B. F. Skinner - Moving Beyond Freedom and Dignity - Miltitary Psychologists Worship This Guy

The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System

The Delusions of the Peace Process - from Al Jazeera - opinion by Richard Falk

Former Senator Bob Kerry Guilty of War Crimes; Goes Unpunished Along With Others

Click Here to go directly to this reading on google books.

You can mouse over this iframe and grab the page and maneuver it so you can read it - plus, there is a scroller on the side of the iframe to help.

J. P. Morgan Finally Unloads On It's Silver Shorting - Takes Loss and Is Caught In Manipulation That Didn't Go J. P. Morgan's Way

The TSA Grope-Fest From a Perspective Outside the USA

You may better view this post by clicking HERE

From the Planet Krypton

Joe Lieberman Embracing Chinese Communist Policy

Noam Chomsky: Wikileaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadersip"

Poor choice of word, that word democracy. A better word for the title of this thread would be "openness". All democracy is is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Other than that, the video and interview with Noam Chomsky in the i-frame blow is well worth absorbing. Use the scroll bars on the i-frame to line up the media player then press the play arrow. Or, go directly to the site, HERE

If the i-frame is not working then click the LINK.

My First Cavity Search - TSA and Homeland Security Helping To Educate Young Americans

Unjust Causes of the Necessary and Proper Clause

If You Want Change .......

The following video is from Marc Stevens' website: Click HERE

Posted by Willbheard on Politico.Com Site in Reponse To Article About Questions From Government Agency

Click HERE for the source of the article that the foregoing is a response to in addition to other comments by others made in complete ignorance.

#

Israel was actually born out of terrorism: notorious Jewish terror groups such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang had attacked the British as well as the Palestinian Arabs who had lived there thousands of years. In 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour declared that Britain supported the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. At that time there were 56,000 Jews and 600,000 Arabs living in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration emphasized, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." In 1946 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing 91. The UN in 1947 divided Palestine roughly equally into an Arab state and a Jewish state, leaving Jerusalem an international city since it is holy to both religions. At that time the Jewish population in Palestine was one third of the total but Jews owned only 6-7% of the land. The Israelis wanted the land but not the people. The Stern Gang assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the Swedish UN mediator, in 1948. The Irgun and the Stern Gang played major roles in the 1948 terrorist ethnic cleansing of Arab civilians, as is well-documented, village-by-village, in the book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by renowned Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. This included the massacre of the Arab village of Deir Yassin in which thirty babies were slaughtered while their mothers were raped and killed, along with many others. The massacre was proudly advertised by the Jewish leadership in order to sow terror and induce other Arabs to flee. Israeli leader Ben-Gurion established an ethnic cleansing cabal, known as the Consultancy, which devised a "Plan Dalet" in March 1948 to systematically eliminate the Palestinian Arabs through terrorism, mass murder and expulsion, bombarding Arab villages and villagers, burning and demolishing homes, planting mines, carrying out massacres of innocent civilians, employing torture, throwing bombs into crowds, shooting villagers in their beds at night, blowing up inhabited houses at night, destroying crops, olive groves, citrus groves, etc. Thousands of Arabs died and in six months there were 800,000 Palestinian refugees. The native Palestinians had no chance. The idea was not only to terrorize the population but also to incite a desire for retaliation so as to provide an excuse for even greater violence in a situation characterized by a huge mismatch of power even when Arab armies tried to come to their rescue. Then in 1967 Israel started a land-grabbing war and took over all of Palestine and parts of neighboring countries. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory since the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. Israel remains in violation of international law, UN Security Council Resolutions, and the Geneva Convention.
Posted By: willbheard | November 25, 2010 at 03:35 PM
Report Abuse

Violence Inherent in the System

Judge Napolitano on Freedom

TSA Perverts Pat Down Three Year Old



Sue these bastards. Press criminal charges on them too. They would criminally charge you if you did these things.

Young Boy Stripped Searched by TSA

NAZI Germany all over again. Americans have long been admirers of the NAZI gestalt. Witness as to how many people, who have committed no crimes against anyone whatsoever, are sent to prisons by juries.





This is what happens after a process of conditioning to accept that which was previously unacceptable:

Turkey's James Bond

Click HERE to go to site.

Still Love Governments?

