Would You Vote For Me?

[Didymus]

Changed my party affiliation to Republican 11-15-2010, hence the change of the first sentence .

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this countries economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Some good foundations;

Do you know about Jake Towne?
He's from Quakertown area.

I think, generally speaking the Fed Govt was originally only involved in govorning the international affairs FOR the states; not for making laws for citizens of the states. The 14th amendemnt changed and hid alot through confusion of terms while establishing a 'citizen of the federal states'. State constitutions were also changed at that time.
You may have to also look at the constitutionality of the 14th.

I think your point #8 is a result of the 14th amendment establishing a secondary "Federal State" jurisdiction overlapping the independant union state for which it's 'naturalized' and tricked U.S. (federal) citizens to reside. There is also a secondary federal state citizenry imposed upon those born or naturalized into federal state citizenry. This is the accomplishment of the 14th amendment. Is there a difference between the post civil war 'U.S.' and the pre civil war 'U.S.A.'. If not, then why did states constitutions and oaths of military office drop 'of America' from the oaths?

Even so; aren't these all 'man made' govts but which thankfully still respect individual religious freedom.


It seems most of the points are valid points against areas of oppression and encroachment of outside influences and needed points of discussion and re-evaluation.


Do you know about Goldismoney forum?
AIPAC?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

A more important question that I would have is how you interpret Romans 13; the temple tax; and perhaps even the question about paying lordship to Ceasar that the Pharisee's (the vipers who would become unified with 'the beast') asked Jesus.

What do you know about 'just war theory' as basis for international law.

[Didymus]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

Yes; I view the 'end times' scriptures as fulfilled with Deut 32 being the 'mother' of so called end time prophecies; but there are so many angles to being called a 'preterist' that I shy away from that nomenclature.

Although not a supporter or detractor Google Jake Towne for your own interests http://towneforcongress.com/

I disagree with the date of the change from USA to U.S. Research the Pa constitution before and after the civil war. Research the oaths of military office before and after the civil war.
And even before this, the U.S. citizenship was the U.S. Congress(people) assembled, officers and subjects of the federal govt through residency in D.C./Fed territory or allegience. I believe that U.S. Congress (people) assembled was the 'we the people of the United States' who ordained and established the Constitution FOR the United States of America; but not neccessarily for their citizens. Thus the later need for the 14th.

Just before the drafting of the U.S. constitution, while congress was meeting in Philadelphia, people who had served in the Revolutionary war went to the fed govt to get paid for their service to this group. Congress requested the Pa Militia to come and disband the group. The Govornor of Pa, rightly refused, understanding that Pa was not subodinate to the Fed govt, The Govornor basically said; Pay your own army. More info on the Pennsylvania Mutiny could be found online.

The U.S. citizenship of the 14th (civil war) amendment is federal territorial U.S. citizenship; not Union state nationality which would have subsequently equaled U.S.A. nationality. There are court cases after the civil war which indicate that there were at least 2 citizenships active within the land and being either one did not equal being the other.

And even before and during these things; I believe that individual religious freedom from corporal and warring govts was respected and protected within the states constitutions (and for the most part still is). Pennsylvania was founded as a Quaker (Peace church) state (Commonwealth) proclaiming individual religious freedom while NY was predominately Presbyterian. I haven't heard much of the others.

Awaiting the other answers.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD,

You make a good point. There is a difference between the "United States," and the "United States of America." Although I think it happened in 1913, when the "United States" was incorporated as a business. The Constitution for the United States of America was repalced by the Commercial Code of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

I am curious about your user name. Are you a preterist? And who is Jake Townsend?

Didy

I think UCC is in congruence with international law and a result of 'just war theory' and thus is justifiably imposed as law for the U.S. federal/international territories and it's citizens due to ITS military. It is revealing itself as judaism. Although imposed as such I dont' think it is neccessarily supreme law of the land for every individual due to religious freedoms and the power of the kingdom of God. It is imposed as supreme law of the federal U.S. territories and all freely naturalized 14th amendment (federal) citizens.

Edit: Recently found; In support of Religious freedoms, Congress also recognized in 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act; But as PUBLIC LAW. This would be different than federal/private law. (I think)

See also:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...4395#post24395

That's why I asked you for your interpretation/understanding of Romans 13.

