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.

 

Proponents of Gold Standard May Be Violent Extremists; Report ALL Suspicious Activity To the FBI

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Wow... then I'm a violent extremist because I have always seen the absurity of abolishing the gold standard, or at least some standard for the US currency.

Lets see, duhhhh.... do I want a stack of paper, or a bar of the most valuable metal in the history of mankind??? Duh.... gee ... what should I do???

The change from the gold standard was an assanine move which led directly to empowering the welathy elitist few with the ability to greedily destroy the US financial system and indebt it into bankruptcy for most commoners.

Citizens must carry the banner of power entrusted to them by the US Constituion and need not wield but the vote to remove the 'best politicans money can buy' who are currently feeding like rats off the corrupted system of government which is Washington.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I feel for you Americans. Actually I fear for you. I fear for us all. I see the United States becoming the most dangerous nation on the planet. Inside and out.

This is only the beginning of the "Police State" you'll find yourselves living in. You guys really need to do something about this, soon. Before it's too late!

A great storm approaches.

edit on 8-2-2012 by Darkmask because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by Darkmask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkmask
 


It can't rain all the time


The entire world is in need of a revolution



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
And of course, the powers that be LOOOVE reading ATS as much as I do, folks. Better NOT mention that there is no other recourse than . . . (Which I have seen on here.) The next step they plan is a domestic terror attack committed by some gold-standard (wink wink) wing-nut so they can start rounding up all of us. Tread carefully. Don't fear, but don't do something stupid either.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed
Liberal progressivism to a socialist police state.

Count me in as an enemy of the nation coming into being, and loyal to the proud and free nation of the past.

Change sucks.


And I. Reminds me of:
"It is not strange to mistake change for progress."
- MIllard Fillmore, the 13th President and last Whig to hold office.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
According to federal tax regulations, section 601.602 income tax is 100% voluntary compliance. I am sure that will look good in supreme court, with the IRS trying to collect their mafia money.
edit on 8-2-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


Yeah.... but how many times have you pulled a dollar from your wallet and not been able to spend it because it "passed quietly in the night."



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

"We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement," he said.


The irony is, that they are getting law enforcement involved, when there is no crime, and there never can be a crime associated with this. They are going to need to extend the definition of crime, to literally include life itself. You can't enforce feasibly things like the prevention of people wanting to use other things as legal currency; all you can do is start randomly killing a (very small, ultimately) percentage of the people who try.


Nothing like really scared cops listening to some one sound even remotely close to this boogeyman they call the "sovereign citizens" - which is itself an oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one - and being heavily armed escalating the very violence the FBI warned them about.


Um, no. Constitutionalists will likely become violent, yes. Real sovereigns, on the other hand (which are something very different) won't. The sovereignty movement recognises that even the Constitution itself is a scam. The War of Independence was funded by the same source on both sides. The cabal founded America themselves. Watch Ben Stewart's movie, Ungrip; it's a case study of someone who followed sovereign thinking to the ultimate logical extreme.

A Constitutionalist is someone who derives whatever individual sovereignty they may have, from that document. A genuinely sovereign individual, on the other hand, is someone whose sovereignty is derived from the fact that Nature itself, and individual natural organisms, must be sovereign (that is, have the ability to adhere to the dictates of their life processes without restriction) if life is to continue to exist at all.

That is what the New World Order fundamentally is. It is quite literally a war against all carbon based life.

There is no Constitution of any country, anywhere, that does not reduce back down to a multiparty contract, which is hence not legally binding on anybody who was not a direct party to it. Nobody currently living was a signatory to the American Constitution; other than, perhaps, those who have taken an oath (verbal contract) to either defend or otherwise adhere to it.


Law enforcement personnel now will find more reason to break the law in the name of protecting a nation based upon the rule of law.


The reality is, that there is no such thing as the law that they enforce. The only thing any cop enforces is a bunch of statutes. Said statutes are considered binding upon the proxy corporation that you are given as a result of your birth certificate; and it is that proxy corporation that is the citizen of a country, (which actually means that it is a subsidiary of a corporation, which in turn is all national governments are) NOT you as a biological human being.

The other thing to be aware of, is that even the legal basis of the agreement between your proxy and the national corporation is shaky. I haven't consciously or voluntarily agreed to be bound by virtually any law that the Australian government has passed; that I am bound by said laws is nothing other than a purely de facto assumption, which is not backed up by anything other than the government's ability to either shoot me or put me in jail if I refuse. In other words, in legal terms, that is actually illegitimate; because no contract is considered binding unless the individual enters into it willingly.

Government authority, then, is derived from two sources:-

a] Fraud; defined as their ability to convince you that they have a legitimate justification for governing you, such as either maintaining peace or order, or by protecting you from whatever fictional bogeymen they invent to use as rationale. This can be considered the carrot, or soft approach, and it is therefore the one that they prefer to use, as it is safer for them.

b] Force. This translates directly into physical violence. "Do as we say, or we'll put you in jail. Do as we say, or we'll shoot you. Do as we say, or we'll pull you out of your car, taze you, unlawfully arrest you, and then bash and/or torture you while in custody." This is the measure that is increasingly being used, because the fraud tactic is gradually becoming increasingly less effective.

It is vitally important to understand here, that governments have no legitimate legal or moral justification for the employment of violence; and this is true no matter what they say. One of the main purposes of common law was to prevent or deter violence. The employment of violence in order to deter it, is an inherently irrational, and psychopathic argument.

The only power government has over you, is a direct derivative of the fear of death.


edit on 8-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Let them come. what are they going to do? Kill me? I don't care what they do, they won't change my views, if anything they are strengthening those views.

Nobody should care who they are or what they'll do and stand firm in what they believe.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 





Um, no. Constitutionalists will likely become violent, yes. Real sovereigns, on the other hand (which are something very different) won't. The sovereignty movement recognises that even the Constitution itself is a scam. The War of Independence was funded by the same source on both sides. The cabal founded America themselves. Watch Ben Stewart's movie, Ungrip; it's a case study of someone who followed sovereign thinking to the ultimate logical extreme.


Let me start by saying that I paid a heap of respect to the sovereign movement when I pointed out that referring to them as "sovereign citizens" was oxymoronic. So...

With all due respect, whatever the "sovereignty movement" recognizes, you as an individual claiming to represent those views easily fell prey to dismissing another group; the "Constitutionalists" as being likely to escalate violence with government personnel. I have no interest in hearing propaganda regarding neatly labeled groups.

There are many in this site who claim "sovereign" status, and indeed, I am of the mind that each and everyone of us are sovereign, but for this movement, I have made many friends on this site who belong to this movement. We find that we are like minded in many ways, but when it comes to reducing individuals to nothing more than a group they associate with, I'm out.

Ideally, all people everywhere realize the folly of armed violence with our military industrial complex government. Even more ideally, all these people begin taking back their government - scam Constitution and all - and refuse to acquiesce to tyranny. We do not live in this ideal, so the best I can do is speak to the human soul, and hope to either awaken that spark of individualism that lies within every soul, or at the very least, help keep stoking those fires.

In the end, the more one knows the law, the less need there is for priest class lawyer mystical incantations that so many like to refer to as "legalese". The law is the law and it exists with or without Constitution, or legislative acts, and when written down on paper, no amount of fancy ass language can obfuscate the true properties of law.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Bilder
 


Have they exposed Ron Paul yet as a possibly violent extremist?

Just curious.

Im fairly sure if they could spin it right and make it believable Ron Paul would be arrested tomorrow and locked away out of sight and out of mind for good



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
If thats the case and you are supporting the return to gold standard or buy gold maybe we should also say about the rich and super rich may be able to afford to send funds to potential terrorists and affiliate terror organisations, just to really throw the all encompassing rug of 'terror' over the whole world.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilder
 


like the law innocent until proven guilty go to los angeles and tell that to the lapd hahahahaha no body has rights give me a break i spent 16 days in jail before i saw the judge in kingman AZ for yelling at someone who wanted to beat me up so i have no simpathy for tarrorist!!!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by petrus4
 


With all due respect, whatever the "sovereignty movement" recognizes, you as an individual claiming to represent those views easily fell prey to dismissing another group; the "Constitutionalists" as being likely to escalate violence with government personnel. I have no interest in hearing propaganda regarding neatly labeled groups.


