| (no subject) |
[Apr. 4th, 2009|02:22 pm] |
I found this image in an article on the Kitco Silver website where many analyst articles as well as external articles are posted. I think it's rather apt, and particularly found myself incredibly confused when I read an article one day stating people were dumping their cash into treasury bonds which at the time had no yield. The only thing I could assume was if the U.S. government changed its fiat currency, the treasury would maintain a similar level of value. Still, the life rafts are what everyone should hold onto.
 |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 22nd, 2009|02:51 pm] |
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 essentially blotted out portions of article I of the U.S. constitution that defined what money is and who can issue it. The laws pertaining to Congress and the States give the power to coin money to Congress alone, and demand States use only gold and silver coin as the medium of exchange. What's important to get from the video is a limited commodity such as gold and silver acts to keep the prices for goods and services stable, and stops governments from spending more than they have, as everyone is hurt by massive deficit spending when it inflates prices. It's worse to believe we have a duty to pay taxes to pay off that debt.
The Congress shall have the power [...] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
No State shall [...] coin Money; [...]; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1802 |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 14th, 2009|02:58 pm] |
|
A long time ago, years, I was really active on LJ, posting several times a day in some instances, then became much less active except for posting to communities. I even stopped reading my friends list for years, then recently started reading it more. I went through my LJ and made a lot of the posts private out of a sort of embarrassment that I don't necessarily have in each instance like I did, which to this day kind of amuses me, because I'll be posting in a community and someone will want to become LJ-friends only to find out they can't read the majority of my LJ even on my friends list. Being a vocal opponent of the IRS and the income tax, it's funny for my co-workers to hear me talk about my stint working for the IRS. When I was working for the IRS, I wasn't an active and vocal opponent of the IRS and income tax, and knew a lot less about the various arguments than I do now. I decided today to open up this post to show how I did a 180 of my opinion on the income tax and its legitimacy. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 4th, 2009|12:16 pm] |
It was really just the little devil in the last pane that made me really enjoy today's Sinfest. It reminds me of the king described in Daniel 11:37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
 |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 30th, 2008|02:14 pm] |
Yesterday I was working from home trying to resolve bugs in code components built into the Sun N1 Service Provisioning System Nokia uses in Finland while simultaneously listening to music I haven't heard in years. Earlier over the holiday, I'd gotten my CDs out of storage to re-rip them because one of my hard drives crashed. While working, I listened to The Scabs, Tori Amos, The Chemical Brothers, Live, and The Beatles. There were such nostalgic moments that it made me want to update my journal again. Listening to The Scabs reminds me of my nineteenth birthday when ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) shaynabelle and brennarella knocked on my apartment door to give me a birthday gift; it was The Ugly Americans album Boom Boom Baby. Now they're old, married, and Shay's a mom. I've been living in Texas for twelve years, and as much as I miss my family, I can't imagine myself moving anywhere permanently without being wealthy enough to maintain a home in Texas.
Now I live near the Dallas metroplex away from my Austin friends, and I don't think I'd change my location if the opportunity came and wasn't a necessity. I still know most of Austin by heart like I know my hometown, but learning the Dallas metroplex has been the newest experience for me. I wouldn't want to forget the new friends I've met working for Nokia, just as I remember all the people with whom I worked while building my career with several employers in the Austin area. The Product Manager of the Enterprise Systems Management division, the man who hired me, is a native of Tennessee, a music major, and a talented multi-instrumentalist. He's also quite knowledgeable about audio engineering topics within mixing and mastering, so getting to know what I know about him and having as many things in common as we do has seemed like a blessing to me. When we finally start to work together on my rap album like I hope we will, it'll be a trying time for me. He'd be the critical mind I need to succeed or fail, and after seeing him months ago at my alleged dream wedding reception at my dad's house dressed up in a nice tux, it made me feel as if he's a friend I wouldn't want to alienate.
