Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The Mental Militia  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Jun 2nd, 2019 01:45 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
1. 6-4-2019

"Another segment of the series will focus on Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful-death lawsuit."

The most basic principle of law is well stated in Mathew 7:12. When party A murders someone in cold blood so as to silence the truth told by the murder victim, then that murderous party is outside the most basic principle of law. If they were not then they would be fine with being murdered themselves, all is fair in criminal minds, except if they are unable to avoid being the victim. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you.

Why do people agree to return to the outlaws who murder in cold blood and their co-conspirators, to then ask cold-blood murder co-conspirators for a lawful judgment in a lawsuit? I don’t get it, and no one is confessing.

I think the answer is willful ignorance concerning a very simple lie, and people refuse to admit that they too become liars when they believe the lie, retell the lie, and worse, they refuse to admit that the lie is a lie; a shared state of willful ignorance.

“And be sure to support his work in composing/creating what will likely be the finest documentary about rural America’s struggle to put the Federal government back into the tight little corral of limited and enumerated powers which the Founders authorized for it when drafting the Constitution.”

That is the lie. The framers who framed a federal constitution had to deal with some criminals posing as authorities of law, and that is well documented. All the people involved were not framing a constitution, some were framing a counterfeit constitution. Some “framers” were criminals by act if not by false word. The criminal “framers” were ensuring their ready access to victims, access hidden under color of law.

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

The framers who framed a federal constitution made it a law governing the federation that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the parties who were formed into a federation.

That federal constitution is known as Articles of Confederation. That was the one and only federal government in America.

It was against the law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution, or according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty. The parties to it were also subject to the law of the land, written into the document, and unwritten into the good souls who were a party to an actual, not counterfeit, federal government.

The law of the land was (and still is) the common law.

The Articles of Confederation were discarded by evil people at a crime scene in 1787, and that is also well documented, complete with confessions.

George Mason was against it during the false convention that was, in fact, a crime scene. George Mason did not sign the confession that inculpated all the criminals who did sign the criminal document.

George Mason voted no when the criminal document was forced by fraud and threats upon a war-weary populace. All that evidence against it, and more, and yet people today still parrot the lie.

A federation is a voluntary association, and that truth was told in the first congress of the newly framing federation called The United States of America.

June 8, 1776
“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:”

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”

I guess that the rat smell is now so pervasive that very few people are willing to admit to it.

Posted, but not (yet?) published.

https://thementalmilitia.net/2018/10/17/triumph-individual-freedom-montana/#comment-10183

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jun 10th, 2019 04:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
2. 6-10-2019

"Another segment of the series will focus on Jeanette Finicum’s wrongful-death lawsuit."

The most basic principle of law is well stated in Mathew 7:12. When party A murders someone in cold blood so as to silence the truth told by the murder victim, then that murderous party is outside the most basic principle of law. If they were not then they would be fine with being murdered themselves, all is fair in criminal minds, except if they are unable to avoid being the victim, and then criminals claim exception to their own, criminal, rule. Do unto others before they can tell the truth about you, tell lies about them before they can hold you to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter: criminal rule.

Why do people agree to return to the outlaws who murder in cold blood and their co-conspirators, to then ask cold-blood murder co-conspirators for a lawful judgment in a lawsuit? I don’t get it, and no one is confessing.

I think the answer is willful ignorance concerning a very simple lie, and people refuse to admit that they too become liars when they believe the lie, retell the lie, and worse, they refuse to admit that the lie is a lie; a shared state of willful ignorance.

“And be sure to support his work in composing/creating what will likely be the finest documentary about rural America’s struggle to put the Federal government back into the tight little corral of limited and enumerated powers which the Founders authorized for it when drafting the Constitution.”

That is the lie. The framers who framed a federal constitution had to deal with some criminals posing as authorities of law, and that is well documented. All the people involved were not framing a constitution, some were framing a counterfeit constitution. Some “framers” were criminals by aggressive actions, some by false words hiding the facts that matter in the case. The criminal “framers” were ensuring their ready access to victims, access hidden under color of law.

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

The framers who framed a federal constitution made it a law governing themselves, and future generations of federal agents, that the federation would not be discarded for something other than a federation, not without unanimous agreement among all the federated parties who were formed into a federation. The real framers defended the right of the people themselves to opt out according to common laws of free people: the law of the land. The real framers framed real democratic republics framed into a real federation. The criminal framers counterfeited democracy, republic government, and the criminal framers counterfeited a federation of democratic republics. The criminal framers counterfeited the law of the land, replacing the law of the land with a common legal fiction.

The real federal constitution is known as The Articles of Confederation. That was the original constitution framing a federal government in America.

It was against that written federal law to get rid of those Articles without consent by all federated parties. It was also understood that a federation affords all parties the option to opt out at will. It was also understood that each state was on an equal footing in the federation with each other state, all according to basic lawful principles. The real federation was not an arbitrary government, it cannot be an arbitrary government when the federated parties who are a party to it can opt out of it according to the written constitution which frames the federation. Real government works according to the unwritten laws of free people in liberty, naturally, organically, and is therefore not an arbitrary government. The parties to the real federation were subject to the law of the land, which was also written into the original federal framing document. No one was above the law, not then, not now, unless criminals take over as a matter of demonstrable fact. The law of the land is written in examples such as a Declaration of Independence, and a Bill of Rights. The law of the land is also unwritten in the good souls who remain a party to actual, not counterfeit, government.

The law of the land was (and still is) the common law.

The Articles of Confederation were discarded by evil people at a crime scene in 1787, and that is also well documented, complete with confessions.

George Mason was against it during the false convention that was, in fact, a crime scene. George Mason did not sign the confession that inculpated all the criminals who did sign the criminal document.

George Mason voted no when the criminal document was forced by fraud and threats upon a war-weary populace. All that evidence against it, and more, and yet people today still parrot the lie.

A federation is a voluntary association, and that truth was told in the first congress of the newly framing federation called The United States of America.

June 8, 1776
“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:”

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”

I guess that the rat smell is now so pervasive that very few people are willing to admit that they willingly add to it.

Taking screen shots before and after sending.

Comment published 6-10-2019!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 01:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mental Militia Forum 6-12-2019


Elias Alias,

Your viewpoint as far as I know it based upon what I've read up to now is similar to say Karl Hess's viewpoint. I mean that as a compliment, and to be more specific the viewpoint can only see the works of The Cult of Might Makes Right when that shared viewpoint accurately accounts for (or attempts to) that which is called government.

Perhaps it is wrong to categorize individuals, such as making a claim that this one and this other one belong in the group called Anarchists, and then inside that group are those over there who are Free Market Anarchists.

Josiah Warren is commonly claimed to be the First American Anarchist, but he rejected labels in print, and those printed statements that rejected such categorization were probably printed on his own printing press he invented and made himself when facing censorship.

It is from the work of Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner that my individual viewpoint is founded, or based, on specific principles, but I add to that work a helpful principle known as The Golden Rule.

I think I may have passed the hurdles to get access to an individual authorized Forum Topic of my own, on this forum of yours. Oh, and I have also borrowed from Game Theory, particularly The Prisoner's Dilemma, in the process of forming my individual viewpoint on specific topics such as The State.

We will see if you or anyone else can agree with the viewpoint I intend to offer, and if so then you may then become familiar with what I call true government. You may also see the free market, adaptable, defensive, voluntary, value in it. You may even volunteer to be a member. If you do then you may be called a cult member by the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right.

You would be, if you choose to volunteer, a member of The Cult of Do No Harm, or The Cult Which Follows (Actually) The Golden Rule. My guess is that you already do everything (within reason) required to be a member of this fictitious cult, but you prefer to remain anonymous, or at a distance from any other member in any other cult anywhere, according to your power to command your own conscience.

Actual government (not counterfeit) actually has been put in place to follow the golden rule, to do no harm, which in my opinion requires effective defense. Without effective defense, posterity, particularly the weakest among us such as children, are food left to spoil or be eaten by members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. In other words, without actual government, or without voluntary mutual defense, those who could prevent it are instead enablers who enable mankind to be led into man-made hell on earth, to be led down that path by those who are best able to do so.

