| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Natural or Common | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun May 12th, 2013 11:49 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Taking tie time to review some past findings I am directing focus of willful attention upon the following link: Public Trust Here is a quote: Corporate Government then assumes financial control of your estate, and they – aware that most of us do in fact live beyond 7 – continue to treat us as living slaves. The funds generated by monetizing your life – using you as collateral – are loaned to you when you apply for bank finance, mortgages etc. The link dives into an area that could be called Common Law or Natural Law, even God's Law - I don't know. I found this so far: Crime made Legal? On that page just linked above I found my friend Bill Foust again; that is the same Bill Foust who was shot and killed by a single employee of government so called. Bill Foust speaking about Policy Then: Winston Shrout Significant information on: The National Debt Creators Without a personal income tax, it is hard to have a central bank. It takes a lot of money to finance all of the government debt that a central banking system creates. It is no accident that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Federal Reserve system was also created in 1913. They have a symbiotic relationship and they are designed to work together. Actually the 16th Amendment (so called) was not ratified in an accurate sense, or moral sense, since the crime of fraud is a crime, not the genuine thing, the genuine thing, such as ratification, is an honest thing, an accurate thing, while a fraud, a crime, is a crime, so failure to know the difference is a significant failure.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 12th, 2013 01:30 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Working on the above links I was sent to a speech by John Kennedy and these words: You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. If you can remember our discussions of Stephen Pearl Andrews with his work on Equitable Commerce, and during that exchange I linked a discussion on the distracting subject of Marriage. Do you remember who was engaged in discussion with Steven Pearl Andrews? Also, on this subject, the time period was that Obamination called The Civil War, and afterwards, when the words was turning up side down. It was Steven Pearl Andrews, the Russian named Bakunin, who were thrown out of those meetings that were called The International, which were financed by a few notable people, and clearly orders were given to censor the perspectives of Liberty. What is the tool used to defend Liberty?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 12th, 2013 03:58 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Here is a quote from one of the One People's Public Trust pages. Common Law refers to laws of precedent developed through the decisions of courts and similar tribunals over millennia. Common Law works on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions, and on the principle of “do no harm, cause no loss”.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon May 13th, 2013 11:47 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Stumbling and finding things off the beaten path? The Music Connection? Now if any man in compassion to the miseries of a people should endeavour to disabuse them in anything relating to government, he will certainly incur the displeasure, and perhaps be pursued by the rage of those, who think they find their account in the oppression of the world; but will hardly succeed in his endeavours to undeceive the multitude. The date is MDCXCVIII 1697 Neither could the frontier towards Scotland afford any colour to those princes for raising such forces, since the Kings of Scotland had none; and that Scotland was not able to give money for the subsisting any considerable number. It is true, the example of France, with which country Scotland had constant correspondence, and some French counsellors about Mary of Guise, Queen dowager and regent of Scotland, induced her to propose a tax for the subsisting of mercenary soldiers to be employed for the defence of the frontier of Scotland; and to ease, as was pretended, the barons of that trouble. But in that honourable and wise remonstrance, which was made by three hundred of the lesser barons (as much dissatisfied with the lords, who by their silence betrayed the public liberty, as with the Regent herself) she was told, that their forefathers had defended themselves and their fortunes against the English, when that nation was much more powerful than they were at that time, and had made frequent incursions into their country: that they themselves had not so far degenerated from their ancestors, to refuse, when occasion required, to hazard their lives and fortunes in the service of their country: that as to the hiring of mercenary soldiers, it was a thing of great danger to put the liberty of Scotland into the hands of men, who are of no fortunes, nor have any hopes but in the public calamity; who for money would attempt anything; whose excessive avarice opportunity would inflame to a desire of all manner of innovations, and whose faith would follow the wheel of fortune. That though these men should be more mindful of the duty they owe to their country, than of their own particular interest, was it to be supposed, that mercenaries would fight more bravely for the defence of other men's fortunes, than the possessors would do for themselves or their own; or that a little money should excite their ignoble minds to a higher pitch of honour than that with which the barons are inspired, when they fight for the preservation of their fortunes, wives and children, religion and liberty: that most men did suspect and apprehend, that this new way of making war, might be not only useless, but dangerous to the nation; since the English, if they should imitate the example, might, without any great trouble to their people, raise far greater sums for the maintenance of mercenary soldiers, than Scotland could, and by this means not only spoil and lay open the frontier, but penetrate into the bowels of the kingdom: and that it was in the militia of the barons their ancestors had placed their chief trust, for the defence of themselves against a greater power."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon May 13th, 2013 12:26 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I wanted to add comments to the last quote in the last reply but again the idiot me could not find a way to get out of the confines of that quote "feature." Note again: Period before, or period after, the quote? Essentially the concept expressed in the words quoted from Fletcher concern the two methods of political economy compared as such: 1. Defenders of their own Liberty, property, regardless of how that property was acquired, have incentive to defend that property they have acquired. 2. Those having no property owned, acquired, under their control, those who may be paying "rent," and those same individuals who are then employed, hired, commissioned, or otherwise "paid" to defend property that is not theirs, have an incentive to take, acquire, or otherwise control said property, not defend it.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:41 am | |
| Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Natural or Common | Top |