Use the scroll bar in the i-frame below to scroll down the page or for an easier read go to the webpage by clicking HERE.

The Problem We All Live With - Norman Rockwell

The Trap of the Internet

Use the scroll bars to navigate this article.

Marc Stevens Undermining the False Concept of the State

Noam Chomsky on the United States Being a Terrorist State in a Debate with Bill Bennet

Click HERE for website source of this transcript of the debate between Noam Chomsky and Bill Bennet.



Click HERE to listen to radio archived broadcast on terrorism on Pacifica Radio.

To Surveil, With Love

No Evidence Anyone Owes Taxes

2nd Class Citizen in Israel

The Big Business Wall Street Won't Discuss

Nick Jesson, on Tax Liens

Particularly amusing in this video is the host inviting Bill O'Reilly to appear on his broadcast.

TSA Tyranny Renounced by Airline Pilots

Click Here

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler is a famous speech denouncing the military industrial complex. This anti-war speech by two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposes war profits that benefit few at the expense of many. Throughout his distinguished career in the Marines, Smedley Darlington Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree. To Hell with war.

9/11 Commission Report a Cover-up From Top to Bottom

The Panama Deception

This documentary details the
case that the 1989 invasion of Panama by the US
was motivated not by the need to protect
American soldiers, restore democracy or even
capture Noriega. It was to force Panama to
submit the will of the United States after
Noriega had exhausted his usefulness.

Professor Israel Shahak about Jewish "Religion"

When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the peoples of the world in their intense hatred and contempt for all peoples but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him.

For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.

Notable among these was the reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in "Von den Juden und Ihren Lugen":

"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle...

"Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers."

The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.

When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London's Daily Telegraph, reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood's motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, "Hater!" and denied his fact. When famous actor Marlon Brando later repeated the same fact, he was as well attacked for being an "anti-Semite".

Thus, Israel Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years" is all the more important for being a document by a aknowledgeable Jew -- a Jewish "insider" -- about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews.

Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew.

He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.

Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and ended their cult in Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that's why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He's worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble -- again.

In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his people who adhere to "Judaism". He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: "It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance ..."

He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.

Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for "pious ones") all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.

Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: "A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews." Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists -- in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine -- and Shahak considers Buber's efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews.

Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa. He cites the popular English-language book "The Joys of Yiddish" (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz, meaning "blemish". Writes Shahak, "This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination...' "

Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.

In a chapter titled "The Laws against Non-Jews," he writes:

"...[T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism -- as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism -- is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary ... The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan 'Arukh..."

He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:

"According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew ... When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.

"Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan 'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice ... there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." ...

"A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished."

Then Shahak gives us a rabbi's answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: "The best of the Gentiles -- kill him; the best of snakes -- dash out its brains."

Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:

"Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses" is applied to them... Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality...

"According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: "He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: 'thy fellow's wife' rather than the alien's wife ... and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted."

"This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted -- quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: "If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day -- because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.""

The Talmud's overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:

"If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it...

"It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, "Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: 'Do not defraud each man his brother'...""

Shahak points out that "the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as 'each man his brother' or 'neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew."

How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops. The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such "persecution". They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium -- Talmudic Omissions, or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas -- which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan 'Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:

"In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code ... the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands." In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: "It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them." But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of "infidels"who must be exterminated: "Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoqand Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot." Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception."

Alex Jones and Glen Beck - Two Peas in the Same Pod

If Americans Knew ....

9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA

Delusions, Mr. Wordsworth

Al Qaeda Never Existed

After this video is over , click onto it to go to youtube and watch the rest of it.

Uplifting Article

Click Here to go directly to source page.

MIG-31 Foxhound

Russians old school fighter pilots are the best in the world. Tom Cruise have no chance against Mikhail. Neither would Chuck Norris.

A Question

Legal Tender

" . . . that I should bear witness unto the truth." -- John 18:33 // David E. Robinson, Publisher
Legal Tender

1. . . . Legal tender can be made in the form of a national bank note or note of a national banking association under the authority of the United States Code. (UCC 4-105, 12 CFR Sec. 229.2, 210.2, 12 USC 1813)

2. . . . 31 USC 392, 5103 and 18 USC 8 officially define a note of a national banking association to be a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES, issued in accordance with HJR-192 of 1933 and 31 USC 3123 as “public policy” REMEDY for the discharge and return of equity interest on a private check’s portion of the public debt owed to Principals and Sureties bearing obligations of THE UNITED STATES.