I sit here writing this single and not making any effort to find a girlfriend yet in my dreams I finally get married. Of course, in my dreams, I find myself being interviewed for a record contract, living in a roomy house afforded by being called back to sign a record contract, and eventually dying an old man with at least a son. If it weren't for all the precognitive dreams I've had in my lifetime, and even recently, I'd brush them off as dreams, but still I cling to them like an apostate religious guy not expecting the end of the world, even amidst rising tension and violence in the middle east. I sometimes think about deleting or renaming this LiveJournal, but I never do. Even the guilt I feel about it when people comment about the name is fleeting because I know the truth, that the journal name is a joke. You can see the intention of the joke in the first post I unlocked. I have nothing more to say and feel as if I've rambled enough to show why I've found myself uninspired to write here when I don't have something important to say. If I let this journal be for only important things, I'm afraid I might seem pretentious, and even though the JoeBot in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) silverchat used to refer to me as a pretentious pudknocker, I like to think I'm not. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 10th, 2008|05:51 pm] |
|
Some of you may look at the previous argument and think it begs the question; that is, that it's a circular argument. The problem with your belief is that while specific rights are assumed in the first premise, the first premise--and more importantly the ninth amendment--doesn't tell us exactly how to quantify those rights. It certainly doesn't assume that the act of exchanging labor for money is a right rather than a privilege. This is where the central principle of libertarianism comes into the picture, though it isn't explicitly stated in the argument (only implicitly by the amendment itself); the second premise is the premise that embeds modal logic and necessitates the conclusion's validity. As Thomas Jefferson said, as hypocritical it was, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Yet today we have Supreme Court judges who will not argue the ninth amendment because they claim they won't "legislate from the bench". The problem with their belief that they're legislating from the bench is that there is no legislation necessary when you implement the ninth amendment according to the beliefs of the founders of this nation. When you agree that the United States government was intended to be as small as possible while at the same time being powerful enough to protect every citizen's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then there is no need to legislate the unenumerated rights. Congress is supposed to legislate for the sake of individual liberty, justice, and the betterment of society; the Supreme Court justices are suppose to ensure that Congress and the executive branch doesn't diminish our rights. For a lengthy discussion by a George Mason University professor of law on how to implement the ninth amendment, read The Rights Retained by The People. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 28th, 2008|03:36 pm] |
There are many conflicting assertions and judiciary opinions on the matter of the federal income tax. The problem today is that the U.S. government insists that the income tax is an indirect tax rather than a direct tax. However, the 16th amendment makes it evident that the debate has never been resolved, so the federal government was granted the power to disregard apportionment contrary to the intent of the founders of the nation. The fact that the government was granted the power to disregard apportionment implies that there weren't valid arguments for considering an income tax an indirect tax. Hence, this argument shows how the U.S. government asserts the right to garnish wages and seize property from citizens illegally. If you'd like to see the Supreme Court opinions and rulings that inspired the premises for the argument, you can read this Original Intent Treatise on the Federal Income Tax.
1) All United States citizens are endowed with an unenumerated list of unalienable rights vis-a-vis the 9th amendment to the Bill of Rights including life and pursuit of happiness.
2) A vast majority of United States citizens must exchange labor for money in order to live and be happy.
3) Therefore, no form of American government can diminish the right of U.S. citizens to exchange labor for money.
4) The United States government has power to indirectly tax without apportionment items and events by means of an excise because such items are considered a privilege due to the ability of Americans to avoid those transactions (see gas, alcohol, and tobacco taxes).
5) Federal and state garnishment of wages via an income tax cannot be legitimately avoided by U.S. citizens under the current system of government.
6) Therefore, federal and state governments diminish the right of U.S. citizens to exchange labor for money by means of direct taxation without regard for apportionment.
As you can see, there are logical inconsistencies in the U.S. constitution since the 9th amendment should protect our right to not have our income directly taxed even though the power to lay direct taxes is given to the federal government with a stipulation, but when there's apportionment, we are given back at least a percentage of what was taken from us, so a certain level of consistency is maintained. (For consideration of the rules of inference used, see here.) |
|
|
| Class Action |
[Mar. 1st, 2008|09:58 am] |
There's no reason why the people couldn't sue the U.S. government for the war in Iraq. I demand that they take gold from the Federal Reserve and give it to me as reparations for taxing me by means of both the income tax and the "Federal Reserve inflation tax" (which is created by Federal Reserve monetary policy). Consider the official reserves. I also demand that they no longer print more money to pay for wars we can't afford, but that means that there needs to be a duty of the people to actually obey the law.
1) Article I of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of funds to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."
2) There is at least one instance where Congress has appropriated funds to raise and support armies in another sovereign nation for a term longer than two years.
Therefore:
3) In at least one instance, Congress has broken the law of the land for the sake of meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 29th, 2008|08:12 pm] |
I feel for the guy gettin' dissed by Sage Francis in Dirty Mac.
Your girl's been spending lots of time at my place
I been helpin her remove the makeup from her fine face
Telling her to go "Au Natural"
And she trust me cause I'm your pal, thats my style
(Vrooom) I drive the Dirty Mac truck
Convincing her to drink that whole 30 rack up
I sit until I think your girly's mad drunk, then I turn the dirty mac up
What you and her, we shacked up
Well that sucks, we been getting close lately
Special time adds up so don't hate me
It's all about bologna draperies, beef sticks, and meat curtains
Monthly afternoons of bloody hatchet wounds and grease purses
I'm the salt in her pepper, the hop in her steppa
The broccoli in her mi-douth, but she don't want no chedda
(She don't want no chedda?) Naw she want somethin betta
I'd like to thank you homes you the reason why I met her
Who's cryin? |
|
|
| Property of the United States Government |
[Feb. 9th, 2008|03:39 pm] |
I sat here for about twenty minutes putting this together.
1) A capitation is a tax on the citizen's bodily acquired property.
2) The federal government's power was not intended to tax the property of citizens for itself vis-a-vis the entire "no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid" clause in Article I.
Therefore,
3) The federal government's power was intended to redistribute property to the people by means of the states.
4) If the 16th amendment was legitimately ratified, then the federal government was given the power to take the property of citizens for itself by the people.
5) Therefore, the citizens who agreed with the ratification of the 16th amendment agreed to allow the federal government to consider them property. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 7th, 2008|07:16 am] |
For those of you who like to vote for the big ticket Democratic or Republican candidate and not someone who sees the problems with our government for what they are like Republican Ron Paul, enjoy. Every time the Federal Reserve "adds liquidity", which is another way of saying it prints sheets and sheets of 100 dollar bills, 50 dollar bills, etc, it takes more of those dollars to purchase essential every day goods.
Inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index rose 4.1 percent from December 2006 through December 2007 (the latest figures available). But a closer look at the individual spending categories that comprise that headline-making index reveals that in some everyday spending categories, consumers definitely are being hit much harder than the overall rise in the CPI would suggest.
Not surprisingly, energy-related costs rose most steeply over the past year. Gasoline was up 29.6 percent; heating oil rose 28.3 percent; and the rate of increase for public transportation was 7.2 percent, or close to double the CPI rate.
And if it seems like you’re paying more and more for food, you’re right. Grocery prices are up 5.6 percent overall, led by 13.4 percent increase in dairy products, with the price per gallon for milk sometimes vying with the tab for a gallon of gas. Prices rose nearly 6 percent for fruits and vegetables, with increases in the range of 5 percent for cereal, meat, poultry, fish, and eggs. Both gasoline and groceries are the categories that are omitted from the “core inflation rate” that is often the focus of the Federal Reserve when it sets interest rate policy, even though they are a vital component of consumers' weekly budgets.
Drowning your sorrows about rising prices would have been a bargain by comparison—the 3.8 percent rise in alcohol prices actually was less than the total CPI increase. There were a few categories, such as apparel and furniture, for which prices dropped slightly, and there was also one product area that delivered tremendous bang for your buck: Personal computer prices actually declined by 13.2 percent over the past year. —Andrea Rock
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2008/02/rising_prices.html |
|
|
| punny dreams |
[Jan. 26th, 2007|11:44 am] |
Last night I had a cornucopia of silly dreams, but the one I remember the most, I was called into an office area to discuss some music. I'm guessing it was a beat. I really don't recognize any of the individuals in the dream. I was pulled into an office beside another office. The notes were playing in the other office, but the guitar and clarinet were not playing well at all. Rock and roll Klezmer, anyone? Anyway, there were three other individuals in the room, and when I was pulled in and listened, I said, "Well, it seems like those measures are playing in different signatures, and they're not very harmonious, but we'll get them working in time". Then two of the individuals smirked while a blonde haired woman burst out laughing really loudly. |
|
|
| something to make you laugh |
[Jan. 6th, 2007|02:00 pm] |
I had the most bizarre dream while I was napping not too long ago. I was coming home from a park, then all of the sudden I saw Hurley from Lost sitting in the middle section of a busy road. I stopped by and talked to him for a few minutes and gave him cash for food, which he put in his wallet which already had cash in it. Then all of the sudden there was a dog near us, and some other kid came along and grabbed his dog he was chasing after we stopped it from running away. After that I decided to get up and go the rest of the way home. I got home and there were a couple guys in the hallway, but I didn't see them until my door was open. All I saw was an empty shopping cart. Then the bald guy stepped out and wanted into my apartment to work on my dishwasher. I told him it was okay, and that there was no need for it. The second guy stepped out and they both tried to push their way in, but I was able to get the door shut and locked after shutting it on one of their hands. I locked the top lock, then walked into the kitchen to make a sandwich. All of the sudden they came inside, and I was flabbergasted, so I picked up a long curvy kitchen knife and told them to get out or I'd cut them. Then a third guy, a big black guy with dreds and a white winter coat walked in as well. I said to him, "Get out or I'll cut you, cracka". Then he pulled out a snub-nosed six-shooter and I threatened him anyway, and after scoffing at me calling him cracka, I said "Well, look at that big-ass white coat of yours". He agreed with me and threw the gun into the hallway". Then I woke up.
I'm thinking, okay, weird shit goes on in our minds while we sleep. |
|
|
| legality of the IRS |
[Oct. 3rd, 2006|10:44 am] |
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
From FindLaw
I saw the film being endorsed by the presidential candidate Michael Badnarik called From Freedom To Fascism, and it's all about the IRS and how it's allegedly an illegal institution. There were a lot of oohs and ahhs in the theatre and people fuming and acting emotional, but I didn't see anyone walk out trying to consider the arguments rationally. There was a time when I frequented a telnet-based chat system called silverchat, and a fellow by the name of Lyle argued with other folks that the IRS is a legal institution. I don't remember the details of their arguments, but I remember the details of the argument made by the movie. The whole premise of that film was that there's no law in the textbooks that says Congress can tax us. They said there's no law, and they asked experts to show them the law, then kept claiming no one could show them the law and that there's somewhere you can go to win a whole lot of money if you could show the law. But no one in the film showed them the law, although one writer of IRS tax law did laugh at the person doing the interviewing (an actually true appeal to ridicule). They continued to claim all throughout the movie that there's no law and it can't be shown to anyone. And to support their argument, they said that income has a different definition under the law, although they never provided the location of the law's definition of income. Furthermore, they stated that Congress has to apportion the taxes they take from us. Then they also talked about a distinction between direct and indirect tax.
However, the text of the 16th amendment as found on the World Wide Web is plain and clear. It is, as it is written, a "get out of jail free card" for Congress to take our money from us. It states from "whatever source derived", whether that be profit from a sale, or income earned from your labor. Then it explicitly states that it doesn't have to be apportioned. So right there, anyone who knows the text of the amendment by heart could walk out of that movie scoffing at how poorly constructed its arguments were.
Now I'm certainly no proponent of having my money taken from me, but I'm also not a proponent of having the IRS knock on my door and tell me that I've been stealing from them. You wouldn't want to find yourself in that situation because you were ignorant or just plain disbelieving of the truth. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 17th, 2006|10:47 am] |
Knowledge is power and absolute knowledge is absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely. Q.E.D.
 |
|
|
| an argument |
[Apr. 4th, 2006|11:19 am] |
I thought of this argument just now. I've been kind of thinking about it for a while. The example for this argument will be commanding genocide. Wiccans, agnostics, atheists, gnostics: they all alike will reject God for the same "reason". Their "reason", however, is similar to the statement: "your truth isn't my truth". I am reacting to the Bible emotionally because I don't understand it like the ancient people who could recite the whole Torah in their language by heart. Basically, one's opinion on a matter has no actual bearing on truth. If it did, it wouldn't be truth, it would be opinion. So here's how it goes:
1) An autonomous being can perform whatever is within its capability and will to perform.
2) God is an autonomous being with a certain amount of capabilities and will.
3) Therefore, God can perform whatever is within God's capability and will.
4) Humans are autonomous beings that reject God because God commands things
contrary to God's will for what humans should perform.
5) God's capacity for knowledge and understanding far exceeds humans'.
6) Therefore, probably, humans reject God for opinion rather than reason.
The last three could use more thought and work. I could post it in a community on LJ, but it would be somewhat pointless, as what I am conveying is plain to see. FYI, six can still be denied by saying, "What if the Hebrew God, in truth, really is evil like the Gnostics claim?" To defend six, the Bible would have to be quoted several times to show God's purposes are never for the sake of evil. |
|
|
| poetry |
[Dec. 3rd, 2005|10:18 am] |
A poem titled In The Depths Of Solitude written by Tupac Shakur. It was recited by Ludacris on an album released this year by Afeni Shakur titled The Rose; an album full of works inspired by Tupac Shakur's poetry.
I exist in the depths of solitude
pondering my true goal
Trying to find peace of mind
and still preserve my soul
CONSTANTLY yearning to be accepted
and from all receive respect
Never compromising but sometimes risking
and that is my only regret
A young heart with an old soul
how can there be peace
How can I be in the depths of solitude
when there are two inside of me
This Duo within me causes
the perfect opportunity
to learn and live twice as fast
as those who accept simplicity |
|
|
| Christianity Is Not The Work Of The Holy Spirit |
[Apr. 4th, 2005|10:09 pm] |
(1) All things are accomplished by the flow of the God of Israel's Spirit;
(2) Yeshua the Messiah will not return until Israel accepts his Messiahship;
(3) The God of Israel will entice Israel to jealousy with the Gentile nations;
(4) The preponderance of evidence E indicates that Christianity is not making
Israel jealous in such a way as to accept the Messiahship of Yeshua;
Therefore:
(5) Probably, Christianity is not the work of the God of Israel's Spirit (From 1-4).
This argument is deductively valid. Scriptural quotations to support the premises are as follows: (1)->Zechariah 4:6; (2)->Matthew 23:29; (3)->Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19. Now, I would to take the rest of this moment to discuss the premises of the argument. I believe that they are all self-explanatory, so I'm going to focus mostly on the fourth premise. This premise was inspired by another LiveJournal user who has propounded many different versions of the evidential argument from evil; you can see the fourth premise here. Looking around at the LiveJournal religious communities, inter-mixed and specific, it is clear to me that the Jewish communities are not being convinced by adherents of the religion of Christianity. It is clear to me that this is actually the case all over the rest of the world, despite the fact that Jews throughout the centuries have converted to Christianity. Because these Jews stop obeying the commandments of the Most High for Pagan-rooted festivals, these Jews are considered "self-destroyed Jews" by those who reject the Messiahship of Yeshua. The truth is that most Jews around the world reject the Messiahship of Yeshua due to the teachings of Christianity; these teachings that the Torah has been abolished and that the God of Israel is separated into three personalities contrary to every scripture that says God is One.
If you take a look at the third premise, and then read the entire chapter 10 and 11 (as they follow through contextually), you'll see that Paul the Apostle was very much aware of the prophecies found in both the Torah and the Prophets. To corroborate the second premise, you can look in the prophet Zechariah chapter 12 verse 10. You'll see that the text says that at some point in the future, the God of Israel will pour on Israel the spirit of grace and supplications, and then they will mourn for the One whom they pierced. This text is also seen by John the Revelator in chapter 1:7 as referring to Yeshua.
x-posted in religiousdebate here. |
|
|
| Christianity Is The Work Of Satan - Redux |
[Mar. 12th, 2004|08:07 pm] |
I've decided to make a vain attempt at propounding an argument of my own concoction. I've even chosen an allegedly anti-Semitic scripture to support one of the premises of my argument.
(1) The Torah is truth (Psalm 119:142).
(2) Yahweh does not change (Malachi 3:6).
(3) Therefore, the Torah remains Yahweh's instructions for community life.
(4) Satan is the father of lies (Genesis 3:1-5, John 8:44).
(5) Christianity teaches freedom from Torah observance.
(6) Therefore, probably, Christianity is the work of Satan.
( some discussion of the premises )
This argument is deductively valid.
x-posted in religiousdebate here. |
|
|
thoughtful
productive