-14 votes

Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard

Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0

For those who are seriously interested in the subject of the Israel and Palestinian conflict, this is an excellent debate.

BOTH Dershowitz and Chomsky are for a NWO, the difference is Dershowitz wants Israel and Palestine to become peaceful states under a U.N. corporate government, where Chomsky wants Israel and Western religion eliminated to establish government as "GOD".

To those considering to post on this thread:

I would appreciate serious thoughts, opinions, and questions, to which I will respectfully respond. While you are respectfully free to downvote, name call, and insult me, I will not be responding to such posts.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, but there is a difference...

Re: "I have a right to an opinion right or wrong, backed up or not."

Yes, but there is a difference between having an opinion and stating it publicly, both legally and morally; When you write articles making claims about people, you should back them up, especially if not doing so might make it slander or libel. When the claim is baseless, that should be mentioned in the article, otherwise it seems to be bearing false witness. Do you morally approve of mainstream media publicly misrepresenting Ron Paul with baseless opinions, and do you morally approve of people publicly saying baseless things about your religion? Wouldn't you rather that they would only spread reasonable claims supported by evidence rather spreading unreasoned hunches? This seems to be a matter of following the golden rule.

Re: "I'm willing to be wrong for I am willing to make it right.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you talking about burning in purgatory to make up for sins that you believe Jesus was unable to cleanse you from through the cross?

Re: "Chomsky is the making maing claims. I am espressing an opinion."

But you've admitted that he never claimed what you claim he desires. So it seems to be the other way around.

Re: "As a Catholic, I hear claims against me and my faith based on opinions every day.That does not change my FAITH in MY God LORD JESUS CHRIST, MY SAVIOUR, who WILL FORGIVE MY TRESSPASSES, even if you do not."

This is not really a matter of forgiveness because you haven't shown repentance. It is more a matter of accountability and perhaps a plea for repentance. I'm not the one being wronged, so it's not up to me to forgive you anyways. In the section of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_bear_false_witne... it says: "Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause unjust injury. One is guilty of rash judgment who assumes the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation. ... These sins violate both the commandment against false witness, as well as the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself."

I Thank God I am an American

I can express my WRONG opinion freely. I'm sorry you don't agree with MY opinion, which remains the same about Chomsky.

Peace be with you.

I agree...

I agree that Americans are free to be immoral and spread baseless rumors to an extent. But do you, as a Catholic, think you are representing the philosophy of Roman Catholicism with regards to publicly promoting claims you admit are baseless? I'm not trying to appeal to American law or your status as an American, I'm trying to appeal to your sense of moral obligation. Do you think it's moral to say negative things which you can't back up about your neighbor?

Lies help the liars

If someone claims that Chomsky does this, or does that, it may be a good idea to back up such claims, since the problem, it seems to me, includes the too often resort to character assassination, just because you can.

Joe

For example?

You realize that you posted to me to not ever post to you. Only because you are posting on a thread I established, am I responding to you, with all due respect to your previous request.

Caught in a lie?

If I did, ever, post to you requesting that you do "not ever post to me," then that would be an error of mine that is out of my known character.

I'd like to see that example if it exists.

I can then distance myself as far as possible from ever making such a mistake again, and I can apologize for having made that mistake.

Setting that possible error of mine, that I dearly hope that I did not do, and that I will try to avoid doing again, assuming I have done such a thing, setting that aside, there remains this problem of Character Assassination targeted the person known as Noam Chomsky.

Are there any examples of that person having done what he is being said to have done?

Absent those examples is not the same thing as having those examples provided.

Joe

I don't know how to give you a direct link

this is a cut and paste with is only partial of what you wrote; However, provides you with the information to look for yourself:

Vote down!

Enough

Submitted by Josf on Thu, 02/07/2013 - 13:11. Permalink

"Why are you making your goal my business?"

I stated my goal. I'm distant now. Thanks. I do not want to have anything more to do with you, at all...

Qualifications

My words:
"I stated my goal. I'm distant now. Thanks. I do not want to have anything more to do with you, at all..."

Your words:

"You realize that you posted to me to not ever post to you."

The message I sent was not the same message as the one feeding back to me.

I do not want to connect to you personally, at all. I do not want to connect to bear, personally, at all, for entirely different reasons.

I want to hear what bear has to say.

I want to hear what you have to say, for entirely different reasons.

I did not write this:

"You realize that you posted to me to not ever post to you."

I can qualify by saying that you don't have to post anything to me, personally, at all, and why would I have any problem at all with you avoiding posting anything to me?

If the subject is the assassination of Noam Chomsky's character, then words can be offered in defense of Noam Chomksy's character.

I don't want anything to do with a person who parrots lies, or invents them.

If the lies exist, right there in black and white, then I want to expose them as lies, but there are so many lies, and not that much time in the day.

Joe

I have a qualification to make...

...I connect personally to my friends here at the DP. That is just the way I am. What you see is what you get, and I normally let you see who I am by what I say. That is just me.

So Josf,

You say:

"I do not want to connect to you personally, at all. I do not want to connect to bear, personally, at all, for entirely different reasons.

I want to hear what bear has to say. "

I will answer. What bear has to say is normally very personal. bear does not hide behind a facade. My thoughts, my ignorance, and my stupidity are normally exposed by me, for what they are.

New stuff

bear,

I don't know if you have had a chance to look at the latest discoveries I've found and posted on the Power Independence Forum.

I am hoping that you can get done with all the very good stuff you do and then have a chance to offer a competitive, accurate, honest, viewpoint.

I can also confess, to say, that the reason why I cannot get personal with you is a need of mine to keep my jealous wife free from any reasons for feeling insecure.

As for Granger, well, what can I say, to add to that which has already become matter of fact?

I do not want to join them.

Joe

Josf

Your wife has every right to be jealous over you, her husband, and you have every right to ensure that she does not have any reason to feel insecure. If she doesn't and you don't, who will?

Ecclesiastes 4:9 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. 10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?

I don't mean to be personal in that way, and did not mean to give that appearance. I just mean to say that I divulge who I am. I am personal with Granger, I consider her a friend. You know me, I think I consider people who don't necessarily like me, friends, and get personal with them as well, without joining them. As for you, you are sorta like a big brother in liberty to me.

I haven't done any exploring on your Forum lately. You will have to direct me. I've been very busy on the project, but decided to see what was going on here...I must of heard someone talking about me, and got cowardly curious, but bold enough to make a toothless reply; I am still trying to scratch the parasites out of my fur though.

Personal divulgance: I have to go now because I have to be up at 4am to take an Amish man to get dentures 2 hours from here. I'll be gone all day. I don't have to, but I want to. I get personal with the Amish too. He and his wife are like pets to me. The are old. She has cancer and I take her to town for medical visits. I am pleased to help them. I am letting him pay for the gas tomorrow, but I am having to continue to talk myself into that allowance because I don't want him to have to pay for anything. I just want to take him and whoever goes with us out of kindness, but that would not leave him feeling equitable. He still does leather work. His hands are crippled from arthritis. I don't know how he does his work. His name is Moses.

...

Discoveries

My plan is to add a forum post here on the subject of three stages of Legal Crime as such:

1.
Uniform Commercial Code

2.
Maritime/Admiralty/Canon/Law

3.
Talmudic/Noahide/Law

I will provide links, but I think you may become especially polarized by this new information because it is accurately dividing, polarizing, discriminating, judging, separating, comparing, dealing with, the true, natural, and Christian (specifically), beliefs, customs, Laws, etc., on one side, and then on the other side are what I call Legal Criminals, who are on the side of The Deceiver.

I can get you started with a Youtube video that can be misunderstood, as I took the video wrongly at first, and then someone from another source explains the reason for the "Judge" leaving the Stage (courtroom).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=player_em...

This all falls in line with our conversations on man made law versus Divine Law, or as I call it Legal Crime versus Liberty.

I work toward what I call Equitable Commerce, which is as personal as I think I need to get, since my power of intimate personal contact is focused where it belongs, in my opinion, which is already getting too personal.

When someone else is working toward inequity, that is a person I'd prefer to identify as a someone working toward inequity, and words can be duplicitous, like knifes with two, or more, edges.

