 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
And so it was that in May of 1787, “fifty-five […] men of considerable and varied property holdings, ranging from the possession of slaves and lands to investments in government securities and far-flung business enterprises” met in Philadelphia and “resolved to disregard the announced plan of submitting amendments” to strengthen the Articles of Confederation; instead, they decided “to prepare […] an entirely new frame of government.” Unsurprisingly, this “new frame,” the U.S. Constitution of 1787, gave a new central government
broad and far-reaching powers over the economic life of the nation. […] Congress was given exclusive authority to coin money and to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce. Thus the stage was set for the abandonment of laissez-faire liberalism and the substitution of a policy of economic nationalism or government paternalism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761567422
President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.
If anyone is wondering what all the links above mean, I can explain. The part above misses two points.
A. Whiskey was a competitor for shares in currency markets.
B. Those "rebels" were called "anti-federalists" when in fact those people were the true federalists (many of them).
So...the first link in this post offers a very good account of truer history (truer than "school" book history), however, the account misses two vital points.
The monopoly on money (legal tender) was the prize in view for Hamilton and the true Fascists (called Nationalists at the time) and their opposition was anyone who could effectively compete in money markets such as whiskey distilling federalists; so the way to eliminate the competition is to use fraud and force.
The fraud part is to label the federalist as “anti-federalists” so as to confuse anyone who may wander into that accumulation of people, the power of numbers, rallied around free money markets and federalism (socialism, liberalism, individualism, anarchism, the left, or any voluntary association-ism).
The violence part was a “conscripted” army created by the promise to punish anyone who refused to march against and destroy the whiskey competitors in money markets, those federalists who were against monopoly money and fascism (nationalism, despotism, the right, and involuntary association-ism).
Why were those two points missed in the link at the top of the page? Those are vital links in understanding the legal crimes committed in history and to this day.
If the Federalists were the first American conservatives, the Jeffersonians were the first American liberals.
See the problem?
The "Federalists" were NOT called "The Federalists". The Nationalists (Alexander Hamilton for example) were called "The Federalists". The true federalists (those who were for a voluntary association of separate and sovereign states) where called: "Anti-Federalists".
Socialists who are for “Sovereignty” (free will, voluntary association, no willful injury to innocent people on purpose, etc.) are historically called “Socialists”, however, the word changes meaning over time, BECAUSE someone has an interest in confusing anyone who might wander into that band of people who are for freedom.
Where can someone wander to?
Can someone wander toward “socialism” to find freedom?
How can that be possible if the current “Socialists” are really nothing more than legal criminals?
How can a freedom loving peacenik wander toward “Federalism” to find a workable form of government based upon voluntary associations when, in fact, the “Federalists” took over that name, and did so to such a great extent, where even today the people who claim to know “revised” history fail to simplify the principles and interests of which people are which people.
Here is the simple version:
A. People who plan on and follow through with the plan to association voluntarily and avoid injuring any innocent people in the process
B. People who plan on and follow through with the plan to injure innocent people.
Take any one in history, an person, and place that person in either A or B, to see if this principled approach can generate any interest toward understanding – eh?
There was also “military conscription, put into practice on a large scale for the first time in American history during the Civil War.”
That is not true according to sources reporting the effort to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion with a conscripted army.
Please consider the possibility that the source of this “revisionist” history lesson has an interest in preserving his principle source of income – that being the flow of power to him by the creation and maintenance of a money monopoly. That author, of the work linked at the top of this reply, is from the “Austrian” school of economics – where the majority of those people support “The Constitution” and “The Gold Standard” and “Legal Tender”.
Notice how the report misses the connection between Lincoln’s and the money monopoly where President Lincoln financed his war with a competitive currency (competing against the money monopoly of the day). The money monopoly of the day was implicated in the assassination of that president. I think the “Austrians” are the modern day “Federalist” (actually “Nationalists”) with their preference for “The Constitution” and “The Gold Standard” and “Legal Tender”.
Use simple logic please. Who plans on and executes the plan to injure innocent people? How is “The Constitution” enforced? There are two shining examples.
A. The Whiskey Rebellion
B. The Civil War
Lincoln and Washington planned on and executed their plans to injure innocent people, they just happen to be on different sides of the money monopoly fence.
The “Austrians” (the ones who are most vocal, such as the author of the link at the top of the page) are on the “Constitution”, “Gold Standard”, “Legal Tender” side, the side where people plan on and execute their plans to enforce that money monopoly – if needed.
Does that make sense?
The “opposition” is on the same side. The true opposition does not plan on and then execute the plan to injure innocent people for a money monopoly, not one earned by fraud, not one earned by force of violence, threat of violence, or otherwise. The true opposition allows any form of money to compete in all money markets, because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing, and the economically viable thing to do – because competition increases quality and lowers costs over time.
The experience of the corporate giants in creating cartels and other voluntary cooperative systems with their competitors was that it was impossible to establish and sustain a profitable monopoly in the American economy – unless government could be induced to do it. So they thereupon set about building popular and political support for government action to create the monopolies they had sought but had been unable to achieve without the use of force.
The money monopoly is not recognized again, as I read this “revisionist” history account.
Cleveland did manage to reduce the Republican tariffs, but not before they had played a part in plunging the nation into “the depression of 1893 to 1897, which sunk the Democrats.”
Again, no mention of the money monopoly - the hidden elephant in the room - crapping and urinating on everyone.
"It sure stinks in here, I wonder what makes all that stink?"
"I don't know?"
"Do you see that huge grey thing in the room?"
"What thing?"
"Nothing, nothing at all."
But if they were extending the doctrine of liberalism even further, they must have been liberals, right? They must have been men and women of the Left, not the Right – right? John Moser reports of John T. Flynn that “[t]o the end of his life he never referred to himself as anything but a liberal […]. Flynn claimed that it was the American political climate that changed during his lifetime, not he. Indeed, he believed that the very term liberal had been hijacked.”
Hijacked?
Why?
Please understand why words are re-defined, why they are misused on purpose.
Next up is a "positive" stream of information while the perceiver keeps in mind the above information - please.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/615.html
Note the fixation on "The Founding Fathers" and "The Constitution". Note the irony (if in deed it is ironic) of claiming to "wake up" while supporting a tyrannical document (The Constitution). Please see this for what it is, since The Constitution is like an evil sandwich on liberty bread; where The Declaration of Independence is the first slice of liberty bread and The Bill of Rights is the second slice of liberty bread and in between is the evil (involuntary association) Constitution (outlaws voluntary association).
If those guys (Oath takers, Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and the "Info-warriors") are "positive" and their goal is stated (lied or falsified) to be Liberty while they support an involuntary association (The Constitution), then they become agents of tyranny by fraud or by willful desire depending upon their own level of understanding.
A. They know that The Constitution prescribes Tyranny and the go along with it on purpose.
B. They are tricked into going along with The Constitution because they confuse The Constitution with voluntary associations like The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.
If the perceiver considers my perception on this to be too critical, too skeptical, or too precise, think please about the old saying: The Devil is in the Details.
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/
First up, is the active duty combat arms soldier who sounded off, amazed and outraged that he is considered a threat, and reminding the DHS personnel that they took the same oath that he did, to defend the Constitution.
Think about this old saying: Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, think about that and know that The Constitution authorizes a draft where “draft dodging” is punishable by that “lawful order” that Constitution thing.
Do you think that I am on crack? The fight against The British in the war from 1775 to 1783 was fought and won without a draft and without The Constitution. The “Nation” was then 13 separate and sovereign States, by law, and the law then was a voluntary association called: The Articles of Confederation. Think what you may about the word Confederate but know that The Articles of Confederation did not outlaw voluntary associations and know that The Constitution does outlaw voluntary associations.
I can explain what is meant by “outlaw voluntary associations”. The separate and sovereign states could secede from The Articles of Confederation at any time, it was the law then. Any two States, or three States, or four States, or any number of States could join or leave “The (voluntary) Union” at will. If a State leaves “The (voluntary) Union” it can then make a new voluntary union with another State that leaves “The (voluntary) Union”.
Think about that please. Suppose, for example, that one voluntary union begins to over tax the people, and that same “voluntary” union begins to execute aggressive foreign wars for profit at the expense of innocent victims, and that same “voluntary” union begins to conscript (enslave) an involuntary military army for suppression of rebellions at home. Think about that please.
Can the voluntary union citizens secede from that “voluntary” union whereby the owners of that “voluntary” union become criminal torturers and mass murderers? If not, why not? Why would the owners of the supposedly “voluntary” union outlaw the refusal to be connected to, to associate with, to pay taxes toward, a fraudulent Union? The answer is clearly a need by the legal criminals to out-law people forming “A more perfect union”.
Clearly the need by the legal criminals is to out-law competition. If two states, or three states, or four states, or many states succeed from the criminal union, where torture and mass murder for profit is not only lawful: it is common place, if those states that refuse to be connected to legal crime unite into “a more perfect union”, the fraudulent U.S.A will have to compete with the “more perfect union”.
See?
Last edited on Sat May 9th, 2009 08:55 am by Joe Kelley