Lately, I have an uncanny knack to predict the future…
It is not anything so extraordinary as clairvoyance or mysticism; no special intelligence or inside knowledge needed. Just plain old comparative reasoning and logic while applying the predictive programming tactics used in every day media and print. Half the time it is just the simple task of removing the word “fiction” from the term sciencefiction and utilizing current data sets in a predicative way to see present and future innovations.
What was fiction yesterday is reality today. Robots and Robo-pets, laser guns, weather control, nano technology, cell phones (nothing if not the communicators from Star Trek), cloning, and other ideas that would have seemed ridiculous just 30 years ago are now common place today – even taken for granted – Horrors and atrocities that are somehow bypassing the moral compass and radar of the societal mass. Horror is entertainment; blood a sport; apocalypse and dystopia a popular genre. And one can certainly see that technology follows entertainment.
Of course when considering these inventions and advancements in technology, one must also add the variables of government support and control through R&D and stock investment with public funds into these corporate ventures, which bring us such things as space ships, laser guns, and radiation therapy – an oxymoron if ever there was one. These great advancements in technology are not created to simply and altruistically benefit mankind, but instead to control it and its commerce (“healing” by radiation is the law). Ideas are planned well in advanced of release; fictionalized, realized, patented, monopolized, and thrust upon the public – sometimes by force. And now the Supreme Court is due to decide on whether to allow corporations (and government itself) to patent and own human genes.
Before being released to the public as futuristic things and products, ideas are first introduced years or decades before production as science fiction in the media. Some are visualized through drawings or State Fair type festivals. Disney and its Epcot center is nothing but a hands-on billboard for mega-corporations and their future wares. And as we live and breath, science fiction is now playing itself out in realty as we see one of the most common of dystopian themes coming to pass before our very eyes. For the massive corporate structure always seems to win out over humanity and control every aspect of its livelihood, its food, and its shelter, with the protection of the main shareholder and regulator… the Government.
The corporation is taking over and becoming mother nature.
–=– What Is 3-D Printing? –=–
The first time I laid eyes upon a video of actual 3-D printing, I instinctively knew that the future had just arrived. The unbelievable had just become real, and our whole world was about to change. For this was the heart of the science that made fiction become reality, and it was being created right in front of me. If you haven’t seen this miraculous realization of science and fiction, and even if you have, these videos are a must watch!
This was my first view of what used to be the future:
.
Here we see the future medical possibilities:
–=–
It is important to understand the complexity of this technology by examining its potential through the eyes of a controlling oligarchy such as the United States and its corporate structure and trust. For instance, let’s say that this technology were to become a household item as common as the everyday refrigerator. Suddenly, instead of running to the store to purchase a new coffee-maker at retail prices, a person could simply print out a new one with his or her Acme Home 3-D Printer. A housewife might only need to buy a bag of powdered metal and a bag of powdered plastic when making her weekly trip to the store.Understanding that the “economy” is based on artificially created supply and demand that creates artificial price fluctuations which in turn create artificially inflated and deflated stock and commodity values in the markets makes the idea of home-printing an economy killer.
Cheap plastic crap would no longer need to be imported from China! Unemployment would skyrocket, for the concept of employment is based on red tape and redundancy – the bureaucracy of planned obsolescence in the marketplace and the servicing of money.
How could a corporation survive if its products could be copied and re-created on demand via an inexpensive and mass-produced replicator? Clothing, shoes, jewelry, silverware, tools, furniture, and even bicycles could be replicated in color with working moving parts and without ever having to leave the home. Eventually, automobiles and lawnmowers would be ready at the press of the print button.
Imagine what this would do to the concept of manufacturing and retailing corporations! For there would be only one product that everyone would need to create anything that any corporation could manufacture. And the great and usurious industries that create the power structure of government and corporations would as a result loose all power. The fictitious stock market would necessarily crash, and for-profit wars would become meaningless.
In essence, this means that the corporate government must control this technology in order to maintain control over the people.
Now that 3-D priniting has been introduced as the way of the future, the first wave of propaganda has also been introduced with the ultimate goal being one of suppression and control of 3 and 4-D printing. For these scientific miracle machines have already been labeled as terrorists. They can print and produce guns, and therefore must be controlled and restricted due to the possibility of crime, or pre-crime.
It is not so much the fact that guns can be printed in these machines, it is the fact that unregistered guns can be printed without serial numbers and without regulation.
–
–=–
This takes the control right out of government hands. And this means that a whole new infrastructure of registration, regulation, control, and tyranny must be set into place lest government become obsolete in its monopoly of products and services at the barrel of a gun to the people.
And so, before the rampant free range production of things causes a total economic collapse due to 3-d printing, the gun and bomb-printing propaganda as well as intellectual property campaigns will no doubt take center stage in the fight to completely regulate and centralized the 3-D printing markets into a government induced and protected corporate monopoly – where 3-D printing will become illegal without a license to own and print.
For government can only control what it outlaws… eventually offering a limited license to commit the illegal act of 3-D printing of only government-approved and corporately monopolized and blueprinted products.
In this way, the beautiful and un-enslaving future that is possible with this technology can easily become the dystopian future of control and dependence on government and corporations that science fiction writers of the past have penned for decades.
For government and the powers that be… dystopia is utopia.
–=– The Future Science Of Food –=–
As I watched for the first time the creation of a working tool in a 3-D printer, I somehow instinctively knew that this technology would eventually be used to produce food by simply replacing the metallic or plastic-based powder with some form of mineral enhanced protein powder. For this is the simple science of fiction. And just as I had imagined in my own mind, I knew that the producers, retailers, and marketers of that food-like product would certainly need to redefine just what exactly the word “food” means, and what exactly is considered as “eatable”.
And now, just a couple of years after I glimpsed my first impossibly fictional yet real 3-d Printer, a new article has came out about NASA and its search for the 3-D Food Replicator.
My first thought as I was reading this article was to speculate that the recent media villainy of regular 3-D printers as creators of firearms was again to create the perceived need for security, registration, and regulation, so as to not let the public get their hands on them. After all, if someone can just push a button and create a hammer or working crescent wrench, Government’s investment held corporations like Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Sears might just go out of business. The monopolies can’t have that now, can they?
And if food was available at the touch of a button…?
The fictional and scientific concept of digitally “printing” food is not new. Food replicators were a mainstay of the 1960′ television show Star Trek. In the now cult classic The Matrix, food comes out of a spigot attached to metallic dispenser: a “white, semi-translucent, gelatinous substance” described as a single-celled protein with all the vitamins, minerals, and amino acids a person needs – with a consistency compared to “runny eggs” or “a bowl of snot”.
But hey, they can make people love snot!
We’ve already learned to love our own debt, slavery, dependence, irresponsibility, and lack of integrity – or at least to accept it as normal. So why couldn’t we learn to eat something that, even though it doesn’t resemble food, is defined by the FDA as food? I’m sure eventually they will make it look and taste like a big juicy steak with mashed potatoes – just like in the construct of The Matrix. We are just in the beginning stages after all!
Note: The fictional scientific “Matrix” machines actually fed the remains of other dead humans to the alive humans (commodities) plugged in to the machines, which is also a “fictional” plot of movies such as “Soylent Green” and more recently “Cloud Atlas”. In reality, this cannibalism has been implemented for decades through vaccinations and other inject-able medicines that deliver human and animal DNA and proteins into the human body.
Twinkies are considered food. Bugs and mold wont touch McDonald’s fries and hamburger buns and rats would rather starve than eat them, yet they are sold to us as eatable products. The doughy pulp that makes up “mechanically separated chicken” must be flavored to taste like chicken after a chemical dump of ingreedients are used to treat the substance. The ingredients list on the typical processed food packaging reads like a toxic waste dump of chemicals and flavorings – taste-enhancers to make poison taste like actual food.
And the FDA approves these food-like substances as food.
With 3-D printing, the very molecular structure of “food” must be altered and reassembled. This substance goes beyond genetic manipulation and cannot by its artificial nature ever be truly organic – even when using organic ingredients.
Of course, the FDA decides what is organic and what isn’t.
Here is the new future of food:
Imagine this as dinner – flavored and enhanced bug powder in 3-dimentional shapes.
I wonder if this machine can print a rolled joint…?
Let’s read what the articles says:
Anjan Contractor’s 3D food printer might evoke visions of the “replicator” popularized in Star Trek, from which Captain Picard was constantly interrupting himself to order tea. And indeed Contractor’s company, Systems & Materials Research Corporation, just got a six month, $125,000 grant from NASA to create a prototype of his universal food synthesizer.
But Contractor, a mechanical engineer with a background in 3D printing, envisions a much more mundane—and ultimately more important—use for the technology. He sees a day when every kitchen has a 3D printer, and the earth’s 12 billion people feed themselves customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oils they buy at the corner grocery store. Contractor’s vision would mean the end of food waste, because the powder his system will use is shelf-stable for up to 30 years, so that each cartridge, whether it contains sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block, would be fully exhausted before being returned to the store.
Ubiquitous food synthesizers would also create new ways of producing the basic calories on which we all rely. Since a powder is a powder, the inputs could be anything that contain the right organic molecules. We already know that eating meat is environmentally unsustainable,so why not get all our protein from insects?
If eating something spat out by the same kind of 3D printers that are currently being used to make everything from jet engine parts to fine art doesn’t sound too appetizing, that’s only because you can currently afford the good stuff, says Contractor. That might not be the case once the world’s population reaches its peak size peak size, probably sometime near the end of this century.
“I think, and many economists think, that current food systems can’t supply 12 billion people sufficiently,” says Contractor. “So we eventually have to change our perception of what we see as food.”
If Contractor’s utopian-dystopian vision of the future of food ever comes to pass, it will be an argument for why space research isn’t a complete waste of money. His initial grant from NASA, under its Small Business Innovation Research program, is for a system that can print food for astronauts on very long space missions. For example, all the way to Mars.
“Long distance space travel requires 15-plus years of shelf life,” says Contractor. “The way we are working on it is, all the carbs, proteins and macro and micro nutrients are in powder form. We take moisture out, and in that form it will last maybe 30 years.”
Pizza is an obvious candidate for 3D printing because it can be printed in distinct layers, so it only requires the print head to extrude one substance at a time. Contractor’s “pizza printer” is still at the conceptual stage, and he will begin building it within two weeks. It works by first “printing” a layer of dough, which is baked at the same time it’s printed, by a heated plate at the bottom of the printer. Then it lays down a tomato base, “which is also stored in a powdered form, and then mixed with water and oil,” says Contractor.
Finally, the pizza is topped with the delicious-sounding “protein layer,” which could come from any source, including animals, milk or plants.
Feeling sad because you haven’t been able to afford a genetically modified and patented apple in 10 years and fruit trees were outlawed? Just print an apple-flavored biscuit and take a printed happy pill from your 3-D printer. For in the future, drugs and pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a marketplace in home-printing as well…
Under the guise of feeding the hungry, a technological tyranny is born and sold as a contribution to mankind. Of course, the wealthy rely on the starvation and poverty of others to maintain their wealth, which cannot exist without its equal and opposite reaction of poverty.
Dystopia is being written now, on the main page of the news, and it is being hailed as the way of the future.
For in the future, I predict that 3-D printing will be illegal without permission. I predict that designs will be regulated and limited by government. I predict the need for “labor-ready” people will diminish as this technology dominates the markets, creating a moral purpose for depopulation by those who advocate it. I predict that a new and even more sinister form of food dependence will be implemented as GMO foods are created and patented to replace real ones, becoming the only monopolized and approved powder available for food printing. And I predict that this is the way of the new world order – complete control over food.
Or maybe this is all just science fiction…
I’m gonna go eat lunch while I can!
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, May 27th, 2013
Bush family listed here as “Jews who participated in the Revolutionary War”
Laura Bush “Koshering” the White House kitchen with Bush Rabi in 2005
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
With Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak, 2000
With Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu
Hillary Clinton
Chelsea Clinton’s Jewish Marriage
Ronald Reagan
With Israeli P.M. Begin, 1981
With Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Shamir, 1989
With Israeli P.M. Shimon Peres, 1984
John McCain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Rand Paul
Sarah Palin
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Rick Perry Receiving the Defender Of Israel Award in Israel.
Rudi Giulliani
Michelle Bachmann
Glenn Beck with Michelle Bachman
Rush Limbaugh
Herman Cain
Chris Cristie
Arnold Schwartzenager
Harry Truman with Israeli P.M. David Ben Gurion and Abba Eban, 1951
Dwight Eisenhower with Israeli P.M. David Ben Gurion
John F Kennedy with Israeli P.M. Golda Meir, 1962
John F. Kennedy, Franklyn D. Roosevelt, and Israeli P.M. David Ben Gurion meet in Israel
John F. Kennedy, Franklyn D. Roosevelt, Israeli P.M. David Ben Gurion, Dov Yossef, and Golda Meir
At John F. Kennedy’s funeral, Israeli P.M.Levy Eshkol places wreath at Arlington Cemetary
John F. Kennedy Memorial In Jerusalem, on Dedication Day
Lyndon Johnson with Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Rabin
Lyndon Johnson with Israeli P.M. Levy Eshkol in Texas
And in Washington…
Richard Nixon with Israeli P.M. Golda Meir, 1969
Richard Nixon’s first visit to Israel, 1974
Richard Nixon with Israeli P.M. Levy Eshkol
Gerald Ford (Leslie Lynch King) with Israeli P.M. Yitzhak Rabin, 1975
Jimmy Carter with Israeli P.M. Menachem Begin, Camp David, 1979
Jimmy Carter with Defense Minister Ezer Weizman at Camp David
Jimmy Carter with President Ezer Weizman in Jerusalem
–=–
Those who call themselves Christians but are not…
Those who call themselves Jews but are not…
–=–
It is not enough! The reality is much more disturbing,
for these men and women are all of the same blood!