3. . . . This is a statutory REMEDY for equity interest recovery due to the Principals and Sureties of the United States for discharge of lawful debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt it is intended to reduce.

4. . . . During the financial crisis of the great depression the SUBSTANCE of gold and silver, and real money was removed as the foundation of our financial system, in 1933.

5. . . . In its place the SUBSTANCE of the American citizenry — their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them — was pledged by the government and placed at risk as the collateral for US debt, credit, and currency for commerce to function — this is well documented in the actions of Congress and the President at that time and in the Congressional debates that preceded the adoption of reorganizational measures:

6. . . . “The new money (paper promissory notes) is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session.

7. . . . This new money lawfully belongs to “all the people in the nation”,

8. . . . The National Debt is defined as “mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.” — Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.

9. . . . The people’s wealth is their income.

10. . . . The reorganization of the UNITED STATES is evidenced by: (1) the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (2) House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 and (3) the Series of Executive Orders that surrounded them.

11. . . . On December 23, 1913, Congress passed “An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford a means of rediscounting commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” — the “Federal Reserve Act”.

12. . . . One of the other purposes for enacting the Federal Reserve Act was to authorize “hypothecation” of obligations including “United States bonds or other securities which Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to hold” under 12 USC 14(a).
13. . . . The term “hypothecation” as stated in Section 14(a) of the Federal Reserve Act is defined as:

In regard to Banking: “hypothecation” is the offer of stocks, bonds, or other assets owned by a party other than the borrower as collateral for a loan, without transferring title. If the borrower (the US) turns the property over to the lender who holds it for safekeeping, the action is referred to as a pledge. If the borrower retains possession, but gives the lender the right to sell the property in event of default, it is a true hypothecation.

In regard to Securities: “hypothecation” is the pledging of negotiable securities to collateralize a broker’s margin loan. If the broker pledges the same securities to a bank as collateral for a broker’s loan, the process is referred to as re-hypothecation.
[Dictionary Of Banking Terms, Fitch, pg. 228 (1997)]

14. . . . As seen from these definitions, — in “hypothecation” there is equitable risk to the actual owner.

15. . . . “Federal Reserve Notes” are “obligations of the United States”. — Federal Reserve Act § 16 codified at 12 USC 411.

16. . . . So the “full faith and credit” of the United States is the SUBSTANCE of the American citizenry — the real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them — which is “hypothecated” from them by the United States and “re-hypothecated” for its U.S. obligations to the Federal Reserve Bank — for the issuance and backing of “borrowed Federal Reserve [promissory] Notes” as legal tender “for all taxes, customs, and other public dues”

17. . . . The commerce and credit of the nation continues today under bankruptcy reorganization as it has since 1933, backed by the assets and wealth of the American citizenry, that are at risk for the government’s obligations and currency.

18. . . . Under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, private property cannot be taken or pledged for public use without just compensation or due process of law. The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its PRIVATE CITIZENS for any government purpose without legally providing them REMEDY to recover what is due them on their risk.

19. . . . Courts have long ruled that to have one’s property legally held as collateral or surety for a debt, even when one still owns it and still has it, is to DEPRIVE him of it since it is at risk and could be lost for the debt at any time.

20. . . . The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] said that, the Constitution provides that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

21. . . . “The right of subrogation — (the substitution of one party for another whose debt the party pays, entitling the paying party to rights, remedies, or securities that would otherwise belong to the debtor) — is not founded on contract. It is a creature of equity, enforced solely for the purpose of accomplishing the ends of substantial justice, and is independent of any contractual relations between the parties.” — Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Dow, 120 U.S. 287, 301-302 (1887).

22. . . . The rights of a Surety to recovery on his risk or loss when standing for the debts of another was reaffirmed again as late as 1962 in Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 where the Court said:

“Sureties compelled to pay debts for their Principal have been deemed entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise… And probably there are few doctrines better established…”

23. . . . “Surety”: “One who undertakes to pay or to do any other act in event that his Principal fails therein. Everyone who incurs a liability in person or in his estate for the benefit of another, without sharing in the consideration, stands in the position of a Surety.” — Black’s Law Dictionary , 5th edition.

24. . . . In the laws of equity, the United States CANNOT borrow or pledge the property and wealth of its private citizens — put at risk as collateral for its currency and credit — without legally providing them equitable REMEDY for recovery of what is due them.

25. . . . The United States government did not violate the law nor the Constitution in this way, in order to collateralize its financial reorganization, but did in fact provide this legal REMEDY so that it could legally hypothecate the private wealth and assets of those classes of persons by whom it is owned, at risk, who back the government’s obligations and currency by their implied consent through the government having provided such REMEDY for recovery of what is due them on their assets and wealth,, at risk.

26. . . . The provisions for this are found in the same act of “Public Policy” HJR-192 (a.k.a. public law 73-10) that suspended the gold standard for our currency, abrogated the right to demand payment in gold, and made Federal Reserve promissory notes for the first time legal tender “backed by the substance or credit of the nation”.

27. . . . All US currency since 1933 is only CREDIT against the real property, wealth and assets belonging to the private sovereign American people, taken and “pledged” by THE UNITED STATES to its secondary creditors as security for its obligations.

28. . . . Those backing the nation’s credit and currency could not recover what was due them by anything drawn on Federal Reserve notes without expanding their risk and obligation to their own selves. Any recovery payments backed by this currency (FRNs) would only increase the public debt its citizens were collateral for, which an equitable REMEDY was intended to reduce, and in equity would not satisfy anything, for there was no longer actual money of substance to pay anybody.
29. . . . In other words, there is no actual money in circulation by which debt owed from one party to another can actually be repaid.

30. . . . Although made legal tender for all debts public and private in the reorganization, Federal Reserve [promissory] Notes can only “discharge” a debt, whereas debt must be “payed” with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). For this reason HJR-192 of 1933, the “public policy” of our current monetary system, repeatedly uses the technical term of “discharge” in conjunction with “payment” in laying out “public policy” for the new system; because a debt currency system cannot pay debt. (i.e. $ -10 dollars plus $ -10 dollars = $ 20 dollars).

31. . . . Ever since 1933, commerce in the corporate UNITED STATES and among sub-corporate subject entities [such as counties and towns] has had only “debt note instruments” by which debt can be discharged and transferred in different forms.

32. . . . The unpaid debt created and expanded by the plan now carries a “public liability” for collection, for when debt is discharged with debt instruments by our commerce (FRNs included), debt is being expanded instead of being cancelled, thus increasing the public debt — a situation potentially fatal to any economy.

33. . . . Congress and government officials, who orchestrated the public laws and regulations that made the financial reorganization, anticipated the long term effect of a debt based financial system, which many in government feared and which we face today in servicing the interest on trillions upon trillions of dollars in US Corporate public debt, and in this Act made provision not only for the recovery REMEDY to satisfy equity to its Sureties, but to at the same time alleviate if not solve this problem as well.

34. . . . Since the real property, wealth and assets of that class of persons is the SUBSTANCE backing all the obligations, currency and credit of THE UNITED STATES, such currencies could not be used to reduce its obligation, for equity interest recovery to its Principals and Sureties,

35. . . . HJR-192 further made the notes of national banks and national banking associations on a par with its other currency and legal tender obligations.

36. . . . United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. — 31 USC 5103.

37. . . . This official definition for “legal tender” was first established in HJR-192 of 1933 in the same act that made FRNs and notes of national banks and national banking associations legal tender.

38. . . . Public Policy HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 states that:

“As used in this resolution, the term obligation means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the terms coin or currency means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.”

“All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues.”

39. . . . The terms “national bank” and “national banking association… shall be held to be synonymous and interchangeable. — 12 USC 221 Definitions.

40. . . . Prior to 1933 the forms of currency in use that were legal tender were many and varied:— United States Gold Certificates – United States Notes – Treasury Notes – Interest bearing notes – Gold Coins of United States – Standard silver dollars – Subsidiary silver coins – minor coins - Commemorative coins — but the list did NOT include Federal Reserve notes or notes of national banks or national banking associations, despite the fact that national bank notes were a common medium of exchange or currency, and had been almost since the founding of our banking system, and were backed by United States bonds or other securities on deposit for the bank with the US Treasury.

41. . . . Further, from the time of their inclusion in the definition, national bank notes have been phased out. Now all provisions in the United States Code pertaining to incorporated federally chartered national banking institutions issuing, redeeming, replacing and circulating notes have all been repealed:

42. . . . “Today commercial banks no longer issue currency...” — “Money and Banking”, 4th edition, by David H. Friedman, published by the American Bankers Association, page 78.

43. . . . Federally incorporated banking institutions subject to the restrictions and repealed provisions of Title 12 are not those banking institutions primarily referred to and maintained in the current definition of “legal tender”.

44. . . . The legal definitions of “bank”, “banking”, and “banker” used in the United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations are not those definitions commonly understood for these terms, and have made the statutory definition of “Bank” accordingly as follows:

“Bank” means “a ‘person’ engaged in the business of banking.” — UCC 4-105.1.

“The term ‘bank’ also includes any ‘person’ engaged in the business of banking.” —12 CFR 229.2.

“Banker” in a general sense is “a person that engages in the business of banking” and in a narrower sense is “a private person... who is engages in the business of banking without being incorporated.” — Blacks Law, 5th edition, page 133.

45. . . . Under some statutes, an “individual banker” is a person who, having complied with the statutory requirements, has received authority from the state to engage in the business of banking, while a “private banker” is a person engaged in banking without having any special privileges or authority from the state.

46. . . . “Banking” is partly and optionally defined as “The business of issuing notes for circulation, and negotiating bills.”

47. . . . Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines “Banking” as: “The business of banking, as defined by law and custom, consists in the issue of notes intended to circulate as money . . .”

. . . and defines a “Banker’s Note” as “a commercial instrument resembling a bank note in every particular except that it is given by a private banker or unincorporated banking institution.”

48. . . . Federal Statute does not specifically define “national bank” and “national banking association” to exclude a private banker or unincorporated banking institution.

49. . . . Federal Statute does define these terms to the exclusion of such persons in the chapters and sections where the issue and circulation of notes by national banks has been repealed or forbidden.

50. . . . The legal definitions relating to legal tender have been written by Congress to provide for private unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking to issue notes against the obligation of the United States for recovery on their risk, whose private assets and property are being used to collateralize the obligations of the United States since 1933, as collectively and nationally constituting a “legal class of persons” being a “national bank” or “national banking association” with the right to issue such notes against “the obligation of THE UNITED STATES” for equity interest recovery due and accrued to these Principals and Sureties of the UNITED STATES backing the obligations of US currency and credit; as a means for the legal tender discharge of lawful debts in commerce as REMEDY due them in conjunction with the US obligation to discharge that portion of the public debt which is provided for in the present financial reorganization still in effect and ongoing since 1933.

[See 12 USC 411, 18 USC 8, 12 USC; ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 Sect 14(a), 31 USC 5118, 3123, with rights protected under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Russell (13 Wall, 623, 627), Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132,136,137 (1962), The United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch (U.S.) 73 (1805), and in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court 79 U.S. 287 (1870), 172 U.S.48 (1898), and as confirmed at 307 U.S. 247(1939).]

51. . . . HJR-192 further declares that “every provision… which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency… is declared to be against Public Policy; and no such provision shall be …made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred” . . .

. . . making way for discharge and recovery on US Corporate public debt due the Principals and Sureties of THE UNITED STATES providing, as “public policy”, for the discharge of every obligation, “including every obligation of and to THE UNITED STATES”, “dollar for dollar”, allowing those backing the US financial reorganization to recover on it by discharging an obligation they owe to THE UNITED STATES or its sub-corporate entities, against that same amount of obligation of THE UNITED STATES owed to them; thus providing THE REMEDY for the discharge and orderly recovery of equity interest on US corporate public debt due the Sureties, Principals, and Holders of the obligations of THE UNITED STATES, discharging that portion of the public debt without expansion of credit, debt or obligation on THE UNITED STATES or these its Prime-creditors to whom it was intended to satisfy equitable remedy, gaining for each bearer of such notes, discharge of obligation equivalent in value ‘dollar for dollar’ to any and all “lawful money of the United States”.

52. . . . Those who constitute a nationwide association of private unincorporated persons engaged in the business of banking issuing notes against the obligations of the United States due them, whose private property is at risk to collateralize the government’s debt and currency, are by legal definitions, a “national banking association”.

53. . . . Such notes, issued against these obligations of the United States to that part of the public debt due its Principles and Sureties, are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender” of payment for all debts public and private, and are defined in law as “obligations of the United States” on the same par and category with Federal Reserve notes and other currency and legal tender obligations.

54 . . . Further, Title 18 Sect. 8 defines “obligation of the United States” to include “national bank currency”.

55. . . . According to “Money and Banking” by Friedman: There is no national bank currency... national bank currency was retired in 1935 in favor of paper Federal Reserve notes.

. . . Commercial banks no longer issue currency . . .

. . . yet national bank currency is still included in the official definition for Obligation of the United States, to honor those notes yet unredeemed and technically still in circulation today.

56. . . . Anything that has ever been established as legal tender or currency of the United States has always been redeemable for the present currency under the full faith and credit of the United States.

. . . If this were not true no one could have confidence to hold any currency of the United States as he would never know if at some point in the future it would cease to be redeemable at face value.

57. . . . The definition currency of the United States includes not only obligation of the United States “drawn by authorized officers of the United States” issued by the government; but also includes “all bonds, certificates of indebtedness [promissory notes], and national bank currency… drawn on the Secretary of the Treasury in his duty as keeper of the public debt:”

58. . . . “The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt.” — 31 USC 3123

59. . . . The term net public debt means the portion of the total public debt which is held by the public. — 31 USC 2130

60. . . . Public policy — under HJR-192 (public law 73-10) and 31 USC 5103 — gives the Prime-creditors and holders of US Corporate public debt the right to issue, as legal tender, notes “upon the full faith and credit of THE UNITED STATES for obligations of THE UNITED STATES and sub-corporate chartered entities to the discharge and recovery of the public debt ‘dollar for dollar’ to the Principals, Prime-Creditors, and Holders in Equity over THE UNITED STATES as Sureties for its obligations, currency and credit.”

61. . . . Such notes — issued by the Principals and Holders in Equity of US Corporate public debt as legal tender obligations of THE UNITED STATES for recovery of equity interest due — are the national bank currency backed as “obligations of THE UNITED STATES” primarily allowed for in these statutes.

62. . . . Therefore — in accordance with Public Policy established in HJR-192 — no plaintiff as obligee CAN require tender of any other particular kind of coin or currency in place of any promissory note already tendered by me in my strawman’s behalf.

63. . . . Congress has provided this REMEDY codified in the statutory law even though it is virtually unknown and therefore not readily understood.

64. . . . Under the REMEDY, TWO debts that are dischargeable by Federal Reserve debt note instruments, or checks drawn on the same are discharged against ONE public debt of the Corporate UNITED STATES and its sub-corporate entities owed to one of its Prime-creditors, without expanding the use of Federal Reserve debt note instruments as currency and credit, and without expanding the monetary supply and without expanding the public debt burden upon the Principals and Sureties the recovery REMEDY was intended to relieve.

65. . . . These are the facts of the law regarding tender and the discharge of public debt in a legal and lawful way.
“In the absence of a statutory definition, courts give terms their ordinary meaning.” Bass, Terri L. v. Stolper, Koritzinsky, 111 F.3d 1325, 7th Cir. Apps. (1996).

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, “We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” See, e.g., United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 -242 (1989); United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102 -103 (1897);

“The legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.” — Richards v. United States, 369 U.S.1 (1962).

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1 > Sec. 8 - Obligation or other security of the United States defined –
The term ‘’obligation or other security of the United States’’ includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > Sec. 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption -
Federal reserve notes are to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve banks through Federal Reserve agents, as hereinafter set forth, and for no other purpose are they authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

"ad Christi potentium et gloriam"
(for the power and glory of Christ)

Shopping Cart Ideas

Israel Planning to Steal More Homes and Property

Click Here for the article.

Open Water and Knowing and The Friends of Mr. Cairo

The Other Israel

Hagee Ashamed of Christ's Name

Click Here to go directly to site.

Telling Like it Is - One Brave Woman's Account

Zionism Explored - Jews Against the State of Israel

Om

My Uncle Jack and the Library Video

The Library of Congress

State of Grace