Is this a FELONY?

[emilynghiem]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's Treason.

 

[occupied]

Ever wonder why people think Trumpbots are insane? Stuff like this. Abandon Facebook, it rots your brain.

 

[Pogo]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

 

[Pogo]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all. I know you've been on this crusade to equate "politics" with "religion" but to date I can't think of a single poster who has bought it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

 

[emilynghiem]

Original FB post and my response below it:

When the candidates were announced I first was in favor of Warren all the way. Her stance on repealing Citizens United, education, and going after Big banks was appealing.

But, as I got to hear Bernie speak, more and more, and researched his stance on education and health care, as well as, prison reform, I began to believe that he had a clearer vision.

Bernie’s plan is for the working family, those easily making under $200K combined and the poor, who are not looking for handouts to be able to afford a higher education and health care.

Before anyone chimes in, on my comment, I ask you to please click on the link and understand the cost and funding of each issues. There is so much fear mongering and sound bit repeats, especially about taxes that people have lost the common sense to go to the irs.gov site to understand how their taxes work.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

RESPONSE 1:
The first two listings already rely on raising taxes on two groups that are not the cause of corruption and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Democrats like Obama and Pelosi alone have cost taxpayers billions from abuses of govt, so not going after Democrats to pay for their messes but charging MORE money to business and corporate people NOT proven to have committed any crimes is like making victims pay while the crooks get away. I'm sorry but as a progressive liberal who puts the Constitution first, before party, I have to say no, this plan needs to be corrected. Since you took it upon yourself to promote this plan without correcting it first, can you help me petition the committee in charge or get me in direct contact with Sanders so the Constitution Party and others who object can prevent you and other campaigners and donors from committing conspiracy to violate civil rights of me and others by falsely misrepresenting such plans as lawful when they are in fact endorsing the abuse of federal govt to violate equal civil rights protections of citizens to due process by discrimination by our creed in free market and Constitutional ethics and limits on govt. Here are the principles in my creeds that your plans would violate : www.ethics-commission.net if you are being paid to spread fraudulent misrepresentation of policies that are not ethical or lawful through federal govt, who are your funders or directors instructing you and how do I contact them about an amicable settlement to avoid a class action lawsuit for felonious conspiracy to violate equal civil rights?

RESPONSE 2:

1. Why would you copy and promote a plan that misrepresents itself as lawful when it would violate civil rights and creeds of half the citizens of this country? How are you not responsible if you promote it in YOUR post that implying this is a good plan and are enticing others to be misled as well because you included no such disclaimer or correction as I did?

NOTE: 2. The IRS is not promoting this plan YOU are. YOU posted it here, not to protest it but to SUPPORT IT and get other people to read it and be misled as well -- why would you not take responsibility for what you post? How is this the IRS fault if you post something copied from someone else?

PS I have lots of other friends who are progressive and Sanders supporters, and I am asking them the same questions. I don't want ANYONE to participate in conspiracy to violate civil rights by misportraying political creeds as something lawful that can be imposed on taxpayers through federal govt against their beliefs! People have rights to fund and follow their own beliefs, but NOT the right to establish through govt and punish taxpayers by depriving others of liberty and income without due process. These plans misrepresent the law and what constitutes abuse and violations of equal civil rights and protections. I consider that felonious, and am asking others if you realize that conspiring as a party to violate civil rights of others is discriminatory and unlawful. If it was funded freely it is legal, but these plans are about forcing it on taxpayers by mandatory federal laws which violates the beliefs, rights and protections of people of other creeds. So that is why I question if you understand this or not. Before you contribute or participate any further in such discrimination if such beliefs are being "sold" as govt mandates.

 

[Pogo]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

 

[emilynghiem]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

No Pogo but thanks for the help to clarify.
what is felonious is abusing GOVT to impose such discriminatory creeds through govt to punish taxpayers of other creeds.
And then anyone else committing the same MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD that enables the violation of rights
by electing people or SOLICITING VOTES based on FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS would be conspiracy as a group.

The CORRECTIONS would be either to CLARIFY that creeds can be supported by free choice of funding,
but are NOT LAWFUL to REQUIRE or establish through Govt to Compel or Punish other Taxpayers of different beliefs or creeds which is DISCRIMINATORY.

