2 votes

July 4th 2013 Liberty Day Challenge

Two directions are possible from this moment on as proven by historical precedent. Either be subjected to suffering by Legalized Criminals and be forced to pay all debts collected in that evil enterprise or move in the direction of Liberty.

Make my day.

How about July 4th 2013?

If by that date the American people, as one, have invented, produced, and supplied a number of competitive legal monies, then those American people will take back their power to prosper, at will, for their own and for posterity.

Sign on in spirit or sign on in actual reality, either way the days will move in a direction and the Legal Criminals score their progress with or without your willful participation toward their goal of absolute despotism.

May God have mercy on our souls.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hit and run

Bear,

Don't spend any cost on lost words on my account, no worries, the practice of employing words can generate competitive examples, some are keepers, some not, and all of that is the past, and therefore the current efforts may prove to be worth more than whatever was lost in the past.

"Didn’t Ben Franklin subsidize Paine?"

That is an interesting use of the word "subsidize" in many ways relating to those two individuals since Franklin was very well connected into government and probably much more connected into voluntary government than any other competitive individual so the concept of "subsidy" in voluntary government could be diametrically opposite the current, or normal, or fashionable, modern, use of the word "subsidy" as now these transfers of power called "subsidy" are generally crimes made legal (since taxes are involuntary by way of fraud and extortion made legal).

So...the letter of recommendation written by Franklin and transferred to Paine, to help Paine communicate a measure of Credit to other people in America, can be seen as a subsidy.

Do you have other information concerning other forms of subsidy transferred from Franklin to Paine other than the letter or recommendation?

Here is a quick search on Google on that connection:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2921030?uid=3739560&ui...

Note: An Interest in Electricity (powerful currency)

BREAK (what I normally do is copy, paste, and publish after BREAK, to save my work, but the earlier LOST text was sent in a rush and upon return there was no 403 ERROR, the work was lost, as I did not take the time to confirm the Save at the Save button before going AFK (Away From Keyboard))

"Was Franklin a good guy?"

I ask the same question and I have a chore to do in finding the answer, finding a more competitive answer, in a competitive analysis of three things as such:

The Articles of Confederation
The Constitution (enforced criminally despite The Bill of Rights)
Franklin wrote a Constitution or two

Having those documents judged accurately and competitively against each other might shed a whole lot of light on the question of Franklin's Special Interests.

I've heard of a possible competitive offering produced by Franklin as a version of The Constitution, and I'm not sure if my memory serves me well enough to confirm that his competitive offering was offered to those people who actually empowered The Constitution into being "The Law of the Land" (Fraudulent Law = Might makes Right not God's Law followed as in "The Golden Rule") and Franklin's version was rejected.

Is that clear?

I think the Franklin heard about the Usurpation in progress, which later became known as THE Constitution Convention (Con Con) in Philadelphia, and since Franklin was no dummy, then Franklin must have know about the forces that made The Dirty Compromise, a deal made between North Legal Criminals and their Banking Monopoly Power, such as Hamilton, and the Southern Slave Traders, so the story goes that Franklin produced and published his version of The Constitution if he could have been powerful enough to make his version THE version that worked for who?

See?

So what was in Franklin's Constitution that was not in The Constitution enforced by Legal Criminals?

Was there a 3/5ths clause in Franklin's Constitution making Slavery Legal, with provisions for "suppressing (slave) rebellions", and provisions for returning "runaway slaves", etc.?

Franklin had to know about Shays's Rebellion, which was the spark that lit the call for a Con Con in the first place. The Bankers and the Slavers saw the writing on the wall when Rebels refuse to pay involuntary taxes and those Rebellious Tax Slaves runaway from one State to another State withIN Liberty, as IN being IN a Democratic Federated Republic such as was the case with The Articles of Confederation.

So...If Franklin's Constitution also made Direct Taxation of The People from The Federal (National) Employees LEGAL, then Franklin was in the Legal Crime club.

See?

If Franklin's Constitution Consolidated all the Separate and Sovereign State Governments into ONE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT or Involuntary Union that is Indivisible, where each person in each State had to pay their "fair share" without question, then Franklin was in the Club.

That is non-negotiable paper, do you see?

People hired as representatives to run their autonomous (free) State governments were fooled by Hamilton and the Gang of Legal Criminals, into thinking that The Constitution would preserve and secure their Liberty to pay, or not pay, for a Central Government with a Central Bank (which were things borrowed by The Communists such as Lenin and Stalin), and the fools were fooled into believing that they could join or un-join (secede) from the Union if they so desired, if their employers The People demanded to be removed from the list of Criminals Connected to a Despotic Nation State.