All things good, including government, are counterfeited by people who can get away with that type of operation, and the word counterfeit means opposite. It might be a good idea to at last look at the data that exemplifies good government. Counterfeit government is an up-side-down Free Market, whereby the worst of the worst gain the most power the quickest, it destroys everything as it moves to the goal. Bad government works like entropy. Actual government, or true government, works in the other direction, like ectropy. Talk about sensorship, the word ectropy (and the idea that there can be good government), does not appear in print. Good government affords equal footing access to all, so that all can add their special talent to the market of talent, and in so doing the highest quality and lowest cost cooperators who compete cooperatively produce the vital adaptability required for survival of any complex living species. The best at improving and adapting gain the most power the soonest, rather than the opposite direction, when good government is defended effectively by the volunteers. That works naturally, organically, and at grass roots, locally, in individuals, because people, as a rule, will choose better for worse when their choice to defend their power to choose is actually, truly, defended in fact.

I'll leave this introductory Forum Topic with a relevant quote:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 03:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
6-12-2019
Forum Topic
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=44.0

The concept of voluntary mutual defense is by definition a shared viewpoint concerning attempts to accurately assess real threats to life and all that constitutes the power to live and let live, or to prosper, adapt, reproduce, sustain, improve, survive, and to continue surviving rather than abjectly allowing threats to cause extinction: suddenly or slowly.

In other words, the concept of good government, if it is to be so, requires a willful act in which those concerned assess clear and present dangers, so as to know the probable causes of injuries done to innocent people, by guilty people, in advance, or while the damage is current, or after the fact, in order to defend against it, and better still, in order to prevent it from happening in the first place, or stop it, or prevent reoccurrence.

What if it is you facing the willful decision to end your life for a trumped-up (false) crime such as speaking the truth?

You are targeted, you are executed, and then you are dead.

Example:

"Audio of Haunting Oath Keepers Phone Call With LaVoy Finicum Two Days Before His Death"
https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/new-audio-files-of-the-last-conversation-had-between-lavoy-finicum-stewart-rhodes-todd-engle-and-jason-van-tatenhove/

That is good government. In effect, those who are adept at predicting future crimes based upon past crimes (perpetrated by counterfeit government agents: criminals under the color of law) offer a warning to those who are in the crosshairs.

If it is you and you volunteer to go right ahead and jump head first into the trap, then in a way you get what you pay for in fact, in time, and in place.

The difference between volunteering to be the next victim of criminals counterfeiting government, and someone wandering into an avoidable trap, is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, which is the goal and the ends to the goal of good government.

Surely the victim in one of the most public assassinations perhaps since Martin Luther King Jr, this fellow named Lavoy, was not intending to be assassinated, to offer his life, and effectively degrade his family members lives, as a Martyr. One step led to another, to yet another, and then suddenly it is a death trap, and you are the one trapped in it.

Does that sound at all familiar?

"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
That is from an Essay on The Trial by Jury.

How about this:

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"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."

The trap was sprung a long time ago, back in 1787 to be precise, and you have been warned. The warning may not have reached you, and the warning may not have rung true in your mind if you got the message delivered to you in time.

June 6, 1788
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"

Good government can be destroyed by those who choose to do so rapidly, even all at once if the power to do so is in their hands, or very slowly, incrementally, one step at a time, if the power to rapidly destroy it is not yet stolen.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"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."

Place a name, or label, on those who do manage to exemplify good government, doing the necessary work required to publicize, make known, accurate accounts of the facts that matter in any case, the vital work once performed by people labeled as grand jurors, and the fact remains that those individuals do the work with or without the name, with or without the credit they earn, and with or without a counterfeit badge or license to act responsibly when necessary to preserve life and the means to preserve and improve life.

Those caught in the trap believe that the murderers in the case have, in fact, a legitimate license to kill at will.

That is not so much a sad reality, it is a very dangerous precedent to set. What I mean is that it is a very dangerous precedent to set when people simply ignore that danger, to let it lie, to do so without questioning the claim of legitimacy.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 12th, 2019 05:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Voluntary Mutual Defense
6-12-2019

From simple to complex the devil and the details are here and now offered to a candid world, for consideration actual, not for counterfeit forms of discussion.

Simply put the law is either an agreement among defenders to hold to account offenders, or there is no law, and offenders gain ready access to victims.

Counterfeit agreement is not the law.

“Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”
Josiah Warren, 1863

Criminal:
“I am here to protect you, give me everything of value in your current possession or I will break your legs, or worse, my gang will rape you, torture you, for the rest of your life.”

Defender:
“No, if I do so you will go to my neighbor and counterfeit the same agreement only this time you will have my help. My conscience does not allow me to do so. You do know that everyone with a working conscience knows that your so-called Emperor is naked, don’t you? So...why pretend that you are here to protect us?”

Criminal (under the color of law):
“We the People, says right here, consented to this charade. So pay up.”

To be continued, please be civil actual, not counterfeit.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 13th, 2019 04:08 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"none of those points disprove nationalism."

How about some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Nationalism, and then some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Federalism?

Example 1:

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."

So Federalism maintains a voluntary association where Nationalists do not. Nationalists offer the non-option to leave the Nation State.

Federalism is shown to be Free Market Government Services, where Free Market Forces tend to force quality up and cost down.
Nationalism is shown to be Subsidized Slavery of everyone, where dictatorial forces tend to force quality to nothing and costs skyrocket to a point at which the only people who can afford anything of value are the psychopaths, sociopaths, and their army of sycophants, because that is the type of people who get to the top of Nationalism, also known as Corporatism, National Socialism, Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, Arbitrary Government, Despotism, Empire, and various other euphemisms.

Example 2:

Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the actual federation known as The United States of America:
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary. Each state government, as the government of New Jersey etc., is a consolidated, or one entire government, as it respects the counties, towns, citizens, and property within the limits of the state. The state governments are the basis, the pillar on which the federal head is placed, and the whole together, when formed on elective principles, constitutes a federal republic. A federal republic in itself supposes state or local governments to exist, as the body or props, on which the federal head rests, and that it cannot remain a moment after they cease. In erecting the federal government, and always in its councils, each state must be known as a sovereign body; but in erecting this government, I conceive, the legislature of the state, by the expressed or implied assent of the people, or the people of the state, under the direction of the government of it, may accede to the federal compact: Nor do I conceive it to be necessarily a part of a confederacy of states, that each have an equal voice in the general councils. A confederated republic being organized, each state must retain powers for managing its internal police, and all delegate to the union power to manage general concerns: The quantity of power the union must possess is one thing, the mode of exercising the powers given, is quite a different consideration; and it is the mode of exercising them, that makes one of the essential distinctions between one entire or consolidated government, and a federal republic; that is, however the government may be organized, if the laws of the union, in most important concerns, as in levying and collecting taxes, raising troops, etc. operate immediately upon the persons and property of individuals, and not on states, extend to organizing the militia, etc. the government, as to its administration, as to making and executing laws, is not federal, but consolidated."

If people running one of many Nation States, such as New Jersey, in a Federation of many competitive Nation States, and the people running that single Despotic Nation State picks the pockets of individuals, taking whatever is worth stealing from everyone, except the criminals running it of course, and their investors who get “tax breaks,” then people could vote with their feet to a less despotic Federated State such as Rhode Island. When everything has been consolidated into one Profitably Monopoly by the criminals who take-over governments, and their investors, then those who are fine with having pockets picked can tell all those who don't like it to leave the one Profitable Monopoly run by the criminal cabal. You don’t like it, terrorist, get out, while I call Homeland Security and rat you out.

This is not really news.

Example 3:

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. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"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."

The cabal loves investors, and in order to incentivize investors who are perfectly willing to invest in the cabal, there are emoluments and other goodies. These bargains are given out to those who tow the official line, those who don't tow the official line are often found guilty of thought crimes, and either tortured or murdered.

"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."

Don't question the cabal's arbitrary power, there are many investors, and you will be first asked to leave, and that is a subtle hint concerning what may come next. There are gang rapists housed on your dime and they would like your fresh meat.

Example 4:

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.”

So Federal governments afford places where slaves can run away from people running Slave States into places where the concept of liberty, equal footing, and individual sovereignty isn’t just a campaign slogan used to subsidize the slave trade within the profitable monopoly. Those investors in slavery in the slave states can tell the slaves if they don’t love it, then leave.

There are many more examples involving a money monopoly power, aggressive force (criminal force) monopoly power, land monopoly power, just-us monopoly power, and the all too familiar extortion fee monopoly power claimed as a “tax” for your protection of course. The evidence is uncontroversial, clear, unambiguous, and straight to the point.

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island Is Right!
“The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.”

Melancton Smith
June 20, 1788
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jun 13th, 2019 04:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The next source of information is actually a sound bite when compared to the demand for the power required to deter the criminal opposition, the opposition that works under the color of law.

