|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||Page: 1 2 3 4||
|Redoubt|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Mon Nov 19th, 2018 04:22 pm||
|The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to reword a natural law beneficial to mankind and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead. Failing to account for deception as deception - as a rule - dooms the deceived to be controlled by that deception: a lesson worth knowing, it never loses validity not matter how much time passes.
The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplified recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a "nation state") set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors: aggressively to hold the violent, criminal, aggressors to account for their crimes.
Aggression, in the context of a speedy trial, is not aggressive violence in the context of might somehow making right. There is a truth, and then in opposition to the truth there is a counterfeit version of the truth. Which is true? Is there a process by which people can agree to accurately discriminate the truth from the counterfeit versions of the truth, or is it good enough to just obey the "truth" in the form of orders that must be obeyed without question?
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.
"For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury
The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn't that hard to do.
Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.
1. Declaration of Independence
2. Common law solemn recognition of mixed war
3. The polar opposite difference of how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malevolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).
Help to the needy:
"he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
"9.2 - Escalation
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
"To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.
"That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.
"Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry."
"He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
|Posted: Mon Nov 19th, 2018 08:01 pm||
|"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
Federal Farmer (Richard Henry lee, 6th President of the actual Federation)
JANUARY 14, 1788.
Can it be admitted by anyone today that the name took by the Nationalists was fake? I mean clearly as day is day and night is night the group that called themselves the Federalists were frauds, so why are people silent on this point?
If people want to know why there are Rinos today, these frauds today, then it might be a good idea to see for yourself, if you are interested at all in preserving a federation, defending a federation, in the federation interest, that something happened along the way to afford these frauds their ability to get away with treason.
Why is this at all hard to see? Why would the question be incapable of inspiring a reasonable response?
|Posted: Mon Nov 19th, 2018 11:00 pm||
|"American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty."
A free nation can be a legal fiction, a creation of a devious mind, or a common use of language to identify many people who share a common idea. The fiction in the honest use of language is in place to avoid having to name each accountable, responsible, individual: the fiction does not exist, it has no legs to stand on.
People are free, not legal fictions. This was the revolutionary idea. The devious idea is to blame something that does not exist, and thereby escape accountability.
Where once a king was said to be sovereign, the revolutionary idea instead was that individuals are all kings of their natural born prerogatives or rights. It was not a revolutionary idea to those born into freedom naturally. It was only a revolutionary idea to those who had been hoodwinked in the first place.
Where once a king could exercise privileges or hand privileges out to his chosen subjects, the revolutionary idea was that each individual was born into a kingdom that extended precisely to the door of each other's kingdom, all having equal access to the real law, all doing unto others precisely what they would have done to themselves. Each sovereign individual king agreed to have any territorial disputes laid before the whole people in a trial by the country if there was any trouble at all in negotiating a reasonable settlement otherwise. Everyone was afforded equal protection, equal access, to the affordable law power, on an equal footing, because that was the agreement, the law of the land.
The word country was a locality, a vicinage, a place in which the people were all in agreement, all agreeing to abide by the same revolutionary idea, and this idea wasn't hatched in America in 1776, it was an idea that goes back well before Magna Carta.
How about focusing on the word country? Not country in the context of music, not country in the context of cooking recipes. How about the word country in the context of who or what constitutes a fact at law in any matter affecting any individual any time and any place in an area whereby people agree by the law of that land? In what country are the people going to ask for unanimous consent of the whole country so as to settle any dispute worthy of the effort to pay for the settlement?
"FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
"Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
"But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
"That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? "
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852
The country is therefore established as the people themselves, in a locality, whereby the law of the land is maintained by those people in that locality, as those people follow a specified course of conduct, a course of conduct that has outlasted many different languages, and a course of action that predates common literacy.
A country in that context extends only so far as the people actually constitute that country. How far can someone afford to travel, to access trial by the country, and still be part of that country? To answer that it might be useful to consider how far is that long arm of that law: the place where the law is enforced by the people in that country.
If words have an agreeable meaning, then these words may help:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The country is thereby stated as a district, and in this context the district, or country, agrees with the context of a locality, or the context of vicinage.
"Similar language was used in Virginia declaring that "trial by jury of the vicinage" was their birth-right."
The Constitutional Right to a Trial by a Jury of the Vicinage, Henry G. Connor, Department of Law, January, 1909
People power, people as the government, the concept of sovereignty returning to the individual people, a revolutionary idea, and people power is checked by the unanimous whole people, in a vicinage, in any case of controversy, foreign or domestic, civil or criminal.
But there are wolves out there, and generally speaking, the naturally peaceful people resemble peaceful sheep. So sheep people in each vicinage have been known to voluntary associate, or federate, with people in a foreign, but neighboring, vicinage. A county, for example, federates with another, and another, and if all people in all counties are in agreement, there is then a constituting of a state or nation. Historically those people in those nations of federated areas have agreed to pay the fees to cover the costs of their mutual defense, which includes both jury duty and military duty when called upon. Historically those people have agreed to pay for (or refuse to pay for) their preferred voluntary mutual defense association, so long as the people elected to run the association remain in good behavior, subject to the law of the land, just like everyone else.
Jury duty and military duty can be taxing in a free family, or free church, or free corporation, or free district, or free county, or free vicinage, or free country, or free nation, or free state, or free federation of free states. How far is that long arm of that voluntary mutual defense association under that law of that land? It is only so far as the wolves are not extracting extortion payment to cover the costs of enslaving all those ignorant, powerless, sheep. A clue to the length of that long arm of that law is when those hired to maintain the peace murder innocent people, and the murderers avoid accountability for having murdered innocent people in the vicinage, the murderers actually claim to be above the law that they claim to be their source of authority.
That is a clue.
When the criminals take-over, as history proves over and over again, the criminals at each level of the pyramid scheme are obligated to obey every order to the letter without question or else; no trial by the country, no check on arbitrary power in the hands of one group (or 1 disguised as 2) with one individual group leader, no place to run, no place to hide, no law in that land at all, no law other than whatever those in power dictate at their exclusive pleasure. No law, and it costs a lot to keep the law at bay, and the criminals extract whatever they need to keep the law at bay, and they have been known to tell a few tall tails.
"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury
Returning to the demonstrably false claim (depending upon what words mean):
"American exceptionalism refers to the United States as a uniquely free nation based on personal liberty."
The consolidated Nation State created in 1789, a corporation based upon a legal fiction, is an arbitrary government that perpetually demonstrates its absolute power to extract whatever it pleases from the subjects of its demonic rule: it, being a legal fiction, having absolutely no accountability or responsibility. It, supposedly a free nation, did the precise opposite of what a free nation is obligated, in writing, to do: follow those laws required in order to maintain freedom in liberty.
The first exercise of arbitrary power claimed to be a law issued from a free nation is the subsidizing of African Slavery and the enforcement of that crime against all the people who actually stood up as free people against such terror. Terror that was thinly hidden behind absurd lies.
Of course the words “a free nation based upon personal liberty” can mean anything one minute, and precisely the opposite the next minute, depending entirely on the individual in command of their employment of language, accountable to that individual, as that individual is thereby responsible for that example of that employment of those words in that time and in that place.
Free speech can be taxing, so can shooting messengers, one is a responsibility, accountable to each individual, and free speech cannot be an intentional lie that causes injury to innocent people, and the other, the messenger shooting stuff, is yet another obvious, and ridiculous, criminal order claimed to be necessary in the National Interest of the exceptional free nation; and you sure as hell will get that bill too.
That all may sound brutal, but I wonder just how many brutalities will have to be endured by how many innocent people while so-called patriots continue to cover-up for this monstrosity created by fraud in 1789, despite factual accounting proving beyond doubt that this is not a free nation. If the idea is to know the meaning of the United States, a singular corporation, then free nation does not apply. If, on the other hand, there is interest in The United States (plural) of America as it was in congress assembled, a federation of free states, previous to the Con Con Con Job, then words ought to be agreeable, not intentionally confusing.
|Posted: Tue Nov 20th, 2018 07:00 pm||
|"How has this worked out for us?"
If the question is asked honestly, not deceptively, then the question ought to be specific, and not ambiguous. What exactly is the matter, what is "this"?
“Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
Parents reproduce with 6 children. The first is thrown in the pool as a method of teaching posterity how to swim. The parents witness the first drowning; a terrifying death. The parents wake-up to a new day with 5 children and they (both parents) appraise the following advice in this situation:
“History teaches us that history teaches us nothing”
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”
The parents take their remaining portion of collective posterity to a collective brain trust, a meeting of the minds, a local assembly of people in the local area where it has been discovered that many children are suddenly missing and evidence points to a possible ring of kidnappers, and these alleged kidnappers claim to be serving and protecting the collection of individuals collected into the collective brain trust this day.