What does Franklin say about such things?

We can't ask him.

But I think Franklin wrote and published a competitive Constitution (he may have even had a big hand in the State Constitution of Pennsylvania, but I'm not well versed on these angles of view), so there is evidence that can help someone today if the goal is to know better on such questions concerning who is a Friend and who is a Foe, and what exactly constitutes a Friend of Liberty and what exactly constitutes a Criminal with or without a Badge.

Break (I have to get things done as soon as someone else is "ready")

______________________________________________

I was meaning that the Legal Criminals use Communism to achieve the ends to their goals. Is that a wrong view?

What does it mean for the Legal Criminals to put on their McCarthyism hats?
______________________________________________

Preemptive Legal Crime may be a useful term at this point. If the Legal Criminals have very close ties with Ex-Communists from Stalin's Bolshevism, and close ties with, or actually are, Ex-Nazis from Hitlers Germany, and they know that there will be efforts made by The Victims (productive people) to expose those connections and then, having those skeletons flung out of those closets, millions of skeletons by the way, then they may figure out ways to Preemptively Cover Up those possible Threats to their Current Power.

Enter Stage Left: Joe McCarthy?

What does Joe McCarthy end up supplying in Spades?

McCarthyism.

What is it?

What does it do, what is the end result of McCarthyism?

Do all the innocent people end up going to jail?

Do all the guilty people stay in power?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, is this NEWS?

No, this is variations on the same Monopoly Theme where Might is made Right, which, as you know, is wrong, it is a lie, it is fraud, and it is fraud made legal.

Were Joe McCarthy an actual force for good, would the wrong people have been punished for the crimes that continued, and became worse, perpetrated by the guilty, even after McCarthyism?

How can the power of any true Friend of Liberty be turned into a power that empowers Legal Criminals?

How may ways can you count?

I have a short list.

1.
Deceit targeting the innocent.
2.
Threats of violence targeting the innocent.
3.
Violence targeting the innocent.

What proof do I have?

Piles and piles of tortured and dead people, how much proof is needed?

How can you find the real culprits?

I can offer a plan of attack that isn't my invention, so I am not the Lone Conspiracy Theorist, when I offer the logical answer, I'm just the messenger.

How can YOU find the real culprits if you put on your Juror Hat?

Follow the Fraud Money Monopoly to the source.

I found a guy named Alexander Hamilton.

He was shot dead by Arron Burr.

Case closed?

Really?

BREAK

Before I get going I see a need to address something that you bring up later (if my memory works) concerning Blanket Statements Covering Everyone as if Everyone is infected and NO ONE IS PRODUCTIVE, or Honest, or good, etc.

I do not say such things, so if you think such things then you have to look elsewhere for such things being invented, produced, and maintained. I am the guy who says that there is no way that human beings are still existing, still going forth and multiplying, without LIBERTY being enforced by enough of us UPON enough of us, as we apply Instructions, and Understanding, provided by God, in such demonstrable ways as can be categorized IN The Golden Rule.

Very roughly: the existence of surplus wealth (having more power at the end of the day compared to the total power available at the start of the day) accurately measures the POWER OF LIBERTY (a.k.a, The Golden Rule, or even The Word of God).

So long as people still find happiness, again roughly speaking, so can We The People still measure or Liberty.

Just because some of us find happiness when some of us are busy torturing others, and murdering them, does not make all of us torturing mass murderers.

Again I am wanting to find words that return to the surface of my thinking where those words were written by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, in his book titled The Gulag Archipelago, concerning human beings who never give up on good principle.

There are very good examples of good people, not just Jesus, and so if someone is claiming otherwise, it is not me, in fact I am claiming that the total measure of good will always be more power than the total measure of bad so long as a living being remains alive.

Break

AFK more than usual for awhile

Joe

Grey

Grey as in digging a hole and then filling in the hole.

Instead of effective action aimed at ending the flow that constitutes the victims providing the means by which the victims suffer, the victims are being led, by ignorance, or misplaced misdirection, to "protest" some THING.

They have to work harder to get more Federal Reserve Notes to buy a day off to then buy travel expenses, to then meet and discuss when the next protest might be on the schedule?

So, in effect, they grow weaker, expending their valuable time and energy, buying more Federal Reserve Notes, so as to then be in a position to afford to stop producing the value that is worth stealing, and the POWER supply is thereby shrunk, and the Power supply is less at the Production end, so relatively speaking the Crime end of the Power Struggle is made relatively more powerful as the victims grow weaker.