The next source of information is vital if the idea is to understand true government power commanded by individuals who are then constituting an aggregate or "collective" sum total of individual, voluntary, defensive, power.

Since there are no responses yet, I think the following fills the void in a very special way.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jun 14th, 2019 01:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Spooner may have riled the Austrian Economic Professors with his Paper Money Essay, I know Murray Rothbard printed derogatory words aimed at Spooner in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. It turns out that at least Rothbard is willing to join the Cult of Might Makes Right; in my opinion.

I think also that this was pointed out by Gary North here:

"One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
"Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?"
The Gold-Plated Sting, March 3, 2007, Gary North

For the purposes of this Topic the main point is well stated in the quote from Spooner repeated for effect:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."

Those words are not ambiguous, at least not in my opinion. Those who allow their actions to place them in The Cult of Might Makes Right, with or without pledges, oaths, licenses, contracts, and counterfeit authority of law, are those who subscribe to the idea that criminal means justify criminal ends, and that is the first step down that slippery slope that turns into a torturous hell on earth for everyone as the mass of mankind gains momentum, as the slippery slope turns inevitably into a vertical drop to extinction.

The pretention of authority that is false, counterfeit, opposite of true lawful authority is expressed well in the forward to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli here:

"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."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)

Similar words explaining that basic fraud, or self-deception, that is both stupid and servile, are explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

Also here:
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. 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.”
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, 02/18/2008

To the point, individuals decide (often with malice aforethought) to injure innocent people so as to consume innocent people, to take the life out of innocent people, and that decision is followed by actions that are necessary for reaching the imagined benefit. There are 3 basic actions as such:

1. Deception aimed at innocent targets
2. Threats of aggressive violence aimed at innocent targets
3. Aggressive violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims

There is a connection between violence and deception, and that is explained well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, which will follow, so as to end this post in this Topic, after one more comment of my own.

In order to begin down that slide into man-made hell on earth someone, somewhere, has to invent and then infect other people with this unnatural, suicidal, genocidal, destructive path, a path that can be described with the word entropy. The path is chosen by the first criminal, then the next, and along the way there is a founding, a framing, a forming of what I call The Cult of Might Makes Right, whereby all those members in that Cult share the same lie, and that lie is the price of admission into the cult, it is the unstated oath. If mankind were as self-destructive as the lie being told suggests, then why not hold the worst to account, if for no other reason than to keep score? Is it just a coincidence that those in (criminal) power always remove from general use the power to hold those in power to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter?

"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."
Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 17th, 2019 09:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
6-17-2019
Voluntary Mutual Defense

The simplest form of law is a power built into the species, that power is moral conscience, and for that simple example there is offered a relevant quote:

All things whatsoever … - This command has been usually called the "Saviour's golden rule," a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you "expect" or "desire" of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets - That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another." Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius.
Barnes' Notes

Simple laws that work naturally are turned into complication as the devils put into human contact those devilish details previously listed as:

Deception, so as to consume the lives of innocent people.
Threat of Aggressive Violence, aimed at targeted innocent people.
Aggressive Violence, perpetrated by guilty people upon innocent people; with malice aforethought.

The most basic, simple, deception is a well-worn claim made by powerful criminals whereby the targets are convinced that the criminals constitute the only hope for innocent people, the only form of protection available to innocent people.

That is clearly exemplified in those events that became known as the founding of America. Previous to the deception described above the people in America started a voluntary mutual defense association that was based upon rights afforded to all people by all moral people. No one in their right mind then or now can argue the legitimacy of the lie used then, the same lie used now, in complex forms, or in simple forms, not without resort to further lies.

The deception that starts out simple, “we the people,” give a band of criminals absolute power, because that band of criminals said so. Then the simple lie becomes a very tangled web of deceit in short order, doing so by natural laws. Power begins to shift from moral people who volunteer to create and maintain an effective defense of all people as the criminal gang begins to extort everything that is worth anything from those moral, productive, people who manage to maintain enough liberty to actually get productive work accomplished.
I will end this sound bite with a common form of the lie as the lie begins to go down that path of the exponential increase in lies, a natural course governed by natural laws, as each lie will require more that one lie to cover up the first lie.

The original lie where the criminal gang claims that they are the government is soon followed up with the lie that criminals will obey criminal made laws. That is an accurate description of the lie told by the criminals who counterfeit government. The lie is not a confession, so the words used by the criminals are not accurate words. The lie used by the criminals is not as it was just stated, the criminals do not say: “Criminals will obey the laws that we criminals force upon our victims.”