[Didymus]

You know, I am not to fond of the "preterist" label either.

I will check into Jake Townsend. Did he win?

Well, I am not sure of the date. You are right, there were many changes after the Civil War. And there were changes in 1913 as well. The 16th Amendment, for example.

Maryland was Catholic.

You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

You know, I am not to fond of the "preterist" label either.

I will check into Jake Townsend. Did he win?

Well, I am not sure of the date. You are right, there were many changes after the Civil War. And there were changes in 1913 as well. The 16th Amendment, for example.

Maryland was Catholic.

You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?

The perspective below is presented for individual study and research.

I don't think the 16th changed anything; but it is now misapplied and imposed as if was intended to include 'all' individual income from every form of human without regard to their (uncoerced) 14th amendment federal citizen status.

I think The court case that launched the 16th involved a NY resident/non U.S. citizen who owned rental property which was situated inside a federal land area. He claimed that since he was a non resident/non federal citizen (alien) that his rental income from sources within the 'federal' united states area was non taxable unless it was apportioned among the states and in accordance with the census. He was wrong and lost due to the property being 'within' a federal area/territory and listed among SOURCES of federally connected income that were taxable irreguardless of one's citizenship status. Congress was given authority to tax it's territories and its' subjects and its citizens in ways that it could not tax Citizens in a Free state. In the Regs in sections 861/871 are listed specific sources from within and specific sources from without federal states; D.C. and federal areas. These federal areas are defined in the code as "United States" and these 861/871 sources from within and without are stated as 'FEDERALLY connected SOURCES of income. These, I believe, were the original focus of the 16th to non-resident aliens.

There were court cases after the 16th which emphatically and specifically stated that no new laws had been enacted by the 16th. And the last determination prior to 1913 around 1896 had upheld the U.S. constitution and forbid congress to tax non federally connected individual labor/income of Union State citizens/nationals within the union states without apportionment through the states and according to population/census as stated earlier in the Constitution. And, the states were not too keen on paying up when the Fed did demand a poll or head tax.

The focus of the 16th was 'source' income from whatever specifically defined and stated federally connected sources (either those sources within or sources without a federal U.S.*area) that they were derived and that those sources were taxable irregardless of being a non-resident alien or as the act put it; 'without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration. *Remember again that in almost all cases; the definition of 'united states' for which congress has exclusive jurisdiction are the 5 federal areas; D.C. and federal territories and IT's citizens.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever [federally connected] source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Basically; the 16th re-stated what parts of the constitution had already stated and it would seem that it's only inclusion as an amendment without using the words "federally connected" before the word 'source' would be to later confuse, obligate, tax through imposition, the populace.(or cause them to study) The words 'federally connected" are found in sec 871 and likely 861.

There are some who follow what is called the 861 argument, and I believe they are wrong or fed plants because they either do not realized that non-resident aliens (NRA's) are a political/religious choice within the earth and USA and that the U.S. is defined as the federal areas with respect to sources of income for NRA's. The 861 argument people view NRA's and foreigners as someone from outside of the geographic country, and they view within and without the U.S. as being within and without the geographic country rather than within or without exclusive federal jurisdiction.

From what I have heard, the record of deliberations about the 16th have "mysteriously" vanished from congressional records.

I think the 16th in it's present reading also presumes and is subordinate to the 14th amendment u.s citizenship status as are most of the post 14th amendments.

I believe that AN additional SOURCE of 'federally' taxable and connected income is based on this individual (U.S.)citizenship status and by individually being a willing 14th amendment (federal; U.S.) citizen (or perhaps resident). Previous to the 14th (and after) U.S. citizenry/allegiance would have included members of Congress, officers of federal departments, the U.S. military personal loyal to Congress; and direct residents living in the U.S. (D.C.) . These were taxed under federal income income tax as far back as 1870's.

It IS Logically and reasonably presumed if a person is born in a federal area/territory (5 fed territories) and does not expatriate or a freeborn in a State freely and willingly while in full knowledge and awareness of the facts and options of jurisdictions and citizenship; etc elects to remain in, or is naturalized as a 14th amendment FEDERAL (U.S.) citizen / resident that they would desire to be and remain as such.

I believe that the 14th amendment additionally confused things by creating an additional and new federal state which overlaps the union state territory for IT'S U.S. (not Free State nationals or "other" Peace church citizenships) citizens to 'reside'in while living in a [freeborn] union state with religious liberties. Note the words: All persons born or naturalized in the [federal] united states and subject to ITS [congresses exclusive] jurisdiction are citizens of the [federal] united states AND [additionally, federal-state citizens] of the [newly created federal-] state wherein they reside.

U.S. congress could not dictate that a person naturalized in the [federal] U.S. would also have to be a Citizen of a Free-born/Union State as the religious freedoms of God and Freeborn status upheld in the Union states could be contrary to the subjugation and the corporal/military citizenry of the U.S. law and it's federal states. Thus (I believe) the phrase 'and [a citizen] of the state wherein He resides' MUST refer to a newly created federal state for those who actually lived in a Free State but who had given allegience to the U.S.

Just prior (days or weeks) to the 14th, Congress enacted IN PUBLIC LAW; (not federal, private law) the 'expatriation' statute where a person finding themselves in an undesireable citizenship/allegience (such as the now 'freed' slaves) could expatriate to a non federal (non u.s.) jurisdiction. Unfortunatley, congress began pressuring states to have their immigrants give allegience to U.S. citizenship rather than Free state nationality or to independance or another "King".

I saw a record of Michigan where a letter/memorandum was written which instructed state officials to end immigration and allegiance to a 'State of Michigan' and to divert immigrants to U.S. allegiance and citizenship. I think this was 1871. Interestingly enough; it was (I believe) a Michigan Congressman who drafted the 14th.

Note the similarity in language between the wording of the 14th amendment and sec 26.1.1-1(c) . I think that's the proper code. It talks about who is liable for (individual) federal income tax. They both say 'born or naturalized and subject to ITS (U.S.Congresses) exclusive jurisdiction.

There is a status called 'non-resident alien' with respect to 14th amendment "U.S." citizenry (and then also fed-state citizenry) which seems to be designed for those not freely willing or unable due to religious convictions to be 14th amendment or corporal U.S. citizens or partake in 'benefits', obligations, and natural consequences of that allegiance. I believe It's mentioned in U.S. title 50 (military) & title 8.(naturalization and ineligibility for [federal/U.S.] citizenship) among others.

Free birth status and a Persons Individual Religious freedom and Protection against forced or compelled participation in a ministry against the conscience of the individual are upheld in Pennsylvania and likely other states.
Edit added: And in 1998 Congress in PUBLIC LAW (not federal, private law) reaffirmed religious freedom through the International Religious Freedom Act.

The question becomes: how does a free born native of a free "Union" state or commonwealth become 'naturalized' into 14th amendment (U.S.)federal citizenry or federal residency and/or subject to it's jurisdiction?
And it's an answer that I think centers on freely, willingly and un-compelling registration or contract process.

Citizenship = individually uncompelled 'allegience'. It is not birth or residence status. See Janet Reno's survey of the act of Expatriation. It would be logical that the act of patronization and citizenship is opposite that of expatriation.

This is where the study of the 'just war theory', ones interpretation/contextual understanding of Romans 13 and the 'render unto Ceasar' studies come in; and the considerations of the fulfilled prophecies and the victory of the saints and the promise of the increase of Christ's government come in.

Other sources of taxable federal income MAY be through direct employment for a federal agency/employer and independant work done for a federal agency even though being a political non-resident alien. This second group I believe is addressed through form 1099. This form is also inappropriately (I think) being used to tax presumably voluntary and willing [ though sometimes coerced, compelled or lied to through obfuscation and custom definition of terms] political U.S. citizens and/or residents who may be doing non-employeee work in the private non-domestic (without the federal U.S.) sector. Again weather these are taxable to NRA's is part of sections 861 and 871. I'm not sure if direct federal employment is either possible or taxable to NRA or if one MUST give allegiance (citizenship) to U.S congress to become actually federally employed.

You said, "Awaiting other answers." If I may ask, what other answers?

The questions that are important for any christian to answer and especially helpful to understanding govt which I ask you IS.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...47&postcount=3

[Didymus]

I know nothing about the "just war theory." I've only heard it mentioned a few times.

I think Romans 13 is plain. As Christians, we are to be obedient to the governing authorites. Is there something specific in Romans 13 you want to discuss?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I know nothing about the "just war theory." I've only heard it mentioned a few times.

I think Romans 13 is plain. As Christians, we are to be obedient to the governing authorites. Is there something specific in Romans 13 you want to discuss?

I disagree with your 'plain' interpretation.
Why did all the apostles (except John) die if they submitted to every command of Govt.?
I'll leave it up to you to do a word study of exousia and Romans 13 and then apply it to the context of Romans 12 and his talk about the freedom and power to Love; even loving your enemies. And consider the context of the end of Roman 11 where Mercy was to be shown even to those who were then their enemies. Note 13:8 &10 and the previous chapters context. Note also that at the beginning of the book Paul is writing to the 'called out' ones... I.E. those given 'the Power to become children of God/Love. When those without the Holy Spirit attempt to interpret and apply this; it appears to say what you mentioned.

As Huey Lewis sang' Power of Love; and as John Michael Talbot sang; Do you remember the Power;.... How he LOVED those who Peirced him.... etc.

Here are some helps although I dont' fully agree with every aspect of every article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/green-p/green-p11.1.html
http://www.hisholychurch.info/sermon/romans13.php
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

Edit:
Isaiah 22:21 is the best place that I've found for the word translated 'govornment in the KJV. The septuigent words are Kratov and oikonomian. Kratov can be and is often used in the NT as power of God. A thorough word study of synonyms of rulership; govornment; dominion, kingdom, etc to determine what Paul is saying here. And that understanding should align with the rest of Paul is saying in Romans and elsewhere and be observant of the historical context that Paul was writing from within Rome and as a prisoner and that his letters were likely screened by Roman authorities.

Just war theory can be researched in wikipedia from the other links. It is apparently basis for inter-national law and thus reverts to 'mans ability to make laws for himself and justify 'war' and killing on a corporal or 'national' level. I think it's the basis of UCC as you noted and rationalized / corporal law.

Recall also that the corporal/national mosaic law is the administration of death and no longer advocated or blessed by God even for it's negative purposes; while the individualized/eternal; NEW (restored) covenant of Mercy/eternal forgiveness/adoption is the present and eternal administration of The Father(daddy); Jesus; Holy Spirit.

The answers to the temple tax Google Moses temple tax results and Tribute to Ceasar are also connected to this idea.

The word "power" has a connotation of individual 'freedom'/liberty/authority' and in the context it seems to be refer to having that power and freedom from fear, hate or Law and to Live and Love freely and responsibly. Could it be related to how the law of the Spirit and Love of Christ has made us free from the law of sin/death and mosaic conditional/national law and free to his LOVE?? (Rom 8:2; 10;4ff)

This perspective of the 'higher powers' being the Higher Powers/Principles of God is specifically what Ireneous denied but said that some did interpret things this way. (see book 5; chapter 24) Ireneous also completly misapplied the temple tax that Jesus and Peter paid that was to support the Mosaic covenant temples as a Roman tax in the same chapter. This is inexcusable and is strong support for the romanization and censorship of the surviving letters of the ECF's.
See the first article by lew rockwell. James discussion about friendship with the world being enmity with God contradict Ireneous' statements.

We of the fulfilled perspective proclaim that the kingdom of God; of Love; individual freedom and Peace and the “EVERLASTING Good News OF THE CREATOR” is here and fully established and Dan 7; Deut 32 and Isaiah 59 also fulfilled and yet we live and sometimes 'choose' to live and contract in the kingdom of the judaizers or the kingdom of men; or even 'the church age'.

There was a rescent article that I read where some branch of the govt was sending memo's out to encourage the churches to preach the romanized version of Rom 13. That should be an awareness call of how important this may be.

I've written alot for you to research and think upon and again as stated; not sure how promptly I'll continue to respond.

These are things that should be discussed and studied objectively and prayerfully in our churches.