George Bush is…
6th cousin 4 times removed with Franklin D. Roosevelt
9th cousin twice removed with Richard Nixon
7th cousin once removed with Gerald Ford
Half 10th cousin with Dick Cheney
14th cousin 6 times removed with Jimmy Carter
9th cousin twice removed with John Forbes Kerry
9th cousin of Barack Obama
cousins with all presidents and royal Kings and Queens of England! Link–>http://www.familyforest.com/Kerry_Bush_Cousins.html
If you are a member of an organization that begins to do things you don’t like, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that organization and cease to be a member.
If your bank misbehaves or charges you ridiculous extra fees just because it can according to your “agreement” with the bank, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support and cease to be a customer.
If your insurance coverage starts to diminish in quality or denies you your due benefits or coverage when you need it, the rational course of action would be to withdraw your financial support to that company and cease to be a member.
If my doctor or hospital began to practice bad medicine and cause more illness than it cured, the rational course of action would be to withdraw financial support to that hospital or doctor and cease to be a customer, and perhaps pursue alternative healing.
In fact, when we consider this repetitive logic, wouldn’t anyone be hard-pressed to think of any thing that might mistreat us as a member or customer that would not warrant the withdraw of financial support and termination of contract or membership?
So why then are people still voluntary members of the United States central government?
Do they enjoy the thought of future bad healthcare – which is really the quite unlawful forced commerce with insurance companies and not actual healthcare? If their membership to a corporation that gives them “benefits” suddenly forces them to accept bad medicine and bad insurance, isn’t the simple solution to end their membership to the main corporation?
Do the people enjoy paying taxes and unjust extortion fees and taxes for non-crimes just so that government can invest that money for itself without offering any benefit back to the people? Would it not be prudent to end that kind of business “relationship” with such a bad business?
Do people really believe that the meager benefit of “old-age insurance” called social security (socialism) is worth the vast amount of legal restrictions and tyrannies set forth upon them through their entire life – even when they could have invested their own money and walked away with double or triple what this administration will ever pay them – should they actually live through Obama-care? Do the people even know that there is no actual trust in their name – just a large investment fund that has been completely tapped for the national debt with no legal requirement to ever pay them anything? Do they know the difference between investing for themselves and their future and contributing (giving away) their hard-earned money to government? Do they realize where their money goes as government invests it into war, Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and Think tanks?
Is there some misconception that being a “citizen” is somehow patriotic – that withdrawing their citizenship (membership) will make them less “American”?
Really? Because last time I checked, it was called the United States of America, not America of the United States.
Was there created at some point in history the fallacy that America is the central government called the United States – a 10 mile square municipal corporation that is not even one of the actual 50 states in the “union” ? Do the people actually believe that America is the United States?
Perhaps that misconception derives from the misunderstanding of just what citizenship is.
For citizenship is simply a membership, be it voluntary or forced through coercion and martial law, unilaterally agreed to by an individual. It is no different than a gym membership; where you must follow the rules set out in your agreement contract that only you sign. Like the government, the gym does not sign your contract. It is simply an agreement for membership to enjoy some benefits, as well as an agreement for you to follow their rules.
But what happens when the rules change without your consent?
What happens when the benefits diminish?
For instance, each state is a member of the Untied States, forced to hand over their unappropriated lands to the United States and draft new State constitutions after the Civil War under “reconstruction” and after agreeing to the terms of uniform “enabling acts” under duress. In fact, the civil war was nothing but a military takeover by a defunct central government under martial law of the lawfully succeeded sovereign states. They were forced back into contract membership with the new central government, one that was unlawfully created absent of the lawful participation of these states’ lawful congressmen. In their stead, military martial officers of law were forced into congress to replace the lawfully elected congressmen of each state. And under duress and at gunpoint, these states became members of this municipal corporation in Washington D.C, eventually dividing the entire territory of America into counties within states.
COUNTY. A district into which a state is divided.
2. The United States are generally divided into counties; counties are divided into townships or towns…
4. In some states, as Illinois; 1 Breese, R. 115; a county is considered as a corporation, in others it is only a quasi corporation.
5. In the English law this word signifies the same as shire, county being derived from the French and shire from the Saxon. Both these words signify a circuit or portion of the realm, into which the whole land is divided, for the better government thereof, and the more easy administration of justice. There is no part of England that is not within some county, and the shire-reve, (sheriff) originally a yearly officer, was the governor of the county. Four of the counties of England, viz. Lancaster, Chester, Durham and Ely, were called counties Palatine, which were jurisdictions of a peculiar nature, and held by, especial charter from the king. See stat. 27 H. VIII. c.25.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Certain officers generally entrusted with the superintendence of the collection of the county taxes, and the disbursements made for the county. They are administrative officers, invested by the local laws with various powers.
***All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856
Counties are nothing but municipal corporations; a network grid of contract issuers and enforcers for the United States government – acting under administrate local law with federal powers. Another word for administrative is contract. And all administrative law is simply the administration of the unilateral contractual relationship with you and government. The county has police officers. The gym has security guards. There is no difference. Police officers are just security guards for the county corporation. They’re authority is presumed, just as your citizenship that might grant them contractual authority over you is presumed.
UNILATERAL CONTRACT, civil law. When the party to whom an engagement is made, makes no express agreement on his part, the contract is called uni-lateral, even in cases where the law attaches certain obligations to his acceptance… A loan of money, and a loan for use, are of this kind.
One does not generally think of government as just another customer-based corporation, but this is exactly what it is. When signing a unilateral agreement (contract), one agrees to follow a certain set of de facto corporate rules and regulations (codes) as set out by government. This is the voluntary state of citizenship – a series of unilateral contractual agreements signed or unsigned (presumption of law) by the people of America.
This circumstance of multiple contractual obligations is often called the STRAWMAN, which is simply the “person” as defined and bound by these contracts. The “person” is artificial, as defined in US Code and the 14th Amendment (see below). The person is a corporate veil of the man, used for the purposes of contracts. And in administrative law, government can only contract with this artificial person. Government cannot regulate man, only the corporate person. Thus, administrative law has nothing to do with and no authority over living man, unless he or she is acting under the commercial activities described within their contractual relationship with government.
A driver’s license, for instance, is a unilateral contractual agreement by one man to follow the State government’s vehicle code, which is administrative law. Driving is administratively speaking a commercial activity. Thus, driving can be regulated by government… but only if the man agrees to become a commercial person while utilizing his automobile. He does this when he unilaterally agrees for no reason at all to agree with government that he is utilizing his car as a commercial “vehicle”, even when dropping the kids off at school. Even if that car is never used for any purpose in commerce pr commercial activities, the government still elicits people to obtain a commercial license to drive.
You see, this is the only way that government can have authority over you. It must trick you into entering into some agreement and contract for which you give your consent to its authority. Without this unilateral agreement, government cannot rule you and regulate every part of your life. It must convince you that the activities you participate in are within its authority as a legal activity before it can tell you they are illegal. And it must lie to you so as to convince you that using your car to travel is illegal unless you have a license to do so. For a license is nothing more than permission from government to do something illegal. In other words, every time you get into your vehicle and drive you are breaking the law by permission.
Though traveling in your personal automobile is not unlawful, driving commercially without a license is illegal – a breach of contract.
Perhaps most ironic about all of this is the simple realization that all of this contractual relationship nonsense is based on one and only one thing – your membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. This is the central hub of information. It is where your official artificial person is stored and maintains residence. And states and counties are just subdivisions of that corporation – artificial borders signifying United States jurisdiction, assigned federal locator codes called ZIP codes that are property of the United States. For the U.S. Postal Service is part of the United States corporation in Washington D.C. Your United States mail is not delivered to your home, it is delivered to your commercial address within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
You must never forget that all of your commercial activities are being done inside of the United States jurisdiction – the artificial corporate veil that extends throughout the 50 states and beyond like a spider web, ensnaring the activities people like flies and spinning them into commercial persons.
Imagine in your mind that the entire land of America has a plastic coating over it for which all people walk upon as corporate persons and citizens of the United States, never really comprehending that this clear plastic coating of corporate person-hood separates their natural body from the natural land. The people walk and talk on this corporate veil of clear plastic as if it doesn’t exist and as if they are walking on the actual land – which ironically is a true statement. For corporatism is indeed artificial, just as the artificial person replaces the man in his or her transactions with the corporation government, so to does the United States replace the land of America with its veil of artificial person-hood called statutes and codes.
Yet just on the other side of this artificial construct lies the natural world, natural law, and all of the natural rights that existed before the people contractually agreed to give them up for government granted political rights. For tyranny and oppression is literally the contractual right of citizens of the United States.
For a deeper understanding of what a right actually is (and this reality will certainly surprise you), please take the time to study my expose’ here:
Perhaps this love affair with citizenship stems from the fallacious belief that the United States is still the same old sovereign county it was when it was founded, before the civil war tore it apart and the defunct and unlawful United States glued it back together with legal tape and military oppression?
Well, I’ve got some bad news for you folks…
The United States is now a member of the United Nations… and the United States is referred to as a “sovereign state” by that international central government. Just like the states under contractual membership with the United States corporation in Washington D.C. are not referred to as “countries”, the 193 countries of the world under membership of the United Nations corporation are also not called “countries”. And it is not the people or the 50 states that are members of the United Nations, it is just this 10 mile square piece of land called the United States corporation that is a member.
So can a sovereign individual state be a member of such a central government and still be sovereign? And can a sovereign nation then still be sovereign as a member of an international government under international maritime and admiralty (military) law?
The United Nations doctrine for “statehood” rings familiar, sounding very much like the false paradigm of the rules of “statehood” for the 50 states in the United States of America:
The dominant customary international law standard of statehood is the declarative theory of statehood that defines the state as a person of international law if it “possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Debate exists on the degree to which recognition should be included as a criterion of statehood. The declarative theory of statehood, an example of which can be found in the Montevideo Convention, argues that statehood is purely objective and recognition of a state by other states is irrelevant. On the other end of the spectrum, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person under international law only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either:
(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory
or
(b) are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state
The word-magic here involves the concept that the “state” has “declared independence” and has “control over a permanently populated area”.
This is of course the United States. It, as a central incorporated government, has declared independence that no one dare challenge due to its military might. The once sovereign states now pledged as collateral for this corporation, its debts, and its “good faith and credit” are considered nothing but legal territories of the United States in the legal realm through this contractual and constitutional relationship. The governments of the individual state territories of the United States are still military in nature, each one occupied by the United States’ military and its bases, which under the Libor Code represents military rule.
In other words, the presence of a military base in your State is stated in law to signify military rule under martial law. These bases are not just for your protection, they are for your control. They are the occupying forces of the United States, left over from the same forces that occupied each State during the Civil War. They are the United States corporation’s military – the military of Washington D.C. – not the American or state militia. They protect the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic, and that includes the people of America and the 50 states. The military ensures the continuity of this 10 mile square municipal corporation and its military rule over the 50 states and other insular possessions. The United States is legally in possession of us!
And each state is governed militarily by a “governor”, whom in Canada is referred to as “Governor General”, and who is the ex officio Commander-in-Chief of the State National Guard of His State unless called in total by the President as (CIC) of the United States. This military position of Governor as commander of a military force is followed by a whole list of military positions…
Lieutenant Governor
Attorney General
Solicitor General
Insurance Commissioner – i.e. military commissions Superintendents – The commanding officer of the United States Military Academy is its Superintendent.
State Controller Officers of the court
Police Officers Employees of Commissions and Authorities
All of these titles represent rule by military force.
OFFICER. He who is lawfully invested with an office.
2. Officers may be classed into, 1. Executive; as the president of the United States of America, the several governors of the different states. Their duties are pointed out in the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, but they are required mainly to cause the laws to be executed and obeyed.
3. – 2. The legislative; such as members of congress; and of the several state legislatures. These officers are confined in their duties by the constitution, generally to make laws, though sometimes in cases of impeachment, one of the houses of the legislature exercises judicial functions, somewhat similar to those of a grand jury by presenting to the other articles of impeachment; and the other house acts as a court in trying such impeachments. The legislatures have, besides the power to inquire into the conduct of their members, judge of their elections, and the like.
OFFICE. An office is a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it…
2. Offices may be classed into civil and military.
TAKE. This is a technical expression which signifies to be entitled to; as, a devisee will take under the will. To take also signifies to seize, as to take and carry away…
CIVIL. This word has various significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to barbarous or savage, to indicate a state of society reduced to order and regular government; thus we speak of civil life, civil society, civil government, and civil liberty.
2. It is sometimes used in contradistinction to criminal, to indicate the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government; thus we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.
3. It is also used in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical, to natural or foreign; thus we speak of a civil station, as opposed to a military or ecclesiastical station; a civil death as opposed to a natural death; a civil war as opposed to a foreign war.
So what does all this mean?
Consider for a moment just what the term “civil war” actually represents. As with the United States Civil War, we find that it was indeed fought to ensure the forced continuity of the United States government. It was not so much a war as it was an invasion. And it was fought to ensure that the people under martial law went along with that government who did not wish to.
To make the contradistinction between the words military and civil is almost a mute point. For a “civil society” under “civil law” cannot be accomplished without force of a military entity – which is the executive branch of government (now the Department Of Defense – as in defense of the realm).
For instance, the U.S. District Courts operate with no authority to actually enforce their decisions. Thus the power of the courts lie in the connection it has to the Executive Branch of that area. This is the true importance of the County Sheriff, for the Sheriff is the Executive power of all the courts within that county. The Sheriff’s Department man’s these courts (bailiffs, etc.), who operate under his authority. Of course, the Sheriff would have little power without the decisions and warrants issued by the courts. In a lawful society this would be referred to as a check and balance, creating a restraint of unreasonable power or influence by either entity. But when unlawful men occupy these offices as persons of the militarized United States under its authority and jurisdiction, the law becomes lawless and the powers of corruption go unchecked.
In essence, this relationship between the judicial and the executive is symbiotic in nature, where alone each office and officer would have no lawful power. But together they become the law, both written and enforced. The cowardly attorney’s in black robes called judges hide behind their pulpits and gavels while the Sheriff hides behind his badge and gun, while each gives authority to the other. Neither takes responsibility for their own actions, because they have been allowed to operate as artificial persons under limited liability incorporation. And they protect each other from legal action as one derives power unjustly from the other.
If lawful men took over either office, refusing to enforce the power and authority of the other, and taking responsibility for their own actions outside of the color of law, the people would have little to fear from their government. But lawful men such as these generally end up dead or imprisoned by the very entity they represent.
On the national level, the President of the United States acts as the Commander In Chief of his executive army, carrying out the legislative and judicial law presented to it. Congress, like the judicial, has no power to enforce its created statutes and codes (judicial opinions for courts) without the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch. A law or decision without force carries no weight, especially from men with no honor.
In other words, the legal system of the United States is solely based on the force and coercion of the executive government to carry out the political laws created by congress. The local and state governments operate under the authority of the United States, for they are just corporations as extensions of that federal government corporation.
Congress created the court system and the Supreme Court, which derives its authority and jurisdiction from that body politic.This is an important fact because this means that the entire system of corporate administrative courts across the country are statutory in nature – created by congress and not the constitution itself, and operating under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States corporation. To put it simply, this means that the courts are operating under private corporate law without lawful authority. That is, unless you consent to that authority as a private corporate person – a member of the United States corporation. Just like the gym example, this private law only applies to members of the United States.
This creation of the court system was done by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789:
–=–
The Judiciary Act of 1789
September 24, 1789.
1 Stat. 73.
CHAP. XX. – An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages…
The authority and jurisdiction of these statutory courts only applies to citizens (members) of the United States.
Some people also refer to citizens as “employees” of the Untied States, which is not incorrect. Congressmen (representatives and senators) are also “employees” of the United States corporation, but are officially called “Members”. And we can read above that judges and justices are “commissioned” as employees.
All of these men are acting as artificial persons of the United States, for there is no natural law or natural rights under civil and administrative law because only political law exists there – abeyance by force of contract. This is the very definition of military rule. And every time a citizen does not obey the law, the militarized executive branch steps in to force either compliance, incarceration, or death.
Murder is unlawful and illegal, but government gives license to commit this illegal act – a license to kill. It is interesting to note that government only acknowledges the “civil death” of a person, not the bloody and violent taking of the life of a man.
CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead.
It is interesting to note here that just as a living or natural man cannot have a civil death but only a natural one, the word “perish” does not apply to persons, as artificial persons never existed as a living things but only as contractual things in legal code:
TO PERISH. To come to an end; to cease to be; to die.
2. What has never existed cannot be said to have perished…
You see, an artificial person (corporation) never actually exists in nature, so it cannot have a natural death.
So it is perhaps the best definition of civil law for me to say that:
Civil law is the state of non-necessity of martial law while under military rule, because the governed are not acting in civil disobedience.
Martial law is the physical manifestation of force and violence via government decree to ensure the continuity of military rule that is visible and obvious (violent) to all people.
And military rule is simply the current state of a system of de facto United States corporate law based on coercion, force, and occasional violence, which is sugar-coated and masked under the appearance of civility and under the guise of “civil law”.
Civil law and military rule, therefore, are all but indistinguishable. They are both systems of law enacted by forced compliance of the Executive Branch of government. In both systems, the laws they tout are ensured by force. And in both instances, a man’s natural rights are struck down in lieu of positive or political rights.
It is ironic and disturbing then to point out the now obvious paradox of a subjected people in an occupied land…
For it would only be through open revolt and total disobedience of the current laws of the United States central government that the above facts could manifest themselves as self evident. This axiom of military rule is invisible to the civil servants and citizens of government, no differently than the subjects of a king might never consider that they are at all times under military rule – the rule by force of a tyrant – no matter how fair or just that king seems to be.
This kingdom called the United States – the District that reigns the lands of America through contractual membership under force of its own law despite being a foreign corporate entity outside of those lands – holds the reigns to millions of soldiers; obedient Americans conscripted by their own enemy through contract as security guards for the United States. And these soldiers, in their belief that they are fighting for America, will no doubt blindly follow this United States corporation into oblivion no differently than did those useful fools that killed father, brother, and child in that great United States Civil War – “The War Of Northern Aggression“.
Perhaps a more fitting title to that Civil War and to all wars proceeding it would read: “The Unending War Of Continued United States Aggression, Both Foreign and Domestic“.
Now you might think that Congress is there to redress grievances of the people to the United States government as representatives thereof. But oh what a tangled web they weave…
Congressmen are “employees” of the United States government, according to TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE.
So this would be like expecting a mid-level management employee of Walmart to change the policies of Walmart’s CEO and board of directors. Employees have no individual say on what happens in the United States corporation. So a single representative is worthless without the agreement of the vast majority of the entire body of representatives.
And of course the people represented in these congressional districts never seem to realize that the business affairs of Congress only happen inside of Washington D.C. – in other words outside of their State. Just as employees of Walmart have no authority outside of the corporate jurisdiction of Walmart, neither do the congressmen and Senators have power in the 50 individual States as republics. They are the Representatives of the Federal Government to the people, not the representatives of the people to the Federal Government. They conduct only Federal business in the jurisdiction of the United States, even while doing so in the States they hold domicile. They are United States Employees, not State Employees. In fact, they have absolutely no power within the State government, except those imposed by force by the Federal Central government as a whole.
So why do the people contractually volunteer to give up their power to a bunch of known-to-be-corrupt representatives as employees of the very entity that enslaves them, instead of leaving this horrific militarized club called the United States by withdrawing legal membership?
Perhaps it is the misconception that our membership (citizenship) is not a choice.
But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t it my “constitutional right” to be a citizen?
That’s an interesting question, actually. In fact, the concept of “citizenship” as it stands today was not part of the original constitution. Citizenship was created after the “country” was placed under military rule (martial law) under the Libor Code and General Orders 100. It was in this reconstruction period after the “Civil War” that was created reconstruction amendment #14.
The 14th Amendment states:
“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…”
Whereas before this amendment was ratified by the now unlawful military congress the concept of citizenship was based on the blood of the man in question in a natural sense, the United States now took on a corporate disposition and changed the presumption of citizenship into a legally binding contractual duty; where all people became artificial persons as individual corporate bodies politic within the United States’ web of corporatism.
The most overlooked word in this amendment to the constitution is the word “subject”:
SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement. This term is used in the laws of Scotland.
SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual memberof a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.
2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic
NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was born.
2. A man retains his nationality of origin during his minority, but, as in the case of his domicil of origin, he may change his nationality upon attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without permission of the government. See Citizen; Domicile; Expatriation; Naturalization…
NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.
2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights…
3. It belongs to the government to declare whether they will consider a colony which has thrown off the yoke of the mother country as an independent state; and until the government have decided on the question, courts of justice are bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unchanged.
In the Civil War, it would be a foregone conclusion to state that the United States did not accept (as it was lawfully required to do via its own charter) the secession of the confederate states – the yolks that threw themselves from the mother country. Instead, it acted unlawfully by all standards of ethics and natural law – a military conquest being the result – forcing the confederate states to be captured as prisoners of war and to accept the new reorganized United States and its new corporate constitution as their new sovereign tyrant.
COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.
2. Every man’s country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born, though there are some exceptions. See Domicil; Inhabitant. But a man has the natural right to expatriate himself, i. e. to abandon his country, or his right of citizenship acquired by means of naturalization in any country in which he may have taken up his residence. See Allegiance; Citizen; Expatriation…
Remember, the United Nations refers to the United States as a state that is a member of the U.N, just as the United States refers to its own 50 States that are supposedly independent but members of that body.
But more importantly one must understand the distinction made here of being “born in the country of the United States”.
Though a man may be born in the State of Georgia, his residence is created within the jurisdiction of the United States – that incorporated legal boundry that extends across the entirety of the territories called “states” and beyond. In essence, when a man is born in the United States, it is his artificial person that is civilly born, creating a citizen.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Statesand of the State wherein they reside…”
Again, this very important distinction must be made…
Though you physically are born in and reside within a State, the artificial representation of you called a legal “person” and a “citizen” is civilly born in and resides within the jurisdiction of the United States. Registered persons/citizens who vote are actually voting in the artificial representation of Washington D.C. – the jurisdiction that extends from that central district 10 miles square over the entire “country” through contract. Your home is a registered United States home. Your vehicle is a registered United States vehicle. Your children are registered United States persons. And all of these contractual agreements can be utilized to take these things away from citizens. In fact, it is the political and constitutional right of all citizens to have their registered property of the United States taken away from them. Just read the 5th Amendment very carefully… for it tells you clearly that through the United States court system under what it calls “due process”, you life, liberty, and property can be taken from you (see definition of take above).
In this way, it is correct to say that for the most part, the actual individual states are empty – abandoned by all the people who became residents of the United States in Washington D.C. – for the people all reside in the United States, and the States are territories of the United States. The people walk as persons upon the plastic coating of United States jurisdiction, never touching the natural land. Of course the illusion of States rights still exists among the citizens of the United States, who have no idea they are under the military rule of this foreign corporation, and who do not comprehend the true nature of the word person or citizen.
In the United States corporation…
Citizenship is granted, not taken;
Citizenship is legal and political, not lawful and natural;
Citizenship is contractual, not moral;
Citizenship is a voluntary membership, not a mandatory requirement.
Citizenship is artificial and un-American!!!
Perhaps the natural born citizens of the United States should be asking themselves why this so-called privilege and natural right of citizenship is being tossed to the wind and bestowed to those who did not naturally and traditionally gain it? The fact that citizenship can be contractually bestowed upon anyone who is contractually willing to receive or pay for all of the benefits and tyranny that accompanies such a legal status should be enough for anyone to realize that its conveyance has nothing to do with anything but a contractual tie to the military rule of government. This once honorable title of men is now just a corporate slogan to sell monopolized, for-profit government products and services to ignorant persons at non-competative prices.
Take the influx of what we call “illegal immigrants” as a clue as to how America became a militarized corporate slave machine:
The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of unauthorized immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. The Center for Immigration Studies – a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.
These are “natural born” children (citizens) just like you according to your representatives in government, for citizens are no longer required to have honor to join the “country”. And soon over 11 million non-natural born invading immigrants will join the party when the United States says it’s just alright.
Citizenship means nothing to an honorable man. It is just a ticket to ride on the slave-ship. It is the act of selling ones soul to acquire artificial things. And it has become a pour substitute for a once-cherished thing. Most importantly, it does not make you an American, just a useful pawn in a collective extortion racket designed to create corporate authority by making all the people into one collective tool to extract their individual power and intent as one lone consenting voice for the actions of an unlawful corporation. And every unlawful action by government is based on the informed consent it presumes from its members.
Isn’t it time to rebut that presumption of consent and take back our individual voices and power as individual men?
So let’s say that you are a member of an exclusive golf club that only allows people just like you to enter. You retain a membership to this club because you wish to be a part of something special and be around like-minded individuals who contribute and benefit from this club and its rules and regulations, as well as its exclusivity and respect. And you stay a member because this club operates legitimately and lawfully with full respect to nature and to all involved.
But then let’s say that your club is taken over and its rules for membership changed.
