Uncategorized

There is an old rock song from 1971 that advises, ” Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are rich no more.” (I’d Love to Change the World, by Ten Years After). Throughout the history of class warfare, this has been every promise socialism.

Four years before the Russian Revolution put the Bolsheviks in power, the USA Income Tax Amendment was ratified in 1913. The only reason it was ratified is because everyone was assured over and over again that it would only tax the bank account interest of the rich, and it would not tax wages. And now everyone believes the lie. More about this later.

But first I want to point out the obvious.

Socialism cannot recognize individual rights.

Socialist countries exist because the leaders are always corrupt.* That is how they got their power. That is how they stay in power. Socialist leaders will stay rich, while they exploit everyone else.

Unfortunately for us, the Democrat party is now the party dominated by the corrupt rich*. According to a Bloomberg article entitled Democrats’ Tax-Hike Bet Relies on Their New $500,000-Plus Voters

IRS data from 2020 shows that Democrats represent 65 percent of taxpayers with a household income of $500,000.

Yet these same data show that 74 percent of taxpayers in Republican districts have household incomes of less than $100,000.

Spot the socialist trend in Biden’s first 100 days:

• Biden unveiled his $1.8 Trillion families plan.
• Then he pushed for the $2 Trillion infrastructure plan. Even though only 6% was for roads and bridges.
• Then he needs $4 Trillion in additional spending.
• And he is pushing for a global minimum tax.

We cannot possibly keep borrowing money from our children and expect to have a future. The net worth of all American taxpayers is less than half of our debt, and nothing is done to pay off the debt. Our children will grow up destitute in the land their fathers built from sea to shining sea.

1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon mocking the FDR socialists’ plan

Those who lust for power will drive others back into perfect savages.*

HISTORY of traditional values, which never tax the rich

• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wealth.
• Paul repeated King David’s warning that government charity would be a snare to trap you. Romans 11:9
• After Christ told us that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and right before he told his followers that he appoints unto them a kingdom; he said unto them that the kings of the Gentiles (pagans) exercise lordship over others so that they will be called benefactors. But you shall not be so. Luke 22:25.
• Galatians 5:15 But if you bite one another, you yourself will be consumed.
• Second Peter 2:14 Your covetous practices shall curse your children. [And today we have burdened our children with unpayable debt that will enslave them. By the way, slavery in the Bible was a 20% income tax during a time of national crisis. Genesis 47:23-26.]
• Second Thessalonians 3:10 if any would not work, neither should he eat.
• Second Thessalonians 3:12 we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

No one has to provide for you. Why do you want laws that force others to provide for you? This is theft and extortion. In Genesis 3:19 the unchanging God of the Bible requires you to earn your bread from the sweat of your face. This principle was still true when Abraham Lincoln gave his second Inaugural address, March 4, 1865: “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces…” That’s right. Forced welfare contributions are just as immoral as slavery.

Don’t confuse government welfare systems with charity. One is done by forcing your neighbors to give; the other is done with love. It is your duty to love your neighbor and be your brother’s keeper.
Forcing your neighbor to give is not charity — it is socialism. No form of collectivism can recognize individual rights. If the neighbor cannot give, then their bank account will be seized, their wages garnished, they will be evicted from their home by brutal force and their home sold to collect the tax. This is force, not love. Learn how to spot the difference.

HISTORY OF THE INCOME TAX to tax the rich

New York Times August 3, 1909 front page article announcing the first state to ratify the Income Tax Amendment said:

“The only interruption to his speech was a query by Representative Glover… – who wanted to know if the amendment would affect salaries.”

If you have the same question, then read the response. (link https://www.NotFooledByGovernment.com/essay-files/NYT-front-page-article-on-tax-8-03-1909.pdf ) You may safely ignore the part of the answer that said “unless Congress passed a law including salaries.” because four years later the Senate debates show the intent of Congress.

Senate ratification debates in the Congressional Record, August 28 1913, Senator Lawrence Y. Sherman, on page 3843, debating the income tax amendment, insisted that the word “income” referred only to earnings on savings accounts:

“The savings from the income by professional effort or by any form of skilled labor or unskilled hand becomes property. At the end of any given period that saving is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from the earning capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question… Those investments that produce an income from a property I think are properly to be distinguished from those arising from the earning capacity of the individual.”

Also on page 3843 Senator Cummins :

“I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we cannot legislatively interpret the meaning of the word ‘income’. That is purely a judicial matter. We cannot enlarge the meaning of the word ‘income’. The word ‘income’ had a well-defined meaning before the amendment … If we could call anything income that we pleased, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal…. Congress can not affect the meaning of the word ‘income’ by any legislation whatsoever…. obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment.”

That’s right. There is no apportioned direct tax on anyone. Any income derived from savings accounts becomes taxable, because collecting interest is a government granted privilege.

* Perfect Savages

2150 years ago the Greek historian Polybius wrote:

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.”

— The Histories Of the Roman Republic 220-146 BC, Book 6, section 9

And 2000 years ago Plutarch said “It is truly said that the first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who gave them bounties and largesse. “

==== ::::: ====

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:

My free tax essays and my usury essay at NotFooledByGovernment.com http://NotFooledByGovernment.com

And my article Banks are the Enemy of Capitalism.

