Fraud From the Root!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#41
I'm so sorry to hear that the church did nothing to help your family. But I'm glad you can use your experience to stick it to the conspiracy theorists.
Not sure I follow this logic. God's people didn't help someone, but the devil's people did, so that justifies all people paying the devil's people money? Perhaps if God's people hadn't been robbed of money by the devil's people in the first place, God's people would have had more money to give the one in need?

Either way, unhelpful or uncaring Christians no more "sticks it" to other discerning Christians, than it "sticks it" to Christians in general.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#42
Eh I personally don't think the program of Social Security itself was intended to be fraudulent or evil at all. The concept of it is pretty simple; to take care of the elderly, which isn't a bad thing. I think it is actually, in theory, a very good idea. Lol but in practice we can deduce a number of things that are currently wrong with it unless it is reformed.

The real conspiracy with social security is, from my understanding, is that it is economically unsustainable unless we enact drastic reform due to disparity in our population's generational age and also the limitations of our government spending as well as the sluggish current economic times.

This becomes a tricky political situation because in order to reform SS to maintain it you'd have to mess around with it which rightly so makes senior citizens pretty nervous since they currently depend on it and also makes the still working middle-agers pretty nervous because they have been paying into it their whole lives. From a kinda younger generation perspective we don't really care too much about SS because from our understanding of it and from how the system is currently designed it won't be around for us unless it is radically reformed.


Here's a link to the Debt Clock which gives you a good picture of what's going on economically speaking with SS and its place in the great puzzle of American Economics (keep in mind the debt clock is just an estimate, though highly acclaimed by reputable news sources and organizations.)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
 
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#43
Eh I personally don't think the program of Social Security itself was intended to be fraudulent or evil at all. The concept of it is pretty simple; to take care of the elderly, which isn't a bad thing. I think it is actually, in theory, a very good idea. Lol but in practice we can deduce a number of things that are currently wrong with it unless it is reformed.

The real conspiracy with social security is, from my understanding, is that it is economically unsustainable unless we enact drastic reform due to disparity in our population's generational age and also the limitations of our government spending as well as the sluggish current economic times.

This becomes a tricky political situation because in order to reform SS to maintain it you'd have to mess around with it which rightly so makes senior citizens pretty nervous since they currently depend on it and also makes the still working middle-agers pretty nervous because they have been paying into it their whole lives. From a kinda younger generation perspective we don't really care too much about SS because from our understanding of it and from how the system is currently designed it won't be around for us unless it is radically reformed.


Here's a link to the Debt Clock which gives you a good picture of what's going on economically speaking with SS and its place in the great puzzle of American Economics (keep in mind the debt clock is just an estimate, though highly acclaimed by reputable news sources and organizations.)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
The true purpose of Social Security is to use our labor to secure the debt. It has NOTHING to do with what you think. In other countries it's called social insurance. Now you cannot get a dime out of the bank if your account reads in the negative just $10. But the country is $17 trillion in the negative???

If I am the bank and I loan out $1 and tell that person to bring me back $1.25, then how is it possible when I the bank, the CREATOR OF THE MONEY only loaned out $1? YOU HAVE TO BORROW AGAIN TO PAY THE INTEREST... AT INTEREST!!!


It's been a scam since its inception. We need to wake up!
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#44
The true purpose of Social Security is to use our labor to secure the debt. It has NOTHING to do with what you think. In other countries it's called social insurance. Now you cannot get a dime out of the bank if your account reads in the negative just $10. But the country is $17 trillion in the negative???

If I am the bank and I loan out $1 and tell that person to bring me back $1.25, then how is it possible when I the bank, the CREATOR OF THE MONEY only loaned out $1? YOU HAVE TO BORROW AGAIN TO PAY THE INTEREST... AT INTEREST!!!


It's been a scam since its inception. We need to wake up!
Lol, so your problem is moreso with the fiat system of money in use in most the world today moreso than the Social Security program itself. Also keep in mind the US Federal Reserve (every conspiracy theorist's favorite bank) is the one that bankrolls our debt and money creation. Now whether this system is good or bad, that's the real debate I'd say. And we can go through it and list both somes Pros (ability to spread wealth to the lower classes) and Cons (government and private debt running amok if not utilized correctly) to such a system. That's all fair debate in my opinion, no evil genius plot needed.

Now one might ask if they were actually evil genuises with a grand plot; why doesn't the Fed just enslave us, overthrow the government, and call in all that debt in one night and get it over with instead of waiting for decades? Well that's pretty easy to explain because the Federal Government actually have a degree of control and oversight of the Federal Reserve, and even gets to appoint its chairman and set regulations on it among other things (in fact I think we either just began or concluded hearings in the Senate to appoint a new chairman to replace Bernanke because a lot of politicians and rumor has it Obama himself aren't to happy with Big Ben.)

I agree that it is a flawed system, but who said it was this all-powerful evil genius model? You yourself have pointed out a few examples how this system is severely flawed even for the very same people the supposedly control it. We could in fact probably go on all day about how this system is imperfect and flawed and bound to destroy itself. Anything from taking it to extreme hyper-inflation thus making the value of money and thus the Fed itself basically worthless. To them calling in all debt to enslave the American populace and the gun nuts showing them how money can't shield anything from bullets.

Also going back to your parable about if you were the bank and loaned me out some money to repay at interest. Well, what if I don't repay you and instead file for Bankruptcy? You then would lose the money you loaned out and I would no longer be in debt (though I would have a severely lowered credit score.) In fact this parable did in fact happen en masse in 2008 and is a significant part of the many reasons why the 2008 Great Recession happened (though there are of course several more reasons too.) And as we saw not only did poor people get hurt by the Recession, but also the banks themselves, along with other business/corporations beyond just the banks, and also the Federal Government's own pocketbook were severely crippled.

Like I usually say in regards to conspiracies of this sort; we have more to worry about I think from the stupidity of those in power than any sort of evil genius scheme. The reason being is I think many of them want to do genuine good (not all, but most) but because of stupidity they won't fix stupid mistakes or turn back from them until it is too late because they err in thinking everything is all right moreso than them plotting anything.

Interesting thoughts though and your parable is indeed correct, but its not so much a plot as it is a good example of the unsustainability of the current system and thus the need to reform it not jsut for the common man's good but even ironically for the good of those wealthier people and thus the nation and world as a whole. Quite a can of worms indeed.
 
Sep 1, 2013
543
8
0
#45
Satan is not stupid. “A house divided cannot stand.” Satan wants his system to appear like it’s run by a bunch of babbling buffoons with good intentions and it’s important to use his minions to sustain that illusion of incompetence. Meanwhile the so-called “incompetence” successfully produces results inching closer towards the final objective.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#46
Satan is not stupid. “A house divided cannot stand.” Satan wants his system to appear like it’s run by a bunch of babbling buffoons with good intentions and it’s important to use his minions to sustain that illusion of incompetence. Meanwhile the so-called “incompetence” successfully produces results inching closer towards the final objective.
Heh I would disagree with this statement. Satan in the Bible appears to me to be the most stupid of all beings. After all isn't the foolish Worm the first one to condemn himself and thus forsake his own immortality? Lol aside from that all the other Scriptural references to Satan point to him being pretty stupid. Thus it would seem to me that incompetance is the path of Satan, which is the Path of Death that the dumb Serpent walks down. Hence such a thing is great danger to us humans and highlights the need for us to walk in the Path of Life which is the correct and most highly intelligent Path that Jesus showed us. And indeed in Truth the Path of Death can be conquered by the Path of Life thanks to Jesus.

As for American politicians in particular. If you go so far as to claim they are direct puppets of the Snake then I guess I would ask this question. How do you know the Adversary hasn't sold them out to his other puppets? Thus the machinations you think and they think might be achievable might actually just be deceptive illusions for which they themsleves have fallen prey to. And like all illusions they are merely bound to fail in light of the Truth.

Just some thoughts I suppose. Lol, I think people worry too much about Satan. What's to worry with in regards to Satan? We all ready know his fate in the end.
 
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#47
Lol, so your problem is moreso with the fiat system of money in use in most the world today moreso than the Social Security program itself. Also keep in mind the US Federal Reserve (every conspiracy theorist's favorite bank) is the one that bankrolls our debt and money creation. Now whether this system is good or bad, that's the real debate I'd say. And we can go through it and list both some Pros (ability to spread wealth to the lower classes) and Cons (government and private debt running amok if not utilized correctly) to such a system. That's all fair debate in my opinion, no evil genius plot needed.
They are both tied together. Again remember what I said before. There hasn't been ANY MONEY since 1933. We are only accumulating debt. The Fed lends debt out at interest, the Social Security is the labor of the people which backs the debt. There are no pros in a system designed to keep the people in debt. It is made so that the banks at the top can receive all land and resources.