Instead of that type of confession, the lie takes on a form that convinces the targeted population that somehow, this time, even though it is a required condition necessary for a criminal to be a criminal, that criminals, as a rule, do not obey man-made laws, this new (counterfeit) law, as the lie goes, this additional law added to the pile of laws already not obeyed by criminals, this new law will be obeyed by criminals, and that they say is why this new (counterfeit) law must be enforced by our exclusive group. Although it has never worked in the past, this time it will work. Although it is a condition required for a criminal to be a criminal, that the criminal does not obey man-made laws, this time they say it is necessary to add yet another (counterfeit) law.

The simple form of the lie is objectively exposed as a lie in every actual criminal case where there is an innocent victim, there is in fact, a guilty criminal. The crime scene is not a crime scene without that fact working whereby the criminal, as a rule, does not obey the man-made laws that advise criminals about natural laws.

If you kill some innocent victim, with malice aforethought, as a rule, you are a murderer in fact.

When people claiming to be the government murder people, in fact, they are guilty of murder.

Well, I rambled on when my intention was to be brief, but that last sentence could be exemplified with something resembling a common law trial by jury case:

THE COURT: Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes.

Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
the defendant? Your answer to that one is
also yes.

And the total amount of damages
you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?

THE JURY: Yes (In unison).

The Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee
Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, 1999

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Jun 23rd, 2019 08:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6290
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The natural order proceeds by natural laws as lifeforms interact. There are exceptions to the natural laws that proceed to throw the natural process off the tracks and here is a very specific example. Natural laws governing life, and governing life very well thank you, are replaced with counterfeit copies. Powerful counterfeiters employ deceptions that are well-documented facts that matter.

People naturally cooperate for mutual benefit so as to survive and thrive. People live and let live according to natural laws that some people attribute to one all-powerful God. The law is to do unto others as if other's are one's self. As clearly as one might expect to react to actions done by other's to one's self, so can one expect other's to similarly react to those same actions done to them, such as forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse. Why would anyone start on such a path to hell on earth? Why would anyone attempt to excuse it?

What forces are working to cause people to believe in these ongoing rationalizations that attempt to excuse forced labor under penalty of torture, death, or worse? It is as if a lie told often enough can turn a criminal into a saint.

"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."

People are led to believe the lie that doing evil onto others before others can do the same is the law of the land.

In America, that alteration of truth, turning truth into a lie, is well documented on the official record kept by the perpetrators who got away with that crime against nature itself. In your face, if you care to read it, is the evidence proving the fact.

Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745
"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . "

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, 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."

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Among those now called The Founders were a group of criminals posing as so-called founders.

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. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"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.”

Those criminals were Nationalists at a time when Nationalism was understood as a form of subsidized slavery or an organized form of crime under the false pretense of religious or lawful authority.

The actual founding of a revolutionary idea was based upon the idea that all are equal (equal footing) under the law, and at that time the law of the land was understood to be called the common law, with trial by jury. Trial by jury, not trial by the government is the law of the land. Trial by jury was also known to be trial by the country. Trial by the country, not trial by the government is the law of the land. The actual founding idea was such that the anointed “Leader of the Free World” was no such thing, in fact, the Royal claim to authority was a sham, and everyone is as naturally authorized to be the lawful power as everyone else: equal footing.

No more sham “Divine Right of Kings,” now we the people are either going to defend our rights against infringement by scam authorities, or we will live and die as slaves.

The criminal Nationalists had to get rid of those ideas, to wipe those ideas out of human consciousness. The criminal Nationalists had to replace human conscience with a destructive counterfeit. Out had to go accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, anywhere, anytime, involving any victims harmed by any criminals, most importantly criminals posing as the government, and in place of accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each case is the return to rule by criminals posing as the government: orders to be obeyed without question.

The revolutionary example was set as it was documented on that Declaration of Independence. As that document was first written, it was the awful truth of the matter. Then the official record which recorded the revolutionary idea was censored. The truth was edited by the criminals infesting government during the founding process.

The criminals infesting government got away with it then, the criminals in government get away with it today. Is that our future? Is that what is left to posterity?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 07:53 pm  
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > The Mental Militia Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems