Why More U.S. Expatriates Are Turning In Their Passports

Originally posted by Dock9
S & F

Highly relevant thread

Look forward to reading Americans' opinions

Always difficult, surrendering citizenship of one's country of birth

But, as you've said, living outside US borders provides ex-pats with a different perspective as regards what defines themselves and America

this honestly doesn't surprise me...

I'm an American, and I've known for years, that despite the fact the we live in 'the greatest country in the world' we are far from the greatest people...

Americans are ignorant for the most part, they would rather watch their NASCAR or NFL than actually pay attention to American policies/laws.

If it wasn't for the fact that they won't give me a passport for another few years, I would be GONE>>>

Originally posted by Morningglory
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but what this amounts to is a loss of much needed tax revenue.

Hahahahahahahaha! Really? Much needed tax revenue huh?

Yeah, the private owners of the Federal Reserve Bank sure will be in some trouble with the loss in tax revenue!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I have expat friends living in Canada, Germany and Scotland. We have discussed this issue on Facebook. One of the problems they also raised is the perception that America is a much meaner and less friendly country than it used to be with too many aggressive and even crooked cops and to them a scary rise of ignorance. The Texas school book thing sent them into a tizzy. The guy in Germany say Germans talk about America now looking a lot like pre-World War II Germany, except coming from the Christian right wing.

reply to post by Josephus23

Man you seriously need to do some research on the way our judicial system works (checks and balances), but I do commend you on your debating skills.

How the heck did you get onto the judicial system? You need to do some research into rational thought processes.

You claimed that the Constitution (or part thereof) is some how un-Constitutional. This claim is so silly that it attracted my attention. Apparently you planted it there as a lure to attract attention for a completely tangential discussion.

You then claimed that Congress can ratify a Constitutional Amendment. You are seriously suggesting that I research the judicial system because you don't know how the Constitutional Amendment process works? Look, one of your arguments is that you aren't a 'Citizen of the United States', but of 'One of the Individual States' right? Well, guess what? It is the (sufficient number of) individual states that ratify Amendments to the Constitution. Not Congress. The States. AND THAT IS YOU (whether you are a citizen of one State, the United States, or both at the same time).

By the way, I know how the judicial system works. And your hint of checks and balances doesn't have anything to do with how the judiciary works, it has to do with how the three branches of Government interface. Before you try arguing about the Constitution it would behoove you to learn a little bit about the Constitution.

You very artfully ignore certain parts of an argument while addressing other parts.

I'm not ignoring anything. You are. I challenged your assertion that an amendment to the Constitution could somehow be un-Constitutional. That is the only thing to which I was referring and it is exactly what you are ignoring, I guess because you wanted to lure somebody into engaging with you by saying something so outrageous that someone would talk to you. OK, you got me. Now please justify your statement or admit your foolishness.

What part of "The Constitution is the Constitution" don't you understand? The authors of the Constitution included the provision of modifying the Constitution because they it would need modification in the future. All amendments have been properly ratified according to that procedure, including the 16th.

All amendments are part of the Constitution and are therefore Constitutional. You cannot choose which part of the Constitution you like and declare the rest of it un-Constitutional. It is ALL part of the Constitution.

According to Baron v. Baltimore, we never had access to the first ten anyway, because they were the basis for every state's constitution.
There was no need to enforce federal rights that we were already privy to by the fact that we are state citizens.

Ah! But there was!

You have obviously misread Baron v. Baltimore. It held that the 10 amendments did not apply to the States, only the Feds. And they were not 'the basis for every state's constitution' else Baltimore would have had to pay Mr. Baron the $4500 under the State constitutional provision.

Now the former confederate states were doing everything in their power to deny extending those very rights to the former slaves, because Baron v. Baltimore showed that they could. This result was clearly not what the People expected after having gone through a devastating four year war, so they did something about it: they ratified the 14th amendment.

And states rights should always trump federal.
Or at least that is what the 10th tells me.

Well you aren't listening to the amendment then. It does say anything about anything trumping anything else. It says that what the constitution doesn't assign to the Feds, is the State responsibility. Amendments are part of the Constitution. If an amendment grants more power or responsibility to the Feds, it is because the States approved it, and since it is part of the Constitution the 10th amendment doesn't apply to that particular provision.

The bottom line to this argument is that the 14th amendment essentially contracted the enforcement of our rights to the federal government.

This is something that was never meant to happen.

We were talking about the 16th Amendment, I thought, but anyway...

Even if the first sentence is true (which I DO NOT concede) who are you to decide that a Constitutionally ratified amendment 'was never meant to happen' 100 years after the States ratified. What do you suppose they think they were doing when they ratified it in error?

The Fourteenth amendment ensured the former slaves were actually recognized as citizens, ensured that the States would be punished by a lowering of their representation if they chose to discriminate against some portion of their population when voting (again aimed at ensuring the freed slaves rights), prevented the participants in an insurrection against the nation, who had previously given an oath to support the Constitution, from holding political office (i.e. Confederates who violated their earlier oaths), to ensure that legitimate war debts (specifically the 'Union' debts, but of course future such debt as well) would be paid by the people but not the debts incurred by those who rise in insurrection (the 'Confederates'), that there will be no compensation to former slave owners for their lost slaves, and that Congress would be able to enforce the amendment by law.

I would say that everything in that amendment is straightforward and there is nothing there that is nefarious in any way, except to throwbacks wanting to be compensated for their ancestors loss of slaves.

Everything past the 14th Amendment could be considered unconstitutional because the 14th is an adhesion contract that makes everyone a subject of the Federal Government.

It is a contract that we were never a party to negotiating.
THUS AN ADHESION CONTRACT, WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT.

Totally false on all points.

First, Amendments are sequential in time order of their ratification and that time sequence has no impact on any other amendment. Certainly a subsequent amendment can further amend the same area of the Constitution or an earlier amendment. But the existence of one amendment does not alter the validity of amendments that come after it. The exception of course would be if an amendment was ratified that removed the amendment provision itself, in which case there would be not further amendments anyway.

Second, We were all party to its negotiation. Our elected representatives in Congress proposed it to the States, and a sufficient number of States ratified it. No matter your definition of Citizen (to one state, or to the United States), you (or your predecessors, in fact) were involved in the negotiation, and agreed.

Third, an Adhesion Contract is a COMMERCIAL CONTRACT. The Constitution is a SOCIAL CONTRACT. Do not confuse the two, they are not equivalent.

Fourth, an Adhesion Contracts are not illegal, per se. They may be invalidated if they are unconscionable however. Many Adhesion Contracts are invalid, no doubt, but many are not. Insurance policies are basically adhesion contracts, are not illegal, but may contain unconscionable provisions, you should read them carefully. Tickets to a movie or a play or a parking space are adhesion contracts and they are not illegal. The list goes on and on and on.

I repeat: the Constitution is a Social Contract. An Adhesion Contract is a form of Commercial Contract and the concept is not applicable in any way to the Constitution.

Before you suggest that I learn about the U.S. Judicial system, not matter how far the suggestion is from the discussion at hand, you would do well to properly research the tripe you are copying from the charletons that you are reading.

And for goodness sake, please stop confusing commercial law with constitutional law.

[edit on 22/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Retrovertigo


You are completely right, I admit I wrongly placed australia with most other western countries.

And that was due to the worlds best practice prudential regulation applied to financial institutions in Australia...Australian banks are amongst the most secure and profitable in the world...

And funny how this socialist little country completely avoided recession due to said regulations and government stimulus applied cos the private sector packed it in and wouldn't spend...

I don't find it funny at all. What I find funny are many of these tea party and conservative folk fleeing the United states on the basis of what they see as a socialist take over... so they move to countries that have established universal healthcare and higher taxes. That is funny indeed.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Well,what an interesting post,filled wit humor and misconceptions and a little bit of permissive ignorance.

The U.S. is the only nation that charges Citizens living abroad income tax on the money that they earn abroad, even while they are still having to pay Income Tax to the nations that they are working and living in.

U.S. citizens living abroad do not pay taxes after their 1st year abroad.

I KNOW that for a fact.

I never did after the first year, and there are no IRS agents battering my door down.

I never thought I would see Eastern European countries and even Russia as bastions of freedom and a haven for Christians however it seems to be heading in that direction.

Apparently you have never lived in those countries.Russia a bastion of freedom? Only if you consider gangster rule a democratic process.

The question is now how do we become once again that shining beacon welcoming all to her warm embrace, how do we become the America we all know and love that others want to be a part of.

We still are.There are millions of people jeopardizing their lives to come here.

I don't see millions attempting to go to some of those countries people have left the states to go to.

Invariably most of them wanted to do the same thing, to save and move back to their country of origin to use that money to open a business of their own, to establish them for the rest of their lives.

I doubt that.To save money and move BACK to the repressed country they left?

Many people, who are born here, really don’t want to fully do for themselves, they want big government and big guarantees, they want to be codependent on government, they want to be dependent on government, and they want us all to pay our ‘fair’ share of that!

I call B.S. on that statement.

That is what the liberals want people to believe as justification for the illegal population situation we have.
Liberal/progressives created all those "social" programs that hand out free money to people for not working.

-911, which we've concluded was indeed an inside job and with this conclusion have asked ourselves how we can feel safe in a country that does this to its own people!

Who exactly has concluded this was a "inside job"?

Except for the fact that Time Magazine of Time/Warner/CNN and American on Line wrote the article.

Yes they are really an "unbiased" news organization now aren't they.

I mean unless you were talking about Turkey (the only other country besides the US without single payer/universal health care) or the anarchists paradise Somalia, moving to any country because you find the US to restrictive is utter hypocrisy. So if you choose to live in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Canada because you feel this government is infringing upon your freedoms, you gotta get your facts straight!

Ironic isn't it.At least they'll "think" they're freer.

To all of you who are leaving, I say good luck to you. Good luck finding a place where there are no taxes and where there is no government.

Just as long as they know the natives there, will look at them the same way we look at immigrants that come here.

They probably will think that Americans living there must be criminals hiding from justice.

And they WILL be watched by the local police force(but they won't notice it).

A truly free society doesn't need to be told it is free.

This is a quote from Jacque Fresco founder of the Venus Project. A socialist.

you say that Switzerland is a third world country?you ignorant American,its not bloody Sudan!

Stooped to name calling,I see.

DENY IGNORANCE.

By Chairman Mao's definition Switzerland IS a third world country.

1st world, democratic countries allied with U.S. or Nato.

2nd world communist countries or allies with.

3rd world, no allies with either factions.

Switzerland is neutral and therefore it IS by his loose definition a 3rd world country!

Fascism is the marriage of corporations and the government.

From Merriam/Webster dictionary on line.

Fascism,a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

America being multicultural could never be truly Fascist.

Sounds like Switzerland could be,to me.

Actually the ship is beyond saving now so you can be romantic and melodramatic about it if you like but common sense dictates you get your ass on that life boat.

Well,can't expect a pessimist to ever have hope.

The world's nations thought the U.S. was toast during the Civil War.

Proved them wrong now didn't we.

The hope of this country is the same it has always been.

The youth of the country.

reply to post by argentus


You will ALWAYS be an American.

Someday they may come for you and tell you,you have to go home.

You will tell them this is my home.

They will tell you,no,you are an American,this is not your home,America is.

They will always think of you as an American living in THEIR country!

Since I was the one who asked the question, the question in fact was and is, are we going to see an increasing trend of reverse immigration and immigration out of the United States in the future.

Honestly hope so for sure.

Me I would be happy if people looking to use the race card in this way, would actually have the respect to put in the effort to say the man's name...Martin Luther King!

I agree,every registered Republican(which he was) should have his full name spelled out.

They were ancient in origin, pioneered by the Greeks, and then the Romans of the Roman Republic, that eventually gave way to the Tyranny of the Roman Empire, and the Monarchs from Europe.

I wouldn''t use them as examples.They all saw NO problem with having slaves.

One is not entitled to SSI from earning income here.

You have to work here.

Deny Ignorance,or at least try to.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Oneolddude]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler



The U.S. is the only nation that charges Citizens living abroad income tax on the money that they earn abroad, even while they are still having to pay Income Tax to the nations that they are working and living in.



www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

thats a bit of sloppy information right there. Fact of the matter is that Australia does too, provided that you are a resident of australia for taxation purposes.

Originally posted by daptodave

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler



The U.S. is the only nation that charges Citizens living abroad income tax on the money that they earn abroad, even while they are still having to pay Income Tax to the nations that they are working and living in.



www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

thats a bit of sloppy information right there. Fact of the matter is that Australia does too, provided that you are a resident of australia for taxation purposes.

But don't they get the first 96k tax free if they spend 330 plus days of the year overseas?

Excellent thread.

reply to post by Xtrozero


You have a choice. You can access the domestic tax rates by declaring yourself a "resident for tax purposes" (and by meeting 3 fundamental tests) or you can declare yourself a non resident where you do not have access to the lower rates.

Op 1. You pay an average of 20% tax on 75kpa
Op 2. You pay 33-48% on 75k+

Even australians living overseas are required to lodge returns. Not so different from the US.

I'll open with a quote: “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” - George Bernard Shaw

I was born in America and have thus far enjoyed my 50+ years living here in this "experiment in democracy." (Sorry to all the constititionalists who will correct me that it is a Republic) America is still in it's infancy compared to other countries and political systems. I see growing pains for some time to come. Utopia, never.

However, as I grow older, I sometimes yearn to explore other cultures of which I am a part. ( Namely German, English and Scottish) And spend my final Golden years there.

I love what America stands for but sadly not what she has become as of late. (on several fronts) Mainly I see a growing majority of Ethnocentrists bashing the citizens of the rest of our planet just because they are not American. There are NUMEROUS other countries rich in culture, diversity and Freedom. (Denmark, Canada, Spain and Sweden to name a few)

BTW, family history yields I was actually conceived in another country while my parents were abroad on vacation. Lastly, ironic that OP quotes / defends MSM source. A chink in the armor?

S&F nonetheless.



[edit on 23-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Oneolddude

Fascism is the marriage of corporations and the government.

Oneoldude--From Merriam/Webster dictionary on line.


Fascism,a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini-

I think I'd trust the opinion of somebody who practiced it on a day to day basis over your little book worms at Merriam.

-911, which we've concluded was indeed an inside job and with this conclusion have asked ourselves how we can feel safe in a country that does this to its own people!

Oneolddude
Who exactly has concluded this was a "inside job"?

My family has. Did you actually have the foolish notion to believe that I was speaking for you or anyone else on this board? Please reread the context in which it was posted on this thread and that might just alleviate your confusion.









[edit on 23-4-2010 by warequalsmurder]

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I have expat friends living in Canada, Germany and Scotland. We have discussed this issue on Facebook. One of the problems they also raised is the perception that America is a much meaner and less friendly country than it used to be with too many aggressive and even crooked cops and to them a scary rise of ignorance. The Texas school book thing sent them into a tizzy. The guy in Germany say Germans talk about America now looking a lot like pre-World War II Germany, except coming from the Christian right wing.

It may look like pre-war Germany but its not coming from the 'right wing'. Just as it was not in Germany. RIght wants limited gov., left wants more ...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by WWJFKD

 

The question is now how do we become once again that shining beacon welcoming all to her warm embrace, how do we become the America we all know and love that others want to be a part of.

The American dream was about making something of yourself, not having the government make something of you, and that something being exactly like everyone else was.

