 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
National Liberty Alliance Monday Meetup 10/28/2013
My offers of information began at time 43:00
On the subject of "What are we fighting for, who are we fighting against, and how best to reach the goal?"
If we are fighting for Liberty, then we can't be fighting for our power to defend against our enslavement SO AS TO THEN become masters of other people who we make into slaves.
If we are fighting in defense of Liberty (no slaves) then we can't enslave people so as to reach our goal, we can't enslave people once we reach our goal, and we can't enslave people after we reach our goal, if, in fact, our goal is to defend Liberty (no slaves).
The Con Con in 1787 was a combination of Central Bankers and Human Slavers ENDING LIBERTY in this country we call America.
If someone listens to the words spoken by John someone may become very confused as to what is a country, what is a nation state, what is a republic, and what is a federation.
If the goal is to confuse people, then the goal can be reached easily.
A country is a place on earth where people live in agreement to defend Liberty as the people in that country govern themselves by consent.
A country is a place on earth where the common bond is a common agreement to figure out what exactly constitutes agreement each new day during each new life.
A country is a place on earth whereby the trials and errors of the people finding agreement become, over time, something known as the law of the country.
Are these words, such as the word country, my exclusive property or are these words, such as the word country, an ancient cultural tradition handed down from generation to generation among free people who find ways to find agreement so as to defend Liberty?
Is the definition of what the word country means, here, here offered to you the reader, my exclusive interpretation of the word country, or is the definition being offered, so as to clear up any confusion, something shared, as in a shared agreement over many generations going back through centuries of time?
Evidence:
Records of Courts
Quote:
That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
May a candid world reflect upon the accurate meaning, intended meaning, of the word country, so as to offer something and hope for an agreement that spreads far and wide, at least as far as the boarders of a country.
In other words, the country is not meant to be a word that becomes a Legal Fiction.
If the word country becomes a Legal Fiction then the word country become a "government" so called.
A. Here is the country
B. Here is the government
Which one of the two (A or B) employs, or exists before the other, which then precedes, and then creates, the other one?
A. Here is where the employers exist, within this geographical area on this planet.
B. Here, in this geographical area on this planet, these people here create something that they voluntarily agree to maintain once it is created, and the people's voluntary creation, that they create, and that they maintain, is called by them a "government" so called.
A. Here in this country are all these people who agree to create and maintain something for their benefit.
B. Here is what they create.
Which comes first?
A. The country
B. The government
Who employs, who is then employed?
A. The people who are alive within the geographical area of a country
B. The number less than the whole number who are paid as employees, hired by the whole number (in agreement) whereby the employees are hired to specialize at certain jobs, to reach certain goals, in defense of Liberty, which is the universal, agreed upon, goal of government, without exception.
Those who except themselves, those who do not agree with the concept of forming a voluntary government in defense of Liberty are called by a useful name.
A. The people who agree to form a government in their country in defense of Liberty, ever single person who is capable of understanding simple common sense agrees with the absolute necessity to defend against those POWERS that destroy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, or other such wordings that convey an indisputable necessity BECAUSE there are POWERS that WILL destroy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, WITHOUT agreement to work toward effective defense.
B. The Employees hired to defend Liberty because the Employees are competitively chosen as the BEST (highest quality and lowest cost) at that work of defending Liberty.
C. Those who do not agree BECAUSE they are among the number of people who constitute one of the POWERS that work to reach the goal of destroying Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So what is the accurate word for the place where free people live in agreement whereby the universal agreement becomes, over time, a cultural agreement handed down from generation to generation, whereby these people always end up agreeing to defend Liberty? What is the name for that place where free people exist on this planet?
The word is COUNTRY, in context, in history, from England, imported to America, for a candid world to know.
So what is the word the accurately identifies the people who do not agree to work in defense of Liberty AND these people also agree to destroy Liberty, so what is the word for that group of people who seek to steal, rob, rape, enslave, torture, murder, and mass murder innocent people who exist in a country where Liberty exists EXCEPT for the actions perpetrated by these criminals?
The word is criminals.
