We're In a Recovery?

[The Rabbi]

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work. The red line is the UE rate which is the percent of the labor force that is unemployed.

You are so fucking stupid you don't even know what you're talking about.

Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes.]

Ummm, how do you think that's different from what I said?

If you dont understand why the two statements are different then you really shouldn't be having this conversation.

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

 

[pinqy]

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work. The red line is the UE rate which is the percent of the labor force that is unemployed.

You are so fucking stupid you don't even know what you're talking about.

Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes.]

Ummm, how do you think that's different from what I said?

If you dont understand why the two statements are different then you really shouldn't be having this conversation.

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

 

[ScienceRocks]

Enforce our anti-trust laws
fair trade and not free trade
Pay our workers right with a higher minimum wage
Up the investment in r&d from 40% now to 60%. The 1950's and 1960's the government did 70% of it.
Reform education.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are so fucking stupid you don't even know what you're talking about.

Ummm, how do you think that's different from what I said?

If you dont understand why the two statements are different then you really shouldn't be having this conversation.

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

 

[pinqy]

Ummm, how do you think that's different from what I said?

If you dont understand why the two statements are different then you really shouldn't be having this conversation.

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

 

[The Rabbi]

If you dont understand why the two statements are different then you really shouldn't be having this conversation.

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference. IOW, I am correct and you are wrong.
Now suck it.

 

[pinqy]

They're not different. Point out what you think the difference is. They're both everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older excluding military, and people in prison or other institution.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

Obama's economy has had training wheels on the entire time in the form 0% interest rates!! It has been the worst recovery since the Great Depression with most people now making less, not more money!!

 

[The Rabbi]

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Understand it now or you need arrows?

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

 

[pinqy]

What part of "not in the military " was unclear to you? Not in the military = civilian

And my chart does say civilian omit. But since BLS has only published the civilian labor force since 1994, I don't see the need to explicitly say civilian

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.
Yup. A lightweight. The intellectual equivalent of hummingbird farts.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

OK so you still havent figured out the difference between the two statements. This is because you cannot read a sentence and understand it or pay attention all the way through. Because you're stupid.

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

no becausee you don't know that this has been the worst recovery since the Great Depression thanks to idiotic liberal programs that cant ever work.

 

[pinqy]

Ha. I love it. You know very well there's no difference, so you troll pretending there is. I love how you don't even bother trying to support your point. You know your points have no merit, you just like to insult others.

It would be really sad if you really think there is one, though. That would show you really don't understand the data. But everyone else can see there's no difference

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

 

[The Rabbi]

God it must suck to be you. OK here it is with circles and arrows so you cannot possibly miss the difference.

No, the scale on the laft is simply the number of people in the Labor Force, which is defined as everyone age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution, who is either working or actively looking for work.

vs
]Civilian Labor Force is the sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. These individuals are civilians (not members of the Armed Services) who are age 16 years or older, and are not in institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, or nursing homes

Notice how the phrase in pink in your definition is NOT in my definition? Yeah, that's the difference.

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

 

[pinqy]

But it is in yours. Not the exact wording, but it's there.
sum of civilian employment and civilian unemployment. = is either working or actively looking for work

Working is employed. Actively looking for work is unemployed.

Do you need a link to the BLS glossary?

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK i hand you your ass and you are too stupid to understand that.
This conversation has exceeded my stupidity tolerance for the day. Bye.

Haha you handed me my ass? Because you don't know the definitions of employed and unemployed?

No. Because I know the definition of Civilian Labor Force and you dont. Even after I posted it. Nor could you identify the differences in our definitions. And still insist there is no difference.

You haven't pointed out any differences! Employed plus unemployed age 16+ excluding military and those in prison or other institutions. That's what I said and what you said.

Wrong. I pointed out the difference. You are too fucking stupid to get it.

You pointed out that I wrote "working or actively looking for work." How do you think that's any different from employed plus unemployed? It's not.

You're too stupid to comprehend the differences. Sorry.

 

[auditor0007]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

 

[Dale Smith]

The story of your enslavement....

Below is a letter written by former Alaska Judge Anna Von Reitz. This is one of the most important things that you will EVER read. This is the story of your enslavement. I have been studying this issue for three years but this former judge has summed it up in way that anyone can understand. This explains how you became collateral and chattel for a debt that you are not responsible for and why you work three to four months a year for free. This explains how your birth certificate is created on bond paper and it is traded as a commodity based on the commerce, taxes, fines and fees that you will pay over your lifetime based on actuarial tables using your all caps fiction that was created the day you were born. Every government document you have, be it your driver's license, your social security card...any thing you get like a jury summons or traffic ticket has your name in all caps. That represents your corporate fictional "strawman". I estimate that I have had over 450,000 dollars stolen from me and that is a conservative estimate and it's a good bet that anyone that is my age has lost that much as well. In parenthesis I had added the definition of certain words that you not understand the meaning of.........read it, digest it and share.

Alaska Dear Federal Agents:

I am addressing this letter in this way, because it is my understanding that it will be read by members of both the FBI and the US Marshals Service. It is also my understanding that you have available for examination a wet-ink signed copy of the illustrated affidavit of probable cause entitled “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” as back-up reference and evidence.

Since the publication of the affidavit a plethora of new supporting documentation and evidence has come to light. We found, for example, that on June 30, 1864, the members of Congress acting as the Board of Directors of a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” changed the meaning of “state”, “State” and “United States” to mean “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Like the 1862 change of the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” cited in our affidavit, these special coded meanings of words render a drastically different picture of the world around us.

It turns out that your “personal bank account” is actually a “corporate bank account”. The “Colorado State Court” is actually the “Colorado District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Court”. If you are shocked to learn these facts, you are not alone. So are millions of other Americans. These changes were made 150 years ago and tucked away in reams of boring meeting minutes and legalistic gobbledygook meant to be applied only to the internal workings of a private governmental services corporation and its employees.

There was no public announcement, just as there was no public announcement or explanation when Congress created “municipal citizenship” known as “US citizenship” in 1868. Properly, technically, even to this day, this form of “citizenship” applies only to those born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other Insular States, so there was no real reason to educate the general public about the topic. As Congress was secretively using the labor and the private property assets of these “citizens” as collateral backing the corporate debts of “The United States of America, Inc.” there was plenty of reason to obscure this development.

At the end of the Civil War it would have been very unpopular to reveal that they were simply changing gears from private sector slave ownership to public sector slave ownership. You may be surprised to learn that slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth or any other Amendment to any constitution then or now. Instead, slavery was redefined as the punishment meted out to criminals. Look it up and read it for yourselves. It remains perfectly legal to enslave criminals, and it was left to Congress to define who the criminals were, because Congress was given plenary (meaning unlimited) power over the District of Columbia and its citizenry by the original Constitution of the Republic and could do whatever it liked within the District and the Washington, DC Municipalities.

A child picking dandelions on the sidewalk could be arbitrarily defined as a criminal and enslaved for life by the renegade Congress functioning as the government of the District of Columbia and as the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, but for starters, Congress simply defined “US citizens” as debt slaves under the 14th Amendment of their corporation’s articles and by-laws—-which they deceptively named the “Constitution of the United States of America”.

The actual Constitution was and still is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”, but most people untrained in the Law and trusting what they believed to be their government didn’t notice the difference between “The Constitution for the united States of America” and the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate deceit and self-interest and double-speak and double-dealing? And are you also beginning to catch the drift—the motivation—behind it? Let’s discuss the concept of “hypothecation of debt”. (a debtor pledges collateral to secure a debt or as a condition precedent to the debt, or a third party pledges collateral for the debtor.)

This little gem was developed by the bankers who actually owned and ran the governmental services corporations doing business as “The United States of America, Inc.” and as the “United States, Incorporated”. When you hypothecate debt against someone or against some asset belonging to someone else, you simply claim that they agreed to stand as surety for your debt — similar to cosigning a car loan — and as long as you make your payments, nobody is any the wiser. Normally, it’s not possible for us to just arbitrarily claim that someone is our surety (a person who takes responsibility for another's performance of an undertaking, for example their appearing in court or the payment of a debt) for debt without proof of consent, but that is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Conference of Governors did in March of 1933.
They named all of us and all our property as surety standing good for the debts of their own bankrupt governmental services corporation during bankruptcy reorganization—-and got away with it by claiming that they were our “representatives” and that we had delegated our authority to them to do this “for” us. The exact date and occasion when this happened and where it is recorded, is given in our affidavit. In order to pull this off, however, they had to allege that we were all “US citizens”, and therefore, all subject to the plenary power of Congress acting as an oligarchy ruling over the District of Columbia and the Federal Territories.

They did this by abusing the public trust and creating and registering millions of foreign situs (the place to which, for purposes of legal jurisdiction or taxation, a property belongs) trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, used our names styled like this: John Quincy Adams—-and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it.
They couldn’t enslave us, but they could enslave a foreign situs trust named after us— that we conveniently didn’t know existed— and by deliberately confusing this “thing” with us via the misuse of our given names, they could bring charges against what appeared to be us and our private property in their very own corporate tribunals. And so the fleecing of America began in earnest. The hirelings had our credit cards, had stolen our identities, and were ready to begin a crime spree unheralded in human history.

They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR sent his henchmen around to collect it—-when as millions of Americans can attest, people gave up their gold in preference to being shot or having to kill federal agents. They chose life for everyone concerned over some pieces of metal, and for that, they are to be honored; unfortunately, their decision gave the rats responsible an excuse to claim that Americans wanted to leave the gold standard and wanted the “benefits” of this New Deal in “equitable exchange” for their gold, their identities, the abuse of their good names as bankrupts and debtors, the loss of allodial title to their land and homes, and their subjection as slaves to the whims of Congress.

According to them—that is, those who benefited from this gross betrayal of the public trust— we all voluntarily left the Republic and the guarantees of the actual Constitution behind, willingly subjected ourselves to Congressional rule, donated all our assets including our labor and property to the Public Charitable Trust (set up after the Civil War as a welfare trust for displaced plantation slaves), and agreed to live as slaves owned by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in exchange for what? Welfare that we paid for ourselves. Social Security that we paid for ourselves.

The criminality of the “US Congress” and the “Presidents” acting since 1933 is jawdroppingly shocking. Their abuse of the trust of the American people is even worse. They have portrayed this circumstance as a political choice instead of an institutionalized fraud scheme, and they have “presumed” that we all went along with it and agreed to it without complaint. Thus, they have been merrily and secretively having us declared “civilly dead” as American State Citizens the day we are born, and entering a false registration claiming that we are “US Citizens” instead. We are told, when we wake up enough to ask, that we are free to choose our political status.

We don’t have to serve as debt slaves. We can go back and reclaim our guaranteed Republican form of government and our birthright status if we want to—- but that requires a secret process in front of the probate court and expatriation from the Federal United States to the Continental United States and all sorts of voo-doo in backrooms that can only be pursued by the few and the knowledgeable and the blessed. Everyone else has to remain as a debt slave and chattel serving whatever corporation bought the latest version of corporate “persona” named after us"

 

[Dale Smith]

The story of your enslavement....

Below is a letter written by former Alaska Judge Anna Von Reitz. This is one of the most important things that you will EVER read. This is the story of your enslavement. I have been studying this issue for three years but this former judge has summed it up in way that anyone can understand. This explains how you became collateral and chattel for a debt that you are not responsible for and why you work three to four months a year for free. This explains how your birth certificate is created on bond paper and it is traded as a commodity based on the commerce, taxes, fines and fees that you will pay over your lifetime based on actuarial tables using your all caps fiction that was created the day you were born. Every government document you have, be it your driver's license, your social security card...any thing you get like a jury summons or traffic ticket has your name in all caps. That represents your corporate fictional "strawman". I estimate that I have had over 450,000 dollars stolen from me and that is a conservative estimate and it's a good bet that anyone that is my age has lost that much as well. In parenthesis I had added the definition of certain words that you not understand the meaning of.........read it, digest it and share.

Alaska Dear Federal Agents:

I am addressing this letter in this way, because it is my understanding that it will be read by members of both the FBI and the US Marshals Service. It is also my understanding that you have available for examination a wet-ink signed copy of the illustrated affidavit of probable cause entitled “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” as back-up reference and evidence.

Since the publication of the affidavit a plethora of new supporting documentation and evidence has come to light. We found, for example, that on June 30, 1864, the members of Congress acting as the Board of Directors of a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” changed the meaning of “state”, “State” and “United States” to mean “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Like the 1862 change of the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” cited in our affidavit, these special coded meanings of words render a drastically different picture of the world around us.

It turns out that your “personal bank account” is actually a “corporate bank account”. The “Colorado State Court” is actually the “Colorado District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Court”. If you are shocked to learn these facts, you are not alone. So are millions of other Americans. These changes were made 150 years ago and tucked away in reams of boring meeting minutes and legalistic gobbledygook meant to be applied only to the internal workings of a private governmental services corporation and its employees.

There was no public announcement, just as there was no public announcement or explanation when Congress created “municipal citizenship” known as “US citizenship” in 1868. Properly, technically, even to this day, this form of “citizenship” applies only to those born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other Insular States, so there was no real reason to educate the general public about the topic. As Congress was secretively using the labor and the private property assets of these “citizens” as collateral backing the corporate debts of “The United States of America, Inc.” there was plenty of reason to obscure this development.

At the end of the Civil War it would have been very unpopular to reveal that they were simply changing gears from private sector slave ownership to public sector slave ownership. You may be surprised to learn that slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth or any other Amendment to any constitution then or now. Instead, slavery was redefined as the punishment meted out to criminals. Look it up and read it for yourselves. It remains perfectly legal to enslave criminals, and it was left to Congress to define who the criminals were, because Congress was given plenary (meaning unlimited) power over the District of Columbia and its citizenry by the original Constitution of the Republic and could do whatever it liked within the District and the Washington, DC Municipalities.

A child picking dandelions on the sidewalk could be arbitrarily defined as a criminal and enslaved for life by the renegade Congress functioning as the government of the District of Columbia and as the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, but for starters, Congress simply defined “US citizens” as debt slaves under the 14th Amendment of their corporation’s articles and by-laws—-which they deceptively named the “Constitution of the United States of America”.

The actual Constitution was and still is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”, but most people untrained in the Law and trusting what they believed to be their government didn’t notice the difference between “The Constitution for the united States of America” and the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate deceit and self-interest and double-speak and double-dealing? And are you also beginning to catch the drift—the motivation—behind it? Let’s discuss the concept of “hypothecation of debt”. (a debtor pledges collateral to secure a debt or as a condition precedent to the debt, or a third party pledges collateral for the debtor.)

This little gem was developed by the bankers who actually owned and ran the governmental services corporations doing business as “The United States of America, Inc.” and as the “United States, Incorporated”. When you hypothecate debt against someone or against some asset belonging to someone else, you simply claim that they agreed to stand as surety for your debt — similar to cosigning a car loan — and as long as you make your payments, nobody is any the wiser. Normally, it’s not possible for us to just arbitrarily claim that someone is our surety (a person who takes responsibility for another's performance of an undertaking, for example their appearing in court or the payment of a debt) for debt without proof of consent, but that is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Conference of Governors did in March of 1933.
They named all of us and all our property as surety standing good for the debts of their own bankrupt governmental services corporation during bankruptcy reorganization—-and got away with it by claiming that they were our “representatives” and that we had delegated our authority to them to do this “for” us. The exact date and occasion when this happened and where it is recorded, is given in our affidavit. In order to pull this off, however, they had to allege that we were all “US citizens”, and therefore, all subject to the plenary power of Congress acting as an oligarchy ruling over the District of Columbia and the Federal Territories.

They did this by abusing the public trust and creating and registering millions of foreign situs (the place to which, for purposes of legal jurisdiction or taxation, a property belongs) trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, used our names styled like this: John Quincy Adams—-and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it.
They couldn’t enslave us, but they could enslave a foreign situs trust named after us— that we conveniently didn’t know existed— and by deliberately confusing this “thing” with us via the misuse of our given names, they could bring charges against what appeared to be us and our private property in their very own corporate tribunals. And so the fleecing of America began in earnest. The hirelings had our credit cards, had stolen our identities, and were ready to begin a crime spree unheralded in human history.

They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR sent his henchmen around to collect it—-when as millions of Americans can attest, people gave up their gold in preference to being shot or having to kill federal agents. They chose life for everyone concerned over some pieces of metal, and for that, they are to be honored; unfortunately, their decision gave the rats responsible an excuse to claim that Americans wanted to leave the gold standard and wanted the “benefits” of this New Deal in “equitable exchange” for their gold, their identities, the abuse of their good names as bankrupts and debtors, the loss of allodial title to their land and homes, and their subjection as slaves to the whims of Congress.

According to them—that is, those who benefited from this gross betrayal of the public trust— we all voluntarily left the Republic and the guarantees of the actual Constitution behind, willingly subjected ourselves to Congressional rule, donated all our assets including our labor and property to the Public Charitable Trust (set up after the Civil War as a welfare trust for displaced plantation slaves), and agreed to live as slaves owned by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in exchange for what? Welfare that we paid for ourselves. Social Security that we paid for ourselves.

The criminality of the “US Congress” and the “Presidents” acting since 1933 is jawdroppingly shocking. Their abuse of the trust of the American people is even worse. They have portrayed this circumstance as a political choice instead of an institutionalized fraud scheme, and they have “presumed” that we all went along with it and agreed to it without complaint. Thus, they have been merrily and secretively having us declared “civilly dead” as American State Citizens the day we are born, and entering a false registration claiming that we are “US Citizens” instead. We are told, when we wake up enough to ask, that we are free to choose our political status.

We don’t have to serve as debt slaves. We can go back and reclaim our guaranteed Republican form of government and our birthright status if we want to—- but that requires a secret process in front of the probate court and expatriation from the Federal United States to the Continental United States and all sorts of voo-doo in backrooms that can only be pursued by the few and the knowledgeable and the blessed. Everyone else has to remain as a debt slave and chattel serving whatever corporation bought the latest version of corporate “persona” named after us"

 

[The Rabbi]

OP, that's a very scary article and I don't doubt it based on what I have seen. As a country we need lots of people to take foolish entrepreneurial risks in order to spur our innovation along. But in a secular stagnation it's hard to prompt those entrepreneurs forward.

hard??? cut the corporate tax to $0 and the cap gains tax to $0 and you have $billion and billions more for those inclined to be innovative!! Gee the liberal got another one wrong. What a surprise. Ask yourself, do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Oh Ed, I love it when you pretend to understand entrepreneurs. Let's roll play, I have a great idea for a new business, I go lenders but they all want a personal guarantee and the equity in my home to lend me the money to take that risk. And I need to quit my job to take that risk. Plus, I'm sitting in secular stagnation and worried about losing my house, sending my kids to college and retiring. But you (Mr. Never an Entrepreneur) think that a tax rate on earnings is going to make a difference. I likely won't pay any taxes for the first three years and have a 50/50 shot of bankruptcy - but you think I should be worried about taxes.

Ed, can you show me one single entrepreneur who ever made the leap or not based on tax rates?

DEAR, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. And you never will until you are one.

Bingo! The other misconception is that the wealthy are the ones starting new businesses. That is actually quite rare. Most new businesses are started by average everyday people who think they have a great idea or think they can provide the same product or service at a better price, and sometimes it's just by pure luck that they stumble upon something that takes off. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

And they get the money, how?
But entrpreneurship is not just starting businesses from scratch. It is about buying existing busineses to grow as well. And yes tax rates play a part in those decisions.