I actually view myself as being closer to anarchy than the sovereignty movement, personally. Granted, that is a subtle distinction; but I find that one of my goals in life is to learn how to positively live with and interact with my fellow man. That doesn't imply Marxism and all of the horrific baggage that goes along with that, at all, but to me anarchy as a word, does still imply a certain degree of collectivist influence; as in, "OK, so if we live as a group of people, and we're not having a government, then what are we going to do?"

As an "ism," at least, I view sovereignty as being closer to the proverbial Jeffersonian Old Right; individualism, without the federalist influence. Like I said though, that is primarily a flavour issue.

As far as me pigeonholing Constitutional advocates is concerned, some stereotypes do have at least a fair grounding in reality. The DHS have profiled said group themselves, and IMHO, in terms of common characteristics, they're fairly close to the mark.

Mind you, you also misinterpreted me, perhaps, if you thought that I was necessarily implying that Constitutionalism (in American terms, at least) is a bad thing. As far as collective agreements is concerned, it probably is one of the best frameworks we've come up with yet. So it is a matter of degree. If you're going to have a large scale collective agreement, the Constitution is one hell of a lot better than the national socialist Obamanation that America is currently headed towards.

The point is what you view as the source of your freedom. If you recognise that freedom is a prerequisite of being alive at all, and therefore is a necessity based purely on the nature of who you are, and something which you both deserve and must have on that basis, then that is what I was referring to as the ideal scenario. If, on the other hand, you view the Constitution as being the source of said freedom, rather than being a contractual framework that is designed to preserve the most necessarily elements of it, you're going to experience serious problems.


There are many in this site who claim "sovereign" status, and indeed, I am of the mind that each and everyone of us are sovereign, but for this movement, I have made many friends on this site who belong to this movement. We find that we are like minded in many ways, but when it comes to reducing individuals to nothing more than a group they associate with, I'm out.


Some people might differ, but I personally define a sovereign primarily in two ways:-

a] They recognise that no government has any inherent source of authority, other than that which is arbitrarily or contractually agreed on by a given group of individuals. This is distinct from the attitude of contemporary governments, which consider the source of their authority to apparently be completely inherent; they don't even mention the supposed divine right of kings any more. It's simply, "We're in charge, because we're in charge."

b] They recognise that once the above deception is recognised, that any government that wants to maintain its' authority, only has one card left to play; which is its' capacity to project anything up to and potentially including, lethal force. This was Hitler's philosophy; you will be ruled, or you will be killed. It therefore follows that, at least part of the time, a sovereign is defined as someone who is willing to call the government's bluff, and quite literally perhaps die as a result.


Even more ideally, all these people begin taking back their government - scam Constitution and all - and refuse to acquiesce to tyranny.


I understand that you're being sarcastic here; but the point is to recognise that, as good as it is, the Constitution by itself is not the end point of human development. In other words, if you reinstate it, there will always be a point, a few centuries hence, when you will need to do it again. Jefferson foresaw this, but he also didn't see any way past it. I think the Constitution does absolutely need to be reinstated, but that gradually, as their own development allows, they need to progress past it, as far as recognising that their freedom does not ultimately derive from it.

If people can get to that point, and we can progress as a species to the point where said knowledge becomes inherent, then we will finally remove the need for periodic revolution entirely, which will be real progress.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Paper/electronic money is just a concept - you basically work extra for free and in return the establishment runs your life.

But, is this alternative really feasible? Imagine if they had to go around collecting a non-conceptual bag of gold from you, or crate of gold from your employer every payday. The infrastructure of transport and processing would need to be enormous and costly.

And besides, what gives gold it's worth, other than what we say it's worth. Therefore wouldn't it's value be as vulnerable as our current system?

Both scenarios seem inherently wrong, or naive, so what's the answer?

Tough question... Don't we need something that holds its value as a practical commodity, so said value stems from the real need for it, rather than the imagined needs of paper cash/credit/gold?

This, i guess leads one to bartering ! But that would make much of government redundant - they wouldn't like that! So they would it want to oversee it somehow - stabilise the values of goods across a state or nation. Before you know it they're offering credit for goods, and the lazy will accept it, then the rest. Finally 'gamblers' are betting on the value of goods and the public are offering goods and credit for a piece of the action, and this exchange artificially effects the values of the very goods they're betting on and so the value has become tied to the participants belief in those values....

And hey-presto we're back to where we are now - a system in which value has little relation to the object it's attached to and we're crying out for common sense


No easy answers here.




edit on 9-2-2012 by McGinty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The Federal Reserve has declared an all out war against Ron Paul and his supporters...






posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Well, if there is any truth to this, then you know it's step #1 to heading towards another Executive Order 6102...


In the words of Charlton Heston:
"I'll give you my precious metals when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!"



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 


"Want to know why our system is messed up? Grandmas and grandpas taking all the monies for medicine and retirement. "

up till a year, or two, or maybe three years ago, there was more money going into the social security fund than going out. matter of fact, social security is one of the biggest creditors of the US Gov't....

in other words, the Gov't "borrowed the wealth of the seniors, and used on a bunch of crap, like wars and the military, like aide (read bribes) to countries half way around the world, like "community developement", like the multiple welfare for the "poor"...(read subsidies for companies' payrolls!!)., like airports no one wanted, bridges to nowhere, overpriced higher education, bank bailouts, tax cuts for green energy, business loans for doomed businesses, and on and on and on!!!

here's a hint!!!!
most of the people I know who are (or would be) old enough to be on social security either died before they were old enough, or they didn't last that long afterwards!!! where in the world did all their money go??

and to be frank, the heathcare, the retirement homes, even the college education wouldn't cost as much as it does, except that the providers know danged good and well that in most cases, if the person can't afford it, well, dear old gov't will throw some more money at the problem and well....they could charge a million dollars for that doctor to look into your ears, and still have their offices full of people who want a doctor to check out their ear infections!!! and, well, the gov't has and will continue to let them hike up the costs year after year!!!

going to a gold standard wouldn't help the problem we have in this country I don't believe.
I don't believe there is enough precious metals in the world to keep the greedy sob's at the top happy!!! better they have the monopoly money to play with!!!

so who took the money again??



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
My wife associated with a piece of trailer trash and when she showed up at my house trying to cause a scene I shooed her off but lo' and behold, she had called the police. When I calmed my wife down I returned outside in order to tell them that while they were here, they could inform the person she was no longer welcome around.

I first put my hand out and introduced myself, gave verbal reference to my intentions and he proceeded to ask me for my driver's license. I said, "No."

PO: Grab it.
M: No.
PO: Why? Are you trying to hide something?
M: No, I don't have to give it to you, why do you need it? If you think I have a warrant I'd be happy to oblige.
PO: No, just suspicious you won't give it to me. Are you hiding something?
M: No. Whatever, she's not welcome here. (walks away...)

You don't need to cite a law, that's what lawyers are for. If you REALLY need an excuse, DOJ and other government websites are not secure, so unless there's a really good reason for them to run your data into their computer, they should be concerned with your privacy.

Of course, they were on the phone with my wife moments later telling her how she needed to talk to them because her husband wouldn't. I grabbed the phone and said it was a civil matter and if there was a problem to inform me and that any more contact would be considered harassment.
edit on 2012/2/9 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
The Federal Reserve has declared an all out war against Ron Paul and his supporters...







A lot of you are going to get a very harsh object lesson in how the cabal runs false flag games, if Paul gets into office. The very coercive nature of the campaign graphics ("your ONLY option") is itself evidence of this.

The single main reason why I know that Ron Paul is not going to help Americans, is because you are all looking to him to be your saviour, and once again save you from not having to exercise personal responsibility. That is the one thing that you are truly desperate to be saved from.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join