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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Master or  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Jan 11th, 2014 10:01 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The concept of being able to exist in two places at the same time is an example of an impossibility.

This is similar to the concept of traveling on land and water at the same time.

This is similar to being nighttime and daytime at the same time in the same place.

This concept of being either one or the other and not both at the same time includes the concept of Serving Two Masters.


George Mason Virginia Ratifying Convention June 04, 1788


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.

Returning to Carl Miller

At time 37:21 in Part II Know Your Constitution the following:

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not.

Now, from Carla in Los Angeles the following information is connected to me and my concerns repeated above:

George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector

Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath "to support this Constitution." That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," explains that the "United States" means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America.
Previous Findings

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

Full Text of the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation BY AUTHORITY By the president of the United States of America A Proclamation

Why would anyone willfully choose to remain fooled? The lie infects the liar?

Contempt before Investigation

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”



George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector

Returning to the study of that report relinked above:


Why would a good and virtuous man like George Washington want to become a dictator? Washington wanted to pay for the war with Britain and becoming a tax collector was the only way he and Alexander Hamilton thought it could be done. The Declaration of Independence recognized that men were inherently free and the Articles of Confederation constrained the national government’s assertion of power against the people of the states.

Washington had no faith in the people and the men who had won the war to pay for their own freedom. The American people would pay their debts, but they would do it truthfully, honestly and on their own terms. George Washington wanted to pay it now and he also wanted to help his friends. The Constitutional Convention would be the means by which he would become the Commander in Chief of tax collections for the Congress of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence left all governments broken except those like the United States of America that provided a mutual self-defense force. Before Washington presided over the secret Constitutional Convention and produced the Constitution, the United States, in Congress assembled, which was the governing body of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, could only ask the states to pay their proportionate share based upon the value of lands, buildings and improvements within the state.

The United States of America could not impose taxes directly on the people of the thirteen states. Within a few years after Rhode Island became the thirteenth State to ratify the Constitution western farmers in Pennsylvania were revolting against the imposition of excises on the distillation of alcohol. The United States of America still couldn’t tax the people of the states directly, but the United States could and did. The states of the old Union, the United States of America, became the United States under the new Union. Article I Section 2 Clause 3 provided for Representatives and direct Taxes to be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union. The new Union was to be comprised of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. The plan of the written Constitution was for the appointive Office of President of the United States to administer the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America and located in the States of the perpetual Union.

After George Washington broke the government, the President of the United States had regained the former power of a British monarch to imprison those who would not obey the written law of the realm. Technically, the realm was limited to the territory owned outright by the United States of America. Alexander Hamilton was responsible for the excise on alcohol produced in the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. George Washington raised an army larger than any he commanded during the Revolutionary War to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion against unlawful excise taxes in Pennsylvania would be tried and convicted of treason for their rebellion against a tax that could not be imposed outside of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America.

Not reported in that report is the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion. The impetus for created the fraud that became known later as The Constitutional Convention were those events that later became know as Shays's Rebellion.

Back to Washington the Tax Collector:

Americans, before the Declaration of Independence, were taxed by the British Parliament using the governing powers of the reigning monarch. Such taxation had caused Americans and the Second Continental Congress to break with Britain and George III, King of England. The Declaration of Independence cited the King for combining "with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"…[f]or imposing Taxes on us without our Consent." George Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence, so he would have no problem breaking an existing and functioning American government and using acts of pretended legislation to impose Hamilton’s taxation without the consent of the persons being taxed.
The events that became known as Shays's Rebellion clearly wrote the writing on the wall that would eventually end any Slavery in America. The Federal Design of Free Market Government was proven to be a working concept as explained HERE:

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.

There was no fraudulent "national" or "consolidated" government POWER to crush a matter of internal challenges to false authority within any State; which were those events that became known as Shays's Rebellion. Even though the criminals running Massachusetts State (heavily indebted to the Bank of England, and failing in their aggressive war for profit into Canada) crushed The Last Battle of the Revolutionary War (Shays's Rebellion) those Slaves that managed to escape capture or worse fled to a less despotic state in the Federation; Daniel Shays escaped into Vermont.

Daniel Shays proved the fact that a Federal design of Free Market government works.

That is what drove George Washington out of retirement, certainly urged along by Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, whereby the so called Federalists (actually Nationalists) would then perpetrate that fraud that became known later (history written by the victors) as The Constitutional Convention.

Quote:
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.
Back to Washington the Tax Collector:

The creation of a Senate to replace the delegates to the United States, in Congress assembled is not a repeal of the Articles of Confederation.
And:

As no additional executive power is created by the Constitution, no one can claim a three-branch government has been created.
And:

The Federal Government hopes you will continue to ignore that the President of the United States and the President of the United States of America are two different offices.
Here is a point of extreme caution according to my own study. There is no such thing as "The Federal Government" as a single, responsible, and therefore accountable, decision making being: NO ENTITY UNTO ITSELF.

The English language offers a convenience by which one term (a legal fiction) can be used to identify a set of people who belong in that set of people.

Therefore "The Federal Government" is a list of names of people, NOT AN ENTITY UNTO ITSELF.

Therefore The Federal Government cannot hope. People who belong in the set of people who are The Federal Government can hope, or not hope, as each individual may do, or not do, as they are within that set of people knowable as The Federal Government. Certainly if those people rely upon a fraud in order to keep the stolen loot flowing into their fraudulent bank accounts they would then hope that the targeted victims don't find out about the fraud in progress; but each individual is responsible, and accountable, for such hopes: NOT A NEBULOUS LEGAL FICTION OF LIMITED LIABILITY.

Back to Washington the Tax Collector:

By now, it should be obvious that the Office of President of the United States is not the same office as the President of the United States of America. Incessant substitutions and repetition by government, schools and the media have caused the two different offices to merge in one President and that President is collecting taxes for Congress and putting people in prison for alleged violations of written law. In a sense, the Constitution does merge the Office of President of the United States of America with the Office of President by amending the Organic Law that created the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation declare in antique yet still valid language: "The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." Just as the first Organic Law declares all men to be equal the second confirms all the States of the United States of America to be equal, thus, the Articles were famous for not permitting taxation of the people of the Union.
Is that worth knowing, verifying, and worthy of gaining currency like a Pop Rock Song?

Moving on in Washington the Tax Collector:

The Government Manual confirms that the United States Government is limited to territory owned by the United States of America, by the inclusion of only the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as the Organic Law of the United States.
If I understand that report so far, the fraud is a bait and switch routine whereby there is a legal entity that governs a very small amount of land and a very few number of subjects, or slaves, or employees, and that legal fiction is:

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States"
That legal fiction cannot lawfully tax anyone other than those few employees (slaves) that are fooled into joining that involuntary association. It is a fraud on its face; like the Mafia claims that once you join you can never leave.

So the bait is to claim that there is this Legal Fiction that is this little thing right here, a few square miles known as Washington D.C. and a few other places in each Constitutionally Limited Republic within the Voluntary Union Federated under The Articles of Confederation.

So many words, such a simple fraud.

"The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
There are those Constitutionally Limited Republics Federated under The Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States"
There is that Legal Fiction claiming dictatorial powers over the fools who are foolish enough to be subjected to dictatorial powers.

"The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
There is the bait.

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States"
There is the switch.

The George and Alexander Magic Act?

The Washington and Hamilton Dog and Pony Show?

The Government Manual confirms that the United States Government is limited to territory owned by the United States of America, by the inclusion of only the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as the Organic Law of the United States.
So...the proof of the crime in progress is such that the bait clearly forbids direct taxation of the people by a dictatorship, while the switch clearly claims the power to subject subjects to dictatorial enslavement, and within The Government Manual there is evidence proving that ONE is ONE and BOTH are not ONE.

ONE is Liberty, or a Federal Free Market Government design that has a proven track record, and the false ONE is a dictatorship, so why are We The People confusing the two as if the two are ONE?

ONE:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Fraudulent ONE:

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States"
The Free Market ONE is not the Fraudulent ONE.

ONE, the Free Market ONE, includes common law grand jury due process.