Most everyone assembled at the collective assembly of people are people who just want to live and let live. The concern is many missing children, empty chairs at the dinner table, empty beds. Is this it? Is this the matter inspiring people to participate in the voting hoax?
Individuals at the brain trust break the dead silence with 3 forms of information offered to each individual in the brain trust of parents collected in concern for posterity.
1. Wait for election day, vote for a better leader of the collective.
2. Look into similar situations in the past, find possible solutions from the past whereby people in the past found solutions to similar problems, and also discover those actions that were taken in the past that not only failed every time to solve similar problems, but turned out to be the cause of similar problems every time this solution was tried, and think very hard before trying those past failed actions that always fail. Who in their right mind would expect those actions to solve the problem this time for the first time? Many do, for some strange, allegedly evil, reason.
3. Volunteer to investigate the available evidence to judge probable cause to indict individual alleged kidnappers who, according to the evidence found so far, are potentially guilty of kidnapping, and then offer the accused a method by which the accused can clear his name and reputation, or if guilty to redeem himself, and do these actions with discretion so as to minimize the potential harm done in any case where the evidence so far found, in this speedy trial, is inconclusive as to guilt or innocence. Volunteer also for jury duty to try such cases and vote according to your moral conscience as an individual representative of the whole country seeking remedy and defense of the innocent against the guilty, which matters in fact.
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican (Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled November 30, 1784, to November 22, 1785)
"How has this worked out for us?"
It hasn't, and that is the point, because the criminals took-over in 1789, turning the people power to govern ourselves with our common, moral, laws, and instead of the power of deterrence through accurate accountability there is an ever-growing army of sycophants clothed as patriots defending subsidized slavery enforced through kangaroo courts hidden behind a legal fiction: a pyramid scheme clothed with the mere color of law; the Emperor has no clothes.
"How has the preserved power defended US, We The People, against certain(?) relentless evils? What are those evils?"
Someone, perhaps unaware, perhaps playing a part such as the Devil's Advocate, offers the following question in the context of this voting hoax matter:
"What are those evils?"
A mountain of evidence suggests that Human Trafficking is now a profitable monopoly, and the human traffickers are the same people extorting all that wealth precisely accounted for on (fake) Federal (National) Income Tax forms.
"Federal" Income Tax is a hoax, it is a necessary part of the recipe to maintain a central banking fraud. Taxes are enforced payments (extortion) of a single form of money, and so people are forced to work to get paid with that monopoly money which creates the demand for that monopoly money.
Once the demand is created the "Federal" Reserve does not need to collect any wealth through Taxation, since the "Federal" Reserve can merely add zeros to their bank account at will. They need to keep up appearances, so they keep the "Federal" Income Tax going, which is also very costly, which is also subsidized: you pay for that too. They create no wealth as they consume posterity and if that is not an example of evil, then who is doing the appraising?
"Unicorns and rainbows are one thing, reality kicks you in the teeth."
Moving to legitimate or rhetorical questions depending upon individual interpretation:
"How do we stop this cycle?"
We don't, you do, and if you don't, then other's must, or this cycle perpetuates.
"How do we prevent this from continuing?"
In the past, as shown, people assemble into grand juries, and the evidence of this is a mountain, but the mountain is not nearly as high as the mountain of lies that cover up the fake government, people have been rendered sheepish, or gang members, for some time.
"What is the replacement for this?"
This, if speaking about the fake federal government, is organized crime under the color of law, also known by many other names: despotism, corporatism, monarchy, oligarchy, empire, nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, the list is as long as needed to keep the victims guessing, at each other's throats, and powerless in their own defense against it.
The replacement for any crime, including despotism, is rule of law, also known as equal protection under the law, and the foundation is simple, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, so if you want to foment violent aggression, then what can you expect in return?
A solemn recognition of mixed war is a common law (moral law common to all moral people) example of "what replaces" that which is now being discussed as a hoax: despotic electoral politics.
The simple answer, in sufficient detail, is that the hoax is replaced with a clearly defined, age-old, time-tested, and adaptive process that finds and employs the truth.