Suddenly, this club is full of men, women and children (persons) who are not like-minded in any way and who do not respect in any way your methods, opinions, lifestyle, morals, ethics, values, and so on. And then the club management passes rules and regulations that require you to integrate, hire as employees, and tolerate all of these new members – lest you be fined and imprisoned for discrimination and your corporation terminated and its assets seized by government. (Note: This is what E-Verify does.)
Would not the proper response be to immediately end your membership with that club and either find a more lawful club or start your own exclusive one?
The club only seeks to collect more and more revenue and fees from these new members, in order to both generate more revenue and to control more and more of the population by forcing its registration of all things and children. So why would anyone stay as a member of that club only to be forced to tolerate a cultural invasion and complete change in the standards of that club? Why would you continue to financially support that club’s central governing body when everything it does goes against your ideals and values?
So why do you continue to stay a member of the United States club?
It’s not a requirement! It’s not necessary for you to work and live in America and in a State. This beast’s Social Security number is not needed for anything at all. And it certainly isn’t helping you to stay a member, unless you consider tyranny, unjust taxation without representation, pain, punishment, and extortion your political right like government does.
We complain, we scream, we weep, and we suffer. And all because we believe that we must stay members of this corporation that continuously harms us. We accept the mark and the number of this beast because we believe it is for the greater good. We support its illegal wars and pay for them with our voluntary taxes. It doesn’t listen or care about us as anything but commodities, because a corporation only cares about growth (expansion) and profits. It sells our labor and bonds our incarceration. It takes all and gives nothing.
So why are you still a citizen of this 10 mile square corporation that seeks to control every aspect of your life through your voluntary contractual obligation? Isn’t it time to pull the plug and stop financially supporting its exaction tactics to extort your money and estate?
Isn’t it time to take back your registered United States property and place it back into your personal possession, including your children?
Or are a few non-guaranteed benefits at the expense of future generations (your children and theirs) more important than being free?
Do you really think it would be un-American to withdraw your membership to this corporation that isn’t even part of America?
Since the concept of being an American seems to have been blurred between the natural and the contractual, perhaps we should end here with a quote from the most American thing I can think of…
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”
–Declaration of Independence
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, May 18th, 2013
All legal definitions taken from Bouvier’s Law Dictioanry, 1856:
I’d just like to remind the good people of America that there is only one man that the people voted in as president of the United States – well, technically he is elected by the electoral college and not the people, but who’s really paying attention to politics anyhow?
And again I’d like to remind the people that this one “elected” man in the presidency then appoints all other officers and cabinet members of the Federal Government. He is the Chief Executive Officer – the boss. All other officers are underlings operating solely on the authority of the President conveyed to them… millions and millions of unelected men and women controlling every aspect of our lives.
Do you get it?
These officers are not just the appointed goons of this “elected” man named Obama – they are Obama. Everything they do is in his name and under his authority. They are not voted in or elected to their positions. They are appointed by Obama to do his job. Thus, they are Obama.
When the ATF got caught in gun smuggling operations, the ATF was Obama.
When the military unlawfully attacks and occupies foreign countries and rebuilds nations, the military is Obama – acting under Obama’s “Emergency War Powers” and his declared “National Emergency” to bypass Congress, waging unlawful war while officially calling it a “mission of peace”.
And yes, when the IRS commits fraud, purposeful malfeasance, and discrimination while targeting certain political groups in illegal tax audits from its corporate headquarters in Guam, it is the “elected” President of the United States who appoints the Commissioner of that corporation, who in turn appoints managers, Chief Financial Officers, and all other unlawful employees that come after you in the middle of the night.
Of course, the game show of government is playing out as it always does, as the Obama appointed Attorney General (head of the Executive Branch legal team) will be investigating the case of the IRS (part of the Executive branch) through the court system (part of the Department of Justice – which is part of the Executive Branch). What does this mean? It means that the President is investigating himself and his appointed Executive Offices with his own Executive powers!!!
It was not the “Commissioner” who perpetrated the attack on the enemies of Obama; it was Obama – for the Commissioner was acting under the authority of only one man – the “elected” office of president; the Executive.
But it is always the patsy that must resign his appointed office, as we see again with the appointed Commissioner Steven Miller.
But I demand that Obama himself resign, for he is the only man with any power granted by the people (well, ah… sort of – whatever!), which makes the president fully responsible for any action taken by the Executive Branch. Everyone else is appointed by him or by someone else that he appointed!!!
Now imagine, folks, if you actually had a man as your president who was actually responsible for his own actions…
What a different world it would be.
But you didn’t vote for me to be president… not that the electoral college would have accepted the public vote as anything but what it actually is – entertainment.
This is America…?
It’s time to wake up from this dream, isn’t it?
.
For more delicious irony to pull that wool out of your eyes, please check out my research here:
As I entered the line for the security and “screening” area of the Salt Lake City Airport on April 27th, 2013, I decided that it was time to stand up for my natural rights as a lawful man. I decided not to offer my willing consent that any TSA officer might presume as to my willingness or legal duty to be either irradiated in a full-body scanner or be patted down by any agent of government or its security guards (police) without first being shown probable cause or reasonable suspicion that I have committed a regulated commercial or criminal act, and to show any law that gave that officer or security guard authority to do so despite my lack of voluntary consent.
I arrived at the Salt Lake City airport almost two hours early, surprised to find the “security checkpoint” line almost empty of citizens eagerly waiting for their chance to be scanned and touched inappropriately by these TSA “agents” – employees of a government corporation. Whereas in my previous flying experiences I would refuse the full-body scanner but give my unwilling but seemingly necessary consent to a full body pat down just so that I could catch my flight on time, on this day I felt that it was time to make a stand for my own rights and that of others traveling this supposedly free land with the right to the uninhibited freedom of “travel.” Ironically, the very people in that line that I was trying to help see the truth of our collective tyrannical disposition turned out to be among my staunchest detractors! And I wondered what it must have felt like to be Rosa Parks on the back of that bus, refusing to give up her seat and sitting for her own rights and for that of all people, not just her own color. How difficult must it have been for her to listen to the jeering and insults around her?
I was soon to find out…
As I approached the first TSA agent after stepping through the line of ropes, a pleasant gentleman in a Transportation Security Agency (TSA) uniform was sitting at a podium and checking “driver’s licenses” as identification to match names on tickets. I felt comfortable and assured that the presentment of a license to drive a vehicle in commerce had nothing to do with consenting to the TSA and its disgusting objectives or illegal searches, and so I did not object to this pointless act as I felt it was not unreasonable to identify myself. After all, I wasn’t driving a commercial vehicle or utilizing any part of the “Motor Vehicle Code” in this traveling adventure in the sky, so what harm could it cause to show this unrelated “license” to commercially “drive” even though I was not doing so?
Without harm or delay, I was handed back my “Driver’s License” and boarding pass with verification of TSA identification for screening purposes, and pointed to the next section.
As I waited in the quite short line of people, I felt confident in my self and that I possess the natural right not to be detained, irradiated, or felt up regardless of what some central government corporation creates within its rules, codes, and regulations. For a natural right is just that – the right to not have unlawful acts committed against you, which creates a natural duty in other men and women to honor that right as they would wish it to be honored back at them. Government/political rights are of course the exact opposite of natural rights, in that your political rights include having such abuses, extortion, punishments, pains, taxes, imprisonment, and in this case irradiation or molestation forced upon you. This is the price of a ticket to be a “citizen” acting in “commerce“.
I always refer people to TITLE 42, SECTION 1981 for a deep understanding of what a government granted political “right” actually is, for which most people have no clue. It states:
“Statement of equal rights”
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
This of course describes perfectly a “political right” – your right is to be harmed, punished, pained, taxed, and extorted from (exaction). These are the “equal rights” of all citizens! But I do not accept this as a true statement, and will always rebut the assumption that I consent to having political rights forced upon me which violate my natural rights. Put simply, natural rights are free, political rights are enslavement, and equal rights are political not natural.
Today at SLC International Airport in front of the TSA and Airport Police, I stood up for my natural rights – which cannot lawfully be superseded by any government-granted political rights without my consent.
Since I had no objection to the age-old practice of scanning the baggage of airline passengers, what is in my opinion a reasonable security precaution for the safety of the people (or at least for their perception of safety), I went ahead and placed my stuff on the conveyer belt to be checked. This was the last time my baggage was “allowed” to be in my position until this whole ordeal was over, though no law was ever presented or enumerated to allow such confiscation and detainment of my baggage despite my many demands to have that law presented.
The same metal detector that was used for decades now stood in front of me. Behind that apparatus and to the right was the “full-body scanner” that I was certainly opposed to and for which I felt was unreasonable and dangerous to my personal health and those around it. And so I proceeded towards the open (not roped off) and working (electronically charged and ready) metal detector (another thing I am not opposed to if reasonable and consensual). Before I could step through that typical metal detector I was so used to for so many decades of flying, I was told by a second TSA agent that I should walk into the full-body scanner instead. I calmly stated no thank you, I did not consent to that request and that I would gladly be “screened” by walking through the traditional metal detector. At this point, a third female in TSA uniform and badge told me to go ahead and walk to the scanner. Again I stated no, that I do not wish or consent to that action. Her response was to tell me (not ask) that oh, I was wanting to “opt out” of this action. I stated clearly that no, this was a legal term that I do not accept as a legal offer, and that I instead refuse to give my consent to being scanned by that machine but will gladly consent to walking through the metal detector for screening purposes.
With a confused look, she made a waving motion that I thought meant to walk through the metal detector. I proceeded to do so, but a forth male TSA agent was now blocking my path on the other side of that machine. I hesitated for a moment, allowing the agent to move out of my way, but instead he directed me to wait and hold where I was for a moment. He then yelled out that a “male pat-down” was required for yet another male TSA officer.
Next, the TSA agent blocking my way told me I must go through a full body pat-down in order to bypass the full-body scanner. I stated clearly that no, I do not consent to being patted down by anyone in any capacity – officially or otherwise – and that I was not acting in commerce but would be glad to go through the metal detector and be on my way. As I began to walk into the metal detector, this new agents’ hand went up and pressed against my chest, and he told me to stop where I was. Acting lawfully, I stopped and asked why I was being stopped. The answer was the same – that I must be screened properly – which meant that I must be patted down inappropriately.
Upon this order, I again stated that I did not consent to or accept this offer by the TSA. And I followed up on his demand by asking the lawful question, “Am I being detained”?
The answer from the male TSA agent was: “No, we are not detaining you sir”.
I looked at the female TSA agent to my right side, and she verified that I was not being detained.
I then asked the question: “Am I free to go?”
The male and female TSA agents both stated after a short pause that “Yes, I was free to go“.
I then proceeded to step through the traditional metal detector and passed through it without any detection of hidden objects, with no alarms sounding.
But for reasons unknown to me, the male TSA agent again tried to block me from walking through to get my luggage at the end of the conveyer belt located after the metal detector as was generally the normal screening procedure. His hand went up and touched my shoulder this time, and he instructed me that I must wait there for the proper agent to pat me down.
Confused, I asked again: “So wait. Am I being detained? Are you detaining me?”
The answer again came from the TSA agent: “No sir, I cannot detain you”.
And again I asked: “Then am I free to go to my plane?”
“Yes sir”, the male agent answered with uncertainty and nervousness, though his words inspired no confidence and did not match his body language or his actions. He stood back as I passed through the metal detector just enough for me to pass through, but still hindered my way slightly causing our right shoulders and arms to touch. He was short in stature, attempting to be authoritative but failing without cause.
Slow and methodical, I again attempted to proceed to where my bags were sitting post-screening (after already being duly x-rayed) and put my hand upon the handle of my largest piece of luggage. At this point the second agent stopped me, telling me loudly and with concern not to touch my bags and property because I had not been “properly screened”.
I stated that I just went through the metal detector and no alarm went off. You have scanned my bags and have no legal issues or reason to believe I am dangerous, so why are you stopping me from freely traveling?
It turned out that this agent was a supervisor, and he looked at me with a defeated yet confident look that I recognized from past encounters with men who think that they have the right to harm others rights and persons simply because they have a shiny badge and the misunderstood “authority“ to force their power‘s on others. He did not answer me right away, and I stood my ground with my hand on my baggage until he responded.
He stared at me with not quite a smile and with obvious annoyance, not knowing how to respond to or cleverly avoid my questions. His stance was firm and in a disposition as to be too close for comfort to my own face and his body was in my direct line of travel into the airport proper…
Again I asked: “What are you doing? Are you detaining me?”
And again the answer was “no“.
“Am I free to go?”
“No, not until you’ve been screened.”
I stated clearly then that I did not understand what was happening, and that I did not understand how, if I wasn’t being detained and had not broken any law, how can I not be free to go? This was very illogical and unreasonable, especially since no legal or lawful reason or code had yet to be given to me.
The same answer was given, that I had not gone through the proper screening process.
I stated again that I was certainly just as properly screened as I had been since I can remember whenever I had ever traveled as a kid – when I walked through the metal detector and had my bags scanned. I offered to repeat my previous action of walking through the metal detector if the TSA wished me to repeat this without any hesitation.