Majority Rule elections and Judicial Rule have authority in decisions NOT involving personal creeds or beliefs.
But Govt Authority and Process is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish, prohibit, penalize or discriminate on the basis of creed.

I'm arguing against the MISREPRESENTATION that imposing such taxes without representation and against the beliefs and creeds of the people affected
is "legal" when it is UNLAWFUL to impose that through FEDERAL GOVT.

It's FINE to propose such taxes as voluntary for those who consent to them, and keep that within
the membership and taxpayers who CONSENT to those as their BELIEFS.

But it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to impose it as "punishment" on taxpayers
on the basis of class alone, but should require due process to prove the wrongdoers owe such penalties
and/or CONSENT and REPRESENTATION of the people being taxed. In order to ensure fully informed
CONSENT, that is why I am proposing to add corrections that specify the beliefs and creeds that need inclusion and protection
for this to be lawful and not discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I hope Pogo this CAN BE corrected and resolved by free speech and press.

I hope it doesn't take a lawsuit, but if that is the only thing Democrats will obey is a court
or executive order, it may come to that if my fellow Democrats won't hear a petition when it is given amicably to avoid
more expensive legal or legislative action to correct such abuses of govt by parties as political religious organizations.

 

[Pogo]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

No Pogo but thanks for the help to clarify.
what is felonious is abusing GOVT to impose such discriminatory creeds through govt to punish taxpayers of other creeds.
And then anyone else committing the same MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD that enables the violation of rights
by electing people or SOLICITING VOTES based on FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS would be conspiracy as a group.

The CORRECTIONS would be either to CLARIFY that creeds can be supported by free choice of funding,
but are NOT LAWFUL to REQUIRE or establish through Govt to Compel or Punish other Taxpayers of different beliefs or creeds which is DISCRIMINATORY.

Majority Rule elections and Judicial Rule have authority in decisions NOT involving personal creeds or beliefs.
But Govt Authority and Process is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish, prohibit, penalize or discriminate on the basis of creed.

I'm arguing against the MISREPRESENTATION that imposing such taxes without representation and against the beliefs and creeds of the people affected
is "legal" when it is UNLAWFUL to impose that through FEDERAL GOVT.

It's FINE to propose such taxes as voluntary for those who consent to them, and keep that within
the membership and taxpayers who CONSENT to those as their BELIEFS.

But it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to impose it as "punishment" on taxpayers
on the basis of class alone, but should require due process to prove the wrongdoers owe such penalties
and/or CONSENT and REPRESENTATION of the people being taxed. In order to ensure fully informed
CONSENT, that is why I am proposing to add corrections that specify the beliefs and creeds that need inclusion and protection
for this to be lawful and not discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I hope Pogo this CAN BE corrected and resolved by free speech and press.

I hope it doesn't take a lawsuit, but if that is the only thing Democrats will obey is a court
or executive order, it may come to that if my fellow Democrats won't hear a petition when it is given amicably to avoid
more expensive legal or legislative action to correct such abuses of govt by parties as political religious organizations.

You're not advancing any kind of free speech if you're advocating making it a felony, are you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

^ NOPE Pogo that's what I am trying to prevent.
People should not be punished on the basis of creed.

That's what the taxes would do by imposing on people without due process to prove they committed crimes that owe penalties to be paid.

I'm not saying to punish disagreement, I'm saying not to take one's political BELIEF CREED or RELIGION and
impose it through Govt to punish people of other creeds. That's what went wrong with Obama's ACA mandates,
and I'm trying to correct that before it happens again here.

 

[Pogo]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

^ NOPE Pogo that's what I am trying to prevent.
People should not be punished on the basis of creed.

That's what the taxes would do by imposing on people without due process to prove they committed crimes that owe penalties to be paid.

I'm not saying to punish disagreement, I'm saying not to take one's political BELIEF CREED or RELIGION and
impose it through Govt to punish people of other creeds. That's what went wrong with Obama's ACA mandates,
and I'm trying to correct that before it happens again here.

Far as I can tell yes it IS what you're saying. You're just trying to hide it behind the word "creed".

"Creed" -- "Policy" --- "opinion" --- "belief' All the same thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

No Pogo but thanks for the help to clarify.
what is felonious is abusing GOVT to impose such discriminatory creeds through govt to punish taxpayers of other creeds.
And then anyone else committing the same MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD that enables the violation of rights
by electing people or SOLICITING VOTES based on FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS would be conspiracy as a group.

The CORRECTIONS would be either to CLARIFY that creeds can be supported by free choice of funding,
but are NOT LAWFUL to REQUIRE or establish through Govt to Compel or Punish other Taxpayers of different beliefs or creeds which is DISCRIMINATORY.

Majority Rule elections and Judicial Rule have authority in decisions NOT involving personal creeds or beliefs.
But Govt Authority and Process is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish, prohibit, penalize or discriminate on the basis of creed.

I'm arguing against the MISREPRESENTATION that imposing such taxes without representation and against the beliefs and creeds of the people affected
is "legal" when it is UNLAWFUL to impose that through FEDERAL GOVT.

It's FINE to propose such taxes as voluntary for those who consent to them, and keep that within
the membership and taxpayers who CONSENT to those as their BELIEFS.

But it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to impose it as "punishment" on taxpayers
on the basis of class alone, but should require due process to prove the wrongdoers owe such penalties
and/or CONSENT and REPRESENTATION of the people being taxed. In order to ensure fully informed
CONSENT, that is why I am proposing to add corrections that specify the beliefs and creeds that need inclusion and protection
for this to be lawful and not discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I hope Pogo this CAN BE corrected and resolved by free speech and press.

I hope it doesn't take a lawsuit, but if that is the only thing Democrats will obey is a court
or executive order, it may come to that if my fellow Democrats won't hear a petition when it is given amicably to avoid
more expensive legal or legislative action to correct such abuses of govt by parties as political religious organizations.

You're not advancing any kind of free speech if you're advocating making it a felony, are you.

^ NOPE, again Pogo I'm saying NOT TO ABUSE free speech to commit misrepresentation and fraud which are violations of law.

I'm saying not to misrepresent that it is "lawful" to take one's political belief or creed
and establish it through federal govt where it discriminates against citizens of other creeds.

That is the action that is unlawful -- actually abusing govt to establish it, as Obama and Pelosi did with ACA.

Now with the proper and improper use of media and free speech and press:
If you solicit others to engage in something illegal, committing fraud, misrepresentation etc.
and it LEADS to violating someone's civil rights. Like if you solicit murder online and someone gets killed.
YES you can be guilty of conspiracy.

Here, I'm saying if political parties keep MISREPRESENTING pushing these creeds UNLAWFULLY through govt
as if it is Constitutional when in fact it is discriminatory and in violation of equal civil rights and protections of people of other creeds,
And these MISREPRESENTATIONS are abused to
(1) mislead people to get their votes and donations because they were never informed these policies were discriminatory and unconstitutional to establish through govt
as MISREPRESENTED
(2) actual enact unconstitutional legislation that violates civil rights and protections of taxpayers of other creeds
Then that conspiracy to abuse party and govt process to violate rights of others
would constitute a felony.

 

[Pogo]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

No Pogo but thanks for the help to clarify.
what is felonious is abusing GOVT to impose such discriminatory creeds through govt to punish taxpayers of other creeds.
And then anyone else committing the same MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD that enables the violation of rights
by electing people or SOLICITING VOTES based on FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS would be conspiracy as a group.

The CORRECTIONS would be either to CLARIFY that creeds can be supported by free choice of funding,
but are NOT LAWFUL to REQUIRE or establish through Govt to Compel or Punish other Taxpayers of different beliefs or creeds which is DISCRIMINATORY.

Majority Rule elections and Judicial Rule have authority in decisions NOT involving personal creeds or beliefs.
But Govt Authority and Process is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish, prohibit, penalize or discriminate on the basis of creed.

I'm arguing against the MISREPRESENTATION that imposing such taxes without representation and against the beliefs and creeds of the people affected
is "legal" when it is UNLAWFUL to impose that through FEDERAL GOVT.

It's FINE to propose such taxes as voluntary for those who consent to them, and keep that within
the membership and taxpayers who CONSENT to those as their BELIEFS.

But it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to impose it as "punishment" on taxpayers
on the basis of class alone, but should require due process to prove the wrongdoers owe such penalties
and/or CONSENT and REPRESENTATION of the people being taxed. In order to ensure fully informed
CONSENT, that is why I am proposing to add corrections that specify the beliefs and creeds that need inclusion and protection
for this to be lawful and not discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I hope Pogo this CAN BE corrected and resolved by free speech and press.

I hope it doesn't take a lawsuit, but if that is the only thing Democrats will obey is a court
or executive order, it may come to that if my fellow Democrats won't hear a petition when it is given amicably to avoid
more expensive legal or legislative action to correct such abuses of govt by parties as political religious organizations.

You're not advancing any kind of free speech if you're advocating making it a felony, are you.

^ NOPE, again Pogo I'm saying not to abuse free speech to commit misrepresentation and fraud.

I'm saying not to misrepresent that it is "lawful" to take one's political belief or creed
and establish it through federal govt where it discriminates against citizens of other creeds.

That is the action that is unlawful -- actually abusing govt to establish it, as Obama and Pelosi did with ACA.

Now with the proper and improper use of media and free speech and press:
If you solicit others to engage in something illegal, committing fraud, misrepresentation etc.
and it LEADS to violating someone's civil rights. Like if you solicit murder online and someone gets killed.
YES you can be guilty of conspiracy.

Here, I'm saying if political parties keep MISREPRESENTING pushing these creeds UNLAWFULLY through govt
as if it is Constitutional when in fact it is discriminatory and in violation of equal civil rights and protections of people of other creeds,
And these MISREPRESENTATIONS are abused to
(1) mislead people to get their votes and donations because they were never informed these policies were discriminatory and unconstitutional to establish through govt
as MISREPRESENTED
(2) actual enact unconstitutional legislation that violates civil rights and protections of taxpayers of other creeds
Then that conspiracy to abuse party and govt process to violate rights of others
would constitute a felony.

MISREPRESENTING (your term verbatim) is not, and cannot be, a felony, period.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

^ NOPE Pogo that's what I am trying to prevent.
People should not be punished on the basis of creed.

That's what the taxes would do by imposing on people without due process to prove they committed crimes that owe penalties to be paid.

I'm not saying to punish disagreement, I'm saying not to take one's political BELIEF CREED or RELIGION and
impose it through Govt to punish people of other creeds. That's what went wrong with Obama's ACA mandates,
and I'm trying to correct that before it happens again here.

Far as I can tell yes it IS what you're saying. You're just trying to hide it behind the word "creed".

"Creed" -- "Policy" --- "opinion" --- "belief' All the same thing.

^ And such beliefs and creeds are protected by law for private individuals and groups.
But Unconstitutional to establish such beliefs and creeds through govt in violation of equal rights of other people's beliefs and creeds.
Do you see the difference Pogo?

It is perfectly legal to lobby for people to fund and follow a creed by free choice.
It is Unconstitutional to mandate, regulate or punish other taxpayers by abusing FEDERAL GOVT
to force them to follow or fund creeds against their own beliefs and right to protections against discrimination.

 

[emilynghiem]

After reading someone posting on Facebook the link to Sanders' plan to pay for expanded social programs through govt, by adding to taxes, I protested to this person and warned them that it is fraudulent misrepresentation to publish such policies implying it is lawful to pass such measures through federal govt that would deprive citizens of equal protections against "no taxation without representation," "discrimination by creed" by beliefs that capitalism and free market are not crimes to be punished by depriving citizens of liberty or income without "due process" to PROVE which parties committed abuses or violations the penalties would pay for.

SEE How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?
#1 and #2 were enough to make my arguments this is unconstitutional, fraudulent to misrepresent as lawful, where establishing this through govt by a collective party would violate equal civil rights of others constituting a felony by conspiring as group to do so by discriminating as a class against those of other creeds.

Do you agree that pushing such policies through federal govt would violate equal civil rights and protections of taxpayers who believe in free market and don't believe that creed should be discriminated against and punished by laws proposed like Sanders and other supporters are doing?

So that parties who fund or engage in such misrepresentation or discriminatory legislation to violate civil rights of others would be guilty of either deliberate or negligent "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" which is a FELONY.

I further demanded to know who was paying people to spread such misinformation, so that these statements can be corrected. Either by adding a disclaimer that such beliefs are a political religion or CREED that cannot be established or prohibited by law where they discriminate against others by creed and attempt to regulate political religions by forcing taxpayers to fund or follow beliefs against their own will, beliefs or creeds.
Or by adding a CORRECTION about paying for such reforms by going after the actual wrongdoers responsible for costing taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars for govt corruption and abuses charged to the public.

I will copy some of the FB responses I posted in my reply.

Please comment which you believe constitute proper legal arguments and defenses, that can be counted as part of public policy, or which do you believe are just my beliefs where these are optional and cannot be prohibited nor established by law.

Thank you!

I will start copying the message below, please review and comment which parts you might amend and clarify.

Yours truly,
Emily

www.ethics-commission.net

You're actually suggesting that publishing a policy should be a felony??

No Pogo but thanks for the help to clarify.
what is felonious is abusing GOVT to impose such discriminatory creeds through govt to punish taxpayers of other creeds.
And then anyone else committing the same MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD that enables the violation of rights
by electing people or SOLICITING VOTES based on FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS would be conspiracy as a group.

The CORRECTIONS would be either to CLARIFY that creeds can be supported by free choice of funding,
but are NOT LAWFUL to REQUIRE or establish through Govt to Compel or Punish other Taxpayers of different beliefs or creeds which is DISCRIMINATORY.

Majority Rule elections and Judicial Rule have authority in decisions NOT involving personal creeds or beliefs.
But Govt Authority and Process is NOT AUTHORIZED to establish, prohibit, penalize or discriminate on the basis of creed.

I'm arguing against the MISREPRESENTATION that imposing such taxes without representation and against the beliefs and creeds of the people affected
is "legal" when it is UNLAWFUL to impose that through FEDERAL GOVT.

It's FINE to propose such taxes as voluntary for those who consent to them, and keep that within
the membership and taxpayers who CONSENT to those as their BELIEFS.

But it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to impose it as "punishment" on taxpayers
on the basis of class alone, but should require due process to prove the wrongdoers owe such penalties
and/or CONSENT and REPRESENTATION of the people being taxed. In order to ensure fully informed
CONSENT, that is why I am proposing to add corrections that specify the beliefs and creeds that need inclusion and protection
for this to be lawful and not discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I hope Pogo this CAN BE corrected and resolved by free speech and press.

I hope it doesn't take a lawsuit, but if that is the only thing Democrats will obey is a court
or executive order, it may come to that if my fellow Democrats won't hear a petition when it is given amicably to avoid
more expensive legal or legislative action to correct such abuses of govt by parties as political religious organizations.

You're not advancing any kind of free speech if you're advocating making it a felony, are you.

^ NOPE, again Pogo I'm saying not to abuse free speech to commit misrepresentation and fraud.

I'm saying not to misrepresent that it is "lawful" to take one's political belief or creed
and establish it through federal govt where it discriminates against citizens of other creeds.

That is the action that is unlawful -- actually abusing govt to establish it, as Obama and Pelosi did with ACA.

Now with the proper and improper use of media and free speech and press:
If you solicit others to engage in something illegal, committing fraud, misrepresentation etc.
and it LEADS to violating someone's civil rights. Like if you solicit murder online and someone gets killed.
YES you can be guilty of conspiracy.

Here, I'm saying if political parties keep MISREPRESENTING pushing these creeds UNLAWFULLY through govt
as if it is Constitutional when in fact it is discriminatory and in violation of equal civil rights and protections of people of other creeds,
And these MISREPRESENTATIONS are abused to
(1) mislead people to get their votes and donations because they were never informed these policies were discriminatory and unconstitutional to establish through govt
as MISREPRESENTED
(2) actual enact unconstitutional legislation that violates civil rights and protections of taxpayers of other creeds
Then that conspiracy to abuse party and govt process to violate rights of others
would constitute a felony.

MISREPRESENTING (your term verbatim) is not, and cannot be, a felony, period.

^ CONSPIRING to violate civil rights of others by abusing federal govt and misrepresentations as part of the conspiracy.
the CONSPIRACY to violate civil rights is what makes it a felony.

is this more clear Pogo

And yes, Parties have been doing this forever.
But people kept CONSENTING to it because of enough resources to keep lobbying to vote the other out for doing it.
Now it's getting to the point people DON'T Consent to it, and billions of dollars are being wasted campaigning
for and against creeds of one group or another being pushed through federal govt.

At the point people agree "we do not consent" and this is "violating equal protections of our own creeds"
then maybe we can get a consensus going to stop this practice!

 

[Pogo]

Obviously I voted "other" since I don't accept the premises in the poll at all.

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

^ NOPE Pogo that's what I am trying to prevent.
People should not be punished on the basis of creed.

That's what the taxes would do by imposing on people without due process to prove they committed crimes that owe penalties to be paid.

I'm not saying to punish disagreement, I'm saying not to take one's political BELIEF CREED or RELIGION and
impose it through Govt to punish people of other creeds. That's what went wrong with Obama's ACA mandates,
and I'm trying to correct that before it happens again here.

Far as I can tell yes it IS what you're saying. You're just trying to hide it behind the word "creed".

"Creed" -- "Policy" --- "opinion" --- "belief' All the same thing.

^ And such beliefs and creeds are protected by law for private individuals and groups.
But Unconstitutional to establish such beliefs and creeds through govt in violation of equal rights of other people's beliefs and creeds.
Do you see the difference Pogo?

It is perfectly legal to lobby for people to fund and follow a creed by free choice.
It is Unconstitutional to mandate, regulate or punish other taxpayers by abusing FEDERAL GOVT
to force them to follow or fund creeds against their own beliefs and right to protections against discrimination.

No, I don't. You can't mandate or establish by law a belief, creed or opinion. And you certainly can't prohibit it under threat of felony.

I have no idea where you wanted this thread to go. None whatsoever. At least none that makes any sense.

 

[emilynghiem]

Original FB post and my response below it:

When the candidates were announced I first was in favor of Warren all the way. Her stance on repealing Citizens United, education, and going after Big banks was appealing.

But, as I got to hear Bernie speak, more and more, and researched his stance on education and health care, as well as, prison reform, I began to believe that he had a clearer vision.

Bernie’s plan is for the working family, those easily making under $200K combined and the poor, who are not looking for handouts to be able to afford a higher education and health care.

Before anyone chimes in, on my comment, I ask you to please click on the link and understand the cost and funding of each issues. There is so much fear mongering and sound bit repeats, especially about taxes that people have lost the common sense to go to the irs.gov site to understand how their taxes work.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

RESPONSE 1:
The first two listings already rely on raising taxes on two groups that are not the cause of corruption and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Democrats like Obama and Pelosi alone have cost taxpayers billions from abuses of govt, so not going after Democrats to pay for their messes but charging MORE money to business and corporate people NOT proven to have committed any crimes is like making victims pay while the crooks get away. I'm sorry but as a progressive liberal who puts the Constitution first, before party, I have to say no, this plan needs to be corrected. Since you took it upon yourself to promote this plan without correcting it first, can you help me petition the committee in charge or get me in direct contact with Sanders so the Constitution Party and others who object can prevent you and other campaigners and donors from committing conspiracy to violate civil rights of me and others by falsely misrepresenting such plans as lawful when they are in fact endorsing the abuse of federal govt to violate equal civil rights protections of citizens to due process by discrimination by our creed in free market and Constitutional ethics and limits on govt. Here are the principles in my creeds that your plans would violate : www.ethics-commission.net if you are being paid to spread fraudulent misrepresentation of policies that are not ethical or lawful through federal govt, who are your funders or directors instructing you and how do I contact them about an amicable settlement to avoid a class action lawsuit for felonious conspiracy to violate equal civil rights?

RESPONSE 2:

1. Why would you copy and promote a plan that misrepresents itself as lawful when it would violate civil rights and creeds of half the citizens of this country? How are you not responsible if you promote it in YOUR post that implying this is a good plan and are enticing others to be misled as well because you included no such disclaimer or correction as I did?

NOTE: 2. The IRS is not promoting this plan YOU are. YOU posted it here, not to protest it but to SUPPORT IT and get other people to read it and be misled as well -- why would you not take responsibility for what you post? How is this the IRS fault if you post something copied from someone else?

PS I have lots of other friends who are progressive and Sanders supporters, and I am asking them the same questions. I don't want ANYONE to participate in conspiracy to violate civil rights by misportraying political creeds as something lawful that can be imposed on taxpayers through federal govt against their beliefs! People have rights to fund and follow their own beliefs, but NOT the right to establish through govt and punish taxpayers by depriving others of liberty and income without due process. These plans misrepresent the law and what constitutes abuse and violations of equal civil rights and protections. I consider that felonious, and am asking others if you realize that conspiring as a party to violate civil rights of others is discriminatory and unlawful. If it was funded freely it is legal, but these plans are about forcing it on taxpayers by mandatory federal laws which violates the beliefs, rights and protections of people of other creeds. So that is why I question if you understand this or not. Before you contribute or participate any further in such discrimination if such beliefs are being "sold" as govt mandates.

MORE RESPONSES:

A.

If Sanders would admit his plans to tax innocent people for their wealth needs to be changed to holding wrongdoers responsible for paying back tax dollars they abused for corrupt unauthorized purposes, he could get a job in the White House administration or cabinet fixing the messes of past or current govt officials and offices. Just going after Obama and Pelosi alone to charge them with paying back taxpayers for abuses of govt by the Democratic Party should be good for billions of dollars after the ACA abuses alone. Going after criminal justice reform to convert those facilities and resources into teaching hospitals and medical education internships in public service should cover health care reforms state by state instead of threatening to punish taxpayers by going through federal govt and raising taxes in violation of Constitutional limits, beliefs and creeds that require due process before depriving half the nation of our rights to no taxation without representation, no discrimination by creed, and no disparaging of our rights by putting other policies first that are in conflict. There is enough work to do to clean up govt the right way, which doesn't violate the beliefs or creeds of people of other parties, that Trump and the other Billionaires running could create jobs hiring all the other candidates plus their campaign staff to manage all the reforms through their own party bases, ensuring equitable pay, member group benefits, and sustainable internships that offset costs of education. If Trump and Sanders really care about America and representing all of us inclusively, they'd work together to unite all parties under common plans by correcting the flaws instead of dividing in conflict over them .

B.

I plan to ask anyway. To me it's a violation of the Code of Erhics for Beto to waste 80M in donations not getting a job when that same money could have created 1-3 jobs in all 50 states building the solutions to problems the Democrats campaign for. Now with Yang, Steyer and Bloomberg all funding their own million dollar campaigns, they could bail put Pacifica Radio and create paid jobs building health care coops for students and workers around all 5 stations instead of blowing billions paying commercial media to promote unconstitutional proposals that threaten to violate equal civil rights, beliefs, and due process of taxpayers across the nation. Given the unlawful misrepresentation in those plans, which Obama and Pelosi never corrected with the ACA mandates that imposed similar abuses and violations on taxpayers, to me it's a requirement to petition for redress of grievances and corrections. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to see taxpayers paid back for past abuses already charged at our expense, so we don't have to put up with higher taxes or threats thereof. Wouldn't you sign a petition demanding Democrats fund their own benefits plans for their members, and use credits and reimbursements for past Democrat abuses of govt to pay for their own corrections and reforms? Then if they refuse to pay for that themselves, when their own leaders caused it, the other parties can chip in bids to buy out these debts and hire leaders to fix the damages. Either way, it should be a 2-4 way contest to create jobs fixing the debts and damages already caused by corporate abuses and party abuses of govt instead of lobbying to charge taxpayers more who are the victims of this oppression and deserve reimbursement not more taxes!

www.ethics-commission.net
^ Pogo and Natural Citizen Even if I am one of the few Constitutional advocates who would bother to pursue a lawsuit on discrimination by creed
(and I also met one liberal Unitarian Universalist who agreed that Parties should be treated equally as religious organizations) that's enough to justify defense. In comparison, even a fraction of 1% of the population can argue for LGBT rights and demand inclusion when they are a tiny minority, too!

As for the Code of Ethics, since this calls for employing the most economical means of accomplishing tasks,
I'm asking party and candidate supporters if they'd rather see 3 billionaires spend millions on commercial media competing for the same office,
or create jobs correcting all these costly abuses, collect REIMBURSEMENT to taxpayers and invest THOSE credits into reforms instead of charging more taxes!

So by the Code of Ethics, making this argument that parties HAVE violated our civil rights by ABUSING GOVT to discriminate by creed
WOULD justify class action level lawsuits claiming mass reimbursement to taxpayers for debts and damages from abuses, corruption MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD,
and the FELONY of CONSPIRING as a party to violate equal civil rights and protections of citizens of other beliefs and creeds.

I can make that argument and anyone else can claim to be a taxpayer defrauded as well.
Whichever is the most Cost Effective way of correcting abuses and paying for reforms without increasing taxes or debts,
that's what I argue is legally and Constitutionally necessary by the Code of Ethics for Govt Service.
Regardless which beliefs people espouse, they can all be practiced voluntarily and not be forced through govt in violation of laws against discrimination by creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

I only read the poll question, I didn't read the actual post. I hardly ever read the actual posting whenever there's a poll question.

The false premises are IN the poll questions. That's what I'm referring to there. Emily has been trying to sell this "politics equals religion" basis since forever.

The actual OP, as far as I could read before my eyes glazed over, appears to be suggesting it should be a felony to publish a policy position if one does not agree with them. Obviously that doesn't make sense either.

^ NOPE Pogo that's what I am trying to prevent.
People should not be punished on the basis of creed.

That's what the taxes would do by imposing on people without due process to prove they committed crimes that owe penalties to be paid.

I'm not saying to punish disagreement, I'm saying not to take one's political BELIEF CREED or RELIGION and
impose it through Govt to punish people of other creeds. That's what went wrong with Obama's ACA mandates,
and I'm trying to correct that before it happens again here.

Far as I can tell yes it IS what you're saying. You're just trying to hide it behind the word "creed".

"Creed" -- "Policy" --- "opinion" --- "belief' All the same thing.

^ And such beliefs and creeds are protected by law for private individuals and groups.
But Unconstitutional to establish such beliefs and creeds through govt in violation of equal rights of other people's beliefs and creeds.
Do you see the difference Pogo?

It is perfectly legal to lobby for people to fund and follow a creed by free choice.
It is Unconstitutional to mandate, regulate or punish other taxpayers by abusing FEDERAL GOVT
to force them to follow or fund creeds against their own beliefs and right to protections against discrimination.

No, I don't. You can't mandate or establish by law a belief, creed or opinion. And you certainly can't prohibit it under threat of felony.

I have no idea where you wanted this thread to go. None whatsoever. At least none that makes any sense.

^ Exactly Pogo

Beliefs/creeds can't be ESTABLISHED through govt but can't be prohibited, obstructed, regulated or punished.

So DEFENDING one's belief is legal just not imposing it on others.

For the beliefs about imposing socialistic creeds and programs through govt,
I'm saying this can be corrected by sticking to violations that DO MERIT PENALTY
so that govt CAN BE USED to redress those abuses and funnel the money owed to pay for the measures and reforms
IN PLACE of taxing law abiding citizens who don't consent to being discriminated against by class or creed.

So that is ALLOWING the free exercise of those socialistic beliefs and creeds WITHOUT violating creeds or rights of others.

And I DO BELIEVE in compelling this by FREE WILL by correcting the conflicts with EDUCATED and INFORMED consent.
I DO BELIEVE this can be corrected by amicable resolution and not require more expensive legal action.

The first step to avoid a lawsuit is to present a complaint and offer of corrections
and mediation to resolve conflicts so the matter can be settled amicably.

That is what I'm seeking to do here.
Thanks for your help Pogo, and I hope these clarifications work.
If it's still sounds conflicted to you, please specify why and where.
I will try my best to work it out, or ask others to step in and explain it better!

 

[BlindBoo]

No. Of course they can pass a law like that. With 50% + 1 in the House and with 60 votes in the Senate. The President could then sign it into law.

Will they? NFL