The problem is ubiquitous deception, the solution is for individuals to insist upon the truth, and it just so happens that, in truth, there is a method to accomplish that goal already on the books. Special thanks to people like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Melancon Smith, Richard Henry Lee, and many other whistleblowers, and defenders of the truth, who offer the tried and true solution instead of fake government.
|Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2018 03:14 pm||
|"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."
What information leads to that conclusion?
My suggestion to anyone who has also been lead by information (or experience) to that conclusion is to entertain the idea that information leading to that conclusion is patently false.
From a very important book titled The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots is the following relevant information:
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
That is very important information for many reasons, not the least of which is to contend with this very obviously dangerous falsehood:
"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."
In a republic (the public thing) it is the business of everyone, by duty, meaning duty bound, to prosecute clear and present dangers to innocent people, which are thereby clear and present dangers to liberty, and anyone working for the government (the public thing) are there to assist in that duty, to nurture that duty, not prevent it.
So it is once again clue time for the clueless.
If all injuries done to all people all the time were no danger at all to the public as a whole (the public at large: the republic) then all interaction in that area, call it America, would be civil. All civil controversies, thereby, would be settled in a civil manner, as no one would escalate their conduct to such a degree as to endanger the public at large, turning their behavior into a clear and present danger to everyone, not just an alleged clear and present danger to one individual according to one individual, where those 2 individuals are in need of some nurturing concerning how best to settle a civil controversy in a civilized area where the main duty is to preserve the peace and protect everyone in the public thing: America.
But there are wolves out there, clear and present dangers to the public thing, which means clear and present dangers to innocent children on the playground, and so those wolves who escalate their behavior from civil to criminal behavior ought to be held to account: prosecuted with due process of law, called out before they turn criminal if possible, but called out rather than aid those criminals in their effort to keep their malevolence a secret.
The people are duty bound to prosecute, hell that is the definition of the word, at least according to the work by Roger Roots, a prosecutor is a private individual: not a legal fiction. A prosecutor is a private individual alerting everyone (the public) to dangers endangering everyone (the public thing), not a legal fiction in place to cover-up, protect, and serve, the criminals, to keep the public at large clueless.
So how long does it take to turn duty bound prosecutors, all of us in America, into compliant, ignorant, clueless, sheep; sheep sheared on a schedule to please the fake government wolves?
"The Bill of Rights assumes that the accuser, which is the state in all criminal matters, has so many resources at its disposal, that it does not need any assistance in order to even the playing field."
Time will tell, and there are still among us people who find out the truth, prosecuting the liars, and if the tide does turn back to something resembling a swamp draining, then the swamp creatures who speak for their legal fiction, but claim to speak for the public thing, will be replaced with demonstrations of the facts that matter through public trials for the actual public thing: the republic, with names named, crimes perpetrated, and remedies prescribed by our representatives in fact: trial juries.
That is what was demonstrated in the recent Bundy Family persecution (counterfeit) trials.
The fake government is on trial, for everyone to see, even the clueless can see if they decide to, as the fake government agents intend to use the fake government to silence those who dare to call out (prosecute) wolves in sheep's clothing.
Every step now taken by the fake government, to silence those who effectively prosecute the fake government (see for example Martin luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum), are now steps that expose the fake government for what the fake government is in fact.
Even as the fake government intends to silence private prosecutors (defendants according to the persecutors) in court, issuing gag orders on the targets of their persecutions, the people still manage to speak as one. The people still manage to speak as one body of truth finding people in some juries: see the Bundy Family, etc., case for example. Those carefully chosen to be on the jury (stacking a jury is a very serious crime), as clueless as they may or may not be, as well paid to look the other way as they may or may not be, or as fearful under extreme duress as they may or may not be suffering threats made by fake government agents, jurors still, to this day, serve the actual purpose of government, as the government has demonstrably turned into a criminal enterprise, as the fake government is on trial not the targets of their persecution.
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."
|Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2018 06:07 pm||
|"This suggests that journalism has a higher calling, and a certain responsibility to the people, to be truthful and accurate. It is a noble calling to those that understand it, yet, in this day and age, few want nothing more than to wield power towards attaining their agenda."
Written words can be factual, and therefore moral, legal, lawful, peaceful, accurate, justified, right, productive, constructive, and the same applies to words transferred from individuals to the collective sum of individuals, by voice.
Written words can be willfully false, intending to harm innocent people, and therefore immoral, illegal, unlawful, disturbing the peace, inaccurate, unjustified, wrong, destructive, and again the same principle applies when the criminal words are spoken.