At some point during this process this TSA officer had depressed a button on some radio apparatus and requested a police officer and also a TSA manager who was in a suit and tie, not a standard uniform. I questioned his need for calling the airport police as I was not refusing any lawful order or causing any harm to any person or property. He apparently felt that he needed an authoritarian person in a more authoritarian uniform with a stun-gun and revolver to help him justify not answer my questions.
He told me that no, I must stay right there until a manager and the police arrive.
Of course I asked again: “Why? Are you detaining me for some reason?”
He stated that no, he cannot detain me (which I knew) while still blocking my way to travel, and that because I was refusing to go through the proper screening process I therefore could not enter the “sterile and secure environment of the airport”.
To this I reinforced the fact that I was not refusing to do anything or follow any lawful order, and that I would gladly subject myself to this so-called “proper screening process” if the TSA agent could simply show me the law that stated I must do so against my consent. I told him again that I was not acting as a person in commerce or any other activity that can be federally regulated, and that his own U.S. CODE specifically states that the travel of people cannot be restricted under the color of law. I then let him know that on this day I was lawfully traveling and again asked if I was free to go?
It was about this time when a female airport police officer showed up. She was younger with blonde hair. Quite pretty actually, but immediately unjustified in her confrontational language and posture…
The two TSA men, supported by the police officer, then told me that because I had come in contact with my bags before being properly screened (by touching my own property), the bags must be re-x-rayed before I can proceed into the airport. And yet apparently I could not be re-metal-detected myself. His next comment implied that I was refusing to be either irradiated or patted down, to which I answered:
“I am not refusing to do anything, I only ask that you show me the law that grants you authority to force me to go through a radiation emitting full-body scanner or to be patted down without my consent? Please show me the law that grants you any authority to force me to do so and I will gladly comply?”
He insisted that he was acting under Federal law, and that he was not about to go and retrieve the code of federal regulations for TSA to show me where that authority was derived. I was to take his word on this. And so I again re-stated that I am not refusing any order, and was simply waiting for any law or lawful code to be revealed and verified to me before I did something against my good conscious and informed consent against my natural rights.
He guffawed, and that’s when the people in line behind me started to yell obscenities. Their disgusted words were not directed at these unlawful acts of the TSA, but rather surprisingly at me for holding up the line. I was told by the people waiting to be screened that I should cooperate, shut up, and hurry up through the radiation emitting full-body scanner. They were willing subjects, therefore so should I be. Then one referred to me with the moniker of “asshole” in front of the traveling passengers and most notably their small children. I did not acknowledge this, but instead imagined how others in history no doubt had the same experience – not that I would compare my small battle with the likes of Gandhi or MLK. But then for me there is no right too small that is not worth fighting for… or in this case, being abused for by unlawful agents of government.
The police officer started to get involved, reinforcing the lie that I was required to undertake this illegal search and seizure process. I again asked for any law that proved this female police officer’s claim of authority, and the response was that the law was there but would not be shown to me.
I asked the police officer if I was being detained, and the answer was an uncomfortable no. However, she was more forceful with her retort, and attempted to exude an authoritarian appeal.
Since I was not being detained, I stated that this must reasonably and logically mean that I was free to carry on with my travels and so I reached for my baggage again to get on my way. To this, the police officer became belligerent and began to threaten me. Her loud words soon formed the repeated threatening question:
“Do you want to go to jail”?
Like a bully on the schoolyard in front of his peers, again…
“Do you want to go to jail?”
Surprised at her questions and her unprofessional, unconstitutional, and unlawful demeanor, I almost laughed thinking that anyone would actually answer in the affirmative to that type of question. Her tough-guy act was not very impressive – more like a bad parent scolding their kid for nothing but asking an uncomfortable question. Taken aback by this strange surge of testosterone presented by this female officer, I asked what it was that I had done that was against the law that warranted such a question to be asked of me. And again I requested for the police officer to reveal the law that I had apparently violated or explain what it was that she thought was reasonable suspicion or probable cause for detaining me and threatening to send me to jail without first offering to arrest me and allow a bit of due process and “Miranda rights” beforehand.
Of course I would have refused to accept or under-stand any political rights offered by a security guard of a government corporation if she had read them. But it’s the thought that counts.
After a few similar exchanges asking for the law I had broken and why I was being verbally accosted for standing up politely for my natural rights; without any movement, threat, or provocation from myself, the policewoman suddenly stepped at me and grabbed my right arm at the forearm and wrist, to which I allowed her to do without retort or fighting back. She forcibly twisted my arm so that it was forced behind my back and then pressed it in a slightly painful upward position. Unsure of why this woman was attacking me without warning or notice, I did not resist in any way – though her strength and form was certainly not enough to actually hold me in this restraining position. I stayed still under duress and inquired painfully what exactly I had done to warrant such treatment and under what authority she was acting?
At no time did this policewoman state that I was being detained, that I was being placed under arrest, or read any type of rights to me. She just maintained her hold on my arm as I faced the conveyer belt with the whole airport security and passenger crowd and children, TSA, and her police officer male partner watching on. Continuing to ask what gave her the right to do what she was doing while placing me under pain and restraint, instead of lawfully answering my question and declaring her legal intent or purpose, she then began to apply a bit more pressure upward on my arm while standing behind me – now pushing hard enough to actually cause fairly severe pain throughout my arm and shoulder. I stated that she was now hurting me and asked her in pain to please cease and desist. Instead she pressed even harder with still no directions or communications as to the purpose of her assault or as to what I should be doing besides standing there and taking this abuse.
It is important to note that I could not see what was happening behind me during this surreal encounter.
At this point (after what seemed like a long time but was likely a bit less than a minute of actual time) it was my natural reaction to the increased pressure and pain she was causing my arm and shoulder to twist very easily out of her restraining hold of my wrist, at which point I raised both hands non-threateningly halfway in the air at my sides and stated: “I am not resisting.”
She carelessly blurted out: “Yes you are”, to which I stated in a surprisingly confident, calm, and mature manner: “No, I am not. There is nothing to resist!” My adrenaline was now of course pumping a bit. I put my hands down and again asked as calmly as possible after just being attacked by this woman for the law that I was breaking and to point out exactly what thing or lawful demand that I was resisting. There was no order or request made by the officer that I could actually be accused of resisting, and her violent attack was accompanied by no reason for it.
I could not even be accused of resisting arrest, since no mention of even detaining me let alone arresting me was ever mentioned by any party. The aforementioned question of whether or not I wished to go to jail would probably not stand as a demand or proper question for a lawful officer of government to make.
I was however informed later by my traveling friend that the female police officer all but threatened him, stating that we were both not going to be allowed on our flights and that “your friend will likely go to jail”.
I was told after this ordeal by the close friend I was traveling with that the police officer’s partner, a more professional acting Asian man whom I did not speak to personally, walked over and stated something to the offending female ‘s ear before I ceased to be put in pain and broke the grip of this female officer. He thought he might have warned her that she was acting out of line, but I have no proof of what was said between them and again had no view of the scene. I do know that my traveling friend made it very clear to this male partner police officer that I was not “dangerous” and that I was simply asserting my rights, and that this officer concurred and reassured him that it would likely end well if I cooperate. His uniform might have been that of a bicycle cop, and he did not appear to have the authoritarian disposition as his partner.
At this point, tensions were flared and my arm and shoulder was throbbing in pain. The police officer then began asking me more politely for my driver’s license – as if she had not just accosted me. Still confident in my rights, I asked her why she needed to see my license to drive, since I was not operating a motor vehicle and was not in any form of commercial activity today, least of all with the police. I also asked her for her name and information because she had just acted violently against me outside of any perceived authority to do so.
She stated that the Driver’s License was a form of ID and that the law required me to show it to a police officer when it was requested.
Of course, I asked for the law that required me to show my Driver’s License for the purpose of “identification“, stating that I’d gladly hand over my driver’s license even though I was not driving, but simply required proof of claim to her statement that I was required by law to do so, especially to the person who just physically and unlawfully harmed me.
I include the following in this report (though this was not quoted at the actual scene of this crime) for the readers understanding of my request for a law which would violate my inalienable natural rights regarding being required to show my driver’s license as “identification” since it is a political license for a certain purpose, which is certainly not a forced right called “identification”:
“License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).
“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.
“A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.
“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.
“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).
“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
“Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.
“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
Please note here that there was only one injured party, and that was myself. I was violently engaged in an unwarranted, forceful, and painful hold. And as you will come to see, I was molested publicly for all to see against my will and in full view of the same police officer that assaulted and hurt my arm.
I would also like to point out here that under no circumstance did I identify myself as “cargo” that is required to be “screened” by TSA.
49 USC § 44901 – Screening passengers and property
(5) Screening defined.— In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosives detection systems, explosives trace detection, explosives detection canine teams certified by the Transportation Security Administration, or a physical search together with manifest verification. The Administrator may approve additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security and to assist in meeting the requirements of this subsection. Such additional cargo screening methods shall not include solely performing a review of information about the contents of cargo or verifying the identity of a shipper of the cargo that is not performed in conjunction with other security methods authorized under this subsection, including whether a known shipper is registered in the known shipper database. Such additional cargo screening methods may include a program to certify the security methods used by shippers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) and alternative screening methods pursuant to exemptions referred to in subsection (b) of section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
TITLE 49 Section 40102 further defines this legal term, which I never lawfully claimed to be or participate in:
(12) “cargo” means property, mail, or both.
As we can read, there is no defining statement that “people” or “persons” shall be “screened”. And though I know all too well that government refers to humans as “animals” and trades its citizens and prisoners as commodities with CUSIP numbers on the collateralized bond markets, I certainly have never agreed that as a presumed “passenger” I agree to be treated as property or any other form of “cargo”. I am nothing if not solely a living, breathing man.
And you wonder why they wouldn’t show me the law?
Continuing with my official accounting of this day:
She again demanded to acquire my driver’s license, and carefully I stated that I am not refusing to obey her offer or any lawful order she may give, and that I was still waiting to see the law that required such an action on my behalf before I proceeded to be identified through such a license to drive a vehicle against the law.
At no time did I ever refuse any lawful order presented by any officer, but instead kept asking over and over to see any law before I complied with any demand to follow any legal demand. I never received any written law or codified number representing any law by any officer. No law or code was ever presented to me in any way, just as one would expect when dealing with any street gang or private security guard acting violently and without cause, reason, or warrant to do so.
She didn’t like my response, but apparently felt there might be a risk to assault me again, as I informed her that she was acting as an individual outside of her authority for lawsuit purposes.. Instead, she gave me a defeated yet determined look that let me know she would not be backing down as she did not detain me, as if I was somehow being unreasonable.
At some point here a fifth TSA agent forcibly removed my bags from the conveyer belt against my will. He stated that they would be re-screened, though stated no purpose for this action. I verbally stated that a re-screening was not consented to, but that he could do as he pleases with his personal responsibility for his actions, even though they had already been properly x-rayed (screened) once. Perhaps they were negligent in their first capacity?
I pointed out which bags and personal items were mine because I was asked to.
I was again told that I was not properly screened, to which I again disagreed and stated clearly that I had completed the screening process and was declaring this to be true and clear for all witnesses – that my bags were already scanned twice and that my body had walked through the metal detector successfully and offered to repeat this step. I then declared for the record that I did not consent to any other type of screening or physical abuse or restraint from any other party involved unless probable cause and reasonable suspicion could be proven, and that again I will submit if any law could be shown in support of their requests.
I was also told by the TSA supervisor and the female police officer that I had somehow agreed and consented to their unlawful pat-down because there were apparently some posted signs that stated as much when I entered the TSA screening and secured area – the same “security” area I have been entering the airport for 40 years without such presumed consent. I could tell that this was a ploy that they had used before – a well rehearsed con to keep the masses in line.
I stated honestly that I did not see these alleged signs (which I did not) and that I had signed no contract or unilateral agreement nor ever implied that I had read or acknowledged any posted signage. I then stated that “I rebut your presumption of my consent to these signs” in this regard, and then asked to actually see those signs by having the officer point them out and walking over so I could read them. I was told “no” and that I was not allowed to leave the screening area or move. I again asked “Does that mean you are detaining me?” And again the answer was “no“. But of course, they had my bags, and they knew I would not leave without my personal property. Essentially, they were holding my baggage as a hostage to gain my consent.
I then demanded to be shown the alternative entrance to the airport that bypassed this illegal checkpoint and signage so that I was not forced into a presumption of agreement to forced consent to these so-called posted rules, since I was not aware of any law that required me to consent to any signage or any request that had been made of me so far by any party under their official capacity, let alone some signs outside the area that I did not see or get opportunity to read and grant my own informed consent.
Again, the answer was that I could not leave the area, though no law was quoted proving that claim and no arrest or detainment order was given to me. I was not being officially detained but was being threatened that I should not move or again touch my personal property.
I then informed all parties that from this point forward any further actions taken against me or my property would be outside of any authority or jurisdiction of government without first providing a copy of the laws granting that authority, and that any further actions of any type (including any already taken outside of law or under its color) would be taken personally as from natural men and women without the protections of their government badges or perceived authority, and that I would sue anyone personally and also put a lien on and sue for their insurance bond and any and all personal property as remedy for the actions of those who threatened me or took any other action against me under color of law.
I was told that I had actually volunteered to be “screened” by entering the security checkpoint area, and that this included the consent to the signage that apparently stated I must involuntarily consent to a “pat down”. I again asked to be escorted out of the “security area” and shown the alternative entrance into the airport that did not require this tyrannical treatment and manufactured consent, since the process was just stated to be both “voluntary” and “consensual”.
The response was that no, I could not leave the security area and that there was not alternative entrance to the airport – that I was required to be screened in this area.
I asked why then had the police officer misstated the fact that this was a voluntary process, and again to please show me the law that requires this screening process against my will and informed consent to a voluntary process?
Because the TSA stopping my right to travel was still holding up the line of people waiting to be screened behind me, the frustrated agents and police officer suggested that we move to “a more private location” so that I can be illegally patted down without my consent. I stated clearly that I would not go anywhere that there were no witnesses and would not follow the TSA agent to the empty side of the screening area or out of view of the “public“ unless he could show me a law that required this. I agreed instead to walk bare-footed with a hurt shoulder and arm to the end of the conveyer and to the next machine to the right where the full body pat down procedures generally take place but no further. I still was not allowed to touch my personal property, which was eventually brought over to the area by one of the TSA agents who claimed that it was now properly screened.
I wondered what kind of screening it had underwent before that was not proper – the normal process – but did not ask.
Insisting that I could not proceed into the airport, the agents brought my personal belongings and baggage over to this metal table, and insisted that I could not touch my things until I was patted down. I verified that they were detaining my personal property without probable cause to do so and without showing any law or authority to do so.
Also, the TSA manager in a suit and tie had joined the group before this, and so I again stated that I do not under any circumstances consent to any of these actions or requests for a “full-body pat down”, though I would gladly comply with the law that requires it if that law were to be shown to me. To this I was ignored and received more frustrated sarcastic looks. And so I again informed the TSA supervisor, manager, and police officer that any actions taken by them would be taken on their own personal behalf, outside of any lawful or any governmental agency protections, unless they showed my their authority under the law. I also repeatedly stated that I would sue anyone there personally who violated my natural or any other form of rights under color of law by touching my body in any way without my consent, as well as to sue their departments and any insurance bonds attached to their positions as legal officers of a government. I warned them that this meant their personal property was liable for remedy in court. Their response was not so much verbal as it was confusion and in-credulousness.
The TSA manager and uniformed supervisor then informed me that I was required to obtain a pat down before I would be allowed into the “sterile environment” once again.
I again asked if I was being detained?
Again the answer was no.
Again I asked the TSA and police officers if I wasn’t being detained, why I was not free to go?
And again the answer was that I had not been properly screened, and that I could not take my “baggage” until I was “properly screened”.
After a few minutes of conversational rhetoric, the TSA manager told the supervisor it was OK to pat me down, to which I stated clearly and precisely that I did not consent to this unlawful procedure. The supervisor who would conduct the illegal pat-down was confused and annoyed as I repeatedly looked him in the eyes and stated that I do not consent to his touching any part of my body, and that any such action on his part would be taken on his own accord without the protection of law, and that he would be personally liable for any of his actions in this regard.
Meanwhile, the rubber gloves were snapped on by the TSA supervisor.
After multiple verbal restatements of my non-consent to being “patted down” or to any other “touching” of my person, I stated again clearly in full earshot of the police officer and the TSA manager that I do not consent and that any actions would be taken as an assault under duress and legal action would follow.
When asked to put my arms in the air at my sides, I complied with the action while stating that no, I do not consent to this action or the search. I remained as calm as anyone can while being publicly humiliated and molested in front of mothers, children, and a helpless and concerned friend (who later took three opioid relaxation pills to calm his nerves after witnessing all of this and being threatened that he would not be able to fly on his airline).
Again, I stated for the record that I never agreed to be patted down or touched in anyway. Even as I put my arms in the air, I continuously told all parties that I did not agree or consent to this process.
The TSA Supervisor went through his routinely worded script, stating officially exactly where he would be touching me next. And to each item requested I stated that I did not consent to that and that he was acting in his own capacity while molesting me in public in front of multiple witnesses. Of course, he showed concern at this, but was egged on by his boss – the TSA manager in a suit and tie – who by the way was perfectly cordial and polite with me as he watched me being inappropriately and illegally molested without my consent.
When the TSA supervisor was going to touch me on my penis and scrotum, he went through the motions and asked me first whether or not I had any sensitive areas on my body that he should avoid or be careful around.
I stated that my whole body was in fact very sensitive, and that I did not consent to his touching any part of my very sensitive body. At this point I made eye contact with the female police officer and told her that she would be called as witness to these illegal acts, to which she stated that yes she would act as an official witness. I verified this in triplicate with verbal affirmation from this “police officer”.
He proceeded to grab my ankles and as he slid his hands upward, he stated that he would be touching me from my feet to my “torso”, to which I again stated that no, I do not consent to being touched in any way whatsoever, and that if he proceeded he was acting on his own accord outside of the law and of his position within the Transportation Security Agency.
Even after my statement of non-consent, he continued with his scripted words telling me that he was now going to continue the search up to where my legs met with my “torso”, and that he may touch my private areas with the “back of his hand”.
I stated that absolutely not would I consent to that, and he proceeded to “pat” me up, touching firmly where my leg and scrotum met and brushing my genitalia.
I stated clearly that this was not my “torso”, and that he had just touched a sensitive and very private area without my permission or consent, which is called molestation. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance this agent must have been going through at this moment.
Next, he positioned himself behind me and felt the bare skin between my pants and underwear as he narrated his molestation actions, his fingers reaching inside my pants and around my “torso“. He again told me that he would be touching my “sensitive area” of the buttocks with the “back of the hand”, which he did against my verbally expressed non-consent to such an action.
Eventually, the gloves came off and were placed on the bomb-sniffing robot or whatever that apparatus is. It occurred to me that at any time he could very easily have planted evidence for that machine to pick up.
This went on until finally the TSA supervisor stated behind my back that: “You are now properly screened. Thank you.”
I stated sarcastically, “No sir, thank you!!! You will be sued!”
During this process I repeatedly demanded to be given identification and personal mailing addresses so that I may direct my legal case to the proper parties involved. I was of course met with resistance here, as I’m sure they took me very seriously based on my verbage. I did receive a business card from both the police officer and the TSA manager, with the name of the supervisor on the back. This was all the ID I could get.
Inversely, the Manager begged and pleaded for me to hand over my driver’s license so that he could file a “incident report”, and would not let me leave until I did. He was not detaining me, but would not let me touch my bags and property until I did so. He asked for my airline boarding pass so that he could “inform Delta Airlines” that there was a passenger who caused an incident by refusing the screening process. After hesitation, and in stating that in no way am I acting in commercial activities, driving in any way, participating in commerce of any type, or that this “license to drive” in any way implies “identification”, I handed over my driver’s license and boarding pass to the manager so that he could correctly fill out his report, and he took them across the security area to copy the information.
When I asked for a copy of that report, he refused stating that it would not be ready for a couple of days and that it was not a public document.
The police officer then asked me to give her my “driver’s license” for her records, to which I refused the request unless she had a law that showed I must comply with that request, since I was not “driving”. I offered to hold the driver’s license in the air so that she could read what she wanted from it, stating again that in no way was I offering “identification” or operating in any regulated commercial action.
Frustrated, she copied down the information she wanted as I held out the driver‘s license. I did show her my boarding pass when she requested it.
When she asked if the address on my card was my current address, I answered no, and refused to offer any more information without a law stating that I must. She demanded my current address again, and I rebutted the legal presumption of her authority to demand that information again. She did not abuse me anymore, though I believe she wanted to.
In the end, as I was finally “free to go” into the airport without one of these people stepping in my way and without actually detaining me, contorting my arm in pain, or using my luggage as a hostage.
The Manager told me then as if we were back-stage that he understood what I was doing in standing up for my rights and that he respected that. I responded by stating that in no way did he show any respect and that he was just witness, accomplice, and agitator in an illegal activity outside of his lawful place. He told me he was just doing his job, to which I replied yeah, I know, you’d beat my head in if it would feed your family. I was already told that by your airport police last time they violated my rights.
My traveling companion was severely stressed at this point, ironically angry at me for standing up for my rights rather than being angry at TSA for physically molesting me in his presence and against my will. He let me know that the police woman told him in a threatening way that we would both be missing our flight and that I would likely be going to jail. I was not stopped or questioned by the airline or TSA on the rest of this flight or on my returning flight.
The second police officer, to the best of my knowledge, acted in accordance with the law and was reassuring to my friend. As far as I know, he stepped in when the police woman inappropriately put me in a painful hold and possibly informed her that she was acting outside of her capacity. This is only hearsay that was forwarded by my traveling companion, but I wish to commend this man for being an upstanding officer – the only one in this account.
For the purposes of this disclosure, I have chosen to withhold the names of the parties involved, but will certainly be suing those parties to the full extent of the law as well as assembling a grand jury to attempt to force the TSA to post appropriate signage about consent and voluntarism regarding this screening process. While I believe I should be compensated greatly for this pain and suffering I have been put through as in any other molestation or rape case, I am much more interested in forcing this rouge corporation of government to cease and desist such illegal activates so that all others may travel freely without molestation by presumed and forced consent under threat and duress.
If anyone reading this would like to help in a financial or legal capacity and make this case an international thorn in the side of a corrupt government, please contact me.
Though I do not claim to derive any personal or political “rights” from any government document or constitution, I do state that government has a constitution that names and restricts its own rights against people, and many court precedents that show that the natural right of travel supersedes any other political or positive legal concoction placed over that natural right. But the constitution only restricts government when lawfully applied, and most people are afraid to sue government to this end. Here is just one of many precedent-setting court opinions:
“As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word “travel” in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
I thank you for reading my account of crime and molestation that took place on Saturday, April 27th, 2013, and hope that it may further the cause to end what may only be called true tyranny and oppression in this country.
The preceding has been my best and honest recounting of the events of this day, from approximately 1pm to just after 2pm Mountain time zone. I will be demanding the film footage from the airport and TSA as soon as possible, and stepping up to the plate to change this mistaken and implied ability of any government agency to trample on anyone’s natural rights of travel.
Oh, and for reference… I present below my former (filmed) encounter with the “airport police” at Salt Lake City Airport, which includes the violation of my rights as well as me being informed that “free speech is not absolute”, and that I “would need a permit for free speech” in the airport. Please note my peaceful yet confident and firm demeanor with these security guards as representative of my disposition and temperament regarding this new incident as reported above.
And watch the media spin and lies here:
.
Also, for the record, I submit the following information as the reasons that I do not submit to a full-body imager or “back-scatter” radiation emitting device. This is the information I was handing out at the airport in the above videos:
–=–
Opt Out!
The Facts About The Whole Body Imager Device
–=–
Is It Constitutional?
The 4th amendment to the constitution specifically states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is It Stopping Terrorism?
Thousands of illegal immigrants come across the southern border of these United States unchallenged, while an honest American cannot go about his own country without being subjugated to an illegal search and seizure at the airport, and get molested by TSA agents for declaring their rights to “Opt-Out”.
Is It Photographing And Storing Your Naked Photos?
“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities… It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine…”-Cheryl Johnson- Office of Transport Security manager
These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing… We think it’s significant.”-EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg in interview with CNET
“Approximately 35,314 images… have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine…” used in the Orlando, Fla. Federal Courthouse. -William Bordley- Associate General Counsel with the Marshals Service
A 70-page document showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information” says that, in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.” –Procurement Specification For Whole Body Imager Devices For Checkpoint Operations, report by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TSA
TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz lied to CNET, stating that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them… I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport”
Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?
“Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none…” -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
Although the forces generated from these scanners are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. Translation: It destroys your DNA!-Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic (smooth muscle) mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease.”-Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact”. -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.
Children and passengers with gene mutations – around one in 20 of the population – are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world.”-Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research
“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays… No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…”-Dr Michael Love-, Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” they wrote. “We still don’t know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system…”-John Sedat- Biochemist, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
“Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don’t have enough information to make a decision on whether there’s going to be a biological effect or not.”-Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario
“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t”-Peter Rez- Arizona State University
“[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation.”-National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, from a 2002 report that studied these security devices.
“Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.”-Technology Review article from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
In other words… millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA!
–=–
Report by Clint Richardson of We Are Change Utah (wearechangeutah.org) with references provided for your own research.
–=–
Thanks for your public support in these trying times!
Yours in solidarity…
And walking the walk so that hopefully others wont have to…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 8th, 2013
Is it at all possible for the government to run out of money?
This seems to be the talking point in the media lately, from the financial cliff to the financial crisis to the debt ceiling. And yet, is any of this even close to a reality?
To comprehend this falsely projected fear campaign, we must first understand the difference between today’s “modern” monetary structure and that of what used to be called the “gold standard” model. (Note: gold not necessary – the “standard” happened to be gold, but could have been seashells, sticks, stones, silver, cadmium, playboy magazines, or any animate or inanimate object with intrinsic “value”).
In the yesteryear of gold-backed currency, the government was restricted in its issuance of currency based upon two things:
1) the amount of gold it had acquired (in ounces) and designated to back each physically printed single denomination of note, and
2) the value of each unit of currency ($1 dollar) assigned as collateral for each ounce of gold in holding based on a stable (unchanging) price of gold as set in statute.
In other words, the government technically could not spend money it did not have. As gold reserves increased, more gold-backed currency could be printed.
This is the only reason that I would ever support a “backed” standard currency, though I do not believe gold is the correct form of collateral for currency – for today’s printed dollars are indeed printed with over 261,000,000 ounces of gold as collateral set at a statutory value of $42.2222 dollars. The only difference is that today’s dollars cannot be traded in for that gold, for today’s dollar is considered a “fiat” currency.
On page 62 of the 2010 Federal Government CAFR, we read:
“Gold is valued at the statutory price of $42.2222 per fine troy ounce. The number of fine troy ounces was 261,498,900 as of September 30, 2010, and 2009. The market value of gold on the London Fixing was $1,307 and $996 per fine troy ounce as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Gold totaling $11.1 billion as of September 30, 2010, and 2009, was pledged as collateral for gold certificates issued and authorized to the FRBs by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Page 453 and 490 of the 2009 Annual Financial Report of the Federal Reserve (CAFR) also states that this gold is collateral held against Federal Reserve Notes by government.
You see, even with our current dollar based on but not redeemable in gold, the monetary system is completely whacked! For it is not the gold that makes the monetary system stable and strong, it is the laws, rules, and men in charge of that system – the congress and its organized criminal creation called the Federal Reserve System. Simply placing gold as collateral for a fiat currency does not make a good currency, even if its value is fixed by statutory law, as stated above at $42.2222 per troy ounce.
A commodity that is unstable in its value, especially one that is fixed daily by the London Fixing in the City of London banking collaboration of Rothschild’s and other banks, is not something I would wish to see backing my currency. A foundation must be strong, non-interpretable, it must retain its value, it must not be able to be manipulated by corporations, it must not be used as collateral for other investments, and it must be stable. A commodity with fluctuating value based on some corrupt banker’s whims is not ideal in any way, but especially when the “gold certificates” that represent the physical gold are traded for their market value of over $15oo, despite the fact that the statutory fixed price of that physical gold is only $42 and 2/9 dollars.
The important aspect of this old monetary system was that government was required to collect money and taxes before it could print money or spend those taxes. In other words, government could not create debt today that would be paid by future taxation or revenue, because it was necessary to attach gold to the printed gold or silver certificate (dollar).
But all of this has changed in the last 100 years.
We now live in a monetary system that is based upon debt, despite this wealthy collateral.
Whereas before the currency was created after the acquirement of wealth (taxes), today the currency is created before any wealth is created. So, the government spends money before it actually has it, in a system based on future taxation (debt).
Strangely, this means that government is creating new money into the system that is backed only by the pitiful cooperation of the indebted and ignorant people and all their property before the revenue to pay for that money is ever even conceived. For the taxes that will pay for the monies that are being spent today will not be available until the money created today is spent by government . What is not understood, is that this money is not only created at the point of inception of legislative appropriation and debt, but that the money to pay for that creation of money does not exist until it is first created through appropriation, spent, and then re-collected as taxation for this past spending.
This paradox is the norm in government. The government created debt cannot be paid until the money spent to fund that debt by government is issued and circulated. Spending takes place before taxation happens – which simply means that the taxes used to pay that new debt have not been collected yet! This in turn is referred to as the “national debt”.
Perhaps an easy way of looking at this is to say that if government paid off all of its debt yesterday, then all taxation collected today would be purely a surplus in tax revenue, since today’s taxation would not already be spent as debt on past things. So today’s taxation would be unnecessary, and it would sit in an investment fund or account as unappropriated tax until it was needed in the future. And really this would be the ideal governmental disposition – where congress would not spend taxpayer money until it actually had the money to spend – by collecting that tax before it spent money instead of after.
With a gold-standard currency, new spending was dependent upon the acquiring of taxation before that spending took place.
But today, spending happens before taxation is collected.
If we ponder the meaning of this, it breaks the fallacy that taxation pays for government. For government can at any time spend as much or as little as it wishes by creating more debt. And this means also that government cannot and will not ever run out of money if it wished not to. In other words, there is no fiscal cliff. And the only “debt ceiling” is an imaginary line in the sand that can be crossed by government at any time it votes to.
Of course, this also means that the money created by government is purely fictional. By this I mean that money is created out of nothing by a signed appropriations bill by Congress. To this bill is attached a “promise to pay” on behalf of all citizens as taxpayers. And the debt keeps getting higher and higher and higher…
So is there a limit to this debt that can be created by government?
The answer in truth is no, for the “debt ceiling” is again just an imaginary total that can and has been changed to meet new debt. There is certainly no set in stone limit to how much our irresponsible bureaucracy can spend except the statutory restrictions placed by the very body who is appropriating this new debt to be created.
Imagine if your son or daughter had the power to create his or her allowance money by pre-funding their piggy bank… It would go something like this:
Mom, I’m going to take a blank check out of your checkbook so that you can sign it. I’ll be creating future allowance today of $10,000 for which I pledge your future wage earnings to pay that debt back to yourself. Oh, and I’ll be charging you interest for the privilege of allowing me to screw you over and put you in debt. Love ya!
Is this not what government does by creating new money as debt instead of waiting to spend money it earns as revenue through past and current taxation? Is there some reason that the people seem perfectly OK with this insane allowance given to government at the expense of their livelihood? Can someone tell me why these men and women of Congress with child-like mentalities get away with screwing the collective taxpayer base every year for more and more debt?
Seriously though… if your child is misbehaved and irresponsible, the last thing you should do is give him or her an advance on their future allowance. And yet taxpayers allow trillions of their dollars at a time to be spent without government actually earning that money first. And no, extortion is not what I mean by earn!
The reality is that our fiat currency is not based on anything but the good faith and credit of the United States. Of course this should be translated as the people and their collective property and wealth pledged to back the dollar, no matter how many are printed. And more importantly, the gold that is held as collateral for this currency has nothing to do with the assigned value of each unit of currency. So the value of each dollar is not set, which means that at no time can the value of each dollar actually be defined by the collateral held. For instance, with over 261 million troy ounces of gold held as collateral against the printed Fed Res Notes, $1 dollar may be worth $.20 cents one day and then $.15 cents the next compared to the gold held as collateral, because the gold is not the “standard” by which the dollar is based. And so whether there are billions or trillions or quadrillions of dollars in circulation, there is no tangible thing to base the actual value of each dollar.
Why is this important?
Because there is no real limit as to what can be spent by government. If all the money created by government is purely representative of a single object, no matter how much money is created and circulating, then that money has no real value other than the fact that it is ALL based on one single object – in this case a pile of gold and some other listed things.
What does this mean?
If government can create new money as debt based on future taxation, it can just as easily un-create all of its debt based on any reason it wishes.
Let me explain… Since government is the creator of money, it is also the law and rule maker of that money. As far as money creation and destruction goes, government is as God. When government creates money, at no point does that money ever cease to be the property of government. All dollars are property of the United States Mint and are copyrighted as such. So even if you currently have some dollars in your wallet, you are only in possession of those dollars as a user. You have the privilege of being a user of government property just as you have the privilege of paying that money back in taxation. And if you stop and consider for a moment, you realize that for every dollar printed by government, that dollar by necessity must eventually be paid back to government through taxation to pay for the creation of that dollar. You only have it on loan as an IOU. The “national debt” is just that – all money formally created that must be paid back with interest to the very government who created it – even if that money hasn’t been created yet!
In case you missed the point here, this means that government is in debt to nobody but itself.
Yes, that means that government is borrowing from itself too. It funds its own debt.
Now if I was to borrow money from myself I could do one of two things: I could create a chaotic system of debt and credit to pay myself back the money I owe to myself while charging myself interest that I can probably never pay back in my lifetime, or I can simply forgive myself of that debt that I created in the first place for myself and never go back into debt again… because I have plenty of money to never need to create more debt with what I already gave to myself.
So let’s ask the obvious question: if government defaults on its own self-created debt, how can this possibly harm anyone at all?
Answer: It can’t!
After all, government did not go out and get credit from some other entity in order to create its own money. That’s ridiculous! The maker of money (God) doesn’t need permission to create money, nor does it need to borrow from anyone else to create its own currency. Remember, it owns all currency no matter who is holding it. And it can call in that currency any time it wishes, which is why it can be taken right out of your bank account at any time. Banks are simple whores of the Federal Reserve System, who are allowed to also create government money out of the ether under Federal Reserve rules. This is why banks join the Federal Reserve. For without this privilege of money creation, banks could not make loans. They cannot loan the money in other peoples accounts because that money is a liability to the bank. Banks only risk money that is not their own, and government allows them to do so through the Federal Reserve.
So if government were to write off $7 trillion dollars in public debt tomorrow, as well as to put a halt to the interest and Seigniorage charged on the creation of its own currency, would this in anyway effect “creditors”? Would this act harm any other entities that may be holding the government’s debt?
The answer is a surprising one.
Let’s see who is holding the debt of government…
Listed as the #1 holder of government debt, just as Walter Burien of CAFR1.com has been proclaiming for 20 years… The U.S. Government! Here listed as:
1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings
Total U.S. debt holdings: $6.328 trillion
(From the article)
“That’s right, the biggest single holder of U.S. government debt is the Federal Reserve system. The Fed’s system of banks and other U.S. intragovernmental holdings accounted for a stunning $6.328 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt in Sepetember 2011 (the most recent number available). The amount is an all-time high as the Federal Reserve continues to expand its balance sheet, partially to purchase U.S. government debt securities.
“About a decade ago, the total government holdings were “only” $2.5 trillion.”
.
7. State and Local Governments
U.S. debt holdings: $484.4 billion
(From the article)
“U.S. state and local governments have nearly a half-trillion dollars invested in American debt, according to the Federal Reserve. The level of investment has remained stable since 2006, moving within the range of $484 billion and $576 billion. The current debt holdings, however, represent the lowest aggregate level for state and local governments since December 2005, when they stood at $481.4 billion.”
Oh, so the Federal Reserve is holding the debt of the United States government?
But wait a minute, the Federal Reserve is the United States government!!!
Of course the mythology surrounding the origins and nature of just what the Federal Reserve is has created a fallacy from within the population that the Fed is somehow not a government entity. Of course, this is absolutely absurd when you do just a token bit of research about the Federal Reserve and how it was created. Yet the fallacy persists despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was created by Congress and can at any time be ended by Congress. I have written extensively on this subject, and for those who base their beliefs about the Federal Reserve on what they’ve heard around the way, I suggest you correct your mistake. For government wishes nothing more than for you to think that the Federal Reserve is not part of government, and that government owes the Federal Reserve all this money listed above. This is nothing but slight of hand, proven in triplicate through my previous research (2 links):
Once we understand that the Federal Reserve is just a sub-corporation of the main United States corporation, we understand that government is funding its own debt – meaning that it owes money to nobody but itself – which means it owes money to nobody but uses this scam to fool the people into an illusion of indebtedness.
The creator of money can simply un-create the debt attached to that money; and the only victim would be government itself and its embezzlement scheme to acquire higher and higher tax revenues to pay a debt that for all intents and purposes does not actually exist.
The purpose of this rant is simply to put an end to the fallacy that a government as powerful as ours can possibly be in debt, especially to itself. The power of money creation is both the disease and the cure for this debt issue, and the solution is as simple as writing off that portion of the debt that is self-funded. While we did not cover other debt holders, we must consider that all municipal cities, counties, districts, and states are also all holders of Federal debt. Public pension funds as “institutional holders” of debt are also a large part of this equation, with debt holding in the 100’s of billions. And this leaves a fractionally small portion of debt that is held by foreign governments, most of which are heavily built up by American investments in their infrastructure and manufacturing base.
The reality is that most of this debt can be disappeared as easily as it was created. For most of this debt has never even been represented by physical dollar bills. Most of it is purely a fictional digital entry in some financial database somewhere. A beam of negative energy scaler or a an EMP pulse would easily wipe out all records of these digital transactions just as easily as an action by Congress and the president. (Yes, I’m a Fight Club fan!)
But unfortunately, the reality as well is that the people will continue to pay their taxes to support more and more debt money created by a purposefully irresponsible government. And ironically, they will do so without ever realizing that the money they spend in taxation today will be used to pay for the spending of the past, without any hope for the future.
.
–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, April 23, 2013
I often hear complaints from the well-to-do about how their hard-earned taxpayer money is drained from their paychecks so as to pay for the welfare system of government. Ironically, many of these middle and upper middle-class people are on a public pension system of some sort as government workers, from military to police and firefighters, judges to teachers, and mayors to laborers.
This irony stems from the fact that these public pensioners never comprehend that their pensions are in fact set up in the same way as the Federal welfare system. So let’s compare these two investment schemes…
1) Welfare is paid for by Federal and State taxes collected from all taxpayers and placed into an investment fund.
1) Public pensions are partially or wholly paid for by all taxpayers of the State, local, and Federal governments as “matching funds” and placed into an investment fund. Government employers are taxpayer funded, thus “matching funds” is taxpayer money.
2) The people (taxpayers) have no equity in the employer (taxpayer) contributions (taxation) to the Welfare system. That tax money is property in the trust of government.
2) The people (taxpayers) have no equity in the employer (taxpayer) contributions (taxation) to the Public pension system. That tax money is property in the trust of government.
3) Welfare pays benefits to people who qualify for it under certain criteria.
3) Pensions pay benefits to people who qualify for it under certain criteria.
4) Welfare is a trust run by government.
4) Pension funds are a trust run by government.
5) The taxpayers who never claim welfare benefits never get a return on their investment.
5) Taxpayers cannot claim pension benefits and therefore can never get a return on their investment.
6) Taxpayers are funding the benefits paid to welfare recipients with no benefit to themselves.
6) Taxpayers are funding the benefits paid to public pensioners with no benefit to themselves.
7) Welfare benefit recipients contribute their own tax money into the welfare system.
7) Pension benefit recipients contribute their own tax money into the pension system.
8) People who use welfare system benefits are knowingly mooching from the public tax-base.
8) People who use the pension system are either knowingly or unknowingly mooching from the public tax-base.
9) Welfare is an insurance pension investment fund that pays benefits for a certain amount of time for “un-employment”.
9) Pensions are insurance pension investment funds that pay benefits for a certain amount of time for “post-employment”.
10) The welfare system can be shut down and liquidated at any time by its owner, which is government, and pay no future benefits.
10) The pension system can be shut down and liquidated at any time by its owner, which is government, and pay no future benefits.
11) Benefits paid in both systems are a way to collect revenue as “contributions” for government that no longer belongs to the people, which is taken from the entire taxpayer base and invested in stocks, bonds, derivatives, foreign currencies, real estate, commercial paper, toxic debt contracts, mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, and everything else that is ruining the financial structure of the world, its markets, and the livelihood of all the people.
–=–
So what is the difference between the public pension system and the welfare system?
Perhaps the illusion and false-paradigm of integrity is the only thing that comes to mind…
For while welfare recipients (who paid for this insurance through taxation) collect benefits without pride and feel no certainty about their future, public pensioners brag about being on public welfare at the expense of taxpayers and feel justified in their arrogance and future financial security. Ironically, the average pensioner has no idea of his or her disposition of being on welfare at others expense. They believe that just because they themselves paid some of their own money into the pension system (though some do not contribute and these pension schemes are fully funded by taxpayers), this gives them entitlement to receive benefits without even a fleeting consideration that they are actually collecting welfare at their retirement or disability (post-employment).
While welfare recipients get the worst kind of horrific taxpayer-funded health care, pensioners enjoy the benefits and choices of mostly taxpayer funded private insurance-based health care.
While pensioners enjoy buying food, welfare recipients enjoy redeeming food stamps. The difference here is not palpable when considering that both are taxpayer funded and that food stamps represent tax dollars or debt funded by taxpayer debt. Either way you look at it, the taxpayers are feeding both welfare recipients and public pensioners.
All of this pride is based on the illusion that these benefits are based solely on years of personal contributions and savings by pensioners, while not comprehending (or not knowing) that most of their benefits are indeed publicly paid for.
And to be quite frank… I personally have much more resentment that for my whole working life I have been paying for the pensions of government workers while knowing that I will never receive any benefit for doing so, and that at my own retirement I will only have what I saved myself and anything I can scrounge from Social Security. In fact, I really have no problem contributing to the welfare system because some day it might actually save myself, a friend, or a family member from becoming homeless and totally destitute – I may actually receive a benefit from my own tax if I need it. And the fact that complete strangers that would otherwise suffer and starve without this subsistence certainly doesn’t create the same feeling that it does to think of public pensioners living high on the hog after taking early retirement and receiving monthly stipends for life simply for not working as long as all the taxpayers funding that pension fund.
And for those pensioners who just cannot comprehend that what I am saying here is true; that pensioners are welfare receivers based on the collection of taxpayer money, I would like to show you just how much money is spent on the welfare system by all taxpayers and how much is spent on the public pension system by all taxpayers…
I was happy to find that someone else had actually done the research to break down how much taxpayer money is paid for welfare and public pensions by government. Of course, the term “paid for by government” means paid for by taxpayer money. And when this is reported in the financial reports of public pension funds, it is stated as being paid for by “employers” or by the “state”. The employer is government, and again government is funded by taxpayer money. Never forget this, pensioners.
Whenever you see a pie graph that is meant to represent all government spending, you will probably see a graph like the one at US Government Spending or the one at Wikipedia which shows that “Welfare” spending is 12% of the federal budget. The problem with that is that the government has no spending category called “Welfare”. Therefore, what somebody calls “Welfare” is somewhat subjective and undefinable.
The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) does have a spending category called “Income Security”. The two pie graphs I linked to in the introduction just take that entire category and divides it by total spending to get 12%. In 2009 accounts categorized as “income security” accounted for 533$ billion in spending. According to the government printing offices’ historical tables, table 3.2: Oulays by Function and Subfunction, that spending is broken down into 6 distinct subfunctions.
The 3 remaining subfunctions cost a combined 284$ billion dollars, but even that doesn’t tell the whole story. Over the last week I’ve taken a more detailed look at each of these subfunctions to get an idea of how that money is spent. What I found was that even in the remaining subfunctions, Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and Other that not all of that spending was spent on the poor.
When I analyzed the “Other” income security subfunction, I graphed how that money was spent by categorizing that spending into 4 different categories:
Not Directed at Poor\Earned: Welfare not targeted to poor. The poor may use these programs, but just being poor will not qualify you for these programs.
Direct: Welfare that’s Direct money to the poor
In-direct: Money paid to 3rd parties on behalf of the poor
Poor & Middle Class: These are tax rebates that poor and most middle class people qualify for and use.
I would now like to extend that analysis to the entire 533$ billion that the U.S. government spent on “income security”. Here’s how the numbers break down.
(Click chart for Larger Image. See The Numbers for this Chart)
As you can see the vast majority of the money spent in the “Income Security” function of the government is spent on programs not directed at the pooror programs where the income must be earned. If you want to know how I categorized everything, here’s how I did it:
Unemployment and Pensions are classified as not-directed at poor\Earned.
For Food & Nutrition, WIC & SNAP(Food Stamps) are “Direct”, School lunches are “non-direct”, the rest are “not-directed at poor”
For Housing Assistance, I categorized the temporary “new homeowner” credit as “Poor & Middle Class” and the rest as non-direct
For the rest you can read my previous post on how I broke down “Other Income Security“
If you total up the direct and non-direct spending categories which are all the programs that are meant to help the poor, you will see that the federal government only spent 191$ billion on “welfare” for the poor. That would be 5.5% of the unified budget. I counted off-budget programs since the pie graphs in the beginning counted social security and other “off-budget” accounts. If you only want to go with on-budget expenditures it’s 6.4%, still a far cry from the 12% that most internet graphs will show you. Just for fun I decided to graph those numbers. Feel free to copy these graphs to show anyone who thinks we actually spend 12% of the federal budget helping the poor.
Now, this is certainly not a complete picture of the amounts contributed to public pensions.
Cristopher Chantrill states on his website that:
“Government pensions spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at zero percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It increased very slowly during the first half of the century. It was only in 1931 that government pension expenditure reached 0.12 percent of GDP. By the beginning of World War II pension expenditure had doubled–all the way to 0.22 percent of GDP.
After World War II pension expenditures began to accelerate, reaching 1 percent of GDP by 1953 and doubling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 1958. Pension expenditure reached 3 percent of GDP by 1970 and 4.22 percent by 1974. Pension expenditure breached 5 percent of GDP in 1980.
The ramp-up in pensions expenditure began to moderate after 1980, reaching 5.3 percent of GDP in 1990 and 5.5 percent in 2000. Pension spending breached 6 percent of GDP in the recession year of 2009, hitting 6.56 percent of GDP in that year. Pensions expenditure is expected to stay in the area of 6.6 percent of GDP for the next few years.”
Total Government Spending
in the United States
Federal, State, and Local
Fiscal Year 2013
Government Pensions
$1.1 trillion
Government Health Care
$1.1 trillion
Government Education
$0.8 trillion
National Defense
$0.9 trillion
Government Welfare
$0.6 trillion
All Other Spending
$1.6 trillion
Total Government Spending
$6.2 trillion
Federal Deficit
$1.0 trillion
Again, this is translated as taxpayers from all over the United States are paying taxpayer money to fund pensions.
The GDP for the United States for 2012, according to the IMF, was $15,684,750,000,000 or $15.68 trillion dollars.
At 6.6%, pensions made up approximately $1,035,193,000,000 or $1.035 trillion dollars of taxpayer expenditures to fund pension funds.
So who is on welfare?
Are pensioners 3-4 times more angry with themselves for collecting post-employment benefits than with the poor who collect un-employment benefits? Can it be that this collective delusion by pensioners is self-induced? Are they the first to step up and complain that legal requirements for pre-funding of public pensions is literally driving Cities like Stockton, Ca and so many other governments to declare bankruptcy based on that pre-funding requirement? Does it bother public pension welfare receivers that the United States Post Office has had to borrow money every year to cover this legal requirement of pre-funding pension funds with taxpayer money, and has now reached its debt borrowing limit while Congress sits back and watches it happen without changing the law?
Can it be that pensioners refuse to bite the hand that feeds them because it would mean they would not receive welfare payments for post-employment? And they think welfare recipients and unemployed are the bad guys?
CalPERS responded to false rumors that pensions were funded solely by taxpayers by stating:
Myth: The State of California and taxpayers pay the total cost of public pensions.
January 26, 2011
Fact: Investment earnings pay the majority of the costs of public pensions. For every dollar paid in pensions, 64 cents comes from investments.
Public employees pay for pensions as well. Each month State employees contribute a percentage of their paychecks toward their pension. Through agreements so far, State employees are paying 2-5 percent more out of their paychecks toward pensions for a total of 8-10 percent each month. This has saved California up to $400 million. In addition, more than 175 local governments have decreased pensions for new hires.
In this very clever response, CalPERS has just stated that California taxpayers used to pay $400 million more in taxpayer money than it does today. This is like a store telling you that you just save money on your purchase instead of spending it – the latest selling point of grocery stores. Spending is saving; in true Orwellian style.
Of course, if the over $240 billion that is being held by CalPERS in liquid assets were cashed in (liquidated) today for their market value, this would pay for the total costs of this public pension for the next 10-15 years without ever collecting another employee or taxpayer dollar. And if that money stayed invested, for which the return on that investment is stated above to pay 64% of all pension costs, this public pension would likely last 20-30 years depending on investment return without ever having to collect another dollar from employees or taxpayers (employers). Trust me when I say that employees alone could never have built this fund up to this value without California and Federal taxpayer contributions.
Last year, taxpayers of California paid $7,834,616,000 dollars into the CalPERS fund, while employees paid $3,727,600,000 (according to the 2012FY Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for CalPERS, Page 41).
I constantly ask myself why the taxpayers of California – the entire base of taxpaying citizens – would agree to pay so much money for the sole purpose of supporting the lavish retirements of just a small percent of that population? And my only conclusion is that this information is simply not comprehended by the vast majority of people who have no idea that their government is spending their tax money on pension funds for its employees. And this goes for all States and the Federal government, which means all taxpayers in America. Why do you allow this to happen… even as the result of this spending is financially ruining your well-being and creating the need for more taxation that is ultimately being created through DEBT???
At some point, even those benefiting form these public pension funds as welfare recipients must see the folly of this madness. But most fall into temptation and will not be delivered from evil. The haves very seldom give up what they have to the have nots, even to save themselves or to save the very system that makes them the haves.
For government is raiding these public funds as we speak, and placing more indebtedness on the taxpayer base to support this looting for “future pension payments”.
In truth, the Federal Government pays more taxpayer money for public pensions than it does for the National Defense budget. More for pensions than for Education. And a lot less for public welfare than we think to support a whole lot more people that need it.
In conclusion, the difference between welfare and public pensions is just one – everybody pays for welfare and everybody qualifies for it. But while everybody pays for public pensions, only a few qualify to withdraw it at all others expense.
The public pension system is the worst kind of welfare subsistence because it is based on privilege, not need.
So why don’t you public pensioners fund your own damn retirement and quit being such parasites on the taxpayer’s back? Isn’t that what you continuously demand of welfare recipients?
.
–Realitybloger.wordpress.com
–Sunday, April 21, 2013
REALITY BLOG 