Now one might ask if they were actually evil genuises with a grand plot; why doesn't the Fed just enslave us, overthrow the government, and call in all that debt in one night and get it over with instead of waiting for decades? Well that's pretty easy to explain because the Federal Government actually have a degree of control and oversight of the Federal Reserve, and even gets to appoint its chairman and set regulations on it among other things (in fact I think we either just began or concluded hearings in the Senate to appoint a new chairman to replace Bernanke because a lot of politicians and rumor has it Obama himself aren't to happy with Big Ben.)
The Fed is a PRIVATELY owned bank. You'd be crazy to think that the government has any say at all. They've been brought a long time ago. Rothechild stated it best when he said that he cares not who makes the laws if he is in control of that country's money. They are all puppets on a string. When bush won the election even though he lost the popular vote, that should have told us something. They do not call in debt because it is just as it was in pharaoh's time. We are TOO MANY.

I agree that it is a flawed system, but who said it was this all-powerful evil genius model? You yourself have pointed out a few examples how this system is severely flawed even for the very same people the supposedly control it. We could in fact probably go on all day about how this system is imperfect and flawed and bound to destroy itself. Anything from taking it to extreme hyper-inflation thus making the value of money and thus the Fed itself basically worthless. To them calling in all debt to enslave the American populace and the gun nuts showing them how money can't shield anything from bullets.
If I pay my landlord, and he pays the government, and it pays the bank, then what do you call this? Again there hasn't been any money since 1933. But what we DO have, are 18 million empty homes and only 3 million homeless. You do the math. We have enough food, resources and technology to comfortably clothe, house and feed 12 billion people. We only have 7 billion. I say the system is doing exactly what it is intended to do. Everything you see is of the system. Christian, muslim, they both pay bills. God don't pay no bills!
Also going back to your parable about if you were the bank and loaned me out some money to repay at interest. Well, what if I don't repay you and instead file for Bankruptcy? You then would lose the money you loaned out and I would no longer be in debt (though I would have a severely lowered credit score.) In fact this parable did in fact happen en masse in 2008 and is a significant part of the many reasons why the 2008 Great Recession happened (though there are of course several more reasons too.) And as we saw not only did poor people get hurt by the Recession, but also the banks themselves, along with other business/corporations beyond just the banks, and also the Federal Government's own pocketbook were severely crippled.
The 2008 recession happened because of God. Every seven years is a Sabbath year in which the people are to rest from their debts. They do not give us that rest. You can bet a pretty nickel that by 2016 it will fall. And to continue my parable, if I was the bank I could care less if you file for bankruptcy. Have you not heard? The house ALWAYS win in the end. My payments is backed by YOUR labor! But again this system must fall. Soon all of what we consider to be "money" will be worthless.

Like I usually say in regards to conspiracies of this sort; we have more to worry about I think from the stupidity of those in power than any sort of evil genius scheme. The reason being is I think many of them want to do genuine good (not all, but most) but because of stupidity they won't fix stupid mistakes or turn back from them until it is too late because they err in thinking everything is all right moreso than them plotting anything.
Now I will agree that those who are running the show are just as lost as those that are being manipulated. But if we were in their shoes, we'd do the same things. Only when we realize that we no longer need this system as a whole will we receive our inheritance.
Interesting thoughts though and your parable is indeed correct, but its not so much a plot as it is a good example of the unsustainability of the current system and thus the need to reform it not jsut for the common man's good but even ironically for the good of those wealthier people and thus the nation and world as a whole. Quite a can of worms indeed.
Say you filed for bankruptcy avoiding to pay me my money. Again I get that regardless off of the tax of your labor. I am the one who lowered your credit score and guess what? Even though you can only borrow 50 cents now, because of that credit score you have to bring me back 80 cents. And the process starts all over again!
 
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#48
Treason In Government! Admiralty Law!

The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#49
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Note - of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:
"Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...........use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."
The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) [SIZE=+1]your status also changed from sovereign to subject.[/SIZE] From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.
 
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#50
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." - Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.
By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you'll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law, being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of the Flag.
"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come on land. Next a court case:
"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.
When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law govern's contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:
"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)
It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.
"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
 
Jul 26, 2013
1,451
5
0
#51
When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statuary law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don't exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it's procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!
The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It's up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king's government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don't it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:
"Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions." Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that "the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?.... Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads." -- Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.
I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster's Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen, which I won't go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case where common law was over turned. Read the following definition to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution: