Banks do not lend money.

Some people realize our banks create money out of thin air. However most do not realize this simple fact.

What I am about to tell you is a fantastic scam, used to enslave us financially.

Its ok if you do not believe it, I realize most of you don't think to much as it is.

Our story begins with fractional reserve banking (hereafter FRB), now the way it works is simple.

There are only two ways to create money in our system. 1. The government borrows money thru t-bonds. 2. The public borrows money thru FRB.

We will concentrate on number 2 today.

Banks have a 9-1 or 10% reserve ratio today. Meaning for every dollar they have in reserve they can create and loan out 9 dollars.

So where do reserves come from?

Reserves come from customers money deposited but also from promissory notes.

Let's walk you thru the loan process real quick.

A loan in reality is just an exchange, your note( money of account) for the banks checkbook money (also money of account).

You see a note is a negotiable instrument and has certain laws governing them.

Now modern money mechanics put out by the Chicago Fed tells us that they don't loan money. What they do is accept notes IN EXCHANGE for CREDITS to the borrowers transaction account.

Now when a bank deposits a note, 12 usc 1813 L1, tells us it acts like money.

Which makes sense because to be a holder in due course you have to accept the instrument for value. A lost note means the bank has to indemnify you the amount of the note if they want to foreclose.

So according to GAAP'S matching principal. The note should be entered into the banks asset side, and the same amount should be credited (not loaned) into your account(now reread modern money's explanation of a loan).

But instead of crediting your account, they say they loan you something, and the note(which is your asset) You gave to them for nothing.

Hope this helps clear some stuff you might of wondered about.

Federal citizenship also known as US citizen

Let's look at what the courts have said about federal citizenship:

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.

"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but completely subject..."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

While Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning all federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
https://books.google.com/books?id=hcgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Gardina+v.+Board+of+Registrars+of+Jefferson+County,+160+Ala.+155;+48+So.+788+(1909)&source=bl&ots=zQjm9MXFos&sig=e8o_7Lcf09mZyQ51EyBEnrwLPAY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz1vDZlK_VAhWK5SYKHa50DMEQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=Gardina%20v.%20Board%20of%20Registrars%20of%20Jefferson%20County%2C%20160%20Ala.%20155%3B%2048%20So.%20788%20(1909)&f=false



"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual".
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)




For those of you who can read, it seems pretty clear.

civil rights

Now, we need to define a civil right. As always, we start by looking at the definition of civil:

Definition of CIVIL

1a : of or relating to citizens

b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

2a : civilized <civil society>

3a : of, relating to, or based on civil law

b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings

c : established by law

As you can see, civil pertains to matters of society: of the citizens of a given government. In other words, Parties to the Social Contract which formed and govern a given community. Therefore, a civil right is a right that is established by law as a function of the terms of a given Social Contract and not by Nature. However, a civil right must be enacted in accordance with the constraints of Natural Law, as Natural Law governs the Social Contract from which all civil law draws its authority. If a civil law attempts to create a right that would be a breach of Natural Rights, then it is not a law or a right because it violates Natural Law. In essence, Natural Law can nullify man-made laws, and this includes civil rights. So, as a general rule of thumb, we can define a civil right as a right constructed by a law enacted according to the terms of the Social Contract which formed and governs a community and which is in accord with the constraints of Natural law. Some examples of a civil right would be the right to a speedy trial; to face your accuser; to a jury trial; to a lawyer; to call witnesses and present a defense; and, if you are convicted, to an appeal.

NOTE: Because a civil law is created by an act of legislation under the terms of the Social Contract which authorizes and supports whatever government passes the law creating it, a civil law is always subject to being changed or eliminated whereas a Natural Right can never be abridged or eliminated.



Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.

The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in dred scott v. sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691, that the Constitution did not apply to African Americans because they were not citizens when the Constitution was written. After the Civil War, therefore, new laws were necessary for the purpose of extending civil liberties to the former slaves.




If you do not understand the difference between civil rights and natural unalienable rights, then freedom is going to keep eluding you friends.

Are all men created equal?

(Note) In law whenever the word man/men is used, it includes both men and women/woman.

With that said, let us begin.

Today is a great day in history says my wall on FB, gay people won the "right" to get licensed to marry. Isn't that grand?

I can not but help to remember those words from long ago....

All men are created equal.

But I'm so confused because we know blacks have to fight to end slavery and get their rights, and so did women.

Now gay people have to fight for their rights.

How does this all jive with the American dream and a slave owner saying all men are created equal.

Well to begin with all men are created equal, the same rights and everything. However on reaching the age of majority, you entered into contracts with the government that replaced your natural rights with civil rights.

When you enter into these contracts, you acquire statuses. Under the marriage contract you get the husband/wife statuses. Each status you have has different rights and obligations.

The reason he said all men are created equal is because they are. Men without status are free.

Check the law for your self. See if any man/men are regulated by law.

What you find is every other term possible besides man is used.

Person,citizen,resident,employee,husband,wife,taxpayer, etc.

It is said that law applies to all men, but yet men are never listed. Most law is directed against person, of which you agree that you are the person.

But are you that person or are you a man/woman?

Do you even know where the word person comes from and what it means?

You are agreeing to all kinds of stuff you have no clue about.

Its time to get on you big boy and big girl pants. If you don't take the time to understand who you are in law, EXPECT others to take advantage of you.

Civil marriage is different then holy matrimony in some big ways. First thing is every man that is free needs permission from no one.

Second is that holy matrimony is a relationship between you, spouse and God.

A civil marriage is a contract sui generis between you,spouse and the state. However in this arrangement the state is the dominate party. This is also one of the strongest contracts the state has over its citizens.

Anything done with the state marriage license can also be done without it.

Stop being lazy, there are people out there willing to help. Drop this belief that our government wants to help us, it is blinding you to the truth.

Application for SSN equals loss of rights...

From Social Security's own "Program Operations Manual System" -- pay close attention to section "E." :

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0110205180
RM 10205.180 Applicant’s Signature on a Form SS-5 when applicant is not in the office
Ensure that Form SS-5 is signed by a proper applicant. See “Policy for determining the proper applicant” in RM 10205.025B.

A. Number holder applies on his or her own behalf
If the NH applies on his or her own behalf, the signature in item 17 must agree with the Name to be Shown on Card in item 1. For acceptable discrepancies, see RM 10205.180E.

B. Proper applicant applies on behalf of NH
When the applicant is not the NH, the proper applicant must sign his or her own name and indicate his or her relationship to the NH, e.g., John Smith, father. Using “for” in the signature block, e.g., John Smith for Mary Smith, is not correct.

C. Signature by mark
If Form SS-5 is signed by mark, it must be witnessed beneath or beside the mark by at least one person.

D. Signatures of foreign-born applicants
Accept signatures from foreign-born applicants that are in characters other than our standard alphabet without question.


E. Remarks added to signature block
Additional information in the signature block may invalidate the application. Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements that imply the applicant’s refusal to be subject to the penalty clause on the application (e.g., “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or “with reservation”).

If such an annotation is made, do not process the SS-5. Return Form SS-5 to the applicant with Form SSA-L676. In the blank fill-in box indicate that “The application cannot be processed because you altered your signature on the application.”

So, if a reservation of rights is made by the SS-5 application, the Social Security Administration will not process the application or issue a number. In other words, applying for, and receiving, a SSN presumes the applicant has voluntarily waived his rights, BY SIGNATURE. That's a pretty strong presumption in favor of the SSA... and IRS. Oh, and guess what? The SS-5 is an Internal Revenue Service form. Here's an example of an SS-5 from the 1950's:
http://www.harveysbombing.com/Links_files/SS-5/HarveyAGross-530-24-1580.jpg

And gee, whaddya know? Since then they have removed any mention of "Internal Revenue Service" from the SS-5 form: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf.

They wouldn't do that to conceal the relationship between voluntarily getting a SSN and thus signing away your rights (in exchange for eligibility for benefits), thus enjoying a lifelong, cozy relationship with IRS? No way!

Let's talk property!

Welcome back folks, tonight we talk about property.

Every adult has property of some kind, house, car, phone, etc. Most of us assume our property is private, but is it? How can we tell?

The first thing we need to do is find out the LEGAL definition of property.

What is PROPERTY?

The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.

Did you get that last line there?

To the EXCLUSION of others.

A hard and fast rule when trying to decide if the property you own is public or private is that private property can not be taxed, fined or have a fee attached to use it. Nor can anyone else tell you what you can or can not do with it.

Let's just take motor vehicles since I have looked into that extensively. Most people have a certificate of title, which is NOT a title. It is just a record that a title exists. So if a title exists and you the owner of the vehicle does not have it, then why don't you have it?

You don't have it because your car is not private property, which is why you pay an annual fee to use it, and why the state makes rules for your use and upkeep of it.

You can find my video on YouTube dealing with Florida vehicle title law. Under patriotdiscussions.

Some more info on property friends.



[QUOTE]“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” -Senate Resolution No. 62 (April 24, 1933)[/QUOTE]

I took the liberty of looking up the senate document, least non experts be sure I be speaking the sovereign lingo.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-aPLYgh0mMfPhrqCq/Senate%20Doc%2043%20Money%20Banking%20History%20Senate%2043_djvu.txt
near the bottom of the page.

Now you know why the state can take your property for back taxes, because the state owns everything, including you and your kids.

[QUOTE]“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “
Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).
(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1325717.html)
[/QUOTE]

Start from the beginning.

There is always a lot of talk online about what's wrong and how can we fix it. There seems to be a disconnect between the American Apple pie freedom dream and the stark reality we face.

The main reason for this is because of our beliefs. You see folks, beliefs control every action you take, they also filter information as well. Hence why two people seeing the same thing will tell different stories of what happened.

Now it just so happens that our leaders have known for a long time, control the beliefs, control the people.

So they leave out of school the information that we need in order to really think, and no one questions this system while it is working good.

But now we are on a downward slope, and your sensing things ain't exactly what you were led to believe.

It's called cognitive dissonance.

In order to understand what's going on in the world today and how you became a voluntary slave, you have to stop having beliefs (an idea is just as good without the side effects).

Forget what you thought you knew and really set  to find the truth. A mind that has the answers (no matter if it is right or wrong), will stop looking for an answer.

The ego does not admit it was fooled easily, it takes a strong will to admit most if your life is a lie. It is a lot easier to crack a beer and hit the boob tube.

Do not act like you have not been told, you need to wake up now, nit when your in trouble.