Teacher's pet? You have close ties with Amish elderly people, not a "pet" for your personal entertainment. See, I can take things wrong too, as it sounded as if you were considering your connection to those Amish people, your pets, as if they were sub-human. I know better, over time, to trust in the need for doubting any negative ideas I may have concerning how I interpret the words you write.

You won't be taking your Amish pets to the pound, or the vet, to be spayed, neutered, or otherwise adjusted.

The concept of one human being thinking another human being is a THING, not another human being, is part of the information being discovered in my latest findings.

I have already run at the mouth to excess at this point in this place at this time.

Joe

My response to the video

It made me let out a chuckle at the end when the man declared that the judge had abandoned ship and that he was now the sovereign and he dismissed his own case.

It also make me wonder if there is currently a warrant out for his arrest for failing to appear, or whether he has been handcuffed and dragged into court with a state-provided defense so that cannon law "justice" may be swiftly executed.

Do you know the outcome?

I also think this is interesting. It is more of Bill Cooper and mystery babylon. In this segment he refers to when Cannon Law was created and attributed the creation to some secret society. I can't remember details, but there was other stuff in this segment having to do with stuff you are interested in. I wish I could remember the exact details and words, but I am getting ready to do bookwork now, if I can stay awake. I am still tired from yesterday.

Here is the Bill Cooper audio if you want to listen to it: http://hourofthetime.com/bcmp3/47.mp3

(it is from this website http://vaticannewworldorder.blogspot.com/ and is #47 9-Mar-93 Mystery Babylon #14)

...

Remember

My friend and co-worker Bill Foust was shot and killed by a lone gunman with a badge.

http://www.google.com/#q=bill+foust+site:youtube.com&sa=X&ei...

I don't know the outcome of the video where the judge declares a recess (an offer?) and runs away, and then the Free Man declares the case having been dismissed.

I want to start a new topic on this because there are so many loose ends being tied up in my view with these reports concerning these Man-Made-Laws.

Before I begin all that work to get this all together on the web sites that I work on, here, and my own Blog and Forum, I want to tell you about the most significant thing I discovered, the thing that makes the most sense, the thing that ties up the most loose ends, like trying to untangle a wad of string, or a long extension cord, that has been tangled up severely, and this thing unravels a big mess of tangling.

One tangled string in the tangled mess had to do with the concept of Honor among Thieves, or how those bad guys manage to access the power of cooperation when they are as rotten as rotten can get, how do they keep from cutting each other's throats long enough to combine their power voluntarily, and effectively, and therefore their combined power is much greater than their separated power?

The other tangled string, which is part of that Honor among Thieves String above, has to do with the belief the bad guys have in the right of what they are doing, since no human being can be propelled into actions that are wrong when it is their own power of will that is the source of propulsion. In other words, what is the trick that tricks these bad people into being bad people? What is the carrot and stick that these bad people see, when they then set about to do the bad things that they do?

Black Magic.

That is an absurd two words placed together, and anyone who hears those two words will be someone affected by those two words, in such a way as to constitute a measurable affect upon that person who hears those two words.

Imagine, for example, my wife and I at a Real Estate Financing meeting, and it is a huge table, and it is in Las Vegas, and it is hosted by a person who is gaining a huge Federal Government Contract, and the idea for the meeting is to gather all the Real Estate people together into one room, and to transfer information concerning what will be in our future of Real Estate.

This really happened by the way.

So I raise my hand at one point and I ask a question about the Interest Rate, so as to then establish Standing, so to speak, or in other words I am trying to figure out how much anyone in this room actually knows about our current situation in this thing we call our Country, and the answer confesses what I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.

I know that interest rate is determined by 12 People on the Federal Reserve Board, as they manipulate their POWER to add or subtract Legal Units of Purchasing Power into circulation, you know this, by now, as that group of people, those 12 people, more or less, the actual people pulling the strings, can write themselves a check for as much Legal Purchasing Power as everyone else combined, on a whim, when they please, without being held to account for what they are buying, which then affects the interest rate, and there are other ways that they can affect the interest rate, for sure, like paying Banks to hold money, as told by Gary North.

The answer I got was something along the lines of "we don't know," and something along the lines of "no one knows." and something along the lines of "what a silly question," and something along the lines of "no one can ever know," and something along the lines of "we can't ask such questions, so shut up, and get back to work, we have work to do, and we have taxes to pay."

Where does that period go at the end of that sentence?

So, as you can see, it would not be a good time to respond to the answer I got at the meeting with comments that include the two words previously mentioned.

Black Magic.

My wife governs my behavior in ways that I appreciate, even if I don't understand all the powers that are at play. I did not press the point, and my wife no longer takes me to Real Estate meetings; but my wife is listening to me, still, so some battles are hard to score accurately.

So the new reports I've discovered offer this new piece of the puzzle and this piece of the puzzle unravels a lot of the tangling in the tangled web of deceit, does it not?

The "Judge" may call a recess, because that "Judge" may be ignorant, or because that "Judge" may not be ignorant, and so that "Judge" may find the next step to be taken by accessing the sources of information required to go the direction which results in the further injury done to the targeted victim, or "defendant," or "subject," or human being made into a thing, and so the "higher authority" ends up being what?

Black Magic.

What is the source of POWER used to make Black Magic more powerful?

More powerful than what?

So the "Judge" moves from Uniform Commercial Code into Admiralty Law and then, if that is still not "good enough" to extract the power out of the targeted victim, then the "Judge" moves into Black Magic?

Talmudic or Noehide Law?

Seriously?

Are you on Crack?

Who dreams up this crap?

Excuse the word crap, please.

Please excuse my error?

I am rambling some here, so please excuse my liberal use of language, but there is a whole lot to these recent discoveries that may interest you, and I can use some help. I know that you are busy, and I don't want to add to your work load, I don't want to tax you.

So the "Judge" goes out, and confers with the rules governing Talmudic, and Noehide Law, and returns to see if the individual "Judge" can overpower the targeted victim, and sentence the targeted victim to death?

Seriously?

Who is being serious?

Remember, my friend, and co-worker, was shot by a lone gunman, shot dead, and the lone gunman wore a badge.

The "Judge" may extract power from the targeted victim, the free man, at the lower level, the level called Uniform Commercial Code, and if the "Judge" cannot extract power from the targeted victim at that level, because the Targeted victim follows the rules of Uniform Commercial Code, then the "Judge" calls recess, goes and finds the "authority" to proceed into Maritime or Admiralty Law, and then returns to court, if that individual "Judge" gains that authority, or takes that authority, which is risky for that "Judge".

See?

That is the point, I keep returning to, the point at which the POWER struggle is explained in terms that make sense.

If the "Judge" does not return to then try to extract power from the free man, or the free woman, who establishes Standing in Uniform Commercial Code, then the "Judge" risks having his power stripped, if the "Judge" moves into Maritime or Admiralty Law, so the free man, or the free woman, may, at that time, win, and remain free from harm at the hands of these people who may, or may not, know that they are part of a Cult who worship the Devil, and who have Black Magic as the source of their power.

I don't know if Black Magic is an actual source of power, but it makes sense that the "Judge" risks having his Gravy Train derailed by free people who act like free people.

I've read that "Judges" are paid a percentage of the money they extract from their targets when the targets pay fines.

Is that true?

So, moving on one more time, to repeat what bears repeating, the "Judge" who fails to extract power from the target when the target follows the rules, establishing Standing in Uniform Commercial Code Law, then the "Judge" calls a "recess", and the target fails to disagree with that offer to "call recess," where that free man fails to reject the offer to call "recess," and where the "Judge" returns with a Maritime or Admiralty Law rule book, and authority, and power, and jurisdiction, and then the free man, or free women re-establishes Standing, according to those rules, then the "Judge" may try to then up the ante, risk his own power, by calling another "recess," which is yet again another offer [?], which then sends the "Judge" out to get permission, authority, or jurisdiction, to then return with that power to execute Talmudic, Noehide, Black Magic, Devil Worship Law, and if the free person still establishes Standing the "Judge" has to pay the price?

Why?

What would the "Judge" have to pay the price if all the target does is speak the truth, and go by the same rules in place, the same rules that are used by the "Judge"?

The answer appears to be, as astonishing as this may seem, to you, to me, to anyone, the answer appears to be that the Cult in question actually believe that their power comes from The Devil, and so they follow, religiously, their Devil Worshiping rules, which include the rule that says if the targets follow the rules, then the targets cannot be punished, and if the targets don't follow the rules, including the "Judges," then the targets can be punished.

If that does not make sense to you, I can try to iron out the wrinkles.

It makes (almost) perfect sense to me.

Thanks for the opportunity to work this out in English, I have a few other places to put these types of words down, as an offer to anyone caring to listen to a competitive viewpoint.

I won't spend time editing this at this time.

Joe

I think

I think that you should listen to Mystery Babylon by Bill Cooper to establish this Black Magic, which from what I can tell he is doing. It is a huge workload. Each of the audios is an hour. However someone here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iCLykzJ0d8&list=PL11E33A6AEE...
has removed the music to shorten each audio by about 15 minutes.

I think the effort is worthwhile. Even if you can only listen to one a day while doing other things. You are probably able to do 2 things at once? I am not. I cannot listen and retain if I am relaxed or doing something else. I have to focus on the effort and then may or maynot be able to repeat what I have heard, though I have an understanding.

I think the information plays into your law angle. This man was shot as well. George Bush Sr? supposedly said he was the most dangerous man alive. I don't know where I heard or read that, or if it is even true, but long about #12 or #13, I don't remember which, he places that president in a very awkward ball of string and it does not matter which one he is speaking of, the both have been into that string, if that string is really true and if it is, it is Black Magic.

And, it seems that sometime in the past, these people diasappeared onto the high seas in the form of pirates (because they were threatened with extinction), and if I am getting the current picture, they have made landfall and are now plundering on dry ground, and I suppose you could also say in the air and on the seas since it seems to me that the military is as their dispose.

There is something also to the effect that I think I heard Bill Hill, Money Masters (but not in money masters) say that one of those guys goes back to some pirate captain and the name is connected to wallstreet as in one of those investing firms, but I cannot remember the name right now. Remembered before I finished typing. I think it is Morgan. Captain Morgan as in Stanely Morgan, Chase/Morgan.

I think I might include white magic and black magic together, as in any miracle not worked throught the Power of the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, the one and only Lord Jesus Christ and His Father and the Holy Spirit, the Godhead, 3 in 1, is an unholy magical alliance. The devil appears as an angel of light, that is how some are mislead, thinking they are doing good, while in fact they are doing evil.

One more thing, I don’t ask the Amish a lot of curiosity questions, because I think sometimes it bothers them. But yesterday, I brought up the fact that I had read about German Baptists and AnnaBaptists and Quakers not fighting in the revolutionary war. He told me about an account from WWI where 3 young Amish men were taken and he did not use the word tortured, but that is exactly what it was and it fits into lies, treats of violence, and violence (if I have your words right). Anyways, they were mistreated, and then they were told that they were going to be buried alive, and they were and covered with dirt to their necks. Then they were removed and then each one was taken to 3 freshly dug graves and told they would be buried alive if they did not agree to fight in WWI. Each was then taken separately back to those graves and one had been filled with dirt and the man was told told that their Amish friend had been buried there alive in that grave. It was all a lie. The men never broke.

I will say, the old man’s daughter traveled with us yesterday because the trip would have been too hard on his wife. His daughter, a married woman with about 7 little ones wiped tears from her eyes. She was that tender. I think we “English” are hard and coarse with the information we so freely speak about without shedding a tear.

What if “we” patriotic Americans had not so freely given our sons and daughters to fight? I have always been taught it was the “patriotic” thing to do. Seems the Amish didn’t go to Vietnam either. How much damage has been done to our young men (and now women) through the trauma of war? How many families have been ruined because their men have been ruined?

OK, now I have been on my soapbox.

And as far as punctuating quotes.
Periods and commas ALWAYS go inside the quotes in the United States.

Semi colons, and colons go outside of the quotes.

Question marks only go inside the quotes if the portion in the quote is the question.

At least I think that is right. I think if you look at this, you will understand. I have to look at it often :)

It will look better here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/03/ because they use different fonts and spacing that I am not going to take the time to fix for DP html, but I have pasted the information anyways. It is very short, and I think very easy to understand. It gives explanation for the words that I have just given you.

Use a comma to introduce a quotation after a standard dialogue tag, a brief introductory phrase, or a dependent clause.

The detective said, "I am sure who performed the murder."

As D.H. Nachas explains, "The gestures used for greeting others differ greatly from one culture to another."

Put commas and periods within quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows.

He said, "I may forget your name, but I never forget a face."

History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization."

Mullen, criticizing the apparent inaction, writes, "Donahue's policy was to do nothing" (24).

Place colons and semicolons outside closed quotation marks.

Williams described the experiment as "a definitive step forward"; other scientists disagreed.

Benedetto emphasizes three elements of what she calls her "Olympic journey": family support, personal commitment, and great coaching.

Place a question mark or exclamation point within closing quotation marks if the punctuation applies to the quotation itself. Place the punctuation outside the closing quotation marks if the punctuation applies to the whole sentence.

Phillip asked, "Do you need this book?"

Does Dr. Lim always say to her students, "You must work harder"?

OK, the 30 minutes that I have supposed to have been doing bookwork has turned into 40 and I have spent it discussing. Which I have missed, but now I must fold clothes and then I’ll do bookwork for 30 minutes after that chore.

IMO, any code amoung theives must include: Watch your back.
Is it not interesting to you that Hillary ended up with a head injury. I told Jeff, that i don't even think that she was the one testifying before congress. I imagine too much and see invisible dots and well as connecting dots incorrectly.

Shall we save your words above in a Joe Quotes, Law edition?

(actually 50 minutes before I finally pushed save...)

...

Black Magic

The Specifics told by the murder victim Bill Cooper (no trial to help in conforming the facts of the murder) on the Legal Crime origins are useful, but I am currently on the concept of Principles that unravel the web, and tie up loose ends.

Specific Principle:

What is the power, and authority, that is universally followed by Legal Criminals?

This is one of my shortest replies.

Joe

I think that is what he is talking about.

"What is the power, and authority, that is universally followed by Legal Criminals?"

Mine is shorter :)

Competition

Having the vital question tabled, then, my dear bear, what is your competitive answer.

I have a basic understanding of Bill Coopers answer.

I have my answer.

How about your answer.

What is the power, and authority, that is universally followed by Legal Criminals?

Joe

Evil made to Appear as Light -

Ancient wisdom provided thru Luciferian Illumination: deliberately sought; and the greatest secret being that which enables control over everyone. Cooper is specifically relaying how that information and power is being used in current times thru connections in Free Masonry (Mason- French having to do with light) and other secret societies, all operating on that same source of ancient, evil wisdom/illumination which has to do with sun worship, and the sun representing the illuminator: Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/He who tried to exalt himself against the Most High God, and who was in turn cast from his heavenly place to the earth. Those that worship him believe that he/Lucifer is the creator and that the Most High God is the evil one, and that Satan will remove God and capture God’s thrown.

You may want to know the rules of engagement?

Should one also know the enemy?

My answer is this:

• Ephesians 6:12 KJV
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I think William Cooper may be providing information that shows the flesh and blood embodying that spiritual wickedness. However, I believe we have not "seen anything yet" and all evil that has so far taken place will pale in the face of what is to come:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed , the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sittethin the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Matthew 24:21 KJV
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be

So you want rules of engagement in court? It seems to me that the stakes are high. You said something about the judge leaving the room to see what could be done in the case of this free man?

This illuminated group has roots to The Assassins. They appear to be good at it, especially when challenged.

Something interesting:
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Not even God's highest angel dares to bring an accusation against the devil.

My comfort and strength is here:

Psalm 46:1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. 2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; 3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah. 4 There is a river, the streams where of shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. 5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early. 6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved : he uttered his voice, the earth melted. 7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah. 8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth. 9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire. 10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. 11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

Josf, the horse is prepared unto battle, but safety is of the Lord. In otherwords, prepare, know your rules of engagement, but don't forget the Most High God and His Son, The Lord Jesus Christ. True and everlasting victory is only found there and mere human strength will not see you through life or eternity.

