What Does Freedom Mean To You?

On this 4’th of July, When American’s celebrate their Independence, I just wondered what Freedom means to You?

Voluntary Is Not So Voluntary

Birth Certificate:

The documentation of births is a practice widely held throughout human civilization, especially in China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Persia. The original purpose of birth registration was for tax purposes and for the determination of available military manpower.

Birth certificates are a fairly recent invention, common only since the 1900's. Prior to that, births might be recorded in the local church, usually when a child as baptized. Births , Marriages and deaths were also recorded in the Family Bible.

Marriage License:

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."  We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!  I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse.  You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.  They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license law.

Social Security:

According to SSA historians, the social security program began with the Social Security Act of 1935, originally titled the Economic Security Act. The term "Social Security" was coined in the United States by activist Abraham Epstein, who led a group called the American Association for Social Security.

Social Security taxes and benefit payments began in January 1937. Initially the government paid retirement benefits only to a family's primary worker, but in 1939 it added survivor's benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. Disability benefits began in 1956, and in 1965 Congress signed Medicare into law. The Civil Service Commission adopted the SSN as an official federal employee identifier in 1961, and the Internal Revenue Service adopted it as the official taxpayer ID number in 1962.

While the Social Security Act did not specify the use of numbered cards, it did call for the formation of a record-keeping plan. The first group of SSNs were assigned and distributed through 45,000 local post offices across the United States, since the SSA had not yet developed its current network of 1,300 field offices. The cards themselves were made in more than 1,000 post offices designated as "typing centers."

 

Between November 1936 and June 1937, more than 30 million SSN applications were processed. First, the SSA distributed SS-4 applications to employers, asking them to report the number of employees in their businesses. Then, the SSA sent the appropriate number of SS-5 forms to employees for them to complete. When the employees returned these forms to the post offices and typing centers, the SSA assigned SSNs and typed them up on the first Social Security cards. Fred Happel, the New York artist who had created the Flying Tigers logo used during World War II, provided the design for the cards (SSA.gov: History has a picture of the original design). The post offices sent these number assignments (on form OA-702) to the master files at Social Security headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.

Now legally, a social security card is still voluntary and you don’t have to have one; but most people think you do , so no one will hire you if you don’t have it.

Driver Licensing

Although there is no comprehensive history of the establishment of automobile drivers licenses, personal anecdotes, government legislative records, and histories of the automobile offer many details about early licenses. (By a drivers license, I refer to the requirement that motor vehicle drivers have a valid, state-issued piece of paper in order to legally drive; and by driver license examination, I mean the operator has passed a state-administered written and/or oral test about driving rules, a vision test, and a state-administered driving test proving his skills.) One thing is clear from the historical record: While the justification for government licensing of automobile operators was sometimes a safety issue, in a majority of the states, driver competency examinations were not imposed until years after the initial licensing regulations were adopted.

In the early days of motoring, every American learned to drive without any assistance from local, state, or federal government; most learned to drive safely; and most never had any government document to identify themselves or to prove that they had ever passed any government driving test. The states of Massachusetts and Missouri were the first to establish drivers licensing laws in 1903, but Missouri had no driver examination law until 1952. Massachusetts had an examination law for commercial chauffeurs in 1907, and passed its first requirement for an examination of general operators in 1920. The first state to require an examination of driver competency was Rhode Island in 1908 (it also required drivers to have state licenses as early as 1908). South Dakota was both the last state to impose drivers licenses (1954), and the last state to require driver license examinations (1959). ^[6] Our contemporary belief that drivers licenses were instituted to keep incompetent drivers off the road is a false one. The vast majority of Americans who drove already knew how to drive safely. Why the state governments demanded that they have a state-issued license and pass a government test appears to be more a matter of "control" than of public safety. Why early 20th Century Americans did not resist licensure and did not see where it might lead is another question.

Personal reminiscences of many elderly Americans verify this assertion. For example, one author in VINTAGE JOURNAL wrote that "I remember when the first drivers licenses came out. They cost 50 cents and you didn't have to take a test." ^[7] Here are a few other comments located on the internet:

In Jefferson County, Kansas "on July 8, 1947, someone from the county seat (Oskaloosa) came to Meriden to issue driver's licenses. Anyone who was 16 years or older and paid the fee was immediately issued a drivers license. No test. The date was easy to remember because I was 16 on that day and did get my drivers license." ^[8] [Licenses were first required in Kansas in 1931, and driving examinations in 1949.]

During the 1930s in Georgia ... "you didn't have to take a test for driving. You sent for the permit by mail." ^[9] [There were no drivers licenses in Georgia until 1937, and no driving examination until 1939.]

In Missouri the gas stations sold drivers licenses -- "no test. For 25 cents, they gave you a stub -- you had this until the `real' license came in the mail." ^[10] [As noted, Missouri was one of the first states to require licenses (1903), but examinations were not required until 1952.]

In Washington state drivers licensing was started in 1921. "Applicant must furnish signatures of two people certifying that the person is a competent driver and has no physical problems that would impair safe driving." ^[11] [Driving examinations were not initiated until 1937.]

James J. Flink presents a different point of view in his book, AMERICA ADOPTS THE AUTOMOBILE (1970). In his discussion of "Licensing of Operators" (pp. 174-178) he notes that "Automobile interests were well ahead of municipal and state governments by 1902 in recognizing that the compulsory examination of all automobile operators would be desirable. ... Officials of both the American Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of America publicly advocated ... that the states should certify the basic competence of all automobile operators by requiring them to pass an examination before being allowed on the road." ^[12] It is clear, however, that widespread public sentiment did not exist to support these proposals. It was years before all the state governments passed such laws. In summarizing, Flink concludes that

Despite the motorist's own desire to have their competence examined [an assumption which I would challenge] and certified, state governments still remained reluctant to take adequate action at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century. As of 1909, only twelve states and the District of Columbia required all automobile drivers to obtain licenses. Except for Missouri, these were all eastern states - Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. In seven other states, only professional chauffeurs had to obtain operator's licenses - ... . The application forms for operator's licenses in these nineteen states as a rule asked for little more information than the applicant's name, address, age, and the type of automobile he claimed to be competent to drive. This might have to be notarized, but in the vast majority of these states a license to drive an automobile could still be obtained by mail. In the twelve states that all operators had to be licensed, a combined total of 89,495 licenses were issued between January 1 and October 4, 1909, but only twelve applicants were rejected for incompetency or other reasons during this period - two in Rhode Island and ten in Vermont. ^[13]

It is simply impossible to determine how well the general population complied with these laws. Flink offers a telling statistic, however: observing that a roadcheck in Boston, Massachusetts in 1904 revealed only 126 of the 234 motorists stopped were in compliance with Massachusetts state registration and licensing requirements.

National ID:

Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republican Lindsey Graham have joined forces in an effort to force a biometric ID on the American people. The new national ID scheme is part of a comprehensive immigration bill now in the Senate.
Schumer and Graham want every American worker required to have a biometric ID card in order to work. “Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker,” reports The Wall Street Journal.
Schumer and Graham, who face an “uphill effort to pass a bill,” plan to meet with Obama this week in order to update him. An administration official told the Journal the White House has no position on the controversial ID card.

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=7286

National Online ID (for Computer users):

EXCERPTS" ....The federal government is proposing a new system being referred to as the “Identity Ecosystem”—which was highlighted in the recently-released draft paper, “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” [NSTIC].
The Identity Ecosystem would allow Americans to choose to obtain a single authenticated ID for online transactions. Like a passport, this single ID could travel with them online and be used to access everything from e-mail, to online health records and banking information. Furthermore, the Identity Ecosystem would only reveal the least amount of information necessary for each transaction.
Should this system be implemented, consumers must be prepared for a “new” experience and accept that convenience over security can no longer be their daily mantra.
Implementing such a comprehensive system will be tough—and requires widespread and fairly immediate support. The government must be able to win over consumers and businesses at the same time—or the Identity Ecosystem is likely to become a chicken-egg problem—with consumers unwilling to join a program that businesses aren’t a part of, and vice versa.
Furthermore, many modern services are complex. Take for instance online health: this would require the collaboration of doctors, hospitals, insurance providers, pharmacies and individuals.
The bottom line here is that the White House’s proposal depends on businesses voluntarily agreeing to turn the current e-commerce system upside down, incur massive new costs and collaborate with competitors.
The rest of the article can be found at the link below:

More: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/0...

Social Stereotype of Criminals

Society bases everything on looks. That accounts for a lot of crime.  Because while society is distancing itself from the young man with the whole in his jeans and long hair; or the young woman with in the sweats and tank top; this is what they are missing:

She looks like someone’s Grandmother.  Charged with 10 counts of Treason

This clean cut Gentleman was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder – On an American President.

Looks like a librarian to me. She was arrested for Anarchy and Inciting A Riot.

This is a handsome young man; popular with the ladies. Bugsy Siegel – Organized Crime and Murder

Spy for the USSR

 

87 Years old – Vehicular Manslaughter while Intoxicated

 

There have been women murdered by harmless, frail looking old men. People robbed in the streets by men in suits.  You can not judge a criminal by their looks anymore than you can tell a good book by the cover.

BP, Whats Next?

BP has payed 104 million dollars to residents along the Gulf Coast; however all these payouts do not change the damage done and the oil that continues to flow.

 

Alabama, Florida, Louisianna, and Mississippi all have response websites established to exchange information about the oil disaster and its far reaching impact. They are asking for any information of oil reaching the shores, wildlife, etc.

 

What is being done to stop this leak?

Flooding The Mississippi River?

Scientists want to flood the Mississippi River in hopes of stopping the oil. The scientists have concluded that powerful river flows kept oil from the BP/Gulf spill from invading large areas of wetlands. But as winter runoff diminished, so too did the river flow, and now oil is making a destructive invasion. The strong flow could be restored, however, by simply adjusting dams upstream that are diverting water out of the river bed.

Relief Wells?

Drilling crews were grinding ever deeper to build the relief wells that are the best hope of stopping the massive oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. The crew of Transocean Ltd.'s Development Driller II finished pouring cement to firm up a section of metal casing lining one of two relief wells. BP and government officials say the wells are the best option for cutting off the gusher that has spilled as much as 125 million gallons into the Gulf since the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Nukes?

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament.

 

While many people are worried about the political ramifications of all this; they are overlooking the human equation , as usual. Many people lost their incomes and food sources due to this tragedy. BP is throwing money at the situation; which only affords temporary comfort. Obama is throwing threats at BP and making things worse. The people are being threatened with arrest if they try to help with the cleanup.

 

My personal opinion is that BP needs to continue to stop the leak; The citizen’s should be allowed to do what is necessary to maintain their shore lines and Obama needs to concern himself with his next job and his next residence.

My Two Dads

My dad was a very large man; 6’3” , approx. 300 lbs. He was a Master Sergeant in the Air Force in World War ll.

He was a stern man with a reputation for being tough. People just didn’t mess with him. But that is not the man I knew.

The man I knew was a big teddy bear. He never had a harsh word for his children, he always provided whatever we needed and he made sure that we were getting what we needed from our mother. You see, I came from a divorced family when divorce was really frowned upon. Most people didn’t realize my parents were divorced because we saw our father almost everyday. I had a stepfather too. He married my mom when I was a baby.

At our house there was never all the drama about who belonged to who and I will kick your butt if I catch you talking to your ex, etc.  We lived in a civil home, where everyone knew their place and stayed in it. My oldest sister took a garage apartment and my dad moved in underneath her. That way we could have weekend visits with our dad. In that day and time, little girls did not stay overnight at men’s houses, not even their dads. It wasn’t proper. We would spend the weekends with my sister and see our dad during the day; at night we stayed in our sisters apartment. My dad would come to our house and have dinner with us. He and my stepfather would talk about business  and news and world affairs. They were both veterans of Foreign Wars and they were both married to my mother so they had a lot in common.

My dad never remarried and when I was nine , he got cancer and my mother took care of his affairs, visited him in the hospital, etc. My stepfather was with her all the way. He never complained, he didn’t try to stop her. He just stood by her.  My dad survived War and Marriage to my mother but he couldn’t beat cancer. He died when I was ten; but I never forgot him.

My Stepfather was tall and slender; very handsome and he fought in Korea. He too was very stern. He raised us with a firm hand. As children do – we hated him growing up. But when we were grown we realized that he was a good person in a difficult position.  Our stepfather never talked about our dad or criticized him and neither did our mother.  My mother and stepfather divorced when I was 14; but again; they remained friends and our stepfather visited often. When my mother passed away in 1979; he attended the funeral and grieved with the rest of the family. I had lost both of my parents and when I gave birth to my first child, I was beside myself; I was only 16 and still wanted a parents guidance and approval.  But the day I brought that baby home from the hospital my stepfather came. He had driven many miles to see me and the baby and to reassure me that I would be able to take care of her. We continued to visit back and forth over the years and I was on the family call list when he passed away in 2006

Both of these men were fathers to me and they both played a part in making me the person I am today. I will never forget either of them and I wish that all children could know a fathers love like I did.  

                                                                       

Who Is The IRS?

Is the IRS a Government Agency?

No

Is the IRS a department of The Federal Treasury?

No

What is The IRS?

The IRS is a Collection Agency working in this country illegally.

Does the IRS have any legal authority in the USA?

No

What is a Collection Agency?

A collection Agency is a company that buys your debt from your debtor for less than you owe  and then collects the money you owe from you by illegal means. Legally , you never have to pay a collection agency because you never made an agreement with them. However , most people don’t know this and the collection agencies use mob tactics to scare people into paying them. Doesn’t this sound just like the IRS?

For more information on other alternatives to a better America:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

There Is Now A Tax On The Color Of Your Skin

The IRS has issued a 10% tax on tanning beginning July 1’st, 2010.

Most Americans are now Vitamin D deficient as a result of sun blockers and poor nutrition. Fear Mongers have made Americans afraid of the sun, so they turn to tanning salons. Not only is tanned skinned attractive, it also has many health benefits: best treatment in the world for psoriasis, vitamin D deficiency and it makes you look slimmer. Tanning is also a great form of relaxation and a natural alternative to drugs for stress. There is why the IRS is attaching a tax to tanning.

It is time that America wakes up and takes control of their lives.

Wash off the sun blockers and lay in the sun. The sun is not taxable and it is very beneficial. As for the dangers of sun exposure: People who live in sunny climates and work in the sun constantly; have less diagnosis of skin cancer. Lack of Vitamin D is a precursor to cancer.