When the criminals take-over the law power they - as a rule - make it a crime to blow the whistle on the fact that the criminals have taken over the government.
The First Amendment to the criminal Constitution of 1789 (the African Slave Trade Subsidizing Constitution) was not an effort to give license to anyone, it was an effort to remind people that it is their duty to blow the whistle on criminals taking over the government: indict the criminals in government.
How can anyone hold criminals in government to account if everyone knows that they will be tortured or murdered for writing or speaking accurate accounts of just exactly which crimes are perpetrated by which individuals infesting criminal government: so-called tyranny?
2 examples out of many examples concerning what happens to those who do not keep their mouths shut when speaking publicly about criminals in government are Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum.
If an indictment can be exemplified then please consider entertaining the possibility that the Declaration of Independence is worth the effort to example in this light.
Of course the British Warmongering, Slave Trading, Central Banking Fraud criminals did not rubber stamp the Declaration of Independence as a legal indictment against themselves. The British criminals had made it the "law" that whatever they did was legal, including the enslavement of entire populations on earth, and anything anyone else did was potentially a capital crime resulting in torture for "confession," and then summary execution.
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."
People, on their own authority, seek the facts that matter, and those facts are published on the public record. Those inculpatory facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that the government is criminal. If said "government" hides under the desk, fearful of being tortured, murdered, or fired for not protecting the criminal government from the victims (the so-called people), then the criminals in government confess the fact that they are in fact the criminals, at least to anyone who cares to know the truth. Either the individuals in government drain the swamp or they shoot the messengers. This is not rocket science. The public domain, the public record, is overflowing with indictable inculpatory evidence, to put the criminals in government on trial for their crimes. This is not news.
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Lisa M. Kurcias
"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").
"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
People either constitute a total power (sum total of all the individuals that constitute the whole people: republic) that insists upon accountability in government (1st so-called Amendment) or people support (aid and abet) criminals in government.
There is no middle ground. There is no fence to sit on.
JANUARY 17, 1788.
Richard Henry lee, 6th President of the United States of America before the criminals took-over the federation.
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert."
|Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2018 04:23 pm||
|"Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?"
Without the power to hold criminals in government to account for their treasonous and lesser seriously evil crimes, there is no law in America. In fact, the opposite is true as the so-called government is in place to extract all the wealth from anyone capable of producing it, and using that stolen loot to steal more loot.
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy 1st Edition
by William Watkins
Since 1789 the so-called "Federal" government (it is a fraud to call a National government a Federal government), which is not Federal, it is National - since 1789 - the fraudulent "government" has been in the business of protecting it's protection racket: plain old extortion when the Mob does it, and it is treason when the gang members get away with calling it the government.
So...the first Con-Con Con-Job in 1787 was falsely claimed to be for the people and falsely claimed to be an effort to alter the existing Federation of Independent States. The first Con-Con Con-Job was instead a deal made between central banking frauds, warmongers, and slave traders, and their intent was to counterfeit the law, and to counterfeit the counterfeit money needed to fund the counterfeit law. They did not alter the existing grass-roots, organic, federal agreement for mutual defense, they replaced it with a counterfeit.
The following is even more information applicable to the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.
JANUARY 17, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled before the criminals took over:
"It must be admitted, that men, from the monarch down to the porter, are constantly aiming at power and importance and this propensity must be as constantly guarded against in the forms of the government. Adequate powers must be delegated to those who govern, and our security must be in limiting, defining, and guarding the exercise of them, so that those given shall not be abused, or made use of for openly or secretly seizing more."
Slave Trade Deal of 1789 (U.S. Inc. Constitution):
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
The individual shall nevertheless be protected from indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to the counterfeit law of the land. The actual law of the land is the common law with people running independent Grand Juries and people deliberating in Trial Juries.
So...no we should not believe that magically people (who are the government) will magically follow new laws any more than we follow the law of the land.
"Why should we believe that Congress or citizens would magically follow new laws any more than present laws?"
People (so-called citizens) do not follow the law, as we do not form Grand Juries, and we do not form Trial Juries, because if we did then those treasonous criminals in office would know better than to abuse their power, the swamp would never have been filled up by criminals like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, or any who followed their criminal path.
|Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2018 02:30 pm||
|This "article" is fake news, it is written by an obvious - confessed - nationalist party member: a propagandist for the party.