The new America really is becoming about that, as all being equal, equally poor, equally afraid, equally dependent, equally compliant, equally submissive, and equally silent and grateful.

We need to get back to basics, to get back to our entrepreneurial spirit and backbone, to realize that our corporations have become tyrannical fiefdoms within the government, and to stop supporting them, to stop buying their cheap foreign made products, to stop working for their substandard wages, and to stop giving up 50% of that in taxes, fees and insurances, to multiple overlapping layers of overly intrusive government.
...
Government is standing in the way of it, and the backbone of that support comes from those who want to be dependent upon government for everything in everyway, and to make us dependent on it too.

There is a way out. There is a way to be the independent individual our founders intended and to NOT support the corrupt, tyrannical, corporatist/fascist/communist government most of us despise.

We all see & feel the changes. We all know what's happening. We all know we are not living in the nation we are being lead to believe exists. The republican form of government most think is lost still exists. You just have to know how to live by it.

Read The Red Amendment

"There is tranquility in ignorance, but servitude is its partner." ~ LB Bork

reply to post by rnaa


This is fun...

Notice that I do not quote you.

Because what I am saying is the truth and all I need to do is speak the truth.
I am not trying to prove you wrong, but what I am trying to do is show the people of the US of A what has happened to their country.

I do enjoy the debate, because you have challenged me.

First and foremost. I can understand why you would focus so much attention on certain wordings of my sentences concerning amending the Constitution.

I was somewhat vague and I did not give the process of amending the Constitution a fair and reasonable definition.
I would guess that you have some law chops or have been schooled well in debate.
Congrats.

Now, to address the argument....

Barron Versus Baltimore

I put the link because I will be quoting it.

Let's look at the important quotes from the decision listed on Wikipedia.

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.

Okay...
So this decision was made prior to the 14th Amendment. So when the decision was made, it was referring to the Bill of Rights as a value system that the people of this country have chosen to adopt relating to their FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and it did not in any way relate to the laws of the individual states.
This is very important to consider because the Federal Government at that time was not what it is today.
The Federal Government was very LIMITED in its power over the people.

My wording relating to the decision in this case was misleading, and I commend you on pointing out the flaws, because it allows me to strengthen my message, which is that the US Constitution was only meant to limit the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and not the individual states.

That was my intent on referencing the Federalist Papers.
Especially #10.(I will get to that in another post)

You must remember that the people of this country were deathly afraid of a central government, because that was the reason for fighting the War of Independence.

We wanted to be independent from a central government.....

IN ENGLAND.

Shall we look at more quotes?
Let's...

The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.

Another sterling quote from a sterling decision, Limey.

Once again this is stating that the state governments and the FEDERAL government are distinctly different. One does not have power over the other and the laws that apply to the states were created by the states and not the FEDERAL government.

Another quote...

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention.

Once again this is stating that the limitations pertaining to government that were written into the US Constitution were only applicable to the FEDERAL government and not the states.

And it reinforces the fact that the US Constitution was written to LIMIT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

My statement concerning the Bill of Rights being the basis for state governments was intimated by this statement above...

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention.

I can see why you would attack that flaw in my argument.
Thank you for helping me clear that up with the readers.

And the last quote...

These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for non public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the countries.

Once again we see that the Supreme Court is stating that the FEDERAL government was designed to be EXTREMELY LIMITED in its powers of LEGISLATION over any other....

Wait a minute. What word did they use?

Countries.

Yep... Countries.

Want to know why?

Because as I said previously....
We are a collection of individual republics, each with its own Capital.
We were not designed to be one country with a Capital.
DC was not established until 1871.

I will let everyone digest this for a second.

Cheers.

reply to post by Josephus23


A truly outstanding post Josephus! The truth is the truth is out there in Black and White for the people who want to take the time to read it.

So many of these peer pressure arguments are people saying, listen to me and my ego, don't read, I know what I am talking about!

The truth is, most people don't know what they are talking about, because they don't read. They don't read the documents that matter. The Treaties, The Incorporation Papers, and the Court Decisions.

Countries are all incorporated entities. Before there was such a thing as Countries and Nations, the world was primarily LANDS, unincorporated, unowned uncontrolled.

Once Lands become a State, a Nation, or Country, a Rupublic, they have been incorporated.

Someone owns them, and it's not the people who reside in them.

If someone did not own them, they would be lands.

So who owns them? Rome, all roads lead to Rome!

This video is SOOOOO appropriate to this thread.



I will say that I am not a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he did represent the last surge toward what was the intent of out founding fathers.

Even if he had dementia.

[edit on 4/23/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Precisely right on the money PT.

The only reason that we incorporated as states, and as a resulting federal government, was to have the power to resist factions who feel it is their duty to rule and place limits on individual freedoms in order to preserve the values of the faction.

The people wanted to avoid the possible future tyranny of a direct democracy, or mob rule, which I have actually seen suggested as a replacement for our government.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I know that this is a bit tangential and should be in another of your threads, but I must ask you....

What do you think about all the attention that the Pope has been getting lately concerning pedophilia cover-ups?

Do you think that this is by design, or could it possibly be light shining through the cracks in the flaws?

If you think that it is by design, then what reason would you attribute to the design?

Agreed on all roads lead to Rome. The more I look into the entire design. The more we live in the modern day Roman Empire.

Complete with gladiators (MMA fighting) and early application of sex to children (Pope, pedophilia, etc...)

Here is a great movie with some great dirt on TPTB and their disgusting mistreatment of children.

Google Video Link

reply to post by Josephus23


The Original Roman Empire, never went out of business, it simply started doing business through the front of a Religious Corporation. The Vatican is the single richest entity and largest property owner on earth.

You have Vatican City (the Father Rome), London (the Son) and Washington D.C. (the Holy Ghost) that are all City/States immune from the Laws of the lands they are surrounded by and govern.

The Vatican which invented and promoted Christianity administers to the temporal and religious and spiritual domination of the world. Christianity is the Dominant philosophy in the world. London, the headquarters of the International Banking Cartel dominates the world through fractional reserve banking and fiat de facto currency, enslaving people to debt, and leveraging that for dominance and control. Washington D.C. is the military arm of the Empire, able to project the most effective gunboat diplomacy anywhere, on anyone.

The Vatican actually owns the Nations, through Treaty and Contracts, it is also the source of the physical wealth for the Banking Industry, and the United States is simply incorporated under D.C., which is incorporated under London, which is incorporated under the Vatican and Rome.

It’s not about religion, it’s about using religion as a front, and a plan to utilize divide and conquer warfare which is all about simple math. Turning one nation, and one religion upon one another, at various times, to force consolidations, exterminations and migrations until you have a homogenous society, that you can openly rule with one government, one currency, and one religion, by in essence exploiting and tricking the people to do it to themselves, by taking advantage of their natural divisions of nation, ethnicity, and religion.

The Bible is a plan for installing a one world government that is based on exploiting these divisions, and planting the seed through prophecy, that as these things happen, because of political manipulation, and emerging technology, that it is God and not actually Rome that is doing it.

Rome though is not the Vatican or the Pope; they are merely a front for the Roman Patricians, Council of Eight and the Emperor himself.

Prophecy calls for the people turning on Israel and Rome in the end times as a run up to the apocalyptical battles that will usher in the one world government, by eliminating a significant portion of the population, over religion and nations, with the survivors then shunning these things, and wanting one world rule, one world religion so they can’t happen ever again.

The events surrounding the Pope are real, but they were deliberately done, to have people turn on the Vatican, just as the Zionists use policies and actions, to get people to deliberately turn on Israel.

If they can mimic events to mirror prophecy, those indoctrinated to religion, will accept them as the work of God and not rebel against them.

That’s the beauty of the plan.

It’s all staged, just to get people to fight each other, like you see people fighting each other on this thread.

All based on simple math, and people’s emotional and superstitious nature.


[edit on 23/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]