of the constitutional government of the United States of America, by the United States Corporation.

The validity of the portion of the 14th amendment which deals with the public debt became null and void at the moment of introducing counterfeit money as the means to pay that debt.

When the 14th amendment came into effect (1868), the public debt was denominated in Dollars ... and constitutionally ... Dollars are a measure of silver ... since 1965, the public has been forced to accept counterfeit currency and are thereby unable to comply.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

The only reason that dollar bills are legal tender is the underwriting of the impossible public debt by 305 million "human resources" pledged as collateral, duly registered and enumerated, via FICA. (It was never 'insurance' for YOU - - - - read the law).

Actually, it was the 16th Amendment (allegedly ratified) in 1913 that provided the foundation for stealing the wealth of the people ... the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was established. These were two parts of the same conspiracy to defraud the American people that later resulted in the confiscation of gold ... the Social Security Act ... the Income Tax on wages .. and the replacement of constitutional money with counterfeit Federal Reserve monopoly money.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

So before you blame 'them', you have to look in the mirror. Until you withdraw consent, you're a liable party on that debt, and subject to confiscation on default.

One cannot willingly consent to deception fraud, especially when the fraud occurred before they were born. Therefore, you cannot "withdraw" that which was never given in the first place.

This statement of your is quite indicative of the "blame the victim" mindset that the entire system relies on however. It's a slave mentality, and it shows the underlying ignorance of the population in general.

I was born a sovereign citizen of the United States of America, and I never consented or agreed to waiving those rights in return for being a "subject" (citizen) of the United States Corporation under the 14th amendment. Such was attached to me without my consent, at birth ... and an infant child cannot legally engage in such a compact or contract. And I never agreed to assume responsibility for debts that are impossible to repay ... debts incurred without my consent cannot be legally attached to me without my consent. These "debts" have been fraudulently attached to me without my consent, and by force and "color of law" illegitimately.

You may agree to accept de-facto responsibility ... I DO NOT.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I was born a sovereign citizen of the United States of America.

That statement is the foundation of your error.
Go find ONE LEGAL REFERENCE in support.

I can find many that say PEOPLE are sovereigns.

But CITIZENS are subjects.

They are mutually exclusive. (ex: vegetarian cannibal)

What you may have been misled to believe is that the term PEOPLE is synonymous with the term CITIZENS.

That is a legal impossibility.

To prove it is very simple.

Look up militia duty. The Supreme court ruled that it was NOT involuntary servitude abolished by the 13th amendment.

Yet, it is compulsory, with criminal penalties for failure to perform said duty.

Now, look up the definitions for the militia, and note who are the obligated parties.

CITIZENS.

There is no compulsory militia duty for American people. Only citizens. From 1777.

If a citizen can be compelled to train, fight and die on command, he cannot be a sovereign. He has no inalienable rights to life, liberty or property. And if he was "born" a citizen, he was "born" a slave. Which, according to the U.S. constitution, is impossible.

===============================


The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Who are the militia?

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

All male citizens are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. That is the reason why conscription is 100% constitutional.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Articles of Confederation, VI.
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

------------
The American people are sovereign over the government

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

And I know most Americans haven't been informed that they volunteered to be subject citizens.

CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

If you are one of the sovereign people, your rights are protected.
If you are one of the subject citizens, you surrendered your rights... voluntarily.
You DID know you were volunteering, didn't you?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Please explain what "Mythology" you are referring to, before claiming I need to better educate myself. As far as I can tell, you haven't said much that disagrees with my statements, with certain few exceptions, one of which is what a dollar is and that the dollar disappeared in 1933 which is categorically untrue.

See below.

Totally untrue. Up to 1964, silver US Half Dollars, Quarters, and Dimes were still being minted, and Silver Dollars still in circulation.

Silver was demonetized in the Coinage Act of 1873.
Fractional coin is not tender in amounts over $20. (Go read the court cases yourself).
Ergo, one could not alienate title with a tender of $21 in fractional silver coin.
And the Federal government would not accept silver dollars as tender in payment of public dues, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1873.

Dollars were denominated and came in two forms ... paper notes, and silver coins .... and you could exchange that paper note for or receive in change, silver coins of equal denomination.

A certificate is NOT a dollar. It is a receipt for a dollar in the vault.
A note is not a dollar, either.

What is not well known is the fact that the Denver Mint actually minted upwards of 300,000 1964 Silver Peace Dollars, but were subsequently melted down.

And according to the constitutional requirements to do so, the second congress of the United States passed the Coinage Act of 1792 establishing the US Dollar to be 371.25 grains of silver, and the relative value between silver and gold to be a ratio of 15 to 1.

