Since vitamin D deficiency is both endemic and is associated with numerous diseases, it is one of the most important medical problems in modern society. Treatment of vitamin D deficiency in otherwise healthy patients must be individualized due to the numerous factors affecting vitamin D levels. Steps should be taken to keep patients with chronic diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency, especially internal cancers, in the higher normal range of vitamin D blood levels.
Constitutional Convention « Result #5 on Dec 16, 2008, 8:21am »
ACT NOW TO REJECT CON CON
By Chuck Baldwin December 16, 2008 NewsWithViews.com
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center, recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.
The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.
States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but don't expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt, state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings, ready to act with "lightning speed" to seal the deal.
Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional] Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."
DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."
American Law « Result #6 on Nov 28, 2008, 9:26pm »
Public Law 97-280 96 STAT. 1211 97th Congress Joint Resolution Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible".
-Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
-Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
-Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
-Whereas many of our great national leaders-among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson-paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";
-Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
-Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
-Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it.
Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Approved October 4, 1982.
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 299 Karma: 1
Evil IRS scheme « Result #8 on Sept 27, 2008, 3:47pm »
In order to determine what income is taxable the index of the Code designates the starting point as 26 U.S.C. § 861: 26 U.S.C. § 861. Income from Sources within the United States. - STATUTE- (a) Gross income from sources within United States The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: -At 1644 of your electronic version.
Further follow: “Sec. 863. Special rules for determining source -STATUTE- (a) Allocation under regulations Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861(a) and 862(a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Where items of gross income are separately allocated to sources within the United States, there shall be deducted (for the purpose of computing the taxable income therefrom) the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of other expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States. (b) Income partly from within and partly from without the United States In the case of gross income derived from sources partly within and partly without the United States, the taxable income may first be computed by deducting the expenses, losses, or other deductions apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income; and the portion of such taxable income attributable to sources within the United States may be determined by processes or formulas of general apportionment prescribed by the Secretary. Gains, profits, and income –“ At 1655 of electronic version
Reserving all rights and objections: I have no existence of a tax deficiency due; one must first have an income that falls WITHIN ‘the law’. I am an individual created by God, born within the fifty compact several states. I am without the United States, and have never to my knowledge or consent had any taxable income or activity nor do I ever intend to have any taxable activity income, within or without the United States or effectively connected therewith. Simply put, I have not any taxable activity nor desire ever to have such activity, accordingly my personal and private revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element I squarely challenge if you choose to pursue the matter. All past and present and as I anticipate all future Informational returns that may have been filed with you must have been done in error by the party whom made the report. Source of income, is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing authority of the federal government. Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied upon ‘net income’- exempt are the items of income that which are under the Constitution - not taxable by the federal government, and still in effect - not to be confused with deductions allowed.
Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income from sources without the United States has been determined. This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions (referred to collectively in this section as ‘deductions’) of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code. -- The source of income is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing authority of the federal government; these deductions apply to all lawfully taxable income, but not all sources.
The Income Tax Law, Subtitle A of Title 26, United States Code, imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain individuals: 26 U.S.C. § 1. Tax Imposed. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income (starting at page 39 of your electronic version), contained within your statute - imposition of the tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. Ones income activity must first be subject to liability for tax before it cam be imposed, where my activity has never been subject to that liability. There may very well be others whose activity is effectively connected within that scope and to the United States, however my activities are not connected.
Yes, there are limitations upon Congress' power to tax and that there are items and sources of income that are Constitutionally exempt from taxation by the federal government. Not all income is Constitutionally taxable and is referred to as exempt income being that which is not taxable by the federal government "under fundamental law", where all forms of income that I receive just happen to be domiciled... other persons may not be, however I choose daily to remain within my God given fundamental right to choose a non taxable activity. As stated in numerous past correspondents, I - ChaChynga, make it clear that I don’t receive any non-exempt items of income specified within the “law” and any apparent evidence to the contrary is false.
The 16 Amendment did not expand the scope of Congress' power to tax (Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, - et al.), thus although the source of income is no longer a factor in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect, neither the jurisdiction of the federal government nor its taxing authority was enlarged to include authority to tax activities and privileges that it could not have taxed before the 16th Amendment. 26 U.S.C. § et al; Tax Imposed ‘this law’ is imposing a “tax on only that income the federal government was Constitutionally entitled”, able, to tax, tax-able, thereby, technically, excluding all Constitutionally exempt or excluded income from the effects of the tax. As repeatedly held, this [the 16 Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.
The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived... - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914): "Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff'd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57."
In United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923): "On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153."
In Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965): “that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.” At 694
Water Quality Ass'n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986): "It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute's language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something."
Remembering that tax laws must be strictly construed and that any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax, it can, therefore, only be concluded that sources of income other than those enumerated cannot be included in gross income and that items of income other than those items of income specified as not exempt, are exempt from the federal income tax. With the sole exception of those sources specifically identified as taxable and those items specifically identified as not exempt, it cannot be said that the tax has "been plainly and clearly laid" on any other sources or items of income. Billings, Merriam, Gould, Tandy Leather, supra.
Domiciled within the Republic known as Texas, within these united States (U. States i.e. United States’) I do not nor have I ever lived within the “United States” (U.S.). To the best of my knowledge I have only visited for a few hours a single U.S. Territory. The fifty compact several States are without the United States (U.S.) and are NON-Federal, to put it plainly, the fifty States Territory i.e. where I’m domiciled is in the States, which means they are not within the federal jurisdiction. All of my personal activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government. I choose to live my Godly given rights of life, liberty, and happiness to always remain within a non taxable activity. Any income that I receive is exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government. Fundamental rights are those described in general terms by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, as proclaimed in that great document, it is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation. These rights are derived from Natural Law, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (Jesus The Living Christ), not from the Constitution, not from the government. Such rights are inalienable (unchallengeable) and inviolable (unbreakable), and are not privileges that can be the subject of a tax on privileges - unalienable. A person's freedom and ability to work is his own property, and that right cannot be taken, bought, sold or bartered away. I owe my life to my Creator God and value what he has given me, and as a good steward choose to serve his kingdom to the best of my ability. In my personal, sincerely held beliefs as a Christian, I could never even consider supporting a government that promotes baby killing (abortions) or homosexuality (disgusting perversion of nature) – as a natural man, a preacher and a servant of the Lord Most High God, rest assured with certainty that I would under no circumstances, allow myself to effectively connect an income within a taxable activity, which feeds ungodly behavior.
In a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, it was stated, citing both Brushaber and Stanton "Therefore, it is clear that the income tax is an 'indirect' tax." It is, therefore, subject to the same limitations on taxing authority that are established hereinabove, and that is that it cannot tax person or property without apportionment (Article I, § 9, cl. 4), nor any activity that is without either the scope of federal legislative authority, outside the scope of excise, or monies owed to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Nor does the power to tax by excise permit the federal government to tax activities that are solely within the realm of the State jurisdiction.
The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right that is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of a Citizen. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' - not grant them but secure them -'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Do your duty, maintain your just powers, and keep my rights secured!
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Female Posts: 299 Karma: 1
VenomFangX Quits « Result #10 on Jul 17, 2008, 12:26pm »
MannaBoBanna ran across VenomFangX's YouTube account, where he say's that he's coughing up preaching due to Islamic Death Threats. For the Safty of him and his family. Hey, Christ Never said it would be approved by men.
Matthew
19 1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
I think his doctrine is off, and I think he's a JudaIzer and I think he's just a watered down Judeo-Christian that has not the real clue as how to be fully equipped and armed.... His biggest problem I saw was that he Censored the speech on his posts. Hey VenomFangX if your out there.. That's a NO NO, a first rule that you should not do. I can see where some posters from a limited time to time may need to be censored..... but not only to allow your point of view without regard to allowing the others express their beliefs, how on earth can anyone learn or come to the right conclusions unless Scripture is debated in a love for the truth fashion.
Have to love truth Fang-X, and have to be willing to let your Light shine, even if it mens DEATH for Christs sake... or did you think Jesus was just kidding?
Thanks Manna - I guess you were right.
I guess those prayers worked.
Time will tell if he has a love for the truth and repents.
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4547/camel1er1gr6.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
Logged
