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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Swiss  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 09:48 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

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 onfederated. 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.


Look at the peasants of that country and of France; and mark the difference. You will find the condition of the former far more desirable and comfortable. No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be as abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave.


That is part of Patrick Henry's fight against The Constitution. He lost. We lost. Liberty was sold for a dollar.

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,101/Itemid,59/

 

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 09:55 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/05/nightmare-made-real-torture-murder-and.html

You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.



 
http://www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,101/Itemid,59/

Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections? The control given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of suffrage. The elections may be held at one place, and the most inconvenient in the state; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suffrage: hence nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers; for the most influential characters will be applied to, to know who are the most proper to be chosen.

I repeat, the control of Congress over the manner, &c., of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, that this democratic branch will possess none of the public confidence; the people will be prejudiced against representatives chosen in such an injudicious manner. The proceedings in the northern conclave will be hidden from the yeomanry of this country. We are told that the yeas and nays shall be taken, and entered on the journals. This, sir, will avail nothing: it may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy: they may think, and will think, the whole requires it.

Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is, the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: it may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked; they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress.

I say they may ruin you; for where, sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will show you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves; for, after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to publish and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it.

Where is the responsibility—that leading principle in the British government? In that government, a punishment certain and inevitable is provided; but in this, there is no real, actual punishment for the
grossest mal-administration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, By what law? They must make the law, for there is no existing law to do it. What! will they make a law to punish themselves?

This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility—and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real and not imaginary responsibility; for the mal-administration has cost their heads to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were.


 

Last edited on Thu May 8th, 2008 10:08 am by Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 04:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 12:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north626.html

WHY TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY?
For well over a century, statisticians have known that predictions made by large numbers of people – over a thousand – are more accurate than predictions made by experts. This phenomenon was discovered by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, who was a statistician. He did an experiment at a county fair. He asked a large number of attendees to estimate the butchered weight of an ox. There was a contest to see who could estimate it most accurately. He found that the average of the estimate was more accurate than the guesses made by livestock experts.
This phenomenon has been repeated for over a century. Again and again, the results are the same. An average of the guesses turns out to be very accurate. This fact and some of its implications were summarized in a best-selling book in 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki.

 
 
Now look back at Patrick Henry's version:

What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:—that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."


This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!


If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so.


 


When the majority has the power to abolish criminal governments by law while the majority does not have the power to enact and enforce law, please see this, the criminal governments will not require the majority, or the minority, to abolish criminal government by fraud or force.

Criminal governments will oppose the transfer, by law, of power to the majority for abolishing criminal governments while criminal governments favor transfer of power to the majority for enacting and enforcing law.

Please see this clearly. When the majority have the power to abolish criminal governments (Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Trial by Jury, Swiss Republic, and Articles of Confederation during the Revolutionary War 1776) that power is purely defensive. When anyone (Majority that is free from propaganda, brain washing, conditioned response, behavioral modification, false advertising, etc. or even a Majority that is SUBJECTED to propaganda, brain washing, conditioned response, behavioral modification, false advertising, etc. or Kings, or Parliaments, or Congresses, or Senates, or Judiciary, or Police, or Public Military, or even Private Military) if anyone has the power to enact and enforce law that POWER can be abused and that POWER can become a criminal POWER employed in the work of injuring innocence for profit.

Therefore, and henceforth, any power to enact and enforce law which becomes criminal must first eliminate the power to abolish criminal governments. Please answer this question: What were delegates sent to Philadelphia, behind closed doors, in secret proceedings, to accomplish? The end result was The Constitution. The stated reason, for public consumption, was to pay off war debt, and other things. The power of the Majority to abolish criminal governments ended with the removal of The Articles of Confederation and the enactment and enforcement of The Constitution.

Ever since then there has been almost no practical legal method for The People to abolish a criminal government bent upon injuring innocent people for profit. However some people did so anyway.

Example:


http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/battleofathensessaycontest.htm


More and more power flows from The People to the criminals as time goes by if the means by which that power flow is conducted will not improve. Here is where optimism can be found. In the first place the flow of power is intellectual. The People are finding ways to bypass the propaganda, the response conditioning, fear mongering, the brain washing, behavioral modification, and false advertising. Internet access is nearly in the air now. How long before phone bills are a thing of the past?


In the second place that conduit of power is physical and The People are finding ways around the Oil, around the coal, around the central processing units of old and costly power sources. Solar Panels, Wind Generators, Electric Cars, and cost-less energy sources like Fusion power may soon eliminate energy costs.

In the third place is money. This place is nearly lost already for the criminal governments. Combined with the other three powers above the power of money tips the balance into the hands of The People, the majority, and this power can abolish criminal governments even if you don’t like it.

Use your brain while you have one.

 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 01:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north626.html

The thought that the bookie then posts a chart in the free section of his website . . . well, it's clearly un-American. I know this must be true, because when a free market economist, Robin Hanson, recommended the creation of a betting site for future terrorist acts, in order to better assess their likelihood, there was such a firestorm of criticism from Congress that the Defense Department dropped the idea the day after news of the suggestion hit the media. When a free market solution for a better system than the colored terrorism alert system used by the government, Congress saw red. That was in 2003. It seems even more un-American today.

 

Please know more about that stuff quoted above. That stuff is also labeled as Put Optoins or Futures. There is much more to this stuff than what may be easily seen on the surface.

You may get a better handle on what this stuff is if you read the following link:

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm

I won't quote from that and I do not support that type of power abuse. That type of power abuse isn't merely theoretical. That type of stuff goes on today.



Here is an example:

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

 


Insider Trading
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits


 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 09:39 am  
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Swiss Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems