In a recent conversation with one of those "on the front lines" in several areas, the present one being

"transportation," the connection was made between the generic existence of "funny money" and the "authority" in the STATE to regulate whatever was subject to regulation, by which the STATE typically requires a "license." The concept, in a nutshell, is that the "license" is what "permits" the party to trade the goods / services for "funny money."

If that conversation is the "hint" that now is the time to cover this topic and connection, again, because the "lights" are coming on, i.e., God, as Messiah, [YAHUSHUAH] is curing blindness in response to this author's (fervent) prayers for such, then, the step of faith in the matter is to go over this again, right now.

This author uses several different analogies to describe the same situation so that the mind has different ways to look at the situation so that the connections are made and understood so as to render the legal concepts applicable, not just in the immediate context, but in other contexts, as well. To see the concepts apply in one area intends to allow the mind to see that same "pattern" for application in other areas. Thus, "transportation" is a good "case study" as a way to see the "pattern" used by the "federal" system. Remember, for all practical purposes of the matters we're dealing with that oppress us, "federal" means "by agreement." Everything about "government," i.e., "government" at all levels, is "federal." That's part and parcel of what the mere existence of the "funny money" tells us. In the event the concept may be helpful, generally, let's cover the general topic of "licensing." What is an (occupational) "license" for? It's to "authorize," to permit, to allow, that particular line of commercial activity. Where? In the "place" called "this state."

So, what's a "license" for? To "authorize" that particular line of commercial activity in "this state."

What's so special about "this state?"

That's where "funny money" may be circulated and used without instantly giving rise to criminal charges of, at least, fraud, if not also Treason.

So, one more time, i.e., to provide the complete answer, what's a "license" for? To "authorize" that particular line of commercial activity in that "place" where the goods/services may be "paid" for with "funny money."

Do those who don't get paid in "funny money" need a "license?" You see, this is at the heart of the question for just about everything "federal" for which there's a permit, or a "license," etc., involved. The practical answer is this: It depends. For some aspects of things, the answer will still be yes, but for other aspects, the answer will be a very resounding No! Here's an example. An electrician providing wiring services on a building that is built on land (still) subject to the "choice of law" of "this state" will need to be "licensed," regardless of medium of exchange for those services. Why? Because the "building permit" (i.e., the agreement with the bureaucrats) says that only those "licensed" for doing this or that type of work are permitted to provide those services for that project.

The point is that the "license" exists, and may be "compelled" for this or that line of commerce, for the simple reason that "this state" is likened to a "war zone." It's the existence of the "war" that "justifies" the oversight by the "executive," per the suitable legislation, of course, of whatever commercial activity goes on. Why? So that the locals can't/won't be permitted to "fund" the "enemy" in and during that "war." (Those talking about perpetual war may or may not realize that without the appearance of perpetual war, there can't be a tyranny over the marketplace, for then the scam would be exposed as the "choice of law" matter that it is. War, then, is the cover story for the use of "funny money." Where there is no more "funny money" in general circulation, the "cover story" of perpetual war can't be justified, anymore.) It's the existence of "this state" that is "the" reason that this or that "legislation" may be labeled as dealing with an "emergency" and handled by means other than the normally proscribed means. All of that "emergency" stuff is cover story to say that nothing about any legislative process is relevant for purposes of application of that language in "this state." All that the "emergency" indicates is a change in foundational "choice of law." That's it, in a nutshell. A change in "choice of law." A whole lot of people go down all kinds of rabbit trails for the simple reason

that they don't start at the top of the Mountain. They start well down the Mountainside or in the plains, and for that reason, the legal "analysis" is based on a false premise. That leads to a lot of false and unhelpful conclusions. By starting at the top of the Mountain, where one can see everything that is relevant to that matter, one ends up with this foundational understanding: the reason for the "license," fundamentally, not exclusively, but fundamentally, is so that the party may be paid with "funny money." That's it. That's all.

Apply that concept in a bit broader context, and what we get is this. The minute "funny money" is no longer part of the regular means of trade, the "authority," the "mechanism," by which all the bureaucratic overhead exists will vanish. Not instantly, of course, because there's a huge momentum to overcome. But, as "we" stop using "funny money," there's less of it around to justify the "regulatory" schemes that presently apply to practically everything. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, hair dressers, electricians, plumbers, etc., aren't any "smarter" because they're "licensed." They're simply "permitted" to accept "funny money" in exchange for their goods and services in that regulated line of commerce. That's the "power" of the general circulation of the "funny money." That's the key to the reason why the European banking cartel circulates "funny money" in all of its "places." Where there's "funny money," there's a (fully voluntarily entered into) "war zone" that "justifies" the regulation of everything in sight via the bankers' preferred "choice of law" (which choice "just happens" to put/keep the bankers in charge; imagine that!); hence, the entre to the setting up of an apparent tyranny, which is, in the reality, nothing but a corrupted marketplace. This author has heard, from the minute he first promoted the reality that we need to stop using "funny money," how impossible that is. Impossible, huh?! Well, the reality is that it will be done, and the sooner the better. The reality is this: "they" can't prevent our abandonment of using that stuff, whether in the form of "paper" or "plastic." As the significance of the connection between the "choice of law" and the "funny money" strikes a resonant chord among the small business community, the change will happen. We'll start hearing from the small businesses that allow payment by means other than, or least in addition to, "funny money." Just keep looking for that. It's already in application across the nation; it's just not quite yet reached that "critical mass" (of numbers of transactions), yet. We're just about to get there, and we'll see it in a way that hasn't existed since the banking cartel sucked silver out of general circulation, which was circa 1965. Let's strike another resonant chord in this context and conclude this note. Why is

there an "income tax" system? It's not for revenue, that's for sure! Why did the "income tax" come in at the "same time" with the origin, circa 1913, of what became the present "federal reserve system?" Because it's not possible to run the "funny money" scam (competently) without the "income tax" system running in parallel. The "funny money" system depends on loaning "money" into existence. So, picture the bath tub. It has a (at least one) "faucet." That "faucet" is always on. "Money" is always being borrowed into existence. Therefore, either that tub is going to overflow, or else it's got a "drain." What's the "drain?" Right. The "taxes," one in particular is the "income tax." So, the "money" is borrowed into existence and goes into the "money supply" which is in the tub. The "money supply" is managed by the "drain," which is designed to coincide with the flow coming in from the "faucet." Why is it managed? Too much "supply" is what causes "inflation," i.e., the worthless-ness of the "money." Picture the bath tub that overflows. Not a good thing. What happens where there's no more "funny money" in circulation? There's no corresponding economic purpose or value in the "income tax." So, while those with the irs/doj conglomerate want to spend "funny money" like mad (and while "government" jobs pay more than private sector jobs to support this very same reality, i.e., more people with more "funny money" to try to keep that stuff in use), what "we" need to do is stop helping them stay in business. We do our part by stop using their "funny money." Every transaction matters. Every single one.

To recap, then, the connection between the (occupational) "license" (e.g., the "drivers license") and the "money" is direct: those with the "license" are "permitted" (allowed) to accept "funny money" in exchange for those goods / services. Just try to get paid with "funny money" in a regulated line of commerce and watch what happens. There's nothing more to it, at the foundational level. Everything else about any (occupational) "license" is a hogwash, balderdash cover story to make the "license" appear to be something other than what it is. Thus, the (occupational) "license" is quite necessary for those who transact in "this state," i.e., with/for "funny money." As "we" use "funny money" less and less, one such substitute for which is something like "Ithaca Bucks," what "we" do is slowly but surely turn off that "faucet." When the "faucet" is closed for good, guess what? No need for the "drain;" i.e, no need for that "drain" known as the "income tax." It just works that way.

So, is there still an overwhelming "need" to be "licensed" to think and reflect on the matter of the "use" of "funny money?" Is there still an overwhelming need to get permission from "on high" to do what we must do on this issue? Is it just that much more clear as to why that "permission" is never going to come? Or is there an overwhelming reality of personal responsibility and of the sense of doing what's right for the benefit (salvation, quite literally) of this nation? In other words, is the "choice" that much clearer now? Are we still waiting on someone else to start doing what must be done to preserve (what's left of) this nation? Is God's way now just that much more clear as to the preferable way, given the very real experiences of going with the alternative? This author has every expectation that the small business owners will start stepping up to the plate to provide their goods / services in exchange for something, anything, other than "funny money," whether "paper" or "plastic," in the days ahead. Just keep watching the ads. Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas, Texas Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net