See c/SwampRangers for details about Scott Lively's book The Pink Swastika.
More coincidences. Why did he say "187 years"?
He knocked it out of the park in the first paragraph by echoing everyone here in saying if they can do it to him THEY CAN DO IT TO ANYONE. He briefly exposed other things they are doing, for anon followup. He did his usual Trumpism of explaining at executive level the talking points about the issue at hand, with facts and figures. He dropped a couple human interest stories in as well, and even questioned the federal income tax. He then came to the good news, $34 million in donations, with a very interesting numerical code of 21.42.53.38 (Fox says the number comes from his own team, which means all they needed to do was wait to issue the press release until after it hit exactly $34 million so as to be able to have everyone echo that number). He ended abruptly so he could leave exactly 34 minutes after arrival. Perfect execution.
Yes, it's drip drip flood. Yes, OP is dooming.
That photo screams "Saruman of Many Colors"!
Yes, but the title and text here doesn't seem to agree with the order's text. The order merely delegates the President's extant power to issue silver certificates to the Treasury Secretary. No new currency, no indication Johnson immediately revoked it (it lapsed in 1964), no new "printing money based on a silver standard". If Wikipedia is accurate Kennedy was speaking against silver certificates and in favor of FRNs and the theory was only developed by someone named Jim Marrs.
If we were to assume Kennedy had a secret plan to use 11110 to issue a new kind of silver certificate that might actually hurt the Fed, but I don't see that. The linked article's evidence is:
In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous. With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.
But US notes are not silver certificates! The fact that Kennedy put many US notes into circulation does not indicate intent for or against silver. Neither are new currency.
The theory that 11110 is not rescinded merely means, if true, the Treasury can start printing silver certificates anew anytime. Try and get them to, without a Q-level movement.
Yes, one who doesn't clearly qualify as a natural-born citizen (Brahmin Hindu, presumably dual at birth) is likely part of the kayfabe just as Soetoro was. Not that there's another option in the bread-circus arena. u/BatteryBaron
https://scored.co/c/GreatAwakening/p/17t1y99QPt/x/c/4ZBJaWWbHdb
Yeah, that makes two Q's, plus Light to Dark, plus CIA-ribbing, so I'll double my suspicion. The sentence was ostensibly Sanborn's own composition, intended to drop hints about other things later in the game, plus to make it easy by repeating "nce of" in sync with the cipher key.
If the unsolved text had no solution and (assuming conspiracy) there was an intent to drop hints in the future in the event of a world-critical need, we can't say the hints dropped have helped Q any. So I still think it's an independent operation, because if there were a real "honest" text then there would be no way to predict when someone would solve it.
Nice find. Kryptos was built in 1990 and "Can you see anything" echoed Howard Carter's 1923 book about King Tut's tomb. The "Q" was ostensibly added to mean a question mark since there was no punctuation.
Since the last three lines of Kryptos remain unsolved publicly, and since the entire installation seems to have some secret last-level game involved, anything is possible. Q clearance is quite older than 1990, and Sanborn had the best cryptanalytic help in constructing his text. However, it's less likely that anything he "buried" in 1990 will directly affect anons in 2024. It's more likely that the phrase "can you see anything Q" can take on new meaning in a Great Awakening, though it would be doubtful this could have been prophesied.
u/Vlad_The_Impaler, can you render judgment on this?
The message is clearly intentional, but I think the meaning of "HIP" is someone's tagalong because I don't see such a person being identified. Sometimes such messages contain unused filler characters too. More data welcome.
But that section, as I traced through SAL, is exactly the origin of 26 USC 7701(a)(10), though there are code variations over time and it's the RS that are current positive law on it: that is, each enactment contains this same clause carried over in the same place except when it's marked as moved or slight wording changes. So if just an afterthought it's essential to every income tax in America since 1864, i.e. every but the very first one. Plus it's one of the top five most important anomalies in the code by the OP standard, you note. So, it interests me.
Sec. 174 does not disprove, again a disproof would only be inferred in conversational English, not in law. The laws of US football define the word "ball" very narrowly, and (even though "includes" is not at issue) nobody gets to take the word "ball" elsewhere in the law and say it means the ordinary use of "ball" and thus any spheroid, like a soccer ball. In conversation when the word "ball" is used even though a narrow definition may have also been offered, context will determine if the definition does not apply; but in law the whole is its own context and so the definition always applies throughout, and nothing else does. So if a law says "ball includes football" and then later "balls and footballs", it's redundant; but if a human says it, it's likely (but not necessary) that the human is indicating other (e.g. soccer) balls in view. (It's hard to say and I don't have ready examples to show. I know there are even legal contexts, though not US statutory construction, where we might use a different canon and say "balls and footballs" by canon default must mean that context has changed and the inclusion class added to; but their existence doesn't change the preselected canons by which these legislators wrote this law.)
So in the many times I've looked it's hard to find a perfect on-point example as a "smoking gun". The 1864 clause and its placement at the very end is telling enough to me. If I find a better one I'll be telling people, for sure. Thanks again for the OP plus.
Thank you for reporting your research and hoped-for results! Passports might be a wedge for one to have state citizenship without federal citizenship, but it's a very difficult route. I'm not going to throw too much cold water on it because you sound like you want to be honest about it even if it goes wrong.
It's all unrelated to "American republics", which the fine ad hoc work of u/MAG768720 shows just to be the North and South American countries that are republics and attendees of the 1940 Havana Conference.
How did Lincoln tax everyone in 1861 before the alleged act of municipal corporation?
Where is your website about living without the SSN? Going Amish is the easiest route.
Who can you point to that has the most successful promulgation of the right to travel without license, registration, name, identification, etc.? I've tried many, so I'm interested in what public figure you support. Then we can judge the method for ourselves rather than get a generic invocation.
If you spent as much time directing people to methods of barter and community that express our freedom from federal nexus as you do bashing others for not understanding them, you'd get something other than ridicule.
Hi lash, isn't it interesting that u/MAG768720 and I don't know each other but are providing mutually agreeable data and sources, and you are just showing off a meme you heard and then digging in?
I watched intently as those who held such theories went to court and refused to answer questions that they believed were incriminating, such as "what is your name". The system railroads just as easily without a name, which is the primary proof it doesn't work. I've also seen court and admin proofs that it does work to quote and understand and apply the law and the canons of construction, but supplying those proofs is beyond the scope of Swamp Rangers and you wouldn't be interested anyway. OP just noted that even a simple jurisdiction challenge or show-cause threat will work wonders for small fish, which is a much better record than the all-caps folks. I love telling the judge "In fact I'm looking forward to voir dire."
TLDR: Fool around, find out, report back, but don't fight fellow patriots in the meantime.
u/MAG768720 is essentially correct about legal construction.
What you describe is the ordinary English language, in which people use "includes" all the time as nonlimiting because they have things in mind that are not being said. Laws are not written in ordinary English, but in English confined to very narrow limits so that there is no ambiguity.
The courts have long discussed the use of "includes" in taxation, which is why 26 USC 7701(c) defines "includes" itself, but it is again ambiguous because it says it does not exclude; and the Supremes then interpreted that it does not include either. So we are left to derive meaning via standard statutory construction.
If you see the same pattern over and over in the law, and always on a matter where the ordinary citizen can rope himself/herself into becoming a taxpayer volunteer, it indicates intent. When you see the legal objections written by the IRS deal with the issue always backhanded and roundabout in such way that the person can be misled again in exactly the same way, it indicates intent. I passed my level of "coincidence" long ago, and it is safe for me and for Swamp Rangers to say so. Each person must determine the meaning of the law for himself/herself.
Oh, to OP: 26 USC 7701(a)(10) IS THE EXACT CODIFICATION OF 13 Stat 233, 306. Interesting?
(I think if you get it to 12000 characters it will post. Or try it in a different URL. I never know.)
It's my recollection that the 1862 version was to begin the same date as the 1861 and so it replaced (repealed) it before it could take effect; that is, it was just the beta draft of the 1861 tax. Not much diff though.
More interesting in 1862 than Sec. 89 is Sec. 90, which specifically says it's a "duty" (an indirect tax). They knew assaults were coming. They wanted to nominally blunt the assault that a tax derived from property was a direct tax (which is why the renewals too); and they wanted to extend the reach to "any other source whatever" while still aware that it only applied to their jurisdiction (e.g. not Chinese sources untouched by the US nexus), which is a feint; and they wanted to propose that it was within their duty power, a position vacated later when the Supremes finally reviewed 100 years of history in Brushaber and made it (ambiguously) "in the nature of an excise".
But the topper is that the categories are not the same as today. "Income" originally referred to gains from business and clearly did not include (and excluded) the exchange of labor for pay, a natural right. NO WAGES ARE IN VIEW, only salaries (emoluments) such as from government or other nexus activity. When it was discovered that labor arises naturally from fed people, a whole new collateralization scheme arose in someone's mind and the project was permitted various trial balloons (punctuated by the Civil, Great, and End-All Wars) until it reached "sustainability" (but not scalability, the current downfall). Now ""wages"" are defined as ""income"" (and I understand GMOs are defined as vaccines). The proof, showing that this new-slavery, imposed upon unwitting volunteers, was discovered early, is the last clause of the Revenue Act of 1864 (the two-year renewal): it is the aperitif that demonstrates that Lincoln's men wanted the "DC" trapdoor right away, 13 Stat 223, 306. It really has to be seen to be believed: scroll to the end, section 182.
Well, I was thinking earlier I should see what Q said about taxes. He wasn't silent as I surmised.
1256: What’s at risk? $250B x 2 / year. What the taxpayers don’t know. Why aren’t NK developments receiving WW praise? We endure.
1609: POTUS tax reform (more take home money) - not good enough - IMPEACH.
1824: Ask yourself, if the U.S. GDP is greater than the total of all others combined (G7), which allows us to negotiate from a position of strength, why would previous President's 'knowingly' [unequally] distribute America's wealth away by making unbalanced trade deals? Why was America's wealth being distributed WW? Why was the American taxpayer essentially subsidizing the the rest of the world? The AMERICAN TAXPAYER has no equal anywhere in the world. ACCESS to the AMERICAN CONSUMER (U.S. Market) is ESSENTIAL for every major country in the world. AMERICA WAS SYSTEMATICALLY BEING WEAKENED. OUR MILITARY WAS SYSTEMATICALLY BEING WEAKENED. AMERICA IS BACK TO LEADING. AMERICA FIRST. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POTUS HAS NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
2854: CA estimated $2T in debt? Homelessness population on the rise? Highest tax rates in the Country? Undocumented Immigrants in California vs Nation?
4014: How do you fix [taxpayer bailout?] the long-broken economies of CA & NY?
It seems Q would be aware of the ongoing IRS "Dirty Dozen" battles and may be alluding to them as part of "what the taxpayers don't know". The primary thing they don't know is implied to be that they are debt slaves collateralizing the satanists. But I don't see that awakening to the statutory construction of inclusion is a very great awakening in the minds of most, and I don't think those who are aware regard it as a successful lever. (I could be surprised.) I think that given the emphasis on the de facto movement of the collateral, heavy in 1824, and the reliance on mainstream collective wisdom, affirming Trump's "tax reform" in 432 and 1609, we should conclude that taxation and aurum and related issues will only be deliverable as whatever the proposed regime thinks they can offer. The hype here was so palpable in 2021 but since then I've noted 95% of the talk on these topics comes from anons and not from Q. Q's focus seems to be that the taxpayers-to-satanists relationship must change, when the taxpayers are ready. So I can only conclude that the Supremes are "punting" (as Thomas said about Obama's birth, and as CIR v. Groetzinger said collectively); and that we who have been given sovereignty by Jesus must educate rightly in all areas, including this one the same as including every other.
I have citizenship in the kingdom of heaven, and in one of the several states, and in the federal government when it's convenient for me to use. We usually don't have need to throw out state citizenship, so how much more should we guard our heavenly citizenship.
I have sovereignty by coregency with Jesus Christ, and so do a lot of people. Being a coregent does not conflict with any other arrangement because, any disagreement between Jesus and myself, we settle internally (hint: he's always right). For that reason my sovereignty doesn't conflict with anyone else's sovereignty in Christ. If your sovereignty is in Joseph Smith, or Menno Simons apart from Christ, why then it's possible our sovereignties might conflict just like kings do on occasion; but we sovereigns are pretty good at being diplomatic and not coming to blows about it.
The 14th is then just a stray ambiguity interpreted wrongly by our servants' servants and of no injury to our sovereign selves. If someone under color of law pretends to misapply it to us, we simply invoke our sovereignties and citizenships by determining what Jesus wants of the situation and how to use the gifts he has given. (Sometimes, as with Peter, he even tells us to pay a tax so as not to offend!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moore_v.United_States(2024)&oldid=1214422677
Hadn't heard, but the press is wrong: the Supremes will never define "income" in this climate. They will only narrow the possibilities with further tests, in favor of one faction or another, and that will only mean the prevailing of one tax accountant's theory over another and the rearranging of various deck chairs. The sovereign citizen retains the rights to govern himself accordingly, and each person's decisions about how to follow the law, and about peaceful civil disobedience, are matters of conscience.
Congratulations! That's how to fight the system, the worst that can happen is you get dinged by the state and you accept it because you dug in over a matter of conscience. The system protects itself, encourages everyone to behave its preferred way (i.e. against self-interest), and obfuscates its Nietzsche-described lack of teeth by pretense and quiet avoidance.
That (26 USC 7701(a)(9)) is the legal definition, for internal revenue purposes, with deference to the SAL, with other exceptions, and with "State" defined in the next clause (a)(10). But there are dozens of conflicting definitions of "United States" in the law for many purposes. Sometimes in law "United States" means the 50 states plus possessions, as we typically use the term; but very often not. Thank you for pointing out that Canada is doing the exact same thing, I'll need to find that later.
You and u/Space_Monkey are on important philosophical tracks but they do not have the power you think. Of course the spiritual enemy wants to treat us as property and wants to claim nexus over us, but their claims are not valid and we do not consent to them. We are still the sovereigns who created the states that created the fed, and we will still act like it. We do not yield to others the right to write our God-given names in uppercase or the right to contract with any of the several states for citizenship. When we do yield those rights we look silly and people are directed away from the necessary truths of who they are in God and then how God wants them to handle their property in a social system easily manipulated by the godless.
u/HOSEQ, see c/SwampRangers for reviews of Scott Lively's The Pink Swastika.