...

Meanwhile

"This illuminated group has roots to The Assassins. They appear to be good at it, especially when challenged."

In cases where a mere "Judge" is working to collect payments from one of the thing they target, a person who may act like a thing, a victim, a target, a ripe victim ready for plucking, or, on the other hand, the target is not so ripe for plucking, in such cases of mere human relations, one being criminal by law, and one being either victim by law or not victim because that target says no, is the point at which the rules of engagement may be both useful for the targeted victim and an unhappy situation for the "Judge" seeking a life of crime made legal.

And, on top of that, it seems to me, that God, and Jesus, and any good Christian may not consider someone defending themselves as being someone going against God, Jesus, or any good Christian.

I can ask.

Do you think it would be against God, Jesus, or any good Christian to defend against being victimized by lowly criminals wearing Black Robes and fake badges of authority?

Considering the fact that such black robed false authorities are working for devil worshipers, assuming of course that it is a fact, and it sure looks like a fact to me, then it seems to me that having that fact finding job done, done to a point of leaving no reasonable doubt about the guilt of these people working for devil worshipers, knowingly, or ignorantly, it seems to me that defending against them, using their own rules they use themselves, may be something worth doing, in cases where it is worth doing, when such cases avoid victimization by criminals with badges.

"True and everlasting victory is only found there and mere human strength will not see you through life or eternity."

When someone like yourself manages to escape death by Cancer, or when someone like myself manages to escape death by other means, then someone having done so is likely to see how perishable a human body is, in fact, and an understanding of such things can take many forms.

Meanwhile, as life goes on, it may be a good idea to defend against the defensible causes of death, by black robed criminals with badges, and it may be a good idea to make what is left of life worth living, and defend against defensible causes of life becoming miserable, such as those cases where black robed devil worshiper employees, or devil worshipers themselves, are working feverishly to live lives of luxury upon the backs of their targeted, often innocent, victims.

The point I wanted to point out is still not well communicated, having to do with those rule of engagement that apparently dethrone those black robed devil worshiper employees, as if removing all their power, almost as if showing them a cross, or almost as if exposing them to sunlight, or almost as if they were the wicked witch of the west and a bucket of water is thrown on them.

Almost as if magic words are spoken, and their black magic evaporates out of their hollowed out consciences.

I may be wrong, again.

Joe

I don't know.

I am 50 years old and I have never had the occasion to appear before a judge and I hope to live the next half of my life, however long it should last without standing before a judge. Jesus said these words:

Matt 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

It is my hope that if I ever suffer it will not because I have done something wrong, but because I have done something right:

1 Peter 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

In context:

12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that doevil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and benot afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

So what I am saying is that if I ever suffer, I hope that it will be because of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not because I have broken some irrelevant law. And by irrelevant law, I mean in the eternal scheme of things, I will obey man made laws because they are not worth getting myself into trouble with a black robed judge over.

Romans says this:

Romans 13:3 KJV

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same

In context: http://beta.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/13-audio.html

Who and why are people standing before judges?

How about the Davidians that stood before judges, did they not end up in jail anyways? Would it had been any different for them if they had known somekind of law code? Would Randy Weaver's wife still be living if he had known some kind of law code? If there was some kind of law code, would the jails and prisons be full? Would not that information have been the greatest money maker of all times?

I don't know. It seems too good to be true, but what do I know?

...

Agreement

"I am 50 years old and I have never had the occasion to appear before a judge and I hope to live the next half of my life, however long it should last without standing before a judge."

My point is not to point out a need to find bad guys wherever they may be hiding and then attack them with something; if that is what you think my point was, and I base this qualification on the words quoted above.

The words quoted above sound to me like: "I like breathing air."

Yes, I too, agree. Why tell me these things about how rare may be the case that someone alive in America happens to be able to stay alive their entire life and avoid being subjected to extreme injury by extremely evil people?

The point I was making was more along the lines of having a road In Liberty where there are forks in the road before, during, and after encounters with very bad people, evil people, devil worshiping criminals, some with badges, some without badges, and they attack innocent people who are on these roads In Liberty, so it may be a good idea to know how those criminals follow their own codes of laws, so as to figuratively have remedy that is figuratively like showing a vampire a cross, or figuratively like exposing a vampire to sunlight, or literally like pulling the thin veil of moral legitimacy away, exposing the fraud underneath, and thereby causing all those more evil that that one to be set against that one for that one fails to keep the thin veil of lies empowered.

I don't know if that works, in English, to convey my point without having my point misunderstood.

I don't know if my point is understood. I can read further in your reply as you have offered a quote out of the scripture that you believe to be true.

I think, but I have been often wrong, that your quote from scripture actually expresses an understanding of what I am saying. It sounds like Matt 5:25 is suggesting the same point I am suggesting as a person like me who does not "agree" with Legal Crime, at all, may want to "agree" with the rules made by those men, those inhuman beings, when those inhuman being force such "rules" upon their targets, and so, having this "agreement" understood by me, I then use their rules to force them into ever higher levels of evil, and a point is reached whereby cooler heads prevail, since failing to abide by any man-made rules, exposes the fraud, and they forbid, they, they, they the Legal Criminals, forbid each other to go past that line in their sand, they, they, they, don't want their False Front torn down, so they follow those rules that protect their False Front from being torn down by their own kind, in these ways specifically.

Again, I do not know if my words manage to accomplish the intended goal. How could I know?

"It is my hope that if I ever suffer it will not because I have done something wrong, but because I have done something right:"

So, here is possible contradiction in scripture.

If Matt 5:25 is right, in doing wrong, then it can't be doing right, can it?

"Agree with thine adversary..."

If I am in court at the third level where the "Judge" already recessed twice according to his "Rules" and I "agree" to go into the second level, and I "agree" to go into the third level, each time agreeing after I establish Standing, then, according to the information I found, the Establishing of Standing requires a thumb print in blood to Establish Standing in that third Level, and at that time the "Judge" will be Judged by his peers as having lost the case, and that "Judge" will be stripped of his power by my "agreement" to use their Black Magic against them.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that Matt 5:25 is God telling his chosen people to give everything up to anyone who ever asks for anything, ever, without question, always in "agreement" with any criminal, with or without a badge, any criminal demanding something, then we have found where we part in this life and where we "believe" what is right and wrong, you believing one thing, and I believing the opposite thing.

Again, as usual, I have few clues that I can employ in figuring out if I've made any progress toward my goal of conveying my perceptions accurately to you - or to anyone.

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and benot afraid of their terror, neither be troubled"

I stopped at that point, as you may know by now, my perspective includes the experience of Waco Texas playing out on Reality Television during my days of my youth, when I could have, and tried to, do something that was in no way an "agreement" with those things happening at that time, and similar, and worse, things happening now.

Now I am less able to do the right thing, physically.

Was it terrifying for me to call Linda Thompson's rally to go to Washington D.C. armed?

Was it fearful for me to begin painting a target on my back when I ran for Congress on the "it ain't nice to torture and mass murder babies in a church" ticket?

Was I "agreeing" with the "rules" in place then? Am I doing the wrong thing now by not "agreeing" with the rules in place that are right now destroying so much life on this planet?

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

Pay up, and shut up?

I don't think so. I think that somewhere along the lines there has been a clever rewriting of the meaning of words along the way if the message delivered to the intended audience is to pay and don't question the payments.

If the message is otherwise, and the message is not "pay and don't questions the payments," then what is the message?

I have a guess.

I think that the idea is to turn the lies back onto the liars, and not to be afraid to do so, since the truth is what it is, and it is powerful, and it is the power that defeats the opposite of truth, which is plain as day, the opposite of truth is invented by people who lie.

Of course the deceiver will appear as light, good, right, etc., how could a false power gain power without a false measure of reward, bait, the carrot, not the stick, waved in front of the targeted victims?

Go here, it is good for you, and you will get your reward, the sign says, so what is the reward, something bad for the follower?

No, advertizing something bad for the follower is the stick, not the carrot.

Of course it can't be easy to know who, what, and where is deceptive, willfully, or only "following order," and so what is the rock of principle from where an individual person, with or without being saved, can stand.

Good standing?

I don't know.

How about this angle: These Non-Union Lawyers, guys like Carl Miller, people who use The Bill of Rights as a rock of principle form which to Stand in between an aggressive, deceitful, threatening, dangerous, and destructive person, or persons, and the innocent targeted victim, in between the criminal and the victim stands a defender armed with Man-Made Laws made by people who stood on the same rock of principle.

What happens in cases where the "Judge" does not back down?

What rock of principle does the "Judge" access if the "Judge" does not back down?

What rock of principle is above a "Supreme Court Judge"?

The point being pointed out here, in my opinion, is the point at which the False Judges are held together by their absolute need to maintain the False Front, and any "Judge" that fails to maintain the False Front is seen by that group, those "peers," as a menace to their Pyramid Scheme built upon lies.

So to me the scripture you offer is understandable in that light.

I may be very wrong, of course.

"So what I am saying is that if I ever suffer, I hope that it will be because of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not because I have broken some irrelevant law."

Here again my understanding of your words is such that you and I are speaking about two different things, unrelated, as if we are not speaking to each other.

As the people in this Country are led further into Absolute Despotism, or as I like to call it Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, the victims will be victimized more severely and the pile of co-mingled corpses, without heads, will pile higher.

If there are no non-Union Lawyers, and no one exposing the false front, and no one establishing good standing, then, in a phrase, crime pays well.

What have the non-union lawyers discovered?

Nothing worth a farthing?

"And by irrelevant law, I mean in the eternal scheme of things, I will obey man made laws because they are not worth getting myself into trouble with a black robed judge over."

Agreements among human beings to abide by scripture are man-made laws, standing upon the principles handed down from the creator, believe it or not, to me it is mere fact. Obedience according to man-made laws made by evil people, deceivers, torturers, pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers, mass murderers, devil worshipers, and who knows what else, is exactly what that is, when obedience to that is the choice being made by whoever makes that choice, even if the person making that choice claims that they are doing the right thing, or the wrong thing, it matters not, when the torturer demands another victim, or another cheeseburger for lunch, and the subject of the demand obeys, that is what happens, another victim flows to the torturer to be tortured, or a cheeseburger, or a Federal Reserve Note, or whatever else is demanded by the torturer, or the pedophile, or the serial killer, or the sociopath, or the psychopath, with or without the black robe, and with or without the power of black magic believed to be what can be conjured up in the minds of evil people.

To me, reading these new packets of information, which are available again at the source I found them (the DNS server expired for awhile yesterday), the obvious source of POWER for these Legal Criminals is their "Honor" to abide by their rules to maintain their lies, and that is something worth knowing, in my opinion.

I can certainly be wrong.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same"

I had not read that until after I wrote the words I wrote before reading that, and to me those words you offer confirm what I am trying to convey to you, this understanding I have now, so I don't know if my goal can be reached, or if we merely have an agreement on this information already understood. We agree, perhaps.

"How about the Davidians that stood before judges, did they not end up in jail anyways?"

Here is where the concept of numbers returns. If you have an understanding of how statistics work, with charts that show such things as Bell Curves, then you can use that understanding to see, and accurately measure, life on Earth, in our time, in this context here exactly.

On the extremes of examples where people interact well there are few cases of the most extreme examples of people interacting well, good, moral, right, loving, generous, and equitable examples, and on the other extreme are examples where people interact poorly.

What happened to the "Judge" who exposed the "Art of Deception" so clearly in view with that Waco example?

Was that "Judge" rewarded by his "peers" for doing such a good job?

A competitive question may be one that asks what if, as that situation of that extreme example of evil could have been different if a non-union lawyer represented those victims at some point during that example of evil exemplifying evil without any false covering of a nebulous good. Stark Naked Evil having nothing False to Hide Behind, is poisonous to The Deceivers who depend upon their False Flags and False Fronts?

Those, getting back to the numbers factor, those examples of extreme evil, set the bar, and serve as warnings of what happens when no one stands in between the evil ones and the innocent victims targeted by those very evil people.

Where do the road signs point?

Where does the inculpatory evidence point?

The "peers" of "judges" at the TOP are finding their False Fronts growing thinner?

Why?

If so, if the game is up, if the well is going dry, then why?

Why, if not because there are now more people, at least in their own minds, no longer obeying the orders issued to be obeyed without question; in their own minds, at least, at least, in their own minds, they are questioning those orders?

The Franklin Case serves the same purpose, in my opinion, as the Waco case. Pedophiles, slave traders, exposed.

Where does the inculpatory evidence point?

Add to those two, the Franklin Case, and the Waco Case, add the Cases where so many, numbers again, so many Police Officers, expose the inculpatory evidence pointing toward the evil people who are earning their way through life as Heroin Dealers made legal.

1.
The Waco Holocaust
2.
The Franklin Child Sex Slave Case
3.
The Mike Ruppert CIA Los Angeles Drug Dealer Case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk

So, where does the rubber meet the road in any case, of anyone, living today, in America?

How many people are paying traffic tickets?

Where does that power go?

How many people are paying mortgage payments to frauds?

Where does that money go?

How many people are finding remedy with help from non-union lawyers?

Are there cases where good people are doing good things, and are there more cases happening now, or less cases happening now, and if there are more cases happening now, who is letting us know that we are now turning the tide, if we are now turning the tide?

__________________________________________________
Who and why are people standing before judges?

How about the Davidians that stood before judges, did they not end up in jail anyways? Would it had been any different for them if they had known somekind of law code? Would Randy Weaver's wife still be living if he had known some kind of law code? If there was some kind of law code, would the jails and prisons be full? Would not that information have been the greatest money maker of all times?

I don't know. It seems too good to be true, but what do I know?
__________________________________________________

I can make a deal with you, and you can agree or not, it is no big deal, just a thought, I'm sending a thought to you, and you can do with the thought as you may.

The deal is for either you or I, or someone else reading this, to find the answer to a question, and to comment on the value of the question, and if the question is valid, valuable, then an answer has to be accurate for an answer to be as valuable, or as valid as the question is valid and valuable.

Are judges paid a commission for their ability to extract Federal Reserve Notes from the free people they kidnap and rob in court?

That is the challenge, and you can rewrite the question any way you want, and the answer will be what the answer is in fact.

If the answer is yes, as I've heard that the answer is yes, but I have not verified the answer as being yes, but if the answer is yes, then that is lucrative employment. Jobs are scarce these days.

Joe

My point was

"My point is not to point out a need to find bad guys wherever they may be hiding and then attack them with something; if that is what you think my point was, and I base this qualification on the words quoted above. "

Don't get oneself in a position to stand before a judge, and one will not find themselves before a judge. No matter how that judge is or is not paid, if I am not standing before that judge I will not be paying that judge.

I am thinking when they start rounding people up at 4am, it won't matter whether I have some magic words. At that point, evil will have overcome.

I am thinking if I am stopped for speeding, and I am issued a speeding ticket, I will pay the ticket, and I don't care where that money goes. I should not have been speeding. I make it a practice to avoid speeding.

I think I have already told you about my father and brother, and I suppose I could toss one of my sister's into that ring. They paid lawyers to get their tickets dismissed. They might be interested in magic words when appearing before a judge so that they don't have to pay a lawyer. But, my dad is dead...probably from speeding, reading and driving all at the same time. Or maybe he just dropped a cigarette on the floor while driving so when it came time to stop when a sand truck pulled out of the sand quarrey, he did not see the truck. My brother died in a house fire. My sister's husband is on hospice now, and I don't know what her current need is in having tickets dismissed.

“Here again my understanding of your words is such that you and I are speaking about two different things, unrelated, as if we are not speaking to each other.”

In my mind, I am talking about the subject.

Stay out of court. Do what is right. Follow the laws. I am a Christian. I do not want to bring a bad testimony upon Christ for being a law-breaker. But, if I break the law, I will humbly pay what is required and do so repentantly. Andy why should someone else pay the judge? It was my law breaking that took his time, so maybe I have volunteered to pay that “tax” when I broke the law?

If David Koresh had known the magic words, would the terrible, terrible thing at Waco have been avoided? I don’t think so. I think that thing at Waco was done one purpose, by criminals, so those criminals could see what they could get away with. And when I say criminals, I am not talking about the Davidians. I am talking about Janet Reno and federal criminals who did not even bother to make their crime legal as far as I can understand, but perpetrated crime on a group of people to see what could be “gotten away with.”

If I remember right, the Davidians presented a white flag. The criminals did not honor that white flag.

What if in the beginning the Davidians had come out with their hands up? Would they have been shot all 80+ of them in front of the news cameras which were on site at that time?

I am not defending what was done to them, and I am not blaming them for getting themselves killed. I am only asking, what would have happened if they had opened the door and single filed out, all of them, with their hands up. Would the ATF, FBI, and Texas National Guard taken that opportunity for target practice?

• Matthew 5:25 -26 KJV
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Sounds like good advice to me.

The Amish practice this:
• Luke 6:29 KJV
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

• Matthew 5:40 KJV
And if any man will sue thee at the law , and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

I think they trust themselves into the Hands of Almighty God, and allow their fate to remain there. It is not an easy road. http://www.exploring-amish-country.com/amish-history.html But by the suffering of some, the road has been made smoother for those who have come behind.

I Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

I asked the Amish why thy didn’t vote. They feel that their time is better spent in prayer that day.

Josf, we do probably part ways abit on this. I place my life in the hands of the Just of the Universe. I may suffer, but may His Will be accomplished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale#Betrayal_and_d...
Betrayal and death [edit]
Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips to the imperial authorities,[23] seized in Antwerp in 1535 and held in the castle of Vilvoorde (Filford) near Brussels.[24] He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[25] Tyndale's final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[26] The traditional date of commemoration is 6 October, but records of Tyndale's imprisonment suggest the actual date of his execution might have been some weeks earlier.[27] Foxe gives 6 October as the date of commemoration (left-hand date column), but gives no date of death (right-hand date column).[24]

Why was all of this done to this man? It was because he dared to translate the Bible into the common language of the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494–1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his translation of the Bible into English. He was influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, and by Martin Luther.[1] While a number of partial and incomplete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the grass-roots spread of Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English—even though all the major European languages had been translated and made available.[2][3] Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English one to take advantage of the printing press, and first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation. It was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and English Laws to maintain church rulings. In 1530, Tyndale also wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it contravened Scripture

“William Tyndale, before being strangled and burned at the stake, cries out, ‘Lord, open the King of England's eyes.’”

That happened in the 1500’s. In 1611, a King of England Authorized the King James Bible.

Thomas Paine was right: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

“Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy; and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.”

In listening to William Cooper, a suspician I have had has been somewhat confirmed. Monarchies have been overthrown so as to install democracies on the way to One World Government. You see "sovereigns" have been thrown of the throne so that those in black can rule the whole world, more easily.

When it comes to law, God has not given me the authority to speed. He has though, given me the authority to speak the name of Christ and to Evangelize.

Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name [Jesus]? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

So, if I stand before a judge, may it be because of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I honestly do not think there are any magic words. I would be very concerned with finding out the end of the story with those videos. Foust is dead. Cooper is dead. Koresh is dead. Randy Weaver’s wife and son are dead. What about the man who declared his case dismissed when the judge abandoned the courtroom? What happened in that case, specifically? Why was that man appearing before a judge in the first place? What was the final outcome of that case? Is that man still at liberty? Or is he in jail somewhere? Was the price worth it?

When Jesus' dicples were asked to pay tribute/taxes:

Matthew 17:27 KJV
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

The advice given: Don't offend them. Agree with them. Pray for them. Only suffer for doing what is right.

My advice: if you do something wrong, as in breaking some irrelevant man-made law, pay up.

I don't live in this kingdom:

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

...

Repetition Mode

"Don't get oneself in a position to stand before a judge, and one will not find themselves before a judge. No matter how that judge is or is not paid, if I am not standing before that judge I will not be paying that judge."

I agree. My point was not disagreement on that point, so why repeat that point?

"I am thinking when they start rounding people up at 4am, it won't matter whether I have some magic words. At that point, evil will have overcome."

My point is that that happens now. What is a foreclosure?

You, and many other people, not being foreclosed on, or you, and many other people who can afford foreclosure, are not the same thing as someone being foreclosed upon and they can't afford it.

Not everyone is being wronged in cases of foreclosure, so please, please, please, don't get me wrong here too.

Please don't repeat the so often repeated mistake of thinking that my specific focus of attention applies to everything all at once.

There are now cases of foreclosures whereby the targets have paid their mortgage payments on time, and yet they are thrown out on the street, destitute.

There are now cases of people being rounded up, in Waco, tortured, and mass murdered, in America.

There are now cases of children being sold to people in Washington D.C. where the buyers are wearing black robes.

There are now people being rounded upon, brought before a Black Robed "Judge," to be punished for failing to pay a false "income tax," including people who actually have paid their false "income taxes."

Your words:

"I am thinking when they start rounding people up at 4am, it won't matter whether I have some magic words. At that point, evil will have overcome."

It won't matter in all cases, because all cases are the same thing?

It won't matter in any case, if it happens to you, ever?

it won't matter in any case, if it happens to someone you hold dear, ever?

If that is a fact, then it is a fact, and it won't matter, in any case.

On the other hand, there are people, more now than yesterday by my measure of the available evidence, saying those magic words, and avoiding the punishments, and if that is a fact, if that is true, then to me the tide is turning in that measurable way.

Perhaps the Black Robed Buyers of Child Sex Slaves, who may have been rounded up at 4 am think twice now, compared to yesterday, perhaps they just pay more, I don't know, that case was closed before trial.

"I am thinking if I am stopped for speeding, and I am issued a speeding ticket, I will pay the ticket, and I don't care where that money goes. I should not have been speeding. I make it a practice to avoid speeding."

There again is the concept of you speaking to me as if I think it is a good idea to do things that cause people to be brought before a "Judge" so as to then have golden opportunities, which is not what I am saying.

I can almost agree with your words, except the part about caring about where the money goes. I care about where the money goes, but the idea of avoiding "Judges" and the idea of driving safely, are ideas I agree with, so why are you announcing these ideas, do you think I don't agree with those ideas?

"I don't know what her current need is in having tickets dismissed."

So, I suppose, according to you, my viewpoint is merely a desire to avoid paying tickets?

The line in the sand here is well marked with your words here:

"I don't care where that money goes"

Why are you discussing this topic with me? I care where the money goes. If you don't, and I do, then what point is there in our discussing this topic?

I don't get it.

Why not discuss the weather? Oh, wait, there are those poisons falling out of the sky, paid for by some means, but who cares?

"In my mind, I am talking about the subject."

The subject you are talking about is your concern over the payment of tickets. The subject I am talking about is the 3 levels of legal crime where the top level is a cabal of Legal Criminals who are bound together by their belief in the power of falsehood, Black Magic, Devil Worship, and pure evil.

1.
Payment of tickets
2.
Pure Evil

I don't see where the subject you are talking about is the subject I am talking about, where is the connection, since I don't see it, and you do, so how can I see the connection you see, without your help?

"Stay out of court. Do what is right. Follow the laws. I am a Christian. I do not want to bring a bad testimony upon Christ for being a law-breaker. But, if I break the law, I will humbly pay what is required and do so repentantly. Andy why should someone else pay the judge? It was my law breaking that took his time, so maybe I have volunteered to pay that “tax” when I broke the law?"

Again you are limiting the subject you are talking about to your personal experience concerning what you will do in cases where you break a law you agree with as being a law, and that is the subject you are speaking about.

That is not the subject I am speaking about, and so where is this connection between the subject you are speaking about and the subject I am speaking about?

I can offer a possible future scenario whereby a new law becomes the law and the new law affects you, and you can choose now to be prepared for such a new law, or you can fail to be prepared for such a new law, and in either case it has nothing to do with me.

I prepare.

You don't.

Where can the connection be made between the subject you are talking about connects to the subject I am talking about?

If you prefer not to even look, then don't look, why should I waste my time?

I should not.

"If David Koresh had known the magic words, would the terrible, terrible thing at Waco have been avoided?"

There was no court case, that is not the subject matter, but the Trial by Jury which happened after the Holocaust at Waco is the subject.

Could a non-union lawyer have been able to defend the Liberty of those people who survived the Waco Holocaust if a non-union lawyer Established Standing for those targeted victims?

That is the point I am trying to make, precisely, if not ideally, since that case is on the extreme end of Legal Crime being defined precisely as Legal Crime, and therefore it is exceptional. A more ideal example of defending Liberty in Court is the run of the mill, the normal, the daily, targeting of victims, the exploitation of those victims, by Legal Criminals, but that extreme case will do.

Could there have been a battle between a non-union lawyer and that "Judge" who committed that Legal Crime in that case where those survivors of the Waco Holocaust were further victimized by that "Judge" in that case?

Could that non-union lawyer have produced the documents required to force that "Judge" to back down, retreat, and be render powerless by his own belief in Black Magic, or more likely the case would have moved up to a higher level, such as a "Supreme Court" case?

That is the point I am looking at, and within that viewpoint the idea comes to my mind to consider finding out if any cases where non-union lawyers are defending targeted victims have reached up to the level of the "Supreme Court"?

If what I am reading is true, and if my understanding of what I am reading is true, then the answer is no, the Cabal of Devil Worshipers won't allow their own "Judges" to move cases where non-union lawyers force cases up into the "Supreme Court" level, because the risks of being exposed at that level are to damaging to Legal Crime, too close to the Top, where those at the Top understand their need for secrecy. The Top understand the absolute necessity of deception being maintained, because that is the source of their power. I think it is obvious that no "Judge" will remain a "Judge" if a "Judge" fails to maintain the deception.

Again, what happened to that "Judge" who stepped so far over the line of Laws that are supposedly in force by those who supposedly enforce Laws? If the evil people, the most powerful among us, powered by deceit, have their covers uncovered, their power evaporates. That is the point. I think it is worth knowing.

"What if in the beginning the Davidians had come out with their hands up? Would they have been shot all 80+ of them in front of the news cameras which were on site at that time?"

The evidence available, that I have seen, and I've looked, proves that they were shot, so why ask that question, they were shot.

"Would the ATF, FBI, and Texas National Guard taken that opportunity for target practice?"

Again, I don't know how you can even ask that question, they were shot, they did serve as target practice.

Does that not sink in?

Is that too difficult to realize?

"Sounds like good advice to me."

We do not share the meaning of that scripture, so that could be a focus of attention worth attending to, but there is only so much time, and you and I are responsible in many ways concerning many things, as we are able.

I don't need your help in figuring this out, I will be working on it as I can, with or without your help. I appreciate your work being focused on raising your kids well. This stuff is foreign stuff, and it does not need to occupy your life, it just happens to be occupying mine, not by my choice, it is occupying my time, my life, so I respond to it, as I am able.

"The Amish practice this:"

If you say that, then you say that the Amish do not fight wars, then that is a contradiction.

When "him that smiteth" come to take away son's and daughters, for sex slavery, drug addiction, or criminal wars of aggression for profit, which they do often, the Amish let their son go, then another son, then a daughter, a coat, a hat, a chair, a cheek?

If the Amish are targeted, by these who smiteth, and they smite by taking away children, which they have done so in the past, are doing so now, and will do in the future, to people, not yet the Amish, perhaps, then the Amish "offer also the other" child?

Here are your words:

"One more thing, I don’t ask the Amish a lot of curiosity questions, because I think sometimes it bothers them. But yesterday, I brought up the fact that I had read about German Baptists and AnnaBaptists and Quakers not fighting in the revolutionary war. He told me about an account from WWI where 3 young Amish men were taken and he did not use the word tortured, but that is exactly what it was and it fits into lies, treats of violence, and violence (if I have your words right). Anyways, they were mistreated, and then they were told that they were going to be buried alive, and they were and covered with dirt to their necks. Then they were removed and then each one was taken to 3 freshly dug graves and told they would be buried alive if they did not agree to fight in WWI. Each was then taken separately back to those graves and one had been filled with dirt and the man was told told that their Amish friend had been buried there alive in that grave. It was all a lie. The men never broke."

"3 young Amish men were taken"

So the Amish who have men taken offer more men to be taken?

So the Amish who have children taken offer more children to be taken?

I can't do that, I won't do that, to me that is wrong, here have both of my children, take two, not one, they are small, you may need two, since one may not be enough for you?

To me that is the same thing as having one child wander too close to a Mad Dog, eaten by the Mad Dog, and so the advice I am being offered in this scripture is to move the other child, "offer," the other child to satisfy the Mad Dog's need for flesh.

Here is where you can again mistake what I am saying as if I am saying that it is good advice to go find these Mad Dog's and fight them, in their cages, and that is not what I am saying.

When the Mad Dog's take people to their cages, they appear to be following rules, so they are not actually insane, there is a measurable method to their madness, and it may be worth the effort to understand that method to their madness in cases where some of the children wander off and are taken by these evil people who are not Mad Dogs so much as they are evil people, wearing Black Robes, worshiping the Devil, and other nasty things.

"Josf, we do probably part ways abit on this. I place my life in the hands of the Just of the Universe. I may suffer, but may His Will be accomplished."

We part ways on imaginary versions of my viewpoint, or we part ways on your actual viewpoint compared accurately with my actual viewpoint?

If one of your children are taken, you offer the other one?

Is that were we part?

If you claim that I am suggesting that it is a good idea to do things that cause someone to be in court, then that is where we part, since that is not my viewpoint?

If you claim that the Golden Rule is a good, and you see a need to make that claim to me because you think I don't think that the Golden Rule is good, and that is where we part?

"Why was all of this done to this man? It was because he dared to translate the Bible into the common language of the people."

Why is that any different than taking one thing and offering other things to be taken?

If they take knowledge of scripture, then the right thing to do is to give them knowledge of love, yes or no?

"...install democracies..."

That to me is a case of bait and switch. Why call it "democracies" when the actual thing is Legal Crime?

A democracy can be a method of finding agreement among the volunteers.

A democracy can be a method of injuring the innocent targets.

When you claim that Thomas Paine was right, I agree, to my ability to agree, because the "complexity" is the falsehood, which is the cover of legitimacy that covers up the criminals who perpetrate the crimes, and without that cover, the victims are then powerful enough to at least know who are the criminals.

That is the point. The Legal Criminals are bound by their own understanding of the need to keep their falsehoods maintained, so any one of their own number who work to expose their falsehoods to their victims are corrected, in some way.

That is the point. The actual Golden Rule, or the actual legitimate lawful power, is the facade that has to be maintained, and knowing this can be understood by the victims, as the victims are then able to respond to the legal crimes with the remedies that work, the actual Golden Rules, or the actual legitimate lawful employment of power, according to those Legal Criminals, because those Legal Criminals know that they must maintain that facade, there must be a false front, so what is the false front?

What rules do the Legal Criminals actually follow themselves, the rules that police their own numbers, forcing their own numbers to maintain the facade?

If there is no facade, nothing, all that there are, in view, are pedophiles trading child sex slaves, and torturers, and serial killers, and mass murderers, in plain view, then, without the facade, who is going to imagine that those criminals are the authorities?

Who would give them the time of day, let alone their first born, and their second born, when all they are are individual cowards hiding in shadows of good people?

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

How does that compare to giving more to those who take?

A man shows up at the door and takes a child, so the advice is to obey, to allow that child to be taken, and then, on top of that good advice, there is the additional advice to obey that man, and offer that man another child, since one may not be enough?

So how does that "obey man" jive with the opposite advice, other than the obvious measure of contradiction?

"So, if I stand before a judge, may it be because of the Lord Jesus Christ."

That is why I use quotes now when I use the word "Judge."

A Jury, on the other hand, could be seen as democracy, and I'm not saying that a Jury is better than God at judging guilt or innocent, punishment or not, so please don't attach such thoughts on me.

Trial by Jury worked better than most experiments in working to minimize the rate of pay flowing to the criminals.

"I honestly do not think there are any magic words."

Here we go again. I suppose that the above words may not mean that you think I think that there are magic words, but my viewpoint is such that you do think that you need to say those words because you think that I think that there are magic words.

I don't.

I think that the Black Robed Devil Worshipers think that their False Fronts are worth maintaining, and so they work to invent, produce, and maintain "magic words" to help guide their minions, to direct their Devil Worshiping cohorts, to make them believe in these "magic words" so as to keep those very evil people in check, in line, and to keep those very evil people from being too overtly evil, to keep those evil people from being too "out in the open" evil, as the concept of "magic words" serve that purpose.

True believers in Devil Worship may or may not exist, I have my doubts, but those who go through the motions, appear to believe, they wear the robs, they chant, they demand specific words to be spoken by their victims, if their victims want to avoid being victims.

If I can say specific words that once spoken a "Judge" will then call a recess, and leave the room, then my guess is that that "Judge" is harboring a belief in the power of those words, for some reason. I think it may be a good idea to know the reasons why the "Judge" leaves the room if someone before the "Judge" says those words.

"What happened in that case, specifically? Why was that man appearing before a judge in the first place? What was the final outcome of that case? Is that man still at liberty? Or is he in jail somewhere? Was the price worth it?"

I think many questions like that cannot be answered without personal experience in any case.

I think Carl Miller would be a good study, and I have studied Carl Miller some, and my measure of Carl Miller is such that there are examples of victories in courts offered to those who study Carl Miller and his example. There are, most likely, more examples, better examples, worse examples, of victories of people defending Liberty when the Legal Criminals TAKE, and want more, and the defenders do not offer more, instead the defenders defend against more TAKING by those Devil Worshiping Criminals with their Black Robes and their Magic Words.

"The advice given: Don't offend them. Agree with them. Pray for them. Only suffer for doing what is right."

That is another subject. The subject is not someone offending them. The examples I've seen in Winston Shrout, Carl Miller, the Australasian guy, are polite people following the rules politely.

You say "Agree with them."

That is the point. Their rules, followed, agreeing with them, with their rules, their False Front rules, and they follow those rules for fear of having their False Front fall, so it is an agreement with them, so what is the point you are pointing out?

Bill Foust was quick to temper, and that may have been all that was needed to "justify" putting so many bullets into his body.

That is not the point.

"My advice: if you do something wrong, as in breaking some irrelevant man-made law, pay up."

My brother was one year away from being drafted into the aggressive criminal war in Vietnam, at one point in my life, and I am 2 years younger than my brother.

I accept your advice as your advice. It is not my advice, and I won't pay up when I can't pay up, when my heart and soul knows it is wrong, I will not pay up.

To me it is foolish, and dangerous, and very destructive advice that you offer, when specific man made laws are the specific laws of interest. When the subject concerns a speeding ticket, then your advice is also my advice, since I have paid them, so my actions speak where my words are not necessary.

_______________________________________
I don't live in this kingdom:

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
_______________________________________

I don't know what that means. I live on a planet called Earth, and to me it is dead wrong to allow power to flow to criminals from their targeted victims because the criminals grow more powerful and the victims grow less powerful. To me that is dead wrong, it is a species killer.

Joe

Reply deserves focus

At the moment I can say that we are not communicating well, for some reason.

In my opinion. I want to get back to greater detail in this reply.

Joe

I am sorry I am not communicating well, I am trying to give my

point of view, and in doing so, I am probably not answering your point of view line by line as I should, as you do. I probably should have written what you have just written instead of writing what I wanted to write regardless of what you had just said in your thoughtful line-by-line answer to my previous words.

We were gone all day and I didn't do book work, and have been goofing off tonight instead of working.

Pets

Yes, I need to be careful with my words. I looked up wiki on pet and it is only animals. I definitely mean pet as a term of endearment, not as sub-human or a thing for my entertainment, but as in persons I care for and I have special endearment toward.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pet As in number 2, a noun:
2. a person especially cherished or indulged; favorite: He was the teacher's pet.

Or number 5, an adjective:
5. especially cherished or indulged, as a child or other person.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!

I most definitely will have to study law after I study grammer for several more hours :)

...

I don't know why

But I find you very convelouted. You do not make your arguments clear IMO (I'm not saying this is a global fact, I am not attempting to assassinate your charactor, I am not calling you a liar).

If I misread you, which I believe I must have, (and at this point, I'd say it's become a meme) I apologize.

God is truth, the world is nothing but illusion and lies. You are a man for the world; I am a woman who ADOREs God, so perhaps this is why you and I are unable to have a good debate? You do not respect me, and expect me to honor you, and understand why you will not respect or honor me.

I don't expect you to agree.

I hope you have a great posting day, and I'll hope that ALL who meet you admire you, LOVE you, and say nothing but kind things to you and about you, that you feel you deserve.

Mission Impossible?

I can write in English.

I do not argue.

I do not argue when the concept of argument is such that any lie is good enough to win the argument.

I prefer to offer a competitive viewpoint instead of an argument where any lie is good enough to win the argument.

Anything I write can be twisted into meaning anything by you, and I understand that to be something that you demonstrate, something you define, something you do, on a regular basis, not involving exclusively me, as you also demonstrate the same routine twisting of words as you target other people.

Examples of your twisting words written by other people continue, and here is another example of that which you do that way.

"You do not respect me, and expect me to honor you, and understand why you will not respect or honor me."

I, me being me, not you claiming to know what I do, me, the real me, identifies your viewpoint as being a false version of my viewpoint.

Your false viewpoint of me is expressed in English with these words quoted as: "You do not respect me,".

That is false.

Then you write:

"You do not respect me, and expect me to honor you, and understand why you will not respect or honor me."

That is falsehood piled upon falsehood when that is a claim of how I am, when that is a claim of what I think and when that is a claim of what I do, that is falsehood piled upon falsehood, and the source of that falsehood is the source of that falsehood, so what, I can ask, respectfully, and honorably, what is the source of all that falsehood within those quotes?

I respect every source of falsehood I can find, as if I were a person walking through a mine field, respecting the metal sticks that stick out of the ground.

I honor every mine, in the mine field, as being mines, and worthy of respect, worthy of honor for what they are in fact.

So your version of me, a false version, is what it is, and your version of me is not me.

If you are working to win something as you invent, and publish, these lies, then you can proceed, and as far as I am concerned, your lies confess that you are a liar, and the fact that I am your current target is merely incidental.

Another target of yours, a new target to make up lies about, can prove the point soon enough.

An army of targets, you target, and lie about, can prove the point as time goes by, leaving me out of it, thankfully.

Meanwhile, I am the target of your barrage of lies.

"I hope you have a great posting day, and I'll hope that ALL who meet you admire you, LOVE you, and say nothing but kind things to you and about you, that you feel you deserve."

I am not going to waste much time hoping that you stop lying about me, and misrepresenting me, or anyone else for that matter, such as Noam Chomsky, because my hoping that you will stop lying about Noam Chomsky, to me, is counter productive, as if doing so, my hoping, actually eggs you on, and inspires you to greater effort in your quest to discredit the man.

I think lying is a form of torture done by the liar upon the victim. If the victim of the lie expresses discomfort, or pain, what is likely to be the feelings infecting the liar, or the torturer?

In effect, it seems to me, any cry for mercy is seen by the liar, or the torturer as if the victim, the target, is begging for more.

I am, of course, often wrong.

Joe

I prefer being WRONG

It is throiugh error that I learn.

What a glorious wonderful day to LEARN, YOU RESPECT ME.

THANK YOU/. It was worth being wrong, to learn your TRUTH.

YOU RESPECT ME.

To me, a lie, is told to deceive.

If I thought you were a loar, I would not respect what you wrote, so I don't understand how, you believe(?), think(?), know(?), that I am a liar and RESPECT me. I find that very odd.

I apologize that you believe(?), think(?), know(?), that I am representing you.

I have no idea who you are or what your agenda, if any is, and based post by post, respond to what you present.

Is that YOU I am reflecting? To me. And if that does not lone up with your own belief, perspective, self-perception of truth of who you are, or who you want me to think you are, you have every right to correct me.

I don't know you, and I am NOT interested in representing you. I am trying to understand you. What you do with your time, and the judgement of you time as being a waste, I'll leave to you.

THANK YOU FOR EDUCATING ME THAT YOU RESPECT ME.

To me, Noam Chomsky is a COMMUNIST in "libertarian- socialist" clothing (propgandist, and part of the dumbing down of American education system, from the tip top).