The Fraudulent ONE MUST IGNORE any competition that threatens the Fraudulent Government because IT IS DICTATORSHIP.

Evident by omission?

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States" that were not yet equal to the States of the United States of America. The third Organic Law, "The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787," recognized the Northwest Territory in Article 4 as "a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as be constitutionally made." The Constitution of 1787 made "such alterations" to such a degree that the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 was replaced by it. The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 remains as the third Organic Law of the United States of America, but it is no longer useful to the United States Government, so the Organic Law of that government is limited to the first and last Organic Laws. The Government Manual confirms that the United States Government is limited to territory owned by the United States of America, by the inclusion of only the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as the Organic Law of the United States.
Omitting the Articles of Confederation in the "chain of command" or "relation back" or "take me to your leader" or "succession of authority" or "hierarchy" proves that the ONE (The United States = singular) is not the other ONE ((The United States of America = plural) because ONE (The United States = singular) is not subject to The Articles of Confederation, while the other ONE (The United States of America = plural) is subject to The Articles of Confederation.

As such:

The Dictatorship subjecting the fools foolish enough to sign a pact with the devil, or be captured by fraud and extortion made legal, or The United States (singular):

The Constitution of 1787 created a new Union of States called "The United States" that were not yet equal to the States of the United States of America. The third Organic Law, "The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787," recognized the Northwest Territory in Article 4 as "a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as be constitutionally made." The Constitution of 1787 made "such alterations" to such a degree that the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 was replaced by it. The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 remains as the third Organic Law of the United States of America, but it is no longer useful to the United States Government, so the Organic Law of that government is limited to the first and last Organic Laws. The Government Manual confirms that the United States Government is limited to territory owned by the United States of America, by the inclusion of only the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States as the Organic Law of the United States.
As such:

Constitutionally Limited Republics Voluntarily Joined (can pay for or refuse to pay for) into a Mutual Defense Union known as The United States of America (plural).

The Articles of Confederation declare in antique yet still valid language: "The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." Just as the first Organic Law declares all men to be equal the second confirms all the States of the United States of America to be equal, thus, the Articles were famous for not permitting taxation of the people of the Union.
Do I see this being our reality in this country accurately, or are my eyes still clouded over with word magic?




 




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 20th, 2014 12:16 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Still working on George the Magician Tax Man:

The Constitution of 1787 was ratified, but could never be adopted by the States of the United States of America, as the territory of concern belonged to the United States of America. The Constitution is Organic Law that is only applicable to territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, so a State like New Hampshire could ratify the Constitution, but it could not adopt it. The Constitution was created in secret and then arranged like a puzzle, so only those who knew the code could really understand it. Adoption is one of those secrets. None of the original thirteen states could adopt the Constitution because the Constitution was meant to apply to territory and property that belonged to the United States of America. Adoption by most of the States began after the Civil War, however, the government remained broken because the President Elect continued to refuse to take the proper oath.
So...the United States (singular) is created by, and owned by, the Federated States (plural) collectively?

The first President of the United States, George Washington, thus became the first "federal" tax collector. The word "federal" is a misnomer. The taxes imposed by the Congress of the United States are not based on any so-called federal authority over the States. The basis of the taxes is proprietary. In order to prepare the rest of the new central government that was made possible by Washington’s self appointment to the Office of President of the United States, the Congress of the United States enacted a new oath patterned after the oath in Article VI, but made compatible with the oath of the President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend" the assets of the United States of America.
Putting aside the word magic for awhile it may be important here to understand that this author misses the point.

The point is clearly stated here:

"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."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution


In other words, the Pennsylvania situation was not a local problem. The problem everywhere was MONOPOLY FRAUD MONEY causing Gresham's Law to take affect and Gold was driven off-shore (to pay for imports) which causes a BUST in economy for lack of CURRENCY. CURRENCY can't increase VELOCITY if there is no CURRENCY.

If there is no CURRENCY those inventive people on the Frontier create their own CURRENCY in any form that works including Whiskey. So the so called TAX (fraud) on Whiskey (payable in Gold mind you) added insult to injury and in those days it was common knowledge (enough to inspire Revolution) how the Money Monopoly Debt Pyramid was worked by the DESPOTS who take over defensive government (common law grand jury due process).

It is not accurate to say that there was an isolated group of people in Pennsylvania. 

HERE

In that book are reports describing why Pennsylvania was chosen by the Central Bank Criminals (Hamilton and Washington) as the weakest area of possible resistance to Tyranny.

The goal was the capture of every productive human being in this country by fraud and extortion made legal, by the utilization of a Legal Money Monopoly Power combined with a Single Involuntary Tax Power.

In order to reach that goal the Central Bankers (even before Communists like Engles made a Central Bank one of their "Planks") MUST destroy all money competition.

Whiskey was Free Market Money Competition which is only useful as money when better money like Gold and Silver is driven out of the country by Gresham's Law which is a symptom of Fraudulent Legal Money Monopoly Power.

If the Gold is leaving, then that is proof that the Money Monopoly Power already exists at the time of Shays's Rebellion AND at the time of The Whiskey Rebellion.

Evidence uncovering Central Banker Frauds at Work

In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent.
George and Alexander (probably Robert Morris heavy in the thick of it too) were Puppets working for The Bank of England Criminals.

Folks, this is still scratching the surface. Who do you think was behind the Drug Pushing done to China by the so called "East India Company"?

George and Alexander Puppets of The Corporation

Back to Washington the Tax Collector:

Combining the Office of President of the United States and the Office of President, which in turn included the Office of President of the United States of America made it appear as if George Washington had been made an American king. If any one questioned the coronation of such an American potentate, it could be laid to the will of the people. After all, they had approved the new Constitution.
That is stretching things beyond the breaking point. The Central Banker Cabal (False Federalists) sold lies through their control of Mass Media of that time period, which was newspapers, as their lies were formed into those False Federalist Papers. You know how campaign promises work: say anything to get in office, and then do whatever pleases the dictator once in office.

Hamilton clearly does so in the reference already quoted above.

It is hardy a case whereby the people RATified the constitution, and omitting the very well elucidated warnings of RAT SMELL offered by Mason and Henry during the RATification process is a dangerous case of ignorance at best.

The most obvious example I found was spoken into the Public Record by George Mason as follows:

RAT SMELL IS PUTRID


George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

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.

That is hardy a case whereby the people embrace a known group of enemies of Liberty as if doing so was a good idea.

Back to George the Tax Man:

George Washington was a virtuous man,...
According to who?

George Washington?

How about Murray Rothbard's study and report on Generalissimo Washington:


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.

In a few short months, Washington had succeeded in extirpating a zealous, happy, individualistic people's army, and transforming it into yet another statist army, filled with bored, resentful, and even mutinous soldiery. The only thing he could not do was force the troops to continue in camp after their terms of enlistment were up at the end of the year, and by now the soldiers were longing for home. In addition to all other factors, Americans were not geared – nor should they have been – for a lengthy conflict of position and attrition; they were not professional soldiers, and they were needed at their homes and jobs and on their farms. Had they been a frankly guerrilla army, there would have been no conflict between these roles.

Dictators are virtuous?

Which virtues are those virtues?

Back to George the Tax Man:

George Washington, as presiding officer of the secret Constitutional Convention made certain that the final draft of the Constitution was arranged so that taking the oath of President of the United States would be perceived to bind Washington to the Office of President under "this Constitution" and to be President of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation. Washington was able to take over the original Confederacy and the territory ceded to the United States of America, because before Washington was elected to the Office of President, he had been a national hero as Commander in Chief under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. His election to the Office of President and his long association with the United States of America facilitated public confusion when he took the Office of President of the United States instead of the Office of President.
So the commission of fraud at the highest level is a virtue?



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Jan 26th, 2014 03:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Returning to DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA


It was George Washington, not the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution that has made today’s federal income tax possible. The Congress of the United States has always had the proprietary power to make laws respecting any income made on the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania. These farmers had a general opposition to taxation of what they knew to be an unalienable right. Converting their grain crop to alcohol to solve a storage problem created income on their property not on property belonging to the United States of America. Only by pretending to be President under the newly ratified Constitution could Washington force compliance with the first revenue statutes that would eventually result in the dreaded federal income tax.
I am returning to this point because this is a significant point.

While I am connected to The National Liberty Alliance, connected to e-mail, connected by Internet Meetup Conferences, I am finding the name Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera repeated.

Just today I have seen the following links offered in e-mail:

THE MORNING SHOW with Patrick Timpone

You Have Found The Knowledge You Need To Limit Government.

What is this Thing Called "Freedom" in America.

The point is understood that Criminals took over voluntary government.

I found that out myself, independently, and just now I am connected to Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera's work.

I found out how the Criminals took over voluntary government through a series of books that include the following:

Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle

Quote Page 67,68

THUS, THROUGHOUT THE backcountry, “regulation” had been common for decades. It was not always successful and sometimes resulted in humiliating defeat. But there was tradition that whenever distant authorities got out of hand, our whenever outsiders threatened a bona fide settler’s landholdings, the people had an obligation to rise up and restore communal order. This way of thinking, moreover, had been strengthened by the actions and the rhetoric of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence, especially, was unequivocal:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide ne Guards for their future Security.”

Washington, Knox, and Bowdoin may not have taken these words seriously. But others did. To them, the people’s obligation to “throw off” destructive and tyrannical government not only was clear, but it had been further sanctified by the thousands who fought and died for the Revolution. It had become a sacred trust, a moral imperative, and “indispensable duty” as Judge William Whiting put it.
Page 178 Footnote 9

9. Dr. William Whiting, "Some Brief Remarks on the Present State of Publick Affairs," in Stephen Riley, "Doctor William Whiting and Shays' Rebellion," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 66 (January 1965) 131-32

So the idea that:

Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania.

So that idea is narrow minded?

Next book is:

The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution

Picking up my copy again: I can see value in reading it one more time.

Chapter 5
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE WESTERN COUNTRY

Page 89:

Washington's attitude alone does not explain the single largest armed confrontation among American citizens between the Revolution and the Civil War, or comprehend the range of issues that provoked resistance to federal law in the frontier region of every state from Pennsylvania south to Georgia.
Note: Shays's Rebellion CRUSHED "resistance" in Massachusetts BEFORE the so called "Constitution" which "authorized" the conscription of an army to CRUSH resistance on a "Federal" level of "law."

Chapter 7
ASSEMBLY AND PROCLAMATION

Page 117:
Perhaps if the western Pennsylvanians had been alone in their resistance to the tax, protests would have seemed less threatening to the government. During 1791 and 1792, however, the petitions, assemblies, and violence against the excise were widespread. The frontier of every state south of New York experienced unrest. In the degree and kind of protest there was little to mark Pennsylvania as unique.
     The law as a dead letter in Kentucky, where no one would pay, no one would dare collect, and no sheriff wold try to enforce the excise.
Page 118, 119:

The plan to single out western Pennsylvania as the unique seat of excise resistance did not emerge immediately. It was not the obvious response to widespread opposition to the tax. Initially, Hamilton considered armed repression of tax resisters in western North Carolina. Edward Carrington reported to Hamilton on anti-excise violence in that region during the summer of 1792. "What you remark," Hamilton wrote back, "concerning the non-execution of the excise law in N[orth]Carolina is very interesting. The probable effect of a continuance of the affair in the same posture is obvious.... If process should be violently resisted in the part of N. Carolina bordering on your state[i.e. Virginia], how much could be hoped from the aid of militia in your state?"25

President Washington's response to the same information was far less bellicose. This should surprise no one since it marked a well-known personality difference between the two men. Hamilton seemed often to "wish there was a war." Washington, on the other hand, felt more deeply the horrors of military engagement, was generally slow to anger, and more measured in his responses to trying circumstances.

Page 120

Hamilton had other reasons, however, for singling out western Pennsylvania. He favored testing the mettle of national law enforcement on the Pennsylvania frontier rather than in the Carolinas because "the government, from several obvious considerations, will be left in condition to do it." He apparently calculated that suppression of the excise resistance in western Pennsylvania would be less costly and more predictably successful for tactical reasons than Kentucky or the Carolinas. "Decisions successfully exerted in one place will, it is presumable, be efficacious everywhere," Hamilton predicted. Crush resistance at the most vulernable point and the more remote regions will fall into line. 30

Page 256 (footnotes)

25. A. H. to Edward Carrington, July 25, 1792, Papers of A. H., XII, 84.
29. A.H. to G.W., Sept.9, 1792, ibid., 344-346
30. Ibid., 344-346

And back to:
Only Washington had sufficient power, authority and prestige to overcome the vigorous opposition of a certain segment of the American public living in Western Pennsylvania.

?

Clearly the work done by DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA is missing the key points of who pulled the strings and why they were being pulled.

The order to pay taxes MUST be enforced in ORDER to maintain a Legal Money Monopoly Power. The plan MUST always be the maintenance of an idea that there is only ONE MONEY and that ONE MONEY is then controlled by the ONE DICTATORSHIP WORLD WIDE. All competition, including Whiskey as Barter Money, must be crushed out of existence.

Monopoly does not exist when competition exists; people will chose better over worse.

Next book:
Secret Proceedings

Rivera covers the concept of destroying the COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET Federal design of government so as to replace it with a MONOPOLY DESPOTISM; out with Federal Government and in with Consolidated/National Counterfeit Government.

So...I need to finish reading the Tax Man Washington Essay by Rivera.


The old Union was a confederacy, a kind of government of States, where each State retains its "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right." The implicit purpose of the United States of America, with respect to the people of the states, was to preserve, protect and defend the sovereignty, freedom, independence and God given rights of the people in the states. The Articles of Confederation were good enough to beat Great Britain, but in the opinion of George Washington and his cronies, known as the Founding Fathers, they had to be repealed or replaced by a constitution that would allow the government to tax ordinary people. The Articles of Confederation confirmed the sovereignty of the States to be States and the inhabitants of the state to remain free. The United States, in Congress assembled could not possibly have the power to legislate for the People of the State or the inhabitants within the state, because such power would destroy the "sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right" of the States of the United States of America.

Washington knew he and his friends could never get the Articles of Confederation repealed or replaced, but he knew his friend Alexander Hamilton could make a new Constitution appear as if it had repealed and replaced the old Articles of Confederation.

The Founding Fathers, who knew the plan, did such a good job that most people today think that the Articles of Confederation were repealed and replaced by the Constitution.

So...the end of Voluntary Government, the end of Free Market Government, the end of any restraint at all, because the original lie worked, and it still works.

Any supposed authority resulting from a crime of fraud is false authority.

Is that not understandable?

Those so called Founding Fathers called themselves Federalists; which was a lie, a false front, as that group were Monopolists/Central Bankers/Nationalists/Despots/Criminals.

Why so many different words when those people were merely frauds?

The goal of the fraud is to transfer power from the mark to the fraud.

The mechanism by which the transfer of power flows is the ONE MONEY.

The TAX (which isn't a tax; it is an extortion payment) merely creates the demand for the ONE MONEY.

Why do people work for Federal Reserve Notes?

They MUST pay their taxes or be kidnapped, robbed, raped, tortured, or murdered if any resistance, or any question, is the response from the slave to the master.

There is then a demand for Federal Reserve Notes.

A Federal Reserve Note is inculpatory evidence proving the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime is in progress.

When did that crime start?

"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."
From:
Reclaiming Revolution


When the criminal claims that they are loaning money to the people who are being robbed, the people being robbed can easily know that the criminal is confessing their criminal mind.

If the criminal calls himself a Federalist, does it matter that the name sounds good when the fact that the criminal is a criminal remains true?

Back to Rivera:

The Constitution created a new Union comprised of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America in and without the original thirteen States, called the "United States." The Congress of the United States was to have the power to legislate for these United States, but the States under the Articles of Confederation would remain as sovereign and independent as they had been before or so it was made to seem, until the Federalists could show the opposite.
So this is my point, please consider, offered to a candid world:

When language becomes confusing the fact that it becomes confusing is a confession of a crime in progress. The crime, in English, is called fraud. The criminal targets a MARK, or many targets are MARKED, and then a lie is told, and the lie intends to accomplish a goal, so long as the targets are led to believe in the lie.

Why would anyone aid, abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to known liars? The answer is simple: to get a piece of the action.

Why would anyone credit, give credit to, known criminals?

Again the answer is simple: to get a piece of the action.

Why call a criminal a Federalist?

Why call a criminal a Founding Father?

Why call the inculpatory evidence that proves a crime is in progress a Constitution?

The answer is the same answer: to get a piece of the action.

What is interesting about interest payments made to people who put their Federal Reserve Notes into a Savings Account?

What is the accurate measure of "a piece of the action"?

If a deal looks too good to be true, something for nothing, does the Latin Phrase Caveat Emptor apply?

If the speaker speaks in terms that continuously result in confusion: Caveat Emptor.

The reasons why trial by jury worked all throughout human history includes the reason that no average moral person, having no vested interest in inflicting punishment upon someone, would punish someone based upon an obvious lie.

No law that caused confusion, in other words, would pass the Rat Smell test that is born into every moral human being as common sense.

If it looks like shit, and it smells like shit, there is no need to find the taste of shit.

Statutes that are very complicated among free traders who prefer to employ written contracts, so as not to allow errors in memory to alter the agreement, could not rely upon a Jury of Peers to ORDER PUNISHMENT in cases of a dispute among those traders; because language must pass the BULLSHIT test or RAT SMELL test, whereby average people can easily understand the meaning of the contract.

In other words, the so called fine print so often finding currency, and gaining currency, is a result of the obvious properties of lies: one lie requires another lie to cover the first one, then four more, then sixteen, and then no amount of Library space can store all the lies told to cover up the first one.

The good faith and credit of the American people MEANS, in plain English, that we the people produce whatever value can be BORROWED from us.

If we the people are the source of power; why are we hiring people to loan us, at interest, the money we make by our good faith and credit?

Why did the Constitution require fourteen Years and not twelve? The Constitutional Convention was the mother of all conspiracies, so the fourteen Years requirement was there to provide George Washington with an excuse for not taking an Article VI oath. The Constitution was a frame up calculated to elect George Washington to the Office of President for which he would not qualify "forcing" him to appoint himself President of the United States.
At the time of Shays's Rebellion the free people in the Constitutionally Limited Republic of Massachusetts faced a criminal organization that took over that POWER of DEFENSE knowable as government. The key feature in that struggle was DEBT based upon Fraud, or simple Fraud, with The Bank of England as the POWER forcing collections on DEBT.

Look here:

In the autumn of 1690 an expedition, sent by Massachusetts to capture Quebec, returned without success. To defray its cost, which amounted to forty thousand pounds, and to satisfy complaints of "the want of an adequate measure of commerce," the general court, in December, 1690, ordered the issue of "seven thousand pounds of printed bills of equal value with money;" and of the remainder in May, 1691. In July, 1692, within nineteen months of the earliest emission, the first legislature under the new charter which transformed the self-governing colony of Massachusetts Bay into a direct dependency of Great Britain, made "all" these "bills of public credit current within this province in all payments equivalent to money, excepting specialties and contracts made before the publication" of this new law. Their credit was supported by receiving them in all public payments at a premium of five percent.
The so called Federalist Founding Fathers were working for a piece of the action. When the free people in Massachusetts, such as Daniel Shays, lost the last battle of the Revolutionary War, against the criminals who took over the Constitutionally Limited Republic of Massachusetts, they ran to Vermont for sanctuary within the Federated Defensive government under The Articles of Federation.

There was then a president made by the fact that the criminals in Massachusetts (false authorities) demanded from the Governor in Vermont that their runaway slaves be returned; which included Daniel Shays.

The Governor of Vermont ignored the demand to return the runaway slaves.

All of the criminals seeking a piece of the slave trade were then clued in on the need to get rid of Free Market Government, government by consent, voluntary government, because people will choose not to be slaves when that option is realizable in point of fact.

The central banking monopolists, like Hamilton, tied very closely to The Bank of England, made a deal with the Slave Traders in the South, and that deal was called The Dirty Compromise. The so called Con Con (Constitutional Convention) was merely a deal to divide up the slaves among the slave traders who would eventually be LED by the Central Bankers into a so called Civil War to make sure that the victims, the MARKS, the targets, remain POWERLESS, vulnerable, and easy pickings.

The President of the United States of America and President and everyone outside the new Union, the United States, and under the protection of the Articles of Confederation, are beyond the legislative power of the Congress of the United States.
Why would anyone claim that someone must be able to figure out an elaborate puzzle in order to become a reasonable human being?

Like a shell game, where there are three shells (office of president, president of the united states of america, and president of the united states), and hidden under one shell is the prize?

Why does someone, anyone, ever, claim that there is any legitimacy at all, any credit at all, given to known frauds, or people who are victims of known frauds?

Either the person claiming legitimacy is a liar, or the person claiming legitimacy is victim to the lie: when the source of the POWER is a willful lie perpetrated by provable (beyond a reasonable doubt) liars.



On the date of enactment, September 24th, Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 divided the new Union, the United States into thirteen districts. The division of the United States into thirteen districts, when only eleven States had ratified the Constitution, confirms that the United States, as the new Union, consists of the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. Eleven of the districts were named for the States that had ratified and the remaining two were named for Kentucky and Maine. On September 24, 1789, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States district courts for the districts of Kentucky and Maine could only be territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. The territorial jurisdiction of those two courts would not change when Kentucky was admitted into the Union on June 1, 1792 and when Maine was admitted on March 15, 1820.
Today, the modern Constitution of the United States can be recognized in Chapter 5 of Title 28 United States Code, the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. The territorial composition of the district and divisions of the federal district courts are shown in Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5. In those sections are found all names of the 50 States now in the Union created by the Constitution. We know that the districts and divisions are composed of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America, because Puerto Rico is the State identified in Section 119. Puerto Rico is a "federal" State but not a State of the United States of America. Puerto Rico has non-voting Representatives in Congress and no Senators in the Senate. Title 3 of the United States Code specifically excludes Puerto Rico as a State. Washington, D. C. is a federal State, but not a State of the United States of America.

The "one supreme Court" of Article III of the Constitution is ordained and established by the ratification of the Constitution, which provides that the holder of the Office of President shall appoint the Judges of the supreme Court. The perpetual vacancy in the Office of President caused by George Washington’s precedent setting refusal "to support this Constitution," by taking the proper oath of Office, has prevented the establishment of a real judicial court system. The courts established pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789 can only be legislative courts exercising "legislative power" derived from the proprietary authority over territory and other property belonging to the United States of America. They cannot be independent judicial courts exercising the judicial power of the United States of America, because, among other reasons, the power of appointment of the Judges of the supreme Court was granted to an Office of President that has remained vacant for almost 220 years. The President of the United States it should be noted appoints Justices not Judges to the supreme Court.

What are the possibilities of error in my analysis of the constitutional provisions presented here? My investigation can be easily confirmed by any computer word processing program. When one searches for the Office of President of the United States of America, the computer will not find the Office of President as a match and neither should the student. Similarly, the computer will not lie and tell you that a Justice is a Judge. That finding should eliminate all opinions of the federal courts. Purely legislative creations, all the federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court are without judicial authority.
The concept of due process being due to everyone without exception is easily applied to the concept of common law grand jury due process as is now being processed by those volunteers volunteering to be members of the National Liberty Alliance.

I do not agree with the decision to use the word "National," however the concept of free market government is offered and easily recognizable for as long as none of the members claim to be excepted by that same due process.

These ideas that a few people can elect themselves to be the masters of everyone else, utilizing the power of deception, threat, and aggressive violence, are merely criminals and they ought to be held to the same account as any other criminal.

Justice is not a synonym for punishment.

More than one person has offered agreeable meanings for the English word Justice.

Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz., that each should live honestly towards every other.
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”

This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.






Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 12:57 pm  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Master or Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems