Jul 22 2011
A friend sent me Diane Finley’s comments opposing Bill C-428 and wanted his email circulated.
Different circumstances — same propaganda, so this is for everyone who still doesn’t understand the concept of the prepaid account.
Here is my response to his email:
I am stunned that those who ought to know better STILL believe that any funds paid to anyone come from the taxes or earnings of their fellow man. They do NOT. Please read my article entitled, “Two completely different, entirely separate, wholly distinct forms of accounting” (or something like that) and also my explanation of why the DA of California said, “Anything short of murder we won’t prosecute.” (see excerpt below)
THERE IS NO MONEY. THERE IS NO MONEY. THERE IS NO MONEY.
There is only credit which comes from our signature, i.e.: our authorization for the public to access the credit of the estate.
When I began to read your email, my first thought was, “Oh, darn, Richard – having been here from the USA for 10 years – just recently applied for his OAS. Gee; he missed out on 7 years of cheques.” Now that he has applied, the estate’s account––backed by the BC bond in NM, yet now under the control of Alberta due to his Permanent Resident card––has been debited by the public, based upon his authorization for them to do so via his signature on the application form. AB opted to give him a very small percentage of the credit they obtained which will become monetized upon yet another of his signatures (read: further authorization for them to ledger against the estate) –– the endorsement of the cheque. But it will come from the estate’s unlimited credit, not from anyone else, based upon the value of his just being alive and possessing a birth certificate.
Please let everyone know that:
#1 Anything said by ANY politician is a lie, so Finley’s comments have to be contrary to what’s true; and,
#2 You KNOW that either she does not know what is true about the estate’s pre-paid account and its unlimited credit OR she does know and isn’t saying; and,
#3 the sole function of politicians is to make people resent their fellow man. My guess is that, with your present thinking, if Richard had been here only 4 years and then applied for OAS, you would resent him for getting a cheque. This is PRECISELY what they want from YOU - your anger, resentment, and fear of someone taking what you believe to be yours.
What Finley is actually saying is, “We are directing your attention to your being fleeced by your new (foreign) neighbour, so that you do not see that it is WE who continue to steal from you.
We must foil their ongoing intent to get us to hate each other. This is how they survive - by pitting us against one another, not only in order to obtain our emotional energy but also in order that we do not recognize THEM as the ones who are causing ALL the trouble.
Here is the excerpt from my article:
In California, the people complained that the “undocumented Mexican immigrants”, aka “illegal aliens”, were causing violence, crimes, vandalism, etc. and the cops and the courts were doing nothing about it. It seemed as if “illegal aliens” were the problem. But, the District Attorney said, “Anything short of murder we won’t prosecute.” If only the people knew what he meant, they would shift their rage from the “illegal aliens” to the DA and his ilk.
“Undocumented” means there is no trust account to charge, which is why the government wants them all to have driver licences. The DA won’t prosecute because he can’t; there is nothing and no one to charge. Men and women cannot be charged; only trust accounts can be charged and, since there is no account, due to no documents to create them, there is no way to make money off these “immigrants”. Murder is a different story. This means the “illegals” took out of the commerce game someone with an account and so, in that case, the DA will prosecute. Wait until the people of California figure out that the real “problem” of the “undocumented Mexican immigrants” is, as always, “ALL ABOUT MONEY”.
What about the cost to repair and compensate? Well, it comes from the Public Trust, as does everything else which requires public funding. They want us connected to ‘Named’ trust accounts which make up the Public Trust, solely to confiscate our cash. This is tantamount to “uninsured” drivers or people without passports. We don’t really require car insurance or passports because all payments for damages come from the public trust which WE have ALREADY funded. Causing us to believe that we are “personally liable” is how they steal our cash.
The job of government is to convince us that we have to pay, when everything is already ‘paid’. The sole purpose of government is cash-confiscation (demanded by the IMF/WB/BIS as ‘interest’). The means by which they accomplish this is to sell us their public benefits which not only are prepaid but also cost us vastly more than their inherent value to us.