With solutions like that who needs problems?

Joe

Color Blind

OK, Thank you for your fine analysis and time and energy spent providing a way for me to understand.

Will you tell me what color this is?

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/CTTM2012/Alan_Watt_CT...

Will you listen to all of it?

Do you want me to quit bothering you?

Weaponized media

A new term I have not heard before, weaponized media, is said in that link.

Call it Legal Crime Monopoly Power, or call it Weaponized Media, it is exemplified in the case of Josiah Warren finding censorship when he tried to advertize his Equitable Commerce Process, so what was the SOLUTION?

Invent his own printing press and thereby defend against those Weaponized Media THINGS.

Alan says "always has been" weaponized media, and so I stopped to confirm that understanding, with the example already reported, as Josiah Warren, in 1840 or so, had a solution in defense of Liberty against weaponized media of Modern Times (19th century).

I can continue listening, I got work done yesterday, and I just happen to be up early this morning with the POWER STRUGGLE going on heavily in my mind, which is not a burden, it just IS.

I can continue listening, but I will be looking for solutions, not more of The Doom Day Parade.

"I have never seen government ever listen to the people."

I have a problem with that for two reasons.

1.
Many people confuse responsibility, which is individual, with THINGS.

2.
Government can't listen, people can, so if Alan expects a thing to listen, then he is expecting the impossible.

I can go on and on on just those problems, and we already went through this with the differences between Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell concerning what can be done and what cannot be done by people in the effort to listen to each other.

Lew Rockwell says Government is all bad, so don't touch it, or something to that effect, and I say bullcrap, government can't be good or bad as a thing, to be turned on, or turned off, like a gun, or a pointed stick, so blaming the Thing for what people do, is a familiar Falsehood to me.

I can listen further, still looking for solutions.

I'm going to cut this off at "government moved jobs overseas".

If you can clue me in on the existence of solutions, if there will be solutions offered by Alan in this broadcast, then I will listen further.

Government did not move jobs overseas, and there is nothing wrong with jobs being created in China.

I don't like, so far, the twisted way this guy is reporting the facts, I can understand it, but I don't like it, I have competitive angles of views on every sentence, but it is all within the defining of The Problem, and that is already very easy to see, so how about solutions?

If you tell me that there are solutions in the broadcast, then I will listen further, if not, then what is the point?

The Problem is very easy to see here:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That Problem includes the payments made to enforce the Opiate Drug Monopoly (and other drugs monopolized by "subsidy") and you can see the results, or symptoms, of that problem all around your neighborhood.

It is the same source.

What is the solution?

The reason why I defend Warren and Andrews, as best I can, feebly, pathetically, is because they offer solutions.

Problem = Monopoly

Solution = Competition

Does Alan Watt get to solutions in that broadcast?

Joe

No Solutions

No, there are no solutions offered by Alan Watt. But I want to know if what he says is true. You are the only one with a competitive angle of view I have to ask. As you have already seen I have very little in the area of competitive views.

I have a need to understand. I do not have a sentence for his every sentence. I only have questions that cannot be answered: "Really, is that true?"

I suppose, if I really want to know the answers, I need to invest my life to know, but what is the point. That is too taxing. I have children to raise and a husband to love...and a house to clean!

No Answers

Today is Jeff’s birthday and he really likes the book “Boyd.” Thank you for the tip. It is very hard for me to get him something that he is interested in and doesn’t already know.

“If the deception involves Warren and Andrews and in particular the works known as Equitable Commerce, The Science of Society, or the published discussion on Love and Marriage, then the help you offer so far has not been able to decode where I have been deceived by those people and those works.”

Because this guy http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/CTTM2012/Alan_Watt_CT...

indicates that society is purposefully broken down into individual units in order to reengineer that society into a collectivist system by removing common cultures.

Who has more power you or your wife alone in this world or you and your wife together in this world? Who would be easier to conquer. You and your wife together, or you or your wife alone?

Who is a more formidable army. An Amish family, assuming they are good shots and not pacifists, with their 20 children and 100 grandchildren or your or my family of 4?

I have heard this guy say before that homosexuality is promoted, so as to remove power from society. i.e., It is OK to breed…but do not have kids…or too many of them. I have heard him speak before of promiscuity and how it psychologically causes 2 partners not to bond, and that is why sexual freedom is encouraged so as to keep individuals powerless and alone instead of in formidable numbers deeply bonded together. Those are talks I heard last year. I do not readily have the links. He speaks on randomly on multiple topics in each setting and once you hear him for several months it seems a repeat without any remedy for the situation.

He spoke on society at the very end of the link I gave you yesterday. I haven’t listened to him for months but did so yesterday, I suppose that is why I sent the link on to you and asked the question about being deceived. Maybe some of the messages of our equitable friends had motives unknown by them.

I had tears yesterday because I was feeling bad because I thought I made you feel bad and that was sad to me. There is nothing wrong with tears or feeling sad for making someone else feel bad. What is probably wrong is that I have been too transparent.

After reading your reply today as compared to the words yesterday, it is apparent to me that I cannot understand English symbols very well. I cannot even understand all of today's reply. We must be on 2 different wave lengths. You ask me questions and I do not even understand the question. I don't know if they ar rhetorical, or if I am supposed to try to answer them.
__________________________
"What can be done differently, more competitively, to avoid such things as miscommunication, if that is the cause of the sorrow?

How about a closer look at the principle of taxation?

That may be too taxing?

Would it be counterproductive for me to suggest a remedy if the goal is to avoid miscommunication - if I am the cause of the miscommunication?

Is heaven tax free, and hell nothing but taxes?

When is it a good idea to refuse to pay one tax because other tax liabilities are sounder investments for your limited capacity to pay any more taxes?

If the cause of the sorrow is identifiable, then the remedy is as identifiable?"
______________________
I do not know the answers to the questions you posed because I cannot understand what you are asking me.

Is it possible for equity to have run its course?

If so, know that I will miss your help and appreciate the time you have spent. Me, probably being too transparent again.

...

Connecting or disconnecting?

"Who has more power you or your wife alone in this world or you and your wife together in this world? Who would be easier to conquer. You and your wife together, or you or your wife alone?"

I get that, but how do you connect the bad connections to Warren, Andrews, or I?

Are you saying that Warren, Andrews, or I, are guilty of disconnecting people who want to be connected? If so, then you most certainly misunderstand my perspective on Voluntary Connections made Voluntarily, when deceit, threats of violence, and violence are avoided, compared to Involuntary Connections made Involuntarily, as Criminals target Victims, and then Criminals connect to their Victims through deceit, threats of violence, and violence, violence that is unwanted, unwelcome, and involuntary from the Victims viewpoint, not from the Criminals viewpoint.

Criminal have to want victims, by definition.

Sure, I get it, there are Criminals all over the place, and they do the crime thing, which is deceit, threats of violence, and violence UPON victims, in many ways.

How is it that Warren is a criminal, in that way?

How is it that Andrews is a criminal, in that way?

How is it that I am a criminal, in that way?

If we are not, then exactly what are we guilty of doing, instead of blaming what someone else has done, blame us for what we do, please don't attribute crime perpetrated by other people on either one of us three: Warren, Andrews, or I?

What, exactly, connects these numerous bad things to something done by Warren, Andrews, or I, or Spooner for that matter.

"I have heard this guy say before that homosexuality is promoted, so as to remove power from society. i.e., It is OK to breed…but do not have kids…or too many of them."

If Andrews claims that it is none of his business, or yours, concerning which choices anyone else makes, on anything, so long as they are not resorting to deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon an innocent person, WHILE someone else IS, and one of the crimes done by someone else IS to poison the water with chemicals that genetically alter normal human beings and cause normal human beings to become abnormal, then Andrews poisoned the water because he said it was none of your business as to what someone else does so long as someone else isn't a criminal?

Where do you make the connection between the criminals and Andrews?

I see no connection. Once the poison has done the damage, and the person is now abnormal, and the abnormal person thinks it is wonderful to connect to people you don't like him, or her, connecting to, in ways that you don't want them to connect, the cause of that abnormality is then blamed on Andrews?

How do you manage to arrive at that, without some reasonable method of making that connection?

How are you going to remedy the problem you see? Blame Andrews for people who are not normal according to you?

How do you do that, if that is what you are doing?

I don't get it.

"I have heard him speak before of promiscuity and how it psychologically causes 2 partners not to bond, and that is why sexual freedom is encouraged so as to keep individuals powerless and alone instead of in formidable numbers deeply bonded together."

The discussion where Andrews rejects enforced Marriage is twisted around into a supposed plot by Andrews to destroy normal productive human behavior?

This sounds like the classic tactic of transference.

How will you remedy any perceived evil? Pick one.

