Is this a FELONY?

Is this a FELONY? For parties to conspire to abuse govt to violate civil rights and creeds of others

  • 1. Yes, parties as political religions cannot establish beliefs through govt discriminating by creed

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • 2. No, parties are different from religious organizations and have free speech to promote creeds

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3. Yes and No, Parties should be responsible for false advertising and reimburse taxpayers for abuse

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4. Other, please clarify!

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • This poll will close: .
^ 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!

There are no such things as LGBT rights.

There are only Individual rights.
 
^ 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!

There are no such things as LGBT rights.

There are only Individual rights.
It's amazing how jacked up the concept of individual liberty has become. It MUST be by design.

.
 
^ 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!

There are no such things as LGBT rights.

There are only Individual rights.
It's amazing how jacked up the concept of individual liberty has become. It MUST be by design.

.
Both by design and through ignorance and stupidity.
 
earth to idiot

posting campaign promises isnt a crime much less a felony -

AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT - over and over on twitter

so lock the fat bastard up -
 
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
As usual, you’re all over the map and making no sense whatsoever.

Otherwise, acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise – including taxation and spending measures.
 
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.
Well, that’s for the voters to decide – it’s a political issue, not a legal or Constitutional issue.
 
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??
shakehead.gif

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.
Sorry, no.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

When government enacts measures citizens believe violate their civil rights, those disadvantaged file a civil suit in an effort to have the law or measure enjoined and eventually overturned; laws and measures invalidated by the courts cannot be enforced – but lawmakers who pass into law a measure later ruled to be un-Constitutional haven’t committed a crime and are not subject to criminal prosecution.
 
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??
shakehead.gif

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.
So this is just another one of your tedious, inane, and ill-informed rants about the ACA.
 
^ 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!

There are no such things as LGBT rights.

There are only Individual rights.
^ What about LGBT beliefs or "sexual beliefs."
Is that a more fair way to classify these issues
where govt does not establish a bias one way or another?
So all such "beliefs" are protected equally, and none can
either be established or prohibited but govt like any other
types of "beliefs."

Should we clarify that by "free exercise of religion"
this includes religious, political, spiritual and sexual "beliefs"
as well as political religions and creeds?

That way, any "LGBT issues including 'beliefs about right'"
can fall under that as either a political creed or as
sexual beliefs.

Would that be a better way to define and group these legally?
Thanks Natural Citizen
would be NICE if we could agree instead of disagreeing
on how to "classify LGBT orientation or identity" which
is like govt trying to classify what denominations of
Christianity or Agnosticism are protected as a class or not.
No, ALL such beliefs should be treated equally, and not
create a special class for SOME recognized by govt.
 
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??
shakehead.gif

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.
Sorry, no.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

When government enacts measures citizens believe violate their civil rights, those disadvantaged file a civil suit in an effort to have the law or measure enjoined and eventually overturned; laws and measures invalidated by the courts cannot be enforced – but lawmakers who pass into law a measure later ruled to be un-Constitutional haven’t committed a crime and are not subject to criminal prosecution.
^ and I'm saying to CHALLENGE That C_Clayton_Jones
if taxpayers like me DON'T CONSENT to have our civil rights
and beliefs violated in the course of legislative process.

You can choose not to prosecute, but don't impose your beliefs and prevent me from defending my rights violated by unconstitutional legislation that should have been CORRECTED BEFORE PASSING and it would have been lawful!

C_Clayton_Jones, by your statement above, are you saying
that since SLAVERY used to be legal, then once it was abolished, the govt owed NO Reparations to Slaves except for slavery that occurred after it was made illegal?
 
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??
shakehead.gif

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.
So this is just another one of your tedious, inane, and ill-informed rants about the ACA.

^ How this applies to you C_Clayton_Jones if you want the same legal disclaimers, warnings and information applied to gun laws and rights, by the same arguments I'm presenting, you could require that legislation affecting gun rights should include explanations with the Second Amendment, to avoid MISREPRESENTING IT as giving anyone unrestricted rights and freedom to abuse arms to violate rights of others. I'm saying not to misrepresent govt and legislation as being "lawful" to impose taxes without representation, to expand govt jurisdiction to deprive citizens of liberty without due process, and to impose a discriminatory tax on people by class to pay for "social programs" against their beliefs and consent.

The liberal parallel would be to require parties promoting Second Amendment rights to include conditions that these rights are exercised and enforced with respect to all other protections within the Bill of Rights against depriving people of security in their houses, or of liberty and property without due process, and the responsibility not to abuse rights to disparage equal rights and protections of others.

Would you agree to a multiparty agreement to include Constitutional conditions on taxation, on funding social programs, and on gun rights and responsibilities to prevent abuses that violate rights of others?
 
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??
shakehead.gif
I believe that's what he's getting at. Apparently no one should be allowed publish a party platform but republicans.
 
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.
Well, that’s for the voters to decide – it’s a political issue, not a legal or Constitutional issue.


Yes C_Clayton_Jones that's why I'm asking you as a voter, Pogo and everyone else as a voter.

The difference is I don't wait until elections or until policies are already written to include flaws that violate beliefs and rights of others.

I'm trying to ask and resolve these issues IN ADVANCE.

So if we resolve as many conflicts as we can, then we don't wait until we are voting on a bill or on a candidate for office to decide how many people disagree more on which points. We address and resolve these issues so candidates and proposals already establish points of agreement, and we can vote for solutions we already worked out in advance to remove flaws and conflicts we already knew were causing problems!
 
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??
shakehead.gif
I believe that's what he's getting at. Apparently no one should be allowed publish a party platform but republicans.

^ Not at all Crepitus and Pogo
I'm saying don't promote MISREPRESENTATION of what is lawful vs. what is unconstitutional, and don't SOLICIT DONATIONS or votes based on "misrepresentation."

If Sanders or anyone has beliefs, just clarify that imposing beliefs THROUGH GOVT would violate rights and beliefs of others.

You are welcome to have and express your beliefs.

But it should be clear that creeds that violate and discriminate against beliefs of others are UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ESTABLISH ***THROUGH GOVT***. <-- Big difference, NOT THE SAME as individual free expression and right to publish.

All beliefs are legal to express and practice as individuals and groups OUTSIDE of government mandates on taxes. Do you see the difference?

Just don't go misrepresent this as legal to impose through govt.
Like Christianity or LGBT expressions are legal for groups or individuals, but misrepresenting to donors that it is legal to establish Christianity or LGBT beliefs through govt is wrongful.

Here, I'm saying it's fine to believe in Social programs paid for through govt. But make it clear people must consent to the terms of taxation and social programs or it's unconstitutional.

===============

Here's how I explained it to someone tired of hearing people complain about Socialism:

"If Socialism violates her beliefs this badly, encourage her to write a letter or petition to the Governor or AG. Complain that Political parties are religious organizations threatening to impose their beliefs through Govt in violation of the Constitution. Because party members who believe in pushing their faith in Socialism through govt are "misrepresenting" to voters that such practice is lawful, when in fact it is unconstitutional to abuse Govt to establish religion, this constitutes using Fraud and Misrepresentation to SOLICIT DONATIONS and votes. Thus it is financial fraud and voter fraud, as voters are being misled in what they are voting for, which is actually unlawful. A whole party of members, leaders, donors and supporters engaging in such fraud and misrepresentation -- with the unethical intent of using those donations, resources, voters and media influence to violate the equal rights and beliefs of other citizens who don't believe in Socialism -- constitutes Conspiracy to Violate Equal Civil Rights which is a FELONY. Then ask the Gov and AG to issue an order to the Democratic party to cease and desist from conspiracy to defraud, misrepresent and violate voters' rights or face revocation of their charter which allows them to operate in the State of [Texas]. Post this online and ask others to follow and share."
 
Sorry, no.
You’re confusing criminal law with civil law.

1. The Criminal law would be the CONSPIRACY to violate civil rights [through abusing govt to discriminate by creed], where the CONSPIRACY becomes a FELONY.

2. and YES, the point is to apply due process to PROVE this first;

3. However, the standard I use here is even higher than just going through courts. I would ask people to recognize and agree to the corrections directly, where nothing needs to be imposed because people recognize the problem is mutual and agree to solutions. So no further legal action is needed if we all correct this directly.

Here C_Clayton_Jones: what is your take on how I explained this in terms of someone complaining that establishing Socialism through federal Govt violates her beliefs and discriminates by creed, so that a whole party "conspiring to violate" civil rights of people of other beliefs is what constitutes the FELONY (the "conspiracy to violate civil rights" which involves a group doing it, and here I am saying "abusing govt" to discriminate by creed):


"If Socialism violates her beliefs this badly, encourage her to write a letter or petition to the Governor or AG. Complain that Political parties are religious organizations threatening to impose their beliefs through Govt in violation of the Constitution. Because party members who believe in pushing their faith in Socialism through govt are "misrepresenting" to voters that such practice is lawful, when in fact it is unconstitutional to abuse Govt to establish religion, this constitutes using Fraud and Misrepresentation to SOLICIT DONATIONS and votes. Thus it is financial fraud and voter fraud, as voters are being misled in what they are voting for, which is actually unlawful. A whole party of members, leaders, donors and supporters engaging in such fraud and misrepresentation -- with the unethical intent of using those donations, resources, voters and media influence to violate the equal rights and beliefs of other citizens who don't believe in Socialism -- constitutes Conspiracy to Violate Equal Civil Rights which is a FELONY. Then ask the Gov and AG to issue an order to the Democratic party to cease and desist from conspiracy to defraud, misrepresent and violate voters' rights or face revocation of their charter which allows them to operate in the State of [Texas]. Post this online and ask others to follow and share."
 
Everyone has the right to die and pay taxes. All other rights depend on our fellow men doing their duty. If men won't do their duty, rights can't exist. "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man"
 
If Sanders or anyone has beliefs, just clarify that imposing beliefs THROUGH GOVT would violate rights and beliefs of others.
By that standard every single politician in the history of the nation is a felon.
^ IF people didn't consent to it, yes. Crepitus
Just like the Federal Reserve has to remain optional to use, because Constitutionalists argue it was never created Constitutionally.
So it is allowed to operate purely by the consent of the citizens, similar to the IRS opposed by similar Constitutional arguments.

1. if people CONSENT to use majority rule to impose political beliefs or creeds,
that means it is part of BOTH sides' creeds to keep using party and govt this way.
And so far, yes, enough people with "right to life beliefs" and "right to health care beliefs"
have AGREED to use or abuse parties to "vote each other down, or out of office,
and discriminate by creed" by depriving each other from equal right to representation.
This has been going on, and people keep consenting to it for "political expedience."
I compare it to slavery that was an accepted practice for economic expedience.

2. However Crepitus at this point in time, we may have enough Greens, Libertarians
and now Conservatives and Progressives WILLING to stand up, speak out and complain
of violations of the establishment clause. Why now? Because now, enough people may not
need to rely on party or govt to exercise their own creeds as they depended on before.

If enough people can manage their own resources to exercise their creeds WITHOUT relying
on govt or party, we might FINALLY be able to call out this practice of majority rule exclusion
for what it is, a form of discrimination by creed or by class.

It has been going on, but was tolerated and incorporated as part of people's political beliefs.
If we evolve to the point of not needing to bully whole groups out of office in order to defend our own beliefs,
we might see an end to this practice.
 
Everyone has the right to die and pay taxes. All other rights depend on our fellow men doing their duty. If men won't do their duty, rights can't exist. "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man"

Yes foggedinn but with Taxation is the condition of Representation.
People have to CONSENT to put policies up to a vote.

Right now too many people do not consent to put issues THEY BELIEVE to be individual or state jurisdiction
"up to vote on by Congress" when such policy decisions should be kept local to democratic representation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top