It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Are YOU to Dictate What I do With My Life?

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I love it when people scream about "being free" ... Can any of these people define what this "freedom" they crave looks like, and why they don't seem to have it?

Do people not realize that they're probably the most free humans in recorded history? If you go back as far as the written language, things are pretty awesome for the average and common man right now...

Hell, I can hop on an airplane tonight and be in Germany tomorrow. I can buy a hot meal and rent a car and drive to Italy, where I can purchase a painting, have it shipped home.

I can hop on my smart phone from a cafe in Rome, update my social media and email my boss. I can then call my sister and tell her about my trip.

I've got plenty of freedom, sorry you've got imaginary bars around you?




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
So, I respectfully decline the troll attempt on your part, and im calling it for what it is.


"A troll is just someone who you disagree with, but cant beat them in an argument."

You are unable to beat me, as you are unable to back up your silly claim (as expected, as it is just freeman woo) so you call me a troll. You have lost the discussion.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Hell, I can hop on an airplane tonight and be in Germany tomorrow. I can buy a hot meal and rent a car and drive to Italy, where I can purchase a painting, have it shipped home.


That's because you have money, and that's what "Freemen" types mean by "freedom." They want to have all the benefits of society without having to pay for them. Rather than work hard or produce something of value to others, they want a quick dodge; a cheat.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
So, I respectfully decline the troll attempt on your part, and im calling it for what it is.


"A troll is just someone who you disagree with, but cant beat them in an argument."

You are unable to beat me, as you are unable to back up your silly claim (as expected, as it is just freeman woo) so you call me a troll. You have lost the discussion.


Listen, budd, you really got your ego goin there don'tcha? Beating you? Why do I want to "beat" you? That sounds like a troll to me. I don't want to "beat" anyone. I'm a lover, not a fighter , and I hope you getthat through your thick head. Im telling you, I simply don't wish to end in me losing my patience and saying things I will regret.

So, budd, I donyt CARE about your "beat". What I care is about LAW and TRUTH. And I spoke both in this thread, which was taken out of context, and derailed. People put words in my mouth i never even said. A moderator watched as this unfolded, and DID NOTHING.

Ever heard of, don't feed the trolls? I politely ask you to BACK OFF! I told you in past threads and I will tell all you trolls again. Back off from me. I STING when cornered. That is all.

/thread closed since it was sabotaged by trolls



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

How ironic! You demand that you be free to do whatever you want, yet you insist on telling others what to do. You do not want to be free... you want to be God.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer


Again, Constitution is the topic.


You keep using the word "constitution," but you have never, not once, actually quoted it in this thread. Instead, you have erroneously claimed that the UCC is law, and that the Constitution is based on "natural law," which is somehow derived from 33rd degree Freemasonry. The Founders were very proud of the fact that the Constitution is based on reason, not mysticism.
edit on 20-12-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Some say the Uniform Commercial Codes only have to do with business and private contract...
Some claim special privilege because they are entities which are not flesh and blood people, but enjoy the same rights...
Some claim they KNOW that people have not, or can not be considered corporate persons, or whatever...
Some claim to have an understanding of these and many issues regarding corporations and law...

I would suggest doing your own research. Here are a few clues regarding which direction to look...

-John Chandler Bancroft Davis...

-Find out how the definition of persons changed (or didn't change) in the fourteenth amendment regarding the case of Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific railroad 118 (US) 394, according to the Southern pacific railroad (corporation), and was firmly struck down by the court to somehow re-emerge later as a decision in favor of corporate personhood by the supreme court, when in actuality it was not...

-Citizens United vs Federal Election commission...

If the definition of corporate persons somehow changed in the fourteenth amendment, does it not stand to reason that the definition of natural born flesh and blood people may have been somehow changed too?.

movetoamend.org

It's terrifying to consider what else would be amended if the scoundrels running this circus actually had the door opened for them to make changes, of course acting in their own self interest they would probably strike down several amendments, or write in the changes to justify the way things are now.

Seems to be the pattern, to legislate what was unlawful or illegal yesterday to make it legal or lawful today.

A good portion of the reasons for the revolutionary war, you know that one we had with britain a long time ago?, were to escape the influence of the corporations of the time, which were called companies then, and to get out from under the control of the british banking methodology.

Our banks are based on the british model (federal reserve), and corporations are running roughshod over everyone's rights without being responsible, because they ain't people you see?.

Ummmmm, maybe that thing called "precedence" should be looked at more closely too....

Nevermind.




edit on 20-12-2015 by MyHappyDogShiner because: ditditder

edit on 20-12-2015 by MyHappyDogShiner because: missed a p cuz I had ta p.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
OP, I have read the whole thread and can only offer some general guidance in hopes of averting a collapse of this threads origional intent. First and foremost, trash anything and everything that deals with pseudo leagal[ese]... Ideas like the 16th amendment was never fully ratified, strawmen, UCC filings, et al.

Devote time to read Hooven Allison v. Evatt (1945) and then to fully grasp the 3 'senses' of the 'United States'.

Read 1 USC 204 to see what of the 52 titles of USC are 'positive' v. 'prima facie' law. Then find and read the definitions of 'United States' and 'State' in each of the titles. Pay close attention to terminology... I.e. 'the term ---- means' v. 'the term ---- includes' v. 'the word means....', etc.

Then use a legal dictionary to see what 'definition', 'term', 'word', 'include' actually mean.

Understand how a 'bill' is turned into 'law'. The importance of implimenting regulations, publication in the federal register, and effects of a failure to publish.

Legal weight of source is imperative... I err on the side of nothing less than the constitution, scotus cites/cases, Statutes at large, and origional intent.

Helpful items for further understanding:
Understand what a 'territory', 'possession', 'protectorate', and 'instrumentality' is.
Alien v. Resident alien v. Nonresident alien. V. Nonresident alien individual
Foreign soverign immunities act
Public salary tax act
Civil Status... I.e. U.S. Citizen v. U.S. Person v. National v. National of the United States etc.
Vagueness doctrine
Reasonable belief
History of the Bill of right incorporation by the 50 states
Two types of constitutional taxation
Voluntary nature of social franchises
Seperation of powers doctrine
Explore the idea of how goverment franchises erode the seperation of powers
Legal presumption
Freedom from compelled association

...and much more.


ETA: If one has not done so; Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, and Basiat's The Law are must reads.
edit on 20-12-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: ETA



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Do you have a voice chat? Perhaps I can explain things better there. because its a very very long topic on its own, and really my fingers hurt from typing all day. (forcing myself to do so, and I was supposed to write a few articles).

I did not quote the constitution under the assumption, that everyone knows it already.

What do you mean exactly by wanting to be God? What brought on this assumption? No, that is far from the truth. What you are referring to most likely is new age philosophy.

Im gonna halt this thread now, because I think there has been alot of misunderstandings, perhaps this was my fault by poor choice of words.

I blindly agreed with a poster, under the assumption that the poster knew what he or she was talking about. But i did not read the actual post that poster did mostly out of laziness. And this was my fault aswell and take responsibility for this.

That is why I offer a clean slate to clarify, because I think we both have the wrong idea on one another. But I assure you, I meant the U.S constitution, the bill of rights, the first, second and third , forth amendments that which gives us our freedoms.

And yes, I am proud of the founding fathers, and yes reason. We are basically on the same story, using different characters. I hope I managed to clarify a bit on where I stand. To be honest for a moment I thought you were criticizing the constitution which is why i became defensive. But now I see you are actually defending it like I am.

We can take different approaches on a subject, sometimes trying something new to approach it may help those who wants to ban our rights see that it is not the right way.

I tried to address alot of problems with a single post instead of addressing them one by one. This was my error, and I apologize. I should have specified a bit more clearly, but I take responsibility on shooting myself in the foot.

Glad to meet another defender of the Constitution.

With regards to reason and mysticism, what I wanted you to understand, was, when studying natural law, you will realize, that natural law, and the constitution does not differ from one another. That is why i said they are one in the same, they don't conflict with each other. It is like... (forgive the allegory) the glove that fits the hand so to speak.

What I tried to do was simplify it them all into a single Golden Rule.

It was originally from the golden rule that the ten commandments came from.

Thou shall not kill
thou shall not steal
thou shall not tress pass
thou shall not lie

etc...

In essence, this set of laws was meant to protect from one another and to keep the peace. Why did I try to simplify this? because the more laws men make the greater the confusion and the greater the chaos.


I wish to state my full original intention with this thread. That intention, was to avoid people from falling into chaos. That was the soul reason and purpose of the post. This is why, it is important to guard and defend the U.S constitution.


From the freeman video that I saw earlier in this thread, it seems the opposite of what I have in mind. I am FOR law and ORDER. However, of the middle kind, not tyrannical, nor totalitarian.

Im only saying, that the Constitution is enough and it is fine the way it is. The founding fathers knew natural law, and it was natural law they were inspired from.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions

Edit: No need for that voice chat now, I hope that i clarified.
edit on th2015000000Sundayth000000Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:26 -0600fAmerica/ChicagoSun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:26 -0600 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
Hello everyone, I am a lawful citizen of the United States. What I am not, is a commercial corporation, which 90% of humanity at this moment currently is. This is what sets me aside from you, and why I am above you. I obey the law, of the United States. I do NOT obey the law of the United States of America.


Sorry but to take you serious, you need to stop coming across as a self centered a**hole. Seriously.

What your are talking about rings along truth of America being a corporation and is given liberty to think and do by the statue is resides by. Its determined law is that by the owner of the seas touching its borders, which is run by UK. Did you know. American is a corporation of the United Kingdom, however separate you may think they are. The very monetary system was designed by the Royals of England. So yes, America is a continuation of never ending attempt to push its still controlling plans in running the world. It never did give up its power. With this, America and its people are a product of what they wish to see flourish just like those that live in the UK.

Just wow, never seen someone so self centered as you in putting across a point.

edit on 21-12-2015 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
As an aside to the conversation which is this thread, the laws of nature fall nicely in line with what people refer to as "Anarchy".

"Anarchy" is a system I suppose, that is based on how things just end up by changes in the natural environment when operating by the laws of nature.

"Anarchy" is commonly what a situation is referred to as when those who control a situation for their own benefit no longer have control of that situation and fail to enjoy the "entitlements" of the control they have.

"Anarchy" is natural law, and the environment deems what actions must be taken by the denizens of the biosphere.

Many people of this day and age cannot survive anarchy because they simply no longer understand what must be done by themselves to survive changes in the biosphere.

We as a species have become lazy, but in the past, the strong and more mature of us with enough experience instructed the younger and stronger on how to take care of the older and infirm and the very young to help them live out the last of their years and survive to adulthood to participate in the random anarchy controlled by natural law which is the reality of life.

Mankind's endless quest for control of the environment and other men for his own benefit is what is wrong with almost every aspect of this world and society.

I look to the woodlands and wild places, and for the life of me I don't see excessively polluted areas from animal use or wars being fought over resources like people have.

We did this. There can be no "Common Law" without "Common Sense".

Mankind is the stupidest member of the animal kingdom.

Aside, aside...What is it with the people in that movie "The Road", where people have no thumbs. What is the symbolism of this?. I don't know why I even watched it because the kid in it was suck a wimp, he should have just been allowed to die as he would have simply gotten himself and his father killed in reality, in a world like was depicted in the movie...

Adults who can think aside from and beyond the emotions which do so much more harm than good at times have the sense to realize that in some situations the young are expendable and they can produce more if they are lost. When one of the breeding pair dies it is the end.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackProject

Even at the height of the British Empire, Britain did not legally and literally own the seas. Even then, the littoral waters belonged to the nation they bordered, and the open seas belonged to no-one. Good grief.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BlackProject

Even at the height of the British Empire, Britain did not legally and literally own the seas. Even then, the littoral waters belonged to the nation they bordered, and the open seas belonged to no-one. Good grief.





In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.


The Seas

and, next.....



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
The Seas


Any facts to back up those silly claims? This is from a website that claims "The Billy Meier UFO Case is Real"
edit on 21-12-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: BlackProject
The Seas


Any facts to back up those silly claims? This is from a website that claims "The Billy Meier UFO Case is Real"


ah I could not care less what the website is, I did research in the past on this. I know this is the deal, I cannot spend my time riffling through websites just to show the fella above me where he is wrong. Why would I.

Take it or leave it, I couldn't care less.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
ah I could not care less what the website is,


So you just post crap as you agree with it! No facts needed at all.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BlackProject

Even at the height of the British Empire, Britain did not legally and literally own the seas. Even then, the littoral waters belonged to the nation they bordered, and the open seas belonged to no-one. Good grief.




In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.


The Seas

and, next.....





posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Obviously that web site is correct about the Rothchilds, the Vatican and the Crown but it has completely failed to mention Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes and his secret recipe that makes you crave it fortnightly, For that reason alone I can't accept all its claims......
edit on 22-12-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




and that's what "Freemen" types mean by "freedom." They want to have all the benefits of society without having to pay for them. Rather than work hard or produce something of value to others, they want a quick dodge; a cheat.


And yet you conveniently overlook what fiat banking excels in..creating money out of thin air, why is that....are they more noble or sane than thee freemen?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


And yet you conveniently overlook what fiat banking excels in..creating money out of thin air, why is that....are they more noble or sane than thee freemen?


No, but society benefits from using currency for transactions rather than bartering. This enables people to perform work that produces intangible benefits to society without having to farm or mine to obtain a medium of exchange.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join