==== ::::: ====

If you want to challenge the loss of your rights, I recommend an online law course for those who will fight against the powers-that-be. It has save me and it might just be your get-out-of-jail card. HowToWinInCourt.com

If you want to join me in pondering how the deep state infiltrators got into power, read my 32 page report that questions lawyer’s integrity.

==== ::::: ====

Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative Articles, blog posts, ghost writing, newsletters, web pages, case studies, white papers, reports, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com

Under the U.S. Constitution, a wife had no legal rights. A wife’s rights did not come from government. Her covering is her husband. Government had no right to interfere with a man’s family except for (1) extreme cruelty* that endangered the life of a wife or child, or (2) children would be educated at public expense if parents failed to educate their children to his station in life.

But if you got a marriage license, daddy government is your covering. Ask your daddy for whatever legal rights they want to grant to you.

Under the U.S. Constitution a marriage is for life. It cannot be divorced. That’s right. There is no such thing as a living ex-wife or ex-husband.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. 205, at pages 211 to 215 that marriage is to be upheld because “marriage is a relation for life.” (this refers to real marriage, not the divorceable type of marriage that needs a license).

But you waived your right to marry by getting a marriage license.
If you had managed to keep your rights the answer to your question is found in American law dictionaries :

If you want to read about the sad story of how America has been castrated by lawyers, read my book The History of Unlicensed Marriage.

Wife’s rights was her Covering

In the Bible divorce only refers to living separately. Also notice that nowhere in the Bible does the word divorce cancel a marriage.

• The Latin word Capitis is a head covering. Diminutio is a taking away, loss
  or deprivation.
• A Christian man is the covering for his family. See First Corinthians 11.
• A right cannot be licensed. A marriage license application is a confession that you have no right to marry.
• One you confess that you have no right to your family, a civil Roman government is your covering. 

Notice in all cases that a man’s family rights are lost. Only in the more severe cases are other legal rights forfeited.

Originally answered by Steven Miller, March 27, 2019.

* FOOTNOTE

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition:

Also related to the topic of cruelty: The husband’s Covering was a wife’s complete protection. Men created a government to help them protect their families. A man is responsible for the crimes committed by his wife. A wife cannot be arrested. A man is to be arrested for the crimes of his wife, so that the wife can stay home and care for the children. Therefore a man has a duty to correct his wife with whatever force is necessary. (By the way, men also have a duty to correct the government he created.)

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

My book on family rights.

Is the quantum dot vaccine the Mark of the Beast?

For those not familiar with the Mark of the Beast of the Bible:

• A symbolic “Beast” is a kingdom (according to angels in Daniel 7:24, Daniel 8:20 and in Revelation 17:12). Today we would use the word government.
• Daniel 7’s exceedingly dreadful final beast kingdom tramples down the earth, takes away the dominion of other governments, makes war with the saints and prevails against them.
• The final government controls the world’s monetary system such that no one can buy or sell without government permission (except for those in Revelation 15:2 who are victorious over the mark). What are the chances that you already have a banking authorization number from an exceedingly dreadful final world government ?
• The Mark is an identification needed to buy or sell in the final economic system, either a badge, name (authority), or number– The Biblical book of Revelation at chapter 13, verse 17;  “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (King James Version)

You may have questioned if marks such as quantum dot tattoos in the skin have something to do with the Mark of The Beast.

The quantum dot vaccine was invented at MIT to deliver vaccines using a patch of microneedles to invisibly encode vaccination history directly into the skin. Their nanocrystals leave fluorescent mineral tatoos long after the vaccine needles have dissolved. These marks can be viewed with infrared cameras, or cell phone cameras with special filters. Some people speculate that there will be three numbers of six digits each.

National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan – The Rockefeller Foundation

US firm combines nanotechnology, blockchain for COVID-19 immunity passports – Ledger Insights – enterprise blockchain

PR 4-13-20 QMC Local Company Leads Texans Back to Work – Final (hubspot.net)

My thoughts in support of Quantum Dot vaccines being the Mark:

There is a prophecy in Revelation 18:4 where a voice from heaven says, “come out of her my people [and] receive not of her plagues.”  Then in verse 23 “for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”(the original Greek word that the King James translators translated into the 1611 English word “sorceries” was the Greek word pharmakeia — which we would translate into today’s English word pharmacy) — For by thy pharmacy are all nations deceived.

Bill Gates has already told us that digital certificates of immunity would be needed to facilitate the global re-openning of the economy after the COVID lockdowns.

And, of course, the economic system has been under Satanic control ever since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

My thoughts in rebuttal of Quantum Dot vaccines being the Mark:

Many people insist that the Mark has to be an implant in the skin or a tattoo in the skin, or at least a breaking of the skin.  I don’t believe it. There is no Biblical requirement for a physical breaking of the skin.

The King James Version translated the Greek word “epi” to the English word “in” or “upon” for the following marks:
    • in their foreheads (Revelation 7:3)
    • his mark upon their foreheads, (Revelation 20:4)
    • or in their hands (Revelation 20:4)
    • in their right hand (Revelation 13:16)
    • in their foreheads (Revelation 13:16)
    • written in their foreheads (Revelation 14:1).
The word “epi” is usually translated as “upon”.  The King James Version translated the word ‘epi’ both ways in Revelation 20:4.  We get our English word “epidermis” from the Greek.  We also get our English word “hypodermic” from the Greek.  You would never confuse the two English words.  Epi-dermis is upon the skin, hypo-dermic is under the skin.  In EVERY occurrence of the beast’s mark in your Bible, the mark is epi (upon) the hand and forehead.  It is never hypo in the skin.

Many people claim that the mark must be a mark physically in the skin because the English word “Mark” can refer to a physical mark.  Quantum Dot Vaccine would certainly qualify. We will examine this possibility below.

There is no Biblical requirement for a physical breaking of the skin. But there may be a symbolic breaking of the skin. After all, the word “covenant”, at least in the Old Testament, refers to a cutting of the skin. And in the New Testament in Acts7:8 the cutting of circumcision is called a covenant, and Hebrews 12:24 covenant and blood are mentioned together. The word “testament” can imply a cutting of the skin, as in Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25 referring to Christ’s blood.


MORE THOUGHTS

The Satanic controlled economy has worked with debt currencies since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A central bank is the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto. Communism cannot recognize individual rights.

And we know that credit scores will require government approval of your social media interactions. Just like they do in China today. — So that by 2030 you will need a biometric method to log into the internet.  The International Monetary Fund is developing a plan to track your web history to determine credit scores. Download Link: (https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020161-print-pdf.ashx)

Right Hand or Forehead.

Some people insist that the phrase “hand and forehead” refers to manual work and mental work, therefore taking the mark only refers to working for the beast. I don’t believe it.

Some people insist that it has to be a clearly visible mark or tattoo of Satan’s protection, just as God’s mark protected Cain when he was evicted from Eden, and just as others were marked for protection as in Ezekiel 9:4-6.  

Others suggest that the phrase “hand and forehead” refers to acceptance and obedience to the beast.
    • Or allegiance to the beast.
    • Or ownership by the beast.
    • Or saluting the beast authority.
    • Or simply a mental acceptance and a signature.

Let’s study the Bible and figure out what interpretations make sense and what interpretations can be dismissed.

The last digit in 666 is the word stigma, which comes from a meaning more-than-a-handful. Although the Greek word `stigma’, translated as the last 6 in the number 666 (666= chi-xi-stigma) , it can mean prick (as well as a reference to branding as a mark of ownership) and although the Greek word `charagma’, translated into the English word “mark”, can mean etching (or a badge of servitude), this is not necessarily proof that the mark has to be an implant.

The English word “Mark” refers to a physical mark.  
    • Although it refers to a physical mark, the Greek word Stigma can refer to physical marks that are also designations of ownership, as in a rancher branding his cattle, or an artist signing his work.  I have already written about how a Social Security Card is indeed a certificate of ownership.  
    • The English word “Mark” can also mean a scar, as in Galatians 6:17 “…I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”  This is translated from the Greek word `stigma‘, which is not the word “Mark” used in Revelation.  Stigma in Strong’s Concordance is defined as “a mark incised or punched for recognition of ownership, i.e. scar of service:-mark”.  Notice that its primary meaning of this “stigma” physical mark is as a designation of ownership.  Again, the word stigma is the third six in 666.
The Greek word for “Mark” in the eight occurrences in Revelation, is the Greek word `charagma‘ (Strong’s G5480) which means an etching or a badge of servitude.   The extent of God’s wrath leads us to believe that this is something extraordinary.  But grammatically, there is no reason to suspect that this is anything more advanced than a badge, or an ID card — or just a number as allowed by Revelation 13:17.  The mark might eventually involve an etching of the skin, as a tattoo or an implant, but I don’t see where the Bible requires it.  A Social Security Card already fits this prophecy.  A number issued by a foreign power already qualifies you to buy and sell, and  none of the other Biblical marks in the right hand or forehead refer to a tattoo or scar or implant.  
The only other occurrence of the word `charagma‘ in the Bible is translated into the word `graven’ in Acts 17:29.  

Forehead symbols

Bus drivers, tea brokers and military all have engraved marks on their forehead as their authority to present themselves in public as representatives of their superiors.   In the Bible, the Greek word for authority exousia comes from the root word exon which is the right to present oneself in public.  An engraved etching at the forehead has always been a sign of servitude, presenting to the public the master’s authority.  The original purpose of the engraved etching was to allow a slave to go to the market and conduct business for his master.  The etching was often just an impression of the master’s family seal baked in clay.  A badge has always been a symbol of servitude.  Today, an ID card in your right hand serves the same purpose as an engraved etching at the forehead.

Do you have a mark, name or number to present yourself in commerce? Such as a banking authorization number to conduct banking? Or a wage authorization number to sell your labor? If so, it is too late to worry about a vaccination. You should have already “come out of her my people [and] receive not of her plagues.” 

Fast forward to today: you could be detained if you cannot show ID, and merchants might not conduct commerce without proof that you have some master’s authority to exist.  In today’s commercial law this is known as a presentment warranty.  As today’s badge of servitude, the Social Security Card, or ID obtained with it, certainly serves this same purpose. 

Just like the National Socialists of 1930’s Europe, you will need a mark to enter the marketplace.
But this time The wine of the wrath of God shall be poured out, undiluted, into the cup of his indignation and the smoke of their torment shall rise forever, whosoever receives the mark.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

My post “can you be deceived into getting the mark of the beast“,
My post “Your ALL CAPITALIZED NAME“
My post “Banks are the Enemy of Capitalism“
My book Identification Credentials
My book Can a Lawyer be Honest?

Books by others:

• The Great Reset: How Big Tech Elites and the World’s People Can Be Enslaved by China CCP or A.I. By Cyrus Parsa
• Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed By Jared Diamond
• Beyond Woke by Michael Rectenwald
• How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps by Ben Shapiro
• Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science by Dr. Judy Mikobits and Kent Heckenlively
• The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe by Douglas Axe, Jay Richards, and William Briggs
• COVID: The Politics of Fear and the Power of Science by Marc Siegel
• Corona, False Alarm? Facts and Figures by Karina Reiss Ph.D.
• United States of Socialism: Who’s Behind It. Why It’s Evil. How to Stop It. by Dinesh D’Souza
• Socialists Don’t Sleep: Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall by Cheryl K. Chumley
• Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science by Dr. Judy Mikobits and Kent Heckenlively

And I always recommend an online law course for those who will fight against the powers-that-be. It has save me and it might just be your get-out-of-jail card. HowToWinInCourt.com

— ===== ==== ===== —
 

Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative Articles, blog posts, newsletters, web pages, case studies, white papers, reports, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com
 

Farmer Bill Gates is now the largest farmland owner in America. What will you do when famine hits America?

How much of the United States does China really own? | Fox News

Farmer Bill Gates owns 242 Thousand acres of farmland in 16 States, many theories abound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsR3zx8JXws

He also owns 27,000 acres of other land.

Farmer Bill Gates wants rich countries to sustain themselves with synthetic beef. While the world faces a famine.

The 2008 documentary video Food, Inc. exposed the corporate takeover of food production.
Then there were theories that Monsanto purchased the Blackwater mercenary army. It might not be proved, but there is substantial evidence behind this theory.

Nearly 30 million acres of U.S. farmland is owned by foreigners. Much of this is China. Source: Nearly 30 Million Acres Of US Farmland Now Owned By Foreigners

One in four U.S. pigs are owned by China. Source: How China is buying up America’s food supply
A Communist Chinese firm has purchased Smithfield, the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer. According to Smithfield “The company was founded in Smithfield, Virginia, in 1936 and was acquired by Hong Kong-based WH Group in 2013.”

America cannot feed itself.

According to Census.gov the U.S. exported $15,119,687,096 in food and agriculture (excluding wood products) to Communist China in 2019.

What would happen if Communist China and Farmer Bill Gates were to stop selling food to us? What could possibly go wrong?

History of the Globalists

As America becomes accustomed to Collectivists making every decision for us, farmers are forced to comply with intrusive federal regulations. Even the family dog must be tagged as livestock, in case there is a disease outbreak. (source)

Stalin’s Communism killed 20 Million. Source: Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Stalin deliberately starved Seven Million in Ukraine with his forced collectivist (communism) policies to eliminate small farms and use modern agriculture machinery to feed the citizens. Source: The History Place – Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin’s Forced Famine 1932-33
Also see the Stalin quote, below.

Farmer Bill Gates’ father was a Eugenicist. Bill Gates, Sr. obituary in the NY Times said he was a director of Planned Parenthood. For more information on the original goals of Planned Parenthood, see my post on Roe v. Wade.

Geo Engineering

The Dimming by GeoEngineeringWatch.org is full length documentary on weather modification Chem trails. Link: The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary ( Geoengineering Watch ) – YouTube

During the 2021 severely cold weather in Texas, temperatures at the North Pole were 33 degrees warmer than the Gulf Coast of Texas. Meteorologically speaking, this anomalous weather could not have been a natural occurrence, and it doesn’t make sense that higher elevations in the area would have warmer temperatures. This could only happen through an endothermic reacting material like chemical ice nucleation, Link: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemically-nucleated-winter-weather/

15,000 to 30,000 cattle died in the 2013 early October blizzard in western South Dakota. Their nostrils frost froze solid. Geo Engineering chemicals explain this endothermic ice nucleation. The cattle death count was later increased to 50,000.

What could possibly go wrong?

Joseph Stalin, Speech on Agrarian Policy — Dec. 27, 1929:

Note: kulaks were family owned farms

{1} The characteristic feature in the work of our Party during the past year is that we, as a Party, as the Soviet power:
    a) have developed an offensive along the whole front against the capitalist elements in the countryside;
    b) that this offensive, as you know, has yielded and continues to yield very appreciable, positive results.

{2} What does this mean? It means that we have passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. It means that we have carried out, and are continuing to carry out, one of the decisive turns in our whole policy.

{3} Until recently the Party adhered to the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks. As you know, this policy was proclaimed as far back as the Eighth Party Congress. It was again announced at the time of the introduction of NEP and at the Eleventh Congress of our Party. We all remember Lenin’s well-known letter [in 1922 in which he] . . . once again returned to the need for pursuing this policy. Finally, this policy was confirmed by the Fifteenth Congress of our Party. And it was this policy that we were pursuing until recently.

{4} Was this policy correct? Yes, it was absolutely correct at the time. Could we have undertaken such an offensive against the kulaks some five years or three years ago? Could we then have counted on success in such an offensive? No, we could not. That would have been the most dangerous adventurism. It would have been a vcry dangerous playing at an offensive. For we should certainly have failed, and our failure would have strengthened the position of the kulaks. Why? Because we did not yet have in the countryside strongpoints in the form of a wide network of state farms and collective farms which could be the basis for a determined offensive against the kulaks. Because a. that time we were not yet able to replace the capitalist production of the kulaks by the socialist production of the collective farms and state farms. . . .

{5} An offensive against the kulaks is a serious matter. It should not be confused with declamations against the kulaks. Nor should it be confused with a policy of pinpricks against the kulaks, which the . . . opposition did its utmost to impose upon the Party. To launch an offensive against the kulaks means that we must smash the kulaks, eliminate them as a class. Unless we set ourselves these aims, an offensive would be mere declamation, pinpricks, phrase-mongering, anything but a real Bolshevik offensive. To launch an offensive against the kulaks means that we must prepare for it and then strike at the kulaks, strike so hard as to prevent them from rising to their feet again. That is what we Bolsheviks call a real offensive. Could we have undertaken such an offensive some five years or three years ago with any prospect of success? No, we could not.

{6} Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.

{7} What would it have meant to launch a determined offensive agains. the kulaks under such conditions? It would have meant certain failure, strengthening the position of the kulaks and being left without grain. That is why we could not and should not have undertaken a determined offensive against the kulaks at that time. . .

{8} But today? What is the position now? Today, we have an adequate material base for us to strike at the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class, and to replace their output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. You know that in 1929 the grain produced on the collective farms and state farms amounts to not less than 400 million poods (200 million poods below the gross output of the kulak farms in 1927). You also know that in 1929 the collective farms and state farms have supplied more than 130 million poods of marketable grain (i.e., more than the kulaks did in 1927). Lastly, you know that in 1930 the gross grain output of the collective farms and state farms will amount to not less than 900 million poods (i.e., more than the gross output of the kulaks in 1927), and their output of marketable grain will be not less than 400 million poods (i.e., incomparably more than the kulaks supplied in 1927).

{9} That is how matters stand with us now, comrades.

{10} There you have the change that has taken place in the economy of our country.

{11} Now, as you see, we have the material base which enables us to replace the kulak output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. It is for this very reason that our determined offensive against the kulaks is now meeting with undeniable success.

{12} That is how an offensive against the kulaks must be carried on, if we mean a genuine and determined offensive and not mere futile declamations against the kulaks.

{13} That is why we have recently passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.

{14} Well, and what about the policy of dekulakization? Can we permit dekulakization in the areas of complete collectivization? This question is asked in various quarters. A ridiculous question! We could not permit dekulakization as long as we were pursuing the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks, as long as we were unable to go over to a determined offensive against the kulaks, as long as we were unable to replace the kulak output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. At that time the policy of not permitting dekulakization was necessary and correct. But now? Now things are different. Now we are able to carry on a determined offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their output by the output of the collective farms and state farms. Now, dekulakization is being carried out by the masses of poor and middle peasants themselves, who are putting complete collectivization into practice. Now, dekulakization in the areas of complete collectivization is no longer just an administrative measure. Now, it is an integral part of the formation and development of the collective farms. Consequently it is now ridiculous and foolish to discourse at length on dekulakization. When the head is off, one does not mourn for the hair.

{15} There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulaks should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for they are sworn enemies of the collective-farm movement.

In The United States

FREEDOM FROM WANT?

Feds Escalate Assault On Dairy Farmers
By Liz Reitzig

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) apparent war on Amish “raw dairy” farmers increased on Dec. 6 when the FDA filed a motion for summary judgment with Pennsylvania judge Lawrence Stengler asking for a permanent injunction against dairy farmer Dan Allgyer to forbid him from selling fresh milk out of state. FDA regulation 21 CFR §1240.61 criminalizes any selling of milk intended to cross state lines.

After a two-year, expensive exhaustive undercover operation, including multiple armed raids on Allgyer’s farm, FDA agents and a team of 10 federal lawyers amassed over 276 pages of evidence allegedly proving what Allgyer openly admits, that he is selling fresh (raw, unpasteurized) milk to customers who knowingly carry the milk across state lines. Thousands of Maryland customers who have been buying from Allgyer for years were the main focus for evidence during the investigation. In spite of the FDA raids and injunction filing, Allgyer has continued to support his customers’ needs for fresh milk and other farm foods, citing his God-given inalienable rights. Like mos tAmish  people, Allgyer is reluctant to participate in the legal system, but he has chosen to respond, and his response claims that the FDA action “has created a serious dilemma” by “violating [his] due process and equal protection under the law,” and he is “prepared to proceed with a public court forum, if necessary.” Should Stengler sign the motion, the injunction would not ban Allgyer  from selling in Pennsylvania, but the Maryland families he supplies would lose their food source and he would lose his out-of-state business and would be subjected to strenuous regulation and unannounced, unlimited, unwarranted inspections, at his expense, including costs of travel, food, lodging and per diems for inspectors. A single inspection could cost as much as $10,000.

Allyger’s response argues that the FDA’s action, though classified as a civil action, is in reality “a quasicriminal action . . . because of the severe sanctions and consequences that could occur as a result of the FDA investigation and the inspection” and as such “requires prior notice of the offense, probable cause and official complaint, which is totally lacking in this case.” Organizers of the D.C. area-buying club Grassfed on the Hill, supplied by Allgyer, helped form the Raw Milk Freedom Riders in support of Allgyer and other farmers like him.

“The freedom riders are a group of consumers challenging the FDA’s regulation by engaging indeliberate civil disobedience. They demand the FDA cease prosecuting farmers and consumers for transporting raw milk across state lines,” says the group’s founder, Karine Bouis-Towe. “The riders have staged two ‘freedom rides.’ On Nov. 1 they took raw milk from Pennsylvania to FDA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., then on Dec. 8 they transported raw milk from Wisconsin to Chicago, Ill., both times distributing the milk. The FDA declined to prosecute in both cases.”

The action against Allgyer is the latest in a string of FDA persecutions of Amish dairy farmers in recent years.

——

Liz Reitzigis the co-founder of the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, an advocacy group that helps farmers under assault from the government.

U.S. History

When the Constitution was being considered for  ratification, there were debates about the Constitutional clause to regulate interstate commerce.  For a long time people thought the words “regulate commerce among the several states” referred ONLY to promoting commerce, not restricting commerce, after all, “one of the objectives of the Philadelphia Convention was the promotion of commerce” according to an analysis of the Constitution published in 1996 by the Congressional Research Service in Senate Document 103-6. Example: the first agriculture department in Pennsylvania was created to help farmers sell eggs OUTSIDE of Pennsylvania , and to run a state fair, promoting Pennsylvania grown produce. THAT’S IT!  That was the government’s understanding of the Constitution clause “regulating commerce among the several states”

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
— Alexander Hamilton, 1775, The Farmer Refuted

You may be interested in:

Biden said Corn Syrup more dangerous than terrorists.

USDA agricultural census program is a covert surveillance operation to compile government database of food and farm assets – NaturalNews.com

China Owns US

Home – The Grow Network : The Grow Network

ice age farmer | food, abundance, warmth

Something is fishy in the United States

Food disparagement laws

Can socialism be constitutional in the U.S.?

Throughout our history, Presidents could not find anything in the U.S. Constitution to allow socialism or any kind of welfare for individuals.

Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. To counter those rumors that the “general welfare” clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”.

In 1792 congressman and future President James Madison voted against a congressional appropriation to assist war refugees who had fled to America. He said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

This was still true when Congressman Davy Crockett made his famous “it is not yours to give” speech. It is not their money to give, not even for disaster relief in a federal territory.

In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, Title 81 Federal Reporter page 358, the court held that Mr. Sauer, although an industrious, law abiding man, could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist. That’s right. SOCIALISTS CAN NOT BECOME U.S. CITIZENS.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed a health care bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said:

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

Abraham Lincoln, second Inaugural Address, 1865:

“It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces …”

Grover Cleveland’s veto of government pensions, June 21, 1886:

“… encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. This is the demoralizing lesson taught [to] the people … against the public Treasury …”

1897 President Grover Cleveland vetoed an appropriation to provide disaster aid to victims of a Texas drought. His veto stated:

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds… I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution. The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Note: 1897 was 2 years after the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Co. (157 US 429, and 158 U.S. 601)

Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:

“the traditional American self-reliance of spirit which makes them scorn to ask from the government, whether of State or of Nation, anything but a fair field and no favor; who confide not in being helped by others, but in their own skill, energy, and business capacity to achieve success. The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight that he shall not be a mere passenger, but shall do his share in the work that each generation of us finds ready to hand; and, furthermore, that in doing his work he shall show not only the capacity for sturdy self-help but also self-respecting regard for the rights of others.”

Socialism cannot recognize individual rights. You cannot covet your neighbor’s wealth and expect to have rights to your own wealth.

For more information on how you waived your rights, read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

United States of Socialism: Who’s Behind It. Why It’s Evil. How to Stop It.
by Dinesh D’Souza

Socialists Don’t Sleep: Christians Must Rise or America Will Fall
by Cheryl K. Chumley

States were once sovereign.

They created a federal government and must be held responsible for controlling what they created. The 17th Amendment now prohibits them from controlling what they created.

2. A court that flies the gold fringed US flag is not a judicial court. It is a federal martial law legislative tribunal. Start with my essay Gold Fringed Flag.

3. State judicial courts must protect state people from the gold fringed flag courts. The citizen who cannot complain is the individual who owes allegiance to two governments. According to The Supreme Court in U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 at page 551,

4. People in states are subject to only three federal laws. The three crimes mentioned in the US Constitution. “and no other crimes whatever” according to vice-President Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions.

5. States cannot control the creature they created. Example: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266  has a critical examination of the problems of the 14th Amendment. The Utah Supreme Court justices said “*We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us*;”
Local judges are not controlled by their State. They are federally controlled. Judges in every State are bound thereby (Artcle 6, second paragraph).

6. IRS definition of citizen in Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1-1(c) is that of a 14th Amendment federal citizen not a state citizen. State citizens are protected from the federal government by the state judicial court, not the federal gold fringed flag courts. See my essay Why we don’t have rights anymore.

7. By getting a SSN you disavow any allegiance to a State government. Once a 14th Amendment citizen, always a 14th Amendment citizen — “finally disavowed” — in other words once you volunteer you cannot expatriate from the federal prison you volunteered into. This explains why US citizens are taxed everywhere in the world they move to. More info is in my essay Why don’t we have rights anymore?

Why don’t we have rights anymore? – Do Not Be Fooled by Government (notfooledbygovernment.com)

A free country is one that allows it’s people to leave. Are you free?

An oath of citizenship, according to the Department of Homeland Security 8 CFR 337, is a commitment to “perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; …”.  This is unlimited perpetual slavery.  Your forced labor is collateral for the national debt. Your debt to society must be paid. Your allegiance was turned over to the creditors (by lawyers). You are permanently obligated until you pay your debt to society.

Passport laws in Title 22, Persons entitled to passport Chapter 4 Section 212 states:

“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.”

22 U.S. Code § 212

This includes a National of the United States according to :

“The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

— 8 USC 1101 (22)

If we read the Application for passport; verification by oath of initial passport, in Title 22, Chapter 4, § 213. we also see that:

“Before a passport is issued to any person by or under authority of the United States such person shall subscribe to and submit a written application which shall contain a true recital of each and every matter of fact which may be required by law or by any rules authorized by law to be stated as a prerequisite to the issuance of any such passport. If the applicant has not previously been issued a United States passport, the application shall be duly verified by his oath before a person authorized and empowered by the Secretary of State to administer oaths.”

— 22 U.S. Code § 213

A national is not a citizen but still owes permanent allegiance. Permanent allegiance does not change. The conferring of nationality (which does not give the rights of citizenship) also requires oaths of allegiance. Title 8 U.S. Code § 1452 – Certificates of citizenship or U.S. non-citizen national status; (b) Application to Secretary of State for certificate of non-citizen national status; proof; oath of allegiance taking and subscribing, before an immigration officer within the United States or its outlying possessions, to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of a petitioner for naturalization, the individual shall be furnished by the Secretary of State with a certificate of non-citizen national status, but only if the individual is at the time within the United States or its outlying possessions.
[1452b section 341 b 308 confers nationality but not citizenship. 101 a21, a22, 29]

There are many revisions of The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 According to Title 8 USC §1101: Definitions Text

§1101. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter-

(1) The term “administrator” means the official designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 1104(b) of this title.
(2) The term “advocates” includes, but is not limited to, advises, recommends, furthers by overt act, and admits belief in.
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
…
12) The term “doctrine” includes, but is not limited to, policies, practices, purposes, aims, or procedures.
14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-
(A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, ….
(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
30) The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.
31) The term “permanent” means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.
36) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term “national” as “a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term “national of the United States” includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).”

Section 308 INA confers U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship, on persons born in “an outlying possession of the United States” or born of a parent or parents who are non-citizen nationals who meet certain physical presence or residence requirements. The term “outlying possessions of the United States” is defined in Section 101(a)(29) of the INA as American Samoa and Swains Island. No other statutes define any other territories or any of the states as outlying possessions.”

“In addition to Section 308 of the INA, Section 302 of Public Law 94 – 241 provides for certain inhabitants of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, who became United States citizens by virtue of Article III of the Covenant, to opt for non-citizen national status. (See requirements of Section 302).”

“As the Department has received few requests, there is no justification for the creation of a non-citizen national certificate. Designing a separate document that includes anti-fraud mechanisms was seen as an inefficient expenditure of resources. Therefore, the Department determined that those who would be eligible to apply for such a certificate may instead apply for a United States passport that would delineate and certify their status as a national but not a citizen of the United States.”

“If a person believes he or she is eligible under the law as a non-citizen national of the United States and the person complies with the provisions of section 341(b) of the INA, 8 USC 1452(b),he/she may apply for a passport at any Passport Agency in the United States.. When applying, applicants must execute a Form DS-11 and show documentary proof of their non-citizen national status as well as their identity.”

If you want to be free, don’t agree to pay the national debt.

The Constitution was constituted by constitutors.

You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
— Ayn Rand

Here are the consequences of ignoring reality

If you are not there to help others, others will not be there to help you when you need help.

Keep doing what you are doing and history will repeat millennia of misery.

Forced charity has never been sustainable

Forced welfare is NOT welfare. It is theft by force, fear and violence.  Real charity is to love your neighbor as yourself.  Learn to spot the difference. 

And 2000 years ago Plutarch said “It is truly said that the first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who gave them bounties and largesse. “

2150 years ago Greek Historian Polybius  wrote The Histories Of the Roman Republic 220-146 BC, Book 6, section 9:

“And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.”
link: http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/classics/polybius6.html
or http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html

In 1770, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, in his book Cycles of Democracy, had this comparison with the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’

Six years after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Social Security, they agreed to use the common understanding of who qualifies for government welfare. In the 1941 Supreme Court case Edwards v. California at 314 US 160 at 172 , the legal term “indigent person” was given a very limited scope:

“…must be taken to include only persons who are presently destitute of property and without resources to obtain the necessities of life, and who have no relatives or friends able and willing to support them.”

In other words, forced charity is only legal to save the life of a pauper. Freeloaders cannot qualify. If you applied for a SS number, you confessed that you cannot manage your own life.  

Before the Constitution was constituted under the Articles of Confederation, paupers had no rights of citizenship. They had the same rights as a fugitive. And it remains true today that paupers (those with a SSN), have no more rights than a fugitive. 

Welfare entitlement is available only to save the life of the applicant. There is no Constitutional authority for individual welfare. But Treasury funds can be used to save a life. SS Cards can only be issued to one who is an “applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds” according to Title 42 US Code 405(c)(2)(B)(i). 

Lose your illusions. 

You are dependent on the agenda of others

You are completely dependent on those who control the foundations that you rely on. This is the very definition of Stockholm Syndrome. Just like the early Christians, and today’s Amish, you will need to join a like-minded community to provide the foundations of your own making, without reliance on “the powers that be.”

Your foundations are all provided by the Globalists. Jobs, food, healthcare, energy, banking, justice, education, travel. All these are controlled by regulations of the Powers That Be to justify their “requirement” for safety. But safety is not our heritage.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

— Ben Franklin quote inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty

We hold the truth that we are created equal.

Equals will not salute other equals.
Equals will not bow down to other equals.
Equals will never swear oaths to other equals.

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. …  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

— Samuel Adams speech at the State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776) Sam was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, cousin of President John Adams, and an activist at the Boston Tea Party

Obedience to authority?

“Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. … “

— US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28

All societies throughout history have had a few brave people who died standing against those who sought to enslave them.

• 300 Greeks stood against 100,000 Persian invaders.
• A thousand Jewish refugees were killed by Romans at Masada.
• Those who refused to affirm that Caesar was lord were fed to the lions. Those who refused to worship Emperors were often executed.  They had a choice to obey. 
• William Tell would have saluted the judge’s authority rather than be sentenced to death unless he could shoot an apple off his son. He chose to not obey government. We would not have a Switzerland today if Mr. Tell did not know that a salute was a form of worship.
• Braveheart William Wallace refused to pledge allegiance to the King of England. He was executed.
• In 1536 William Tyndayle was executed for the crime of translating the Bible into English.
• In the 1550s Catholic Queen Mary executed six mothers for teaching the Lord’s Prayer to their children.
• British Quakers were torn apart by teams of horses.
• American Quakers were executed in Massachusetts up to the 1850s.
• 180+ Americans died defending the Alamo against 2,400 Mexicans for about 20 minutes.

But you surrendered immediately without even questioning that you were being tricked out of your rights. “Live Free or Die” is the official motto of New Hampshire. It was written by General John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier of the American Revolutionary War. Those who risk death have something worth standing for.  Perhaps you should pay attention. 

America The Beautiful, verse 3:

3. Oh, beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine.

•  British subjects living in British colonies would not have started the American Revolution.  They had a choice to obey or risk death killing their government’s law enforcement officers. 
• Patrick Henry would not have asked for liberty or death. 
• Nathan Hale, who was a 21 year old Yale graduate when he was executed in 1776, would not have had one death to spend for his country.

• Rahab, a career criminal who helped overthrow her government, would not be considered righteous (James 2:25) and listed in Hebrews 11 as one of the all-time faithful.
•  there would have been no anti-Baptists (who became today’s Amish, Mennonites and Baptists), who refused to register their children.  They endured a painful execution burning at the stake rather than obey government. They knew that their orphans would be raised by their murderers but they still refused to register their children. 
• The early Christians in Cappadocia, just east of Galatia, would not have lived in caves to evade government.  They had a choice of allegiance.  
• The Presbyterian covenanters of 1638 to 1688 endured great hardship, strife and civil wars to keep their religion. Scotland is free today because William Wallace chose martyrdom rather than swear allegiance to King Charles the first.
• Cromwell suspended Parliament and executed King Charles.  If they had obeyed their government, the monarch would likely still be supreme over America.
• In 1637 John Lilburn risked death refusing to take a Star Chamber Oath.    He chose to disobey government.  The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Miranda’s right to remain silent came from Lilburn’s refusal.
•  regulation IS persecution.

Stand, because when you stand, others will stand with you.  And God can’t stand with you if you don’t stand.  Once you stand you can expect the hand of providence to be over you. No matter how it ends, it matters how you stand.”
— Levoy Finicum