Then remedy it, assuming you have the power to do so, and we can return back to principles, or we can wander all over and confuse as much as we can - is that the point?

Pick the problem of reproduction? Is that too vague, or is that too close to the actual principle in view?

Are you saying that reproduction is being threatened by people who are doing things that cause reproduction to fail as a process that is necessary in human life?

If so, then how about a Top Ten list of things done by people UPON people whereby the willful result of those things done IS the destruction of the capacity for human beings to reproduce as people once reproduced NATURALLY, and now by these willful acts, perpetrated by these Evil people, (Andrews, Warren, and I among them) human reproduction is less and less Natural and more and more Unnatural.

Is that a fair deal?

"He speaks on randomly on multiple topics in each setting and once you hear him for several months it seems a repeat without any remedy for the situation."

So, a guy like Warren, or Andrews, or I, can state the problem, in English, state actionable solutions, in English, and instead of recognizing, or challenging, the English version of The Problem so stated, and instead of recognizing, or challenging, the English version of The Solution so stated, the idea is to point to symptoms of the problem, and then blame those symptoms on Warren, Andrews, or I?

There is something missing in the data stream whereby I can understand how you get these examples of suffering, caused by criminals, connected to the people who astutely identify the cause of the problem, and who also offer reasonable solutions to the problem, and without that missing data, where you connect the suffering to the messengers who deliver messages concerning EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM, as if the messenger is guilty of causing the problem because the messenger accurately communicates the existence of the problem, the cause of the problem, and working solutions to the problem.

So the messenger for committing the crime of informing people is somehow guilty of causing the problem?

The obvious thing here, in my view, is that you misunderstand The Problem, at least you miss understand the English words that report The Problem as written by Andrews, Warren, or I, and that is very difficult for me to understand, because The Problem is as easy to see, and as easy to uncover, as it is to follow ONE DOLLAR back to the source of IT, and this isn't like Hansel and Gretel trying to find their way back home after the birds ate the trail markers. The Problem is very busy printing up more and more Dollars, so the trail is fresh, and the criminals can still be caught RED handed.

Oh, but wait, the criminal color is now Blue?

Green?

Rainbow?

What does IS mean today?

What is the official decree today?

"I don't know if they ar rhetorical, or if I am supposed to try to answer them."

If we can agree on zeroing in on ONE problem, such as unnatural human actions that no longer result in reproduction.

If that is a problem worthy of looking into, and not a symptom, then we can agree on zeroing in on that problem.

Can we agree on agreeing on focusing on ONE problem?

Can we agree on agreeing on focusing on The Reproduction Problem?

If so, then can we agree on taxing your brain to list the TOP 10 competitively identifiable TRUE, and measurably true, and accurately measurably true, CAUSES of that One Problem?

Warren, Andrews, and I are going to be on the list?

Will Warren, Andrews, and I make it on the Top 100 list?

How about Fluoridation of the water supply?

On your list, if you make one: is Warren, and his work, or Andrews and his work or my work above or below Fluoridation of the water supply in the Top 10 probable causes of abnormalities in the human condition leading to reduced capacity in the necessary process of human reproduction?

Is that reasonable?

"I do not know the answers to the questions you posed because I cannot understand what you are asking me."

If there is an interest in knowing something is that more or less likely to contribute to the reaching of the goal of knowing something compared to having no interest in knowing something?

If you want to know something is that more likely going to result in you knowing something, compared to you not wanting to know something and then somehow you know something despite your not wanting to know something?

If those questions are confusing, then I am at a loss as to why those questions are confusing, but I can rewrite those questions for anyone who cares to know what those questions mean - exactly.

If Jeff is at all skeptical about the facts reported in the Book I can point him to a lot of Aerodynamic information published before John Boyd invented his Energy Maneuverability Theory (Process) and then that older work in Aerodynamic information can be compared with Aerodynamic information published after John Boyd invented his Energy Maneuverability Process.

For instance: I've found a web page published by Naviar (U.S. Naval Air Systems Command) where Energy Maneuverability is documented as the official military doctrine, which was not the case before John Boyd invented that process which is based upon a simple formula.

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milun...

Ps = V (T-D)/W

That makes more sense to me when written this way:

Ps = V (T/W - D/W)

It was very surprising to me to ask 2 Blue Angel Pilots at the Reno Hotel if they knew of John Boyd and they both said no.