A. The country (all are doing just fine without the "help" offered by criminals)
B. Criminals invading, stealing, robbing, raping, enslaving, torturing, murdering, and mass murdering.
C. A means by which the POWER of B is less than the POWER of A above.
What is a good word for C above?
1. Government by consent, or voluntary government, or self government, or Rule of Law whereby no one is above the Law, and everyone without exception is processed the same way by the Law, for those who agree with the Law, and despite those who agree to BE CRIMINALS.
2. Republic
3. Federation
4. State
I know that my comments, that I offer, are long winded, however there is a need to communicate accurately, failure to do so can lead to innocent people being punished for no good reason.
The MEANING behind the WORD is more important than the actual WORD.
Which MEANING is better before choosing which WORD is better when answering the question concerning WHAT is employed by the people in defense of Liberty?
A number of people are hired by a number of people doing the hiring, and these employees are hired to specialize in defending innocent people as innocent people are being attacked by CRIMINALS; whereby those CRIMINALS prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they do not agree to work in defense of Liberty.
If the number of CRIMINALS attacking the number of innocent victims is a small number, then it makes no sense for people in New York to hire defenders of Liberty in defense against 2 guys in California who are currently robbing 1 little girl at a sidewalk lemon-aid stand, whereby the little girl has turned a cardboard box upside down, and the little girl now has a handful of pennies that the CRIMINALS are stealing from the little girl.
The dad walks out and tells the two boys who are stepping outside of the common law of the country, law of the land, and the dad says to the two boys that they best return the pennies fast before the mom finds out what is happening.
A band of 1,000 CRIMINALS land by boat into San-Francisco Bay.
Is that any concern for the people of New York?
If Liberty is defendable in New York by free people then free people can defend Liberty in California.
One Constitutionally Limited Republic is almost as good as another, and when one becomes despotic, no longer capable of defending Liberty, then all the other Constitutionally Limited Republics can figure out a way to help the people in their country out of a jam.
When California becomes a despotic tyranny whereby Liberty is against the law because the CRIMINALS took over that former Constitutionally Limited Republic, then New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Texas, on and on, can offer California victims of Tyranny a place to run, as the runaway slaves runaway from the Tyranny in California, they can run to find sanctuary in other Constitutionally Limited Republics since California is temporarily no longer part of the free country because the CRIMINALS took over in California.
What happens if the largest band of CRIMINALS ever to exist on the planet land by air, sea, and land into New England, California, Texas, Alaska, Washington "State," Florida, and Kansas, all at once?
What can all those Constitutionally Limited Republics, governed by employees hired by the people in this country, do, as a competitive, voluntary, alternative to being overrun, enslaved, by such a large army of CRIMINALS?
Feed them our first born to roast on their fires as they consume everything and everyone in sight?
No.
The concept of DETERRENCE is not a new idea.
If all the people in this country agree to defend Liberty at home, in our towns, in our cities, in our counties, and in our Constitutionally Limited Republics, or States, then it stands to reason that we the people can agree to a voluntary alliance of States forming a voluntary Union known as a Federation.
The Federal government is there for DETERRENCE against very large armies of CRIMINALS, whereby the CRIMINAL army is larger than any POWER that can exist in any of the individual States.
One small Constitutionally Limited Republic (not small compared to a county, or city, or town, or family, or church, or dad, or mom, or 2 boys, or a little girl) may be smaller than 50 Consolidated Regions Joined into ONE CRIMINAL POWER of MONOPOLY FRAUD (Banking or FEDeral Reserve) and EXTORTION (IRS).
The more States that join the Federation the better, as a means of DETERRENCE, as a DEFENSIVE POWER too large to overcome by any other lesser POWER unless the CRIMINALS have become INSANE to the point of absolute FOLLY.
The Federal Government MUST be very limited in POWER because of the real possibility of having enemies of Liberty (also known as CRIMINALS) USURPING that POWER in that Federal Government and then that massive POWER of DETERRENCE is no longer DEFENSIVE it becomes OFFENSIVE instead.
What is the POWER that LIMITS a Federal Government?
Each State pays into, or does not pay into, the Federal Government AT WILL.
Each State is the SOLE, ONLY, LIMITED, source of POWER flowing from States into the Federal Government.
As soon as the Employees hired by the States to run the Federal Government gain direct access to TAX the people of this country (in each Constitutionally Limited Republic), involuntarily, is the exact moment at which Liberty is USURPED, as if crossing the proverbial Rubicon.
So, I am verbose, stupid, divisive, disruptive, on and on and on. But I am not alone.
George Mason against "PROGRESSIVE" involuntary taxation
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.
An unfunded Despotic Gang of Criminals does not last any longer that their ability to feed upon themselves.
Take the two boys spoken of earlier as they go from lemon-aid stand to lemon-aid stand, stealing from all the little girls, while the moms and dad are too busy working to pay their false Federal Income Taxes. Those two boys end up rich because the little girls keep on paying their extortion fees?
No, the little girls have to invent a way to cooperate with each other, there has to be many little girls in proportion to the 2 criminal boys, and once unified in defense, the little girls make the 2 boys an offer they can't refuse.
Leave us alone, your revenue stream no longer exists, if you two boys make one more move on any one of us, count your days remaining in our country, for they will be miserable for you, and few in number.
That may or may not be clear enough to convey the concept of Voluntary Taxation (Competitive but not Antagonistic Liberty) versus Involuntary Taxation (Monopoly Antagonistic Crime made Legal or Fraud and Extortion).
A simpler version may work better. Simply put the concept of a Federation is like a ship being built with many bulkheads to be closed when there is a breach to the hull.
Suppose you have a small boat and you are fishing. Your boat springs a leak. If you don't bail out the water your boat sinks. That is a Nation State that may start out as a Constitutionally Limited Republic, but as soon as it springs a leak, it will sink, unless all the States start bailing water, because the leak floods every State at once.
Now suppose that you have a well built ship, where there are many compartments that can be closed off and isolated if one compartment becomes Despotic with a leak that allows the Criminals to flood into that compartment. Now, with this design called a Federation, the employees hired to watch for leaks can close down the boarders of that compartment so as to avoid having the leak spreading into the rest of the boat.
If the compartment is worth saving, then the rest of the compartments can work to repair the leak in that part of their country. Those in the compartment that is leaking, who want to save their compartment, are busy bailing out the water (finding the criminals and dealing with the criminals even if the criminals are in "office"), but those compartments (states) within the ship (federation) that are not leaking are not consumed with the need to bail out the water, they have no leaks, so the whole country doesn't sink.
The Federation can be confused in this analogy with the country. The country is the ship itself, including all the non-criminal people, meaning the people who are not actively working to sink the ship. On the other hand, there is the Federation, which is not the ship, rather the Federation is the people hired to keep water out of the ship. It is a country, not a ship, so there is no Captain steering the ship, each person steers their own ship. in each compartment. The Federation is only there to keep water out (Defense of Liberty or defense against very large Armies that threaten to sink the ship).
So the idea is to do something with this Ship, this Country, to keep out the water that will sink the ship if nothing effective is done to defend against leaks, or criminals, large or small. Those hired to keep the water out, may fail in one State, or two, or three, and if there are 50 States, 50 compartments, then the Employees have to be really, really, really, bad at their jobs to somehow manage to ignore massive leaks in each State.
But that is how a Federation works.
We don't have a Federation. We had a Federation in between 1776 and 1788 under The Articles of Confederation, but that ended in 1788. What was done in 1788 was the same as having some of the Employees defect from our number and they joined the number of people who want to sink the boat (create Despotism or Crime made Legal). What was done by the defectors, the Criminals, is in this analogy, was that those representatives of the water, the ones who want to sink our boat, sink our country, sink each Constitutionally Limited Republic, sink our Federation, what they did was to remove the dividing walls between each compartment in the ship. All that needed to be done at that point was to make a few holes and everyone sinks at once.
Three holes were put in our former Federation when the criminals took over in 1788.
1. Create an Involuntary Tax whereby everyone, in each former Constitutionally Limited Republic, had to pay that Tax or be subjected to even greater punishment. An involuntary Tax is punishment, a voluntary Tax is an investment in the cause of defending Liberty, so confusing this is a contribution toward sinking the ship.
2. Create a National Debt Pyramid scheme whereby the earned credit of the people in the Nation State is borrowed from those people and then used to buy everything that is necessary in keeping the Extortion racket going, which means that all those people who can be inspired to JOIN the criminal gang will get bonuses, and all those people who dare to question the Authority of the Criminal Gang will suffer punishment. This is such an incredible FRAUD as to work amazingly well, whereby the actual victims are then asking the Criminals if the Criminals will return back some of the money that the Criminals stole, and the victims pay those same Criminals for the privilege of using the money that was stolen by the Criminals, but given back at "interest," to the victims.
In other words, the Central Banking Criminals create fraudulent paper money backed by their ability to Extort money from their "Tax Payers," and then those Central Banking Criminals "loan" the money they stole back to the people they steal the money from, and the people they stole the money from pay the Central Banking Criminals "interest" on that stolen loot that was stolen from the "borrowers."
In other words, the Central Banking Criminals claim that the money they borrow (debt to THEM, it is their DEBT because they are the ones doing the BORROWING) is their money so the Central Banking Criminals then claim that they are loaning the money they stole as if it were their money, and they loan that money they stole back to the people they stole it from, and then they charge interest on top of the fact that they are loaning out the money they borrowed from the people they stole the money from.
So, that is only difficult to convey with words because it actually works that way, and therefore, obviously, the victims are thoroughly confused, or the victims would not let those Central Banking Criminals "borrow" another penny.
So John, and possibly ever other member of The National Liberty Alliance, save for a few exceptions, are deluded into thinking that Washington was on the side of Liberty.
Washington almost lost the Revolutionary War with is capacity to create Tyranny out of Liberty.
That is well documented by Murray Rothbard.
Here
Quote
Washington Transforms the Army
In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
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.
It would be one thing to be skeptical of information that contends with a prevailing opinion, yet another thing to refuse to listen to reason.
The warnings of George Mason were well founded as to the Monopolistic Nature of Involuntary Taxation. No sooner than the ship of Federation was rebuilt into a leaking life boat (no longer having any insulated compartments) did the Usurpers begin to TAX the people into DEBT SLAVERY.
Here is George Washington's official Edict:
Obey without Question
Quote
And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.
In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- four, and of the independence of the United States of America the nineteenth.
G. WASHINGTON,
By the President, Edm. Randolph
Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794
Following are sources that help convey the accurate history in such a way as to confirm the reasoning already well said by many people who prefer not to sink the country into Despotism.
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
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.
And from that same book:
"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."
The word country can be confused with the word Nation State.
Why?
The term common law can be confused with a version of Common Law that is a form of Admiralty Law known as Equity Law, or government by fraud and extortion, or Crime made Legal.
The word Federation can be confused with a person who is called an Anti-Federalist.
Why?
Here are the words of a so called Anti-Federalist
In defense of Liberty
The history of Switzerland clearly proves that we might be in amicable alliance with those states without adopting this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity; for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together; they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, republican simplicity, and valor.
That same person faced similar threats to Liberty earlier in his life when he is quoted as follows:
Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
Why is the word Confederation and Federation confusing people?
If the meaning is to maintain Involuntary Association then the meaning is offered by criminals.
If the meaning is to maintain Liberty, then the meaning is consent of the governed, which is the same meaning as Voluntary Association, which includes Trial and Error in the effort to invent, produce, and maintain competitive methods of defending innocent people from crimes perpetrated by criminals ESPECIALLY criminals with false contracts, false deals, false words, false meanings, false terms, false flags, false front, false badges, false money, and false governments.
That is why a Federal and not a National Union of Constitutionally Limited Republics is designed to IMPROVE over time, as free market forces WORK in the form of Voluntary Tax Investors seek to invest in the best government (defense of Liberty) that money can buy as they shop for the one place in the country where the people avoid Crime made Legal best, according to their own, individual, estimate of which way is the best way to defend Liberty.
If shoppers are shopping for the best liars, then a Nation State works best as the best method of making your investments in liars pay off for you at the expense of whoever is targeted with those lies.
Investors in liars don't target the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless, what would be the point?
Investors in liars always target anyone who has anything (such as Liberty) worth stealing from them.