tampabay6

I wasn't suggesting to be afraid, I was suggesting to be strategic. Why bring on unnecessary trouble? There will be enough trouble which will be unavoidable. Peace.

My hat's off to anyone who had the foresight to prep before big brother got as all-seeing as he currently is, but I wouldn't reveal any such things on a public web site like this one. There can be no doubt that it is monitored; finding IP addresses of people they become interested in, and tying them to locations is trivial for the powers that be. Everyone has heard that they are building a huge new data center in Utah that will capture all of the traffic on the internet, analyze it, and store forever all but the most obviously trivial and useless parts of it. They probably already are monitoring quite a lot; do not assume that they have no such capability at all until you hear that this new center is in full operation; this new center will just make what they are already doing, bigger and better. If you are thinking, "I have privacy rights!" consider this: every corporation that makes internet available (i.e. Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, and all the others...) is a creature of the State, and whatever data you pass through the connection that they provide, they consider to be theirs, to do with as they choose. Of course it's easier to get on their radar screen if you are required to show your ID in a gun store, or if some suspicious busybody goes out of their way to read your license plate and calls them with it... but they have hired the world's smartest geeks, to create systems that will analyze every word that goes through the 'net, and filter out only the juiciest parts to be seen by the humans that they hire to monitor the system. I used to think that the fool-proof solution to this was to use a so-called "VPN" provider, such as Crypto-Hippie, or SwissVPN, or one of dozens of others, to connect using a scrambled (encrypted) line to a server in some other nation, so that all of your internet traffic is totally hidden from your internet connection provider, and the powers that be here, and that your surfing would have the appearance of being done by some anonymous ghost on the other side of the world... I just read, a few days ago, that in some university computer lab, that the geeks have come up with a way to penetrate all such "encryption" with the new supercomputers that they are deploying, so that probably within a few years there may be almost no way to hide your online tracks whatsoever, except maybe the following "low-tech" approach... It may come down to the point that anyone who wants to make political comments on the internet will have to buy an old used laptop at a flea market or garage sale, make sure the seller has no idea who you are, make sure that such computer is never powered up when you are at home using your own internet connection, establish an absolute and total separation between your "personal" routine email, facebook, etc. that you use with your friends, and your "political" laptop... and whenever you want to publish "anonymous political comments," take that laptop, go a long way from home, and use the public wi-fi of some McDonalds restaurant, or library, or whatever you can find to hook up to, making sure that your car license plate and your face, is not seen by any cameras... Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave. Got freedom? Check out http://www.teamlaw.net

Hey folks! This guy comes on here to post a joke to try to give us all a laugh; he files it properly in the "Off Topic" section, and he had gotten 5 negatives, as of the time I first visited the thread, about an hour after he did the posting? WTF? Aren't NEGS supposed to be reserved for those silly people who post Okie's chat logs into the News section next to the reports from Al-Jazeera, or those unhappy folks who are just outrageously uncivil while arguing? Is that the level that this forum has descended to, that if someone posts a joke that he thinks is funny, that I think is funny, and probably many others will too... that he gets NEGGED? So what if it's corny? Neggers GET A LIFE! The rest of you, help me even him out !!!

Cute, but it should say.... Atlanta ATC: "Tower to Iran Air 711 --You are cleared to land Runway 27 Left." ... but then only the pilots would get it ;-(

I'm sure he wouldn't go out of his way to enrage the Powers that Be, such that they would just have him taken out the next day... but he didn't come this far to throw away his principles. They would definitely not get everything they want from him. He's lived a long life; I really doubt that he's afraid of dying; I'm sure he knows it will happen soon enough anyway. If he did get elected president and was taken out, he would become a martyr, and that might very well create a huge problem for the Powers that Be. People might actually wake up. Either way, it would be edifying to see the manipulators not having their way quite so easily for once. --- Anyway, this thread has been quite the boiling cauldron of controversy; I'm amazed the mods haven't shown up to tell us to cool it... I can see the points of view in both of those quotes. I actually have one foot in each camp. Does that sound crazy? Think about it... Who or what is the biggest threat to the quality of life of regular, middle-class folks who just want to live and let live? Is it not their own government, whether the United States, Israel, or ANY other country? When have the Elite in any country ever done what was in the best interest of all the people? Look up "Jews for Ron Paul" and see what some of them have to say. I saw an article the other day in which a retired high official of either the Mossad or the Israeli Defense Forces, spoke out against an attack on Iran; sorry I do not have time right now to track down the link. If you look into these things deeply enough, you will find that those Elite bankers who are controlling both America and Israel from behind the scenes may claim to be Jews, but they are not really from the blood line of Abraham that received the covenant from God... rather they are from a people group called Khazars, who chose to convert to the religion of Judaism sometime around 700 A.D. - but that doesn't make them the descendants of Abraham. They are very proficient at throwing a charge of anti-Semitism at anyone who opposes their plans to enslave all of humanity to their planned One World Government. I believe these are the evil ones spoken of in the following verse from the Book of Revelation in the Bible... Revelation 2:9 I know your affliction and distress and pressing trouble and your poverty—but you are rich! and how you are abused and reviled and slandered by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Israel (meaning the masses of people in that land) isn't the threat to World Peace, it's these bankers, who claim to be Jews but really aren't, who exploit the Holocaust for political gain. These guys claim to be Jews, but they financed the rise of Hitler! They obviously couldn't care less about "their fellow Jews" except to use the whole country as a pawn in their evil game. ----- Hugh, I don't believe that there is really a conflict between the Jews being "God's chosen people" and "All men are created equal", IF it is understood correctly. God loves the whole world, but He had to start somewhere, with a particular bunch of people. If you wanted to give a message to the whole world, especially if TV and Radio did not exist, how could you give it to everyone at the same time? Or would you give it to a group of people, and then train them to spread it? How about a really non-religious analogy: whenever a factory wants to make something, do they just make a drawing and then go straight to producing a million of them, or do they make a prototype, then another, and another, and then finally produce a few hundred, then when they are proven to work, a million? God spent centuries training the Jews as to what He is like and how He works with people. Then he sent Jesus Christ, who brought the message to the world that "All men are created equal." That was His plan from the beginning; read Genesis 3:15. ----- Hugh and Mak, have a look at this linked article. It covers a LOT of territory related to what's been debated in this thread. It's long, but VERY thorough. I think you'll be impressed. http://revolutionhar...r-of-babel.html

Has anyone paid attention to the continuity of presidential behavior for the last 30 years or so? Obama has been doing what Bush 2 did, who was doing what Clinton did, who was doing what Bush 1 did, who was doing what Reagan did... Note: I'm talking about execution of policies that matter to the Federal Reserve tyrants, not stuff like Clinton's sexual dalliances. At each and every point of time, they always have, and always will, attempt to take away our freedoms at exactly the fastest possible rate that they are able to proceed at, without provoking an immediate revolution. Lenin, instructing about moving a cause forward, once said: "Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push." Does anyone really believe that you can know what a President Romney would be like by studying the voting record of Senator Romney? If so, didn't you learn anything from watching Obama endorse all of the evil measures that he spoke against when he was a Senator? You can have Ron Paul, a black Obama, or a white Obama - those are your choices. Anyone except Ron Paul, will do exactly what his handler, appointed by the Rothschilds, tells him to do. Of course if Ron Paul does win, I will be staying up all night praying for his personal safety, but if anything did happen to him, maybe - just maybe - this country would actually wake up. If we're gonna have another 4 years of Obama, why not the enemy we know than the one we don't?

...have you ever heard of rule 38? Ben has been telling you for months about the fight for delegates in the Republican race. That fight may have just become more interesting. Especially if the so called "bound" delegates in states across the country are not actually bound at all. From http://www.fox19.com...rtl-04.facebook ----- ...the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest. To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15( prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule. As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38. ... The contrast between the actual Republican Party rules governing its convention and most people’s understanding of the role of the primaries underscores the way that the party system has changed rapidly in today’s modern era. Many of the RNC rules come from a time when conventions chose nominees and the party was a meaningful institution, representing an association of individuals coming together, articulating platform positions, and choosing candidates to stand for those positions. With that understanding, the rules governing a party are those of a private group, not a government entity. A private group should have the right to nominate candidates however it wants, which is a fact that some analysts like Barone seem to have difficulty grasping, Last March, for example, Barone went so far as to criticize current nomination grounds under the bizarre pretext that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t spell out what parties should do. He wrote, “The weakest part of our political system is the presidential-nomination process. And it’s not coincidental that it’s the part of the federal system that finds least guidance in the Constitution.” From http://www.fairvote....01#.T7HKwJ9idaQ ----- Some folks here seem to think that for the Ron Paul campaign to make their best effort to take advantage of the rules of the national Republican Party, in order to win, or at the very least to make their presence felt at the convention in a big way, is somehow wrong. Food for thought: ...the Republican party is a PRIVATE organization, and does anyone really believe that the vote totals from those Diebold electronic voting machines are accurate ??? ...both of the major parties have been busy as beavers thwarting the will of the people for about 100 years now. ...in more than a few states, the state GOP party leadership has been using outright fraud to deny the Paul campaign the delegates they actually have gotten the popular votes for. ...if the other side is going to use the "rules" to its advantage, why shouldn't Paul? ...the above quotes show clearly that the outcome is still absolutely up in the air, and will be for some time. ----- I hope we all understand that the purpose of an election is to decide who is going to RULE us. There is ONE man in the race whose motivation comes from a cause bigger than just grabbing Power for himself, but rather has made efforts for 30 years, to increase freedom for everyone. I never forget that people who want to rule me, are people who want to steal the bread out of my children's mouth, in order to use it to increase their power. Socialism is always sold to the masses as a program to take from the rich and spread it around to everyone else. If that were really so, people like the Rockefellers and Goldman Sachs would not be the biggest donors to demagogues like Barack Obama. Socialism always morphs into an outright rape and holocaust for the productive middle class which is the foundation of a stable society, whereupon a measly bone is thrown to the poor, and the rest of the loot goes to the super-rich. Would-be petty tyrants who will prostitute themselves out to the international bankers to fasten the chains of slavery on their fellow man, will only give up their evil ways if they are confronted by a large percentage of their constituents speaking in unison, who tell them that we are taking your power away and if you rig the election so that we cannot take your power away, we will decorate a lamp post with your body. Those of you that talk of campaign "fairness" - what would you think of this hypothetical situation... a homeowner is awakened by the sounds of a burglar in his home; he comes out of his bedroom with his gun to confront the intruder in the living room, only to find that the intruder is only armed with a knife... so he puts down his gun and pulls out a knife instead, because that would be "fair" to the intruder. How insane is that? As far as I am concerned, every other candidate in both parties is a far greater threat to my life than that home invader. Those of you who don't like Ron Paul, can take solace in the fact that he will leave you the he11 alone. All I want is that if the other guy wins the election, that he will leave ME the he11 alone! (but I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen). H.L. Mencken said it well - "Every election is a kind of advance auction of stolen goods." The Paul campaign should do anything they can to win - period - whether anyone else thinks it's fair, or not. The 2000 election made it clear that presidential elections are not decided by popular vote... wouldn't it be really cool to have that factor working in the people's favor for once, to elect someone who's not out to rob us all blind? Studies show that Romney cannot beat Obama. This election may be our last chance not to have a "French Revolution" in this country, wiping out the wealth and progress of several generations. The most charitable thing that Paul could possibly do for all of us, even those who do not support him, is to win by any possible means. Period. If he does not win, then the most important thing he will have done, is to impress upon the minds of a very large percentage of the young in this country, the intellectual foundation of principles that make a free society work, so that we can have a second American revolution instead of a French revolution, and emerge from the ashes with Freedom, instead of a Godless Chaos leading to a fascist dictatorship.

Since the departure of JFK, this country has not had a single president that was not controlled by the international bankers. Reagan seemed to want to work for the good of the people, until that assassination attempt, then he fell right in line with the rest of them, doing what he was told. Right now all the patriots in the country are p155ed off and ready to fight the evil socialists, and if Obama gets in again they will be even more so, and maybe put enough heat on CONgress that those turkeys will have enough fear of God to slow down this country's descent to he11 in a handbasket just a little bit. If Romney gets in, probably two-thirds of them will go back to sleep. God help us. Nobody here is more disgusted with the socialist policies being promoted by the current administration than I am, but those of you singing the "Anybody but Obama" tune in support of Romney, have you really taken a critical look at the things he has supported and voted for? Just HOW, exactly, is it so much better? As for me, I'll write in Donald Duck, for all of the good it will do.

That is true, however... if you have applied for a Social Security Number (or if your parents applied for one on your behalf which you have used), then the Social Security Administration has formed a Trust, with a trust name that is spelled the same as "Your Name" except that it is written in all capital letters, i.e. "YOUR NAME"; the SSN is attached to the trust name in order to distinguish that Trust from any other such trust having a similar name. Now consider the following quote, from http://one-heaven.or...rticle/324.html Mortmanes, incorrectly listed in corrupted history books as "mortmain", is the legal fiction created in the 16th Century under the reign of King Henry VIII of England and his Venetian/Magyar advisers that the body corporate or "person" of a testamentary trust could be considered the same as a living person and therefore possess certain rights and privileges. The concept of "Mortmanes" is the foundation of the modern company/corporation. --- end quote --- The current corrupt legal system in this country, based on the old Roman civil law system, instead of the British Common Law that was in use by the Founders, will presume to treat you as if you ARE that Trust, and if you think that the SSN is "Your Number," and do not understand that the capital letters name and the SSN represent a "legal fiction" entity SEPARATE from you (the living Man or Woman), and therefore you do not rebut their presumptions at the outset, you will not succeed in your attempt to enforce your God-given inherent rights against their trespasses. I'm not sure I agree 100% with this statement down to the last detail, but I agree mostly with the general principle that it puts forth... however, if you have a Driver's License (...issued to that Trust, not to the Man!), they will presume that you have consented to give them the authority that they otherwise did not have, and you will have quite an uphill battle from the start. All of these situations can be overcome - learn how... http://www.teamlaw.net

If you want to dig deeper into these matters, also look up http://www.teamlaw.net

For Nick This article just came on the NaturalNews site today Four different approaches for preventing and healing vaccine injuries Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz1uHf8WnhU God Bless

I am really curious to know what state; I looked in all the posts on this thread and if it was there, I missed it. I have been of the understanding that every state must allow a "religious exemption," I understood that to mean that anyone can be exempt if they make a statement that vaccination is against their personal religious beliefs; I didn't think that meant their religion had to be "Amish" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" or any other particular denomination whose leadership has made a public pronouncement prohibiting the taking of vaccines that applies to all members of that denomination; I thought that a statement of personal belief was sufficient. (I mean according to the government's own statements of what they say the statutes read; the absolute fact is that they have no such authority, regardless of what they say or claim.) The government is not known for being honest about the limits on their power; many people have been intimidated into obeying because someone working for the government deliberately deceived them about what their rights are. Nick, the story about your daughter is heart breaking. I hope that the suggestion offered by Easy is of some help. I have found http://www.naturalnews.com to have a lot of helpful advice for all kinds of health issues. The only fly in the political ointment is that many folks do not realize the legal significance of a marriage license. Almost everyone who has grown up in this society, except maybe for the Amish and a few other fundamentalist groups who hold to the older traditions, has had it drilled into their head since elementary school that the law requires anyone who gets married to obtain a marriage license. The state has absolutely ZERO authority to require anyone to get a marriage license, yet hardly anyone ever is informed of this fact. Getting a marriage license is "voluntary," even though that is another fact that they will never tell you, and such "voluntary" license is considered by them to be your advance consent to having them interfere in your marriage and the raising of your children in a variety of ways, including being forced to take vaccinations. For those of us who have been deceived into getting a marriage license, there is a solution - read more - http://www.teamlaw.n...otectFamily.htm

So... I'm expected to let them poison my kids' bodies, to get official permission to send them to a place that will poison their brains? Have a look at the recently released movie "IndoctriNation" http://www.indoctrinationmovie.com/ Count me out.

George Bush laid the foundation for the police state that Obama is now implementing, and the conservatives/Christians/Republican voters were fast asleep because "one of them" was steering the ship. When Clinton was there, they were trying to fight him tooth and nail, even though that treasonous Newt Gingrich sold them that phony bill of goods he called "The Contract with America" which was supposed to be everything the conservatives wanted, but turned out to be hot air and Bravo Sierra. So, even though I don't doubt that another 4 years of Obama, would probably do this country more harm than 4 years of Romney, I believe that having an openly Muslim fascist traitor at the helm has one advantage over anyone other than Ron Paul: the conservative electorate will probably not go back to sleep, but will continue to fight as best they can, and try to wake up more of the other slumbering sheep. Every president of the U.S. since Kennedy, has been made well aware that if he doesn't do what his "handler" (i.e. the guy that channels orders from the Rothschild bunch in Europe, to the president of the U.S.) tells him to, he will end up like Kennedy and Lincoln. It's better to know who and where your enemies are, than to have someone you mistakenly think is your best buddy, but who is really your worst enemy. Learn more about how you can stop being a slave to the owners of the private foreign corporation that calls itself "The United States Government" at http://www.teamlaw.net.

@divemaster Here is another link to a 40-page document of remedy regarding implied contracts and hidden contracts ("Sui Juris - The Meaning") that impressed me: http://www.divshare....ad/15323666-8c2