The so-called first amendment is not a subsidized enforcement of deception, yet that is what is being told in this article. Those who are deceived by this type of deception - legalese - will be powerless to know better, but I write to those who maintain a concern for the facts that matter.
The propagandists for the nationalist party put their head together - evil brain trust - to pen the Bill of Rights to the Fake News Constitution of 1787. Anyone could have written a document that works efficiently to explain the natural right born into people as people communicate in their mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic: including liars in so-called public and private offices.
The right to speak - or document - crimes perpetrated by people in government, so as to then act on those accusations, by forming grand juries, and presenting the accused with a trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law, is this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense.
To call this natural born right to speak - document for public consumption - in our own defense a freedom of the press is a hidden message, a message that speaks of corporatism, or financial collectivism. The press - trademarked - is one thing, while individual people forming a collection of individual people sharing a common goal is another thing. What if you cannot afford a printing press? Does that mean that only those who can afford a printing press have this natural born right to speak in our mutual defense? Only the rich and powerful are afforded this basic human right, because, well, they can afford it?
No one else can afford it?
Why not learn something worth learning instead of listening to this type of powerless, defenseless, propaganda? Why listen to this siren singing this song that is so adeptly aimed at keeping the slaves in place?
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
When the so-called left and the so-called right are universally ignorant then both parties will be taken over by evil people who represent only evil people, call them RINOS, or call them something more useful like the defendant.
Someone guilty of willfully - with malice aforethought - conspiring to start a war of aggression for profit - think Nazi here - while employing the so-called freedom of the press is someone guilty of a capital crime, a crime that is said to be eviler than all the other crimes: treason.
Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason removes the affordability of mutual defense commanded by the people who require that affordability for their mutual defense. Treason is eviler than all the other crimes because treason replaces rule of law with subsidized crime under the color of law.
The reason why the true law is so hard to see is the inculpatory evidence required for the people to see the true law. People have to get tired of their ignorance: First.
"...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
If people are so brainwashed as to trust the very people who have been perpetrating the worst evil for over 200 years, then the people are defenseless. It is that simple.
The true law affords everyone equal protection under it so that anyone can volunteer to be a member of an independent grand jury, and the most honest, discrete, people will populate that investigatory tool of the true law because we elect them for that vital work. The worst evil people would then be indicted for their crimes by those people on those grand juries, and those allegedly worst people would then face a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the government. Out goes fake news and in place is voluntary mutual defense where the worst evil people are accounted for accurately: as accurately as is humanly possible.
"...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
No one in a criminal government, making their living covering up for their evil bosses, can be trusted to drain that swamp: it is ludicrous to think that such a farce could be possible.
The people themselves have the tools to fix any of these problems involving criminals in office. The people may learn about those tools, instead of listening to the songs of those propagandist sirens. If the people do learn about these tools then fake news is out, and in place is real news. Why would that be hard to see?
|Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2018 03:50 pm||
|"I didn’t know there was a Nationalist Party."
The criminals can't exactly go around announcing their true colors. Those who work to achieve and maintain the goal of organized crime under the color of law cannot telegraph their intentions to their targeted victims.
Be it monarchy, aristocracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, tyranny, or any of the many labels used to place the color of law thinly over organized crime, the goal, and everything required to achieve the goal, remains the same: like a rose only the smell is more like burning flesh.
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970 Nobel Lecture
The Nationalist Party (hidden behind a false republican name) is no different than the Communist Party (hidden behind a false democratic name) in America in this regard whereby the goal is absolute dictatorial power commanded by the so-called "elite" over those who produce anything worth stealing in America, and around the world for that matter.
Of course, there must be true believers in the party, those who do the necessary covering up, the apologizing, the "justifying," which is pure deception even when the storytellers have themselves been deceived, or are pandering to the powers that are expressed in so many words like the Emperor's New Clothes.
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. " Luther Martin at the Con-Con Con-Job of 1787.
Nationalism was first introduced into the American collective soul by the American Aristocratic Class of evil people whose ties to England were never unbound by evil principle. The Federation of free people in free states had to go, as all those 13 Nation States were formed as democratic republics under the common law, not under evil nationalism. A democratic republic moves adaptively, competitively, toward higher standards of living, at lower costs, which is the opposite direction from the despotic direction whereby the criminals consolidate all people under involuntary servitude accomplished and maintained by criminal means; which includes fraud hidden behind a false claim of maintaining a “Free Press.” Free from accurate accountability.
The federal idea of rule by the people themselves, by their consent through the power of true law, had to go, and it had to go according to the Nationalist Party then spinning that web of deceit on this planet, and on this continent.
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former." George Mason, June 4, 1788, against the National Constitution replacing the voluntary mutual defense association (federation) that worked well enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression then rioting in the blood of the innocent on this planet.
The Nationalist, as well as the Communist Party, are for the same thing: a profitable monopoly whereby those in command of the despotic Nation State consume their property.
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”
"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners." To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
Out with true law and out with a true federation went the power the people commend ourselves to hold our representatives to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. Once that happened the licentiousness of the papers called "News" is fake by design. The corporate press indoctrinates the slaves who are then made to believe that their chains are a necessary evil. Of course, there will be members of the Nationalist Party who are ignorant of their true colors, but those minions will not be earning their way to the bottom of that inverted pyramid scheme. When the ship sinks, on schedule no less, the last rat will have smelled out all the lesser rats and that greatest abomination of evil incarnate will implement the exit plan to greener pastures. The lesser evils will be left holding the empty bag of lies.
|Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2018 04:37 pm||
|How can people be made to believe these demonstrable lies? The work required must consume a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears. The goal of indoctrinating the victims into believing their chains are necessary is a goal reached by consuming everything valuable save for that one goal. Who values that goal of absolute power?
Do you think that those who value that one goal, those who work toward that one goal, are going to announce their true colors so as to get to their goal?
No, clearly no, those whose goal is to gain absolute power over all people must keep their victims in the dark about that goal, and to do that there must be a facade in place.
“We may enjoy a democratic process but we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the menace of the mob by our Idaho and United States Constitutions.”
That claim is demonstrably false on so many levels that it - that statement - amounts to a confession of willful deception on the part of whoever first constructed that lie. Sure those who have been deceived will be momentarily forced off the path if they question their belief in the lie, but most true believes will go into attack mode the instant the light of truth begins to shine through those cracks, those holes, in that false story.
The 1789 "Constitution" was unconstitutional, there was no power transferred voluntarily from the people as a whole to an elite group who were given the green light to replace the Articles of Confederation with a National Constitution falsely claimed to be a Federal Constitution.
So that is a start in two ways. That message above accounts for the start down the despotic path in America and that message above starts to open the light of truth to those who insist upon remaining in that dark cave.
A second step is to point out that the people as a whole are democratically represented in a republic through trial by the country according to the common laws of free people who have, in fact, constituted democratic republics.
To claim that the people have consented to the crime of replacing the the American federation of republics in 1789, with a despotic nation state run by criminal slave traders, warmongers, and banking frauds is an outrageous claim made by people who confess their ignorance of the facts that matter.
"Sure enough the Supreme Court concurs that the “will of the people” is limited to the bounds agreed in our Constitution."
That is patently false on many accounts: accounts that matter. A supreme court can prove its authority as a supreme court by assembling the most honest and discrete people in each county in America, to form grand juries, which are then independent investigatory agencies working for the whole people as one, and they investigate any matter that threatens the people in liberty, which includes every matter of the utmost importance, such as matters involving treason at the highest levels of a democratic republic. The people constituting a grand jury, in each county, are responsible for investigating and indicting the criminals in government office, to put those alleged criminals on trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people in liberty.
If the so-called supreme court is legislating the behavior of the people, demanding absolute obedience without question, then said entity is filled with criminals not representatives of the people whose goal is to live and let live in a democratic republic.
So there are 2 easy steps to take for those who may want to get out of their dark cave of blind obedience to falsehood: without question.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Love it or leave it? What is it?
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
|Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2018 07:03 pm||
|“Thanks for some education. I see a conflict with the most basic definition of nationalism being, ‘loyalty and devotion to a nation’ and your examples of the term being co-opted.”
A Nation State that is democratic is therefore a Nation State that is a republic. Criminally feeding upon a natural genetic disposition to “loyalty and devotion,” exploiting that good thing, co-opting that natural drive, is a crime called treason. Treason to what you might say?
These words may not sound familiar to those who have been fed a lot of lies by those who feed upon natural born genetic dispositions to loyalty and devotion to moral laws, but these words agree with a very well written explanation of the meaning of law: the Golden Rule.
A federation of republics (Nation States - plural - where people follow the Golden Rule) is an adaptive, creative, competitive, free market of democratic republics, as explained in works like the following example.
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
A single consolidated government in 1789 was a step toward a profitable monopoly and a step away from free market government. Another way of describing a federation of republics is to call it a voluntary association for mutual defense. It, which is the subject of treason, can be explained also as laboratories of democracy. The same principle works at all levels, town to city, city to county, county to state, state to federation, federation to whatever is larger, such as a voluntary federation of federations. The criminal co-opting also works at that level, what is the so-called United Nations? It feeds upon the idea of the Golden Rule, but co-opts it into an all powerful force to enslave mankind instead.
The word federation has be co-opted, as has been the words democracy and republic.
“I hear the version you have given to be saying that the people using the false flag of nationalism are anti-federalists who do not believe in the rights or sovereignty of individual states. Am I following correctly?”
Yes, and furthermore those who employ deception in this way are also those who do not believe in sovereignty of individual people other than themselves: psychopaths. People other then themselves are considered property, hereditary or otherwise. Would you allow a spychopath on a jury trial where you are an innocent accused? Why elect them to public office?
A non-democratic (original meaning), and a non-republic (original meaning) Nation State founded upon false, or misdirected, nationalism is despotic by design.
I believe natural genetic moral conscience is the source of those feelings of "nationalism" as you define it. It is in principle a feeling of mutual support: affording each other the means to live and let live. We are all kings and our kingdoms extend to the border of every other king, and we all have a common need to defend ourselves against what? If you can't even imagine what threatens you, and you hire psychopaths to tell you what threatens you, then what are you buying, and how much will it cost you?
It may be a good idea to get out of bed with the RINOS who run the Republican (and Democratic: DINOS?) Parties.
Once someone begins to verify their “education,” along these lines, there is that possibility that such ideas as those offered here are up for validation by individual, sovereign, people. Let the chips fall where they may. Those who still choose false nationalism can pay for what they buy into, and those who care not to will be forced by those supporting false nationalism to pay for it too.
If people, each one at a time, choose otherwise then all the people who are the country (any size geographically) are in a better position to be representatives of the true law of the land. People able to accurately discriminate the difference between law and out-law, fact from fiction, are prime candidates for jury duty, grand or petty. If any of our fellow inhabitants are in need of remedy, then people pulling themselves out of the quagmire of false Nationalism can figure out a just remedy, instead of revenge or other forms of so-called punishment.
Imagine the true law applied to the worst examples of false republicans you can imagine, or accurately identify? If the law of the land returns (accurate accountability applied to the worst first), then remedy is possible. Freedom in a perishable liberty is possible, and there are roadmaps like The Golden Rule, Declaration of Independence, and so many Bills of Rights eluding to common laws of free people.
|Posted: Sun Dec 9th, 2018 08:53 pm||
Saturday, June 8, 1776
The First Congress of the United (plural) States of America
“That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”
What is a federation? What is the nature of the association? Is a federation an order issued by a commander that must be obeyed without question, and the order is to form a “Union” or else? Is a federation a “Union” that is indivisible: no “State” (nation) can dare to leave the “Union”?
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, Published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788:
“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
“ Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.”
What was civil about the predictable so-called Civil War? That was a pogrom, a method by which the psychopaths in charge of their corporate fiction cull the herd of cats out of their flock of sheep. If all that remains after the culling are sheep, then that predictable goal is reached for and achieved that way.
How about some notes taken during the Con-Con Con-Job?
“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.” Mr. E. Gerry covering up at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.
They were mindful of the distinction between a federal and national government. The existing agreement binding the organization to specific powers was a federation, and those assembled at the crime scene had no power to replace the federal government with a national government. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if we play with words well, if we access deception, we can get rid of the power that the people command now, a power to consent to, or not consent to any government, then we become the absolute authority over fact.
Readers here may think I am off my rocker, but you say so from which forms of education? These are the words that survived and are available for your perusal today, words that amount to confessions. It is worse, much worse, as these words are carefully put in context. African slavery was on the way out, at this time in American history, but these psychopaths assembled at this crime scene sought to monopolize and subsidize that profit-making venture, and they did so.
That is the side you choose and choose voluntarily?
8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
If you are led into the trap because you can’t see it, the result is the same as willfully jumping into it. Once in the trap the work required to get out is overwhelming and I speak from experience.
|Current time is 02:55 pm||Page: 1 2 3 4|
|Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Redoubt||Top|