Gold coin was never denominated in anything other than multiples of dollars .. the Eagle (10 Dollars) Half Eagle (5) Quarter Eagle (2 1/2), and was used as a convenience to carry more value to weight. The official US Dollar is a measure of silver, and anything else claiming to be a dollar is just that ... a claim.

Again, please read THE LAW, first.
The U.S. government, itself, went on the GOLD standard. However, the people could use silver dollars, but did not. And after 1933, the U.S. government confiscated all "lawful money" that it could recognize (gold coin), thanks to FDR.

Silver coin was minted and in circulation (legal money) right up until 1964. I have some of it.

As stated before, the unit dollar (silver) was demonetized in 1873.
Fractional silver coin does not alienate title.

You could simply have stopped at TRUE. The remainder of the comment is simply additional evidence and explanation of why the statement is true, and another way of saying the same thing.

Let's chop it down and say that only 10 Federal Reserve "Dollars" have ever been created. The interest on that 10 Dollars ... let's say 2% equals 20 cents (1/5 of a Dollar) ... the total owed is now $10.20 .... since only $10 was ever created ... there is more owned than actually exists to pay the debt ... which is precisely what I said.

A Federal Reserve note, being a note, is not, nor will ever be a dollar.
You keep equating an abstraction with reality. Not a good tactic.
The public debt is denominated in dollars (gold). The Federal Reserve note (see: Title 12 USC Sec. 411) is an obligation (repudiated in 1933) to PAY face value in dollars, on demand. FRNs were not, nor can ever be "dollars". Nor were they money, by law. They have a minus value (less than worthless).
But if you have an account and number, via FICA, as a contributor, YOU ARE EQUALLY LIABLE on that debt.

Not thanks to usury .. thanks to criminal conduct, and the overthrow of the constitutional government of the United States of America, by the United States Corporation.

The validity of the portion of the 14th amendment which deals with the public debt became null and void at the moment of introducing counterfeit money as the means to pay that debt.

Federal Reserve Notes are not counterfeits. They are DEBT instruments. They were never dollars.
Just substitute "IOU dollars" for "Federal Reserve Note", and you'll get it.

When the 14th amendment came into effect (1868), the public debt was denominated in Dollars ... and constitutionally ... Dollars are a measure of silver ... since 1965, the public has been forced to accept counterfeit currency and are thereby unable to comply.

Coinage Act of 1873 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fourth Coinage Act was enacted by the United States Congress in 1873 and embraced the gold standard and demonetized silver.

Actually, it was the 16th Amendment (allegedly ratified) in 1913 that provided the foundation for stealing the wealth of the people ... the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was established. These were two parts of the same conspiracy to defraud the American people that later resulted in the confiscation of gold ... the Social Security Act ... the Income Tax on wages .. and the replacement of constitutional money with counterfeit Federal Reserve monopoly money.

Again, you are embracing mythology without reading the law itself.
As stated before, you've embraced a mythology, and wrapped your arguments around it.
The Federal Reserve Act was empowered by Congressional authority to BORROW (not create) money on the credit of the USA.
The Income Tax amendment had no applicability to WAGES until 1935, and the "voluntary" imposition of an income tax based on WAGES of the "voluntary" (enumerated) contributor. Income from usury (i.e., stock corporations and banking ) was a revenue taxable privilege.

One cannot willingly consent to deception fraud, especially when the fraud occurred before they were born. Therefore, you cannot "withdraw" that which was never given in the first place.

If you participate or use any privilege associated with participation, you've waived your right to object. He who consents cannot object.
Examples of consent:
[] Usury - opening an individual interest bearing bank account
[] FICA - participating and accepting any benefit, grant, loan, or privilege associated with the account and number
[] Claiming citizenship / residency
[] Failure to alienate title with lawful money, making one subject to bankruptcy protection, a taxable privilege

This statement of your is quite indicative of the "blame the victim" mindset that the entire system relies on however. It's a slave mentality, and it shows the underlying ignorance of the population in general.

I was born a sovereign citizen of the United States of America, [no, you weren't] and I never consented or agreed to waiving those rights in return for being a "subject" (citizen) of the United States Corporation under the 14th amendment. Such was attached to me without my consent, at birth ... and an infant child cannot legally engage in such a compact or contract. And I never agreed to assume responsibility for debts that are impossible to repay ... debts incurred without my consent cannot be legally attached to me without my consent. These "debts" have been fraudulently attached to me without my consent, and by force and "color of law" illegitimately.

You may agree to accept de-facto responsibility ... I DO NOT.

Your objections have no basis in law.
Remember, in the Declaration of Independence, it spells out the two jobs:
[] secure rights (of the sovereign people) and
[] govern those who consent (the subject citizens).
Consent waives job #1, as evidenced by compulsory civic duties.

I may be in error, but I have yet to find one law, in a state or federal archive, wherein American nationals / free inhabitants domiciled upon private property within the United States of America are denied their natural and personal liberty. Nor can I find any imposition of civic duty upon them. Their private property is constitutionally protected.

On the other hand, I can find copious references to subjugation of U.S. (or State) citizens, from 1777, onward. And after 1935, their estate, held by qualified ownership, is pledged as collateral on the public debt.

Go check out the original constitutions for the States united, and the Articles of Confederation. It's right there, in the public record.

Money reference:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/15895513-post18.html

[Houston3]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Cut the inflammatory remarks!!!!! The point is, the vast majority are on Social Security-tax "takers" in other words. That is the topic of the thread! If you have read the whole thread, you know that, anyway.

So you are saying that if someone pays in to SS for 40 years or longer that they become "takers" when they collect those benefits ?

And you do understand that your employer matches what you pay in for that 40 years or longer don't you?

And I'm just talking about SS , medicare is a different animal...

[Houston3]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I really take offense at that. I have spent much time working with the elderly in my career, and I have defended the elderly on this forum. I am saying, people on Social Security, REGARDLESS OF AGE (there are some younger recipients), are "tax takers", especially when you include medicare. There is no way a person could pay in all that it costs for a major illness (or two).



I am not lying. MY father-in-law lived to be 97. He even liked to joke that he thought he had gotten everything he paid in to SS and then some.

See above re: my being anti-senior citizen.

Please try to discuss w/o resorting to personal attacks.

There you go again talking about something you seem know nothing about, you have to be at least 62 to draw SS.....

And YOU are very ANTI Seniors...

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Houston3

So you are saying that if someone pays in to SS for 40 years or longer that they become "takers" when they collect those benefits ?

You may have to write to your Congressman, before you will believe the facts.

Go write a polite letter asking if you have a property right (as in a contract) for any benefit paid under FICA.

Answer:no.

All entitlements, grants, and pensions are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
In addition, they are synonymous with "gifts" (from the public treasury).

What we were misled to believe, is that we were "paying into" an account held for us. In reality, we merely accepted a "voluntary tax" to underwrite the bankrupted U.S. Congress.

Not only were were paying a tax, but we became "contributors" (equally liable parties) on the impossible public debt. That's how worthless paper notes (dollar bills) are "legal tender" while not being "lawful money". Under the law of notes, an obligated party must always accept his own note, as tender in DISCHARGE *(not payment) of debt.

In short, we are victims of a giant con, maintained by widespread ignorance and apathy, and a total unwillingness to READ THE LAW, found in any county courthouse law library.

There is no law compelling participation in SocSec. There is no law punishing anyone who does not participate. It is entirely 100% voluntary servitude, and thus constitutional. If it was compulsory, it would be illegal.

Until you READ THE LAW for yourself, my writings will appear to be incomprehensible, as is the behavior of the "public servants" who abuse their office.

[newhandle]

The largest group of govt. tax takers and those who live off of the work of others are those who live in conservative states where for every $1 in Federal tax dollars they get back more than $1. From Virginia to Alabama to Alaska, to Mississippi and Montana, to Utah and Oklahoma. They scream conservative values but have no problem being on the dole.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

All entitlements, grants, and pensions are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
In addition, they are synonymous with "gifts" (from the public treasury).

I realize that such a laconic statement may be misunderstood.

Translating: Anything you THOUGHT Congress owed you for the decades you "paid into" the "Trust Fund" (ROFLMAO) is not found in the law. The law gives CONGRESS the power to grant or withhold payments. In fact, they can tax back anything you receive, since you are the donor of your own benefit - minus a cut to the "house".

You have no "contract" with them that compels them to pay your "benefits". However, your agreement obligates YOU to serve THEM, and underwrite THEIR profligate expenditures of your wealth, your children's wealth, and your grand children's wealth, on and on... until total collapse takes out the Federal government.

And the worst consequence is that by being eligible for charity from the public treasury, you devolve to the status of pauper and a status criminal.

(Go look up pre-1933 citations and laws on the dire consequences of being a pauper. I won't ruin your lunch by divulging them here.)

Coincidentally, FDR abolished the requirement for all recipients of "Relief" to make the PAUPER'S OATH.

Pauper's oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pauper's oath is a sworn statement or oath by a person that he or she is completely destitute or a pauper, i.e. without any money or property.

Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.

Oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."

Can you guess why duly enrolled and enumerated account holders under Socialist Insecurity no longer had to make an oath that they had NO PROPERTY in excess of $20 DOLLARS?

Hint, hint - in 1933, all lawful money *(real dollars) were "liberated" by FDR. Since 1933, no one alienated title to anything, let alone in excess of 20 dollars. (No, a dollar bill is not a dollar. See Title 12 USC Sec. 411).