Joe

These Modern Times

I was going to wait until Jeff finished reading Boyd before telling him your experience with the Blue Angel pilots. He did not seem skeptical at all when the concept was introduced in the prologue regarding Mr. Boyd’s fighter pilot experience being meshed together with his study of thermodynamics. I think he was rather fascinated. I think if I start talking to him about memory holes it might taint his reading of the book.
_________________
• Jesus said: Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

• The Modern Times model written about below is not a husband and wife leaving father and mother and cleaving to one another to become one flesh.
______________
http://brentwoodnylibrary.org/modern_times/modern_times.htm :

“Conway wrote of Warren’s political and social theories and thus described the workings of free love:
The arrangements of marriage were, of course, left entirely to the men and women themselves. They could be married formally or otherwise, live in the same or separate houses, and have their relation known or unknown to the rest of the village. The relation could be dissolved at pleasure without any formulas. Certain customs had grown out of the absence of marriage laws. Secrecy was very general, and it was not considered polite to inquire who might be the father of a newborn child, or who the husband or wife of any individual might be. Those who stood in the relation of husband or wife wore upon the finger a red thread; and so long as that badge was visible the person was understood to be married. If it disappeared the marriage was at an end. “
_________________
So I see this:

a) Warren and Andrews and I am sure there are others advocating free love (which was scandalous to a moral society*) as opposed to the current order of society and which was naturally by family tribe.
b) I hear Alan Watt say that collectivist break down and rebuild society by sexual revolution.
c) I see God who is creator saying man and woman (not coerced, but in voluntary love) are to be one flesh joined together permanently.

Why did Warren and Andrews and whoever else take it upon themselves to seek free love. I don’t want to control them and “make them behave.” I want to know WHY the behavior was encouraged.
________________________
http://antimisandry.com/equal-but-different/feminism-family-... :

“Communism and Socialism all know that they can not survive with strong families. Strong families make strong communities, and strong communities keep government power in check. Break down the families, and the door is wide open to centralizing power in government. Once families break down through divorce, welfare, cohabitation, etc. government gets more and more involved in everyday life. More and more centralized government control.

"Destroy the family," as Lenin said, "and you destroy society." Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed.”
_______________
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russ... :
“When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other 'bourgeois' institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. 'To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,' declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion.
____________
I realize you asked me to speak on the topic of reproduction and give 10 points. I have chosen to speak to the breakdown of the family as it is used by collectivists to render culture powerless in order to bring in the tyranny of the state. I see the reproductive issues are a by-product of that goal. As far as I can understand there is a counterfeit version as well as a true version of voluntaryism.

Love is not free. Love has a great cost. Love is a sacrifice as one puts down one’s own preferences and desires for the person and family who are loved. When 2 become 1 there is a new entity and the idea is to direct the voluntary actions toward that single entity and not against it.
___________________
What should be done about this: Person A is a member of our church. Her husband has been in prison. He gets out. Keeps his nose clean for a month or so. Gets a job. Two weeks ago…he takes her car so she cannot get to and from work which is 20 miles away. Spends her monthly income (she gets paid once a month by her employer) which she keeps on a visa debit card. Will not return her calls. She is so ashamed she doesn’t tell us for a week. She has been taken 2 times by church members on 175 round trip miles away to try to find her husband. On the 2nd trip she finally finds him. He has been on meth for 2 weeks now and doesn’t know where her car is. He missed his parole meeting. She cannot pay her rent. They have a 9 year old daughter. This is the 2nd time he has come home from prison and has done this to her in the 10 or so years I have known them. She is a free woman, but she loves him and expectantly waits for him each time he goes off to prison. What is the answer for this situation in our little town of 700? How many times has that story occurred in the last 2 weeks in the population of our country?
_________________________
Are individuals islands to themselves? Is it possible to practice immoral behavior without affecting anyone else? Can immoral behavior be defined as not loving God and not loving our neighbors as ourselves? Everyone is our neighbor. Who is God?

• Matthew 19:8 He [Jesus] saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
________________________
Why are hearts hard?
________________________
Does the state come into greater power when people cannot morally govern themselves? If so, who would want to destroy the morals of the people?
_______________
Will you forgive me for causing you to feel attacked by me this week? I have no desire to attack you or to make you feel attacked. I do not want to "bring it on." I am sorry willl left you hanging in that public forum. I am sorry I could not see clearly what you were saying to me about that. I think I understand better, but I am sure not completely as I do not feel your feelings the way you feel them. I only feel my own, and you cannot feel my feelings the way I feel them. Such is humanity, and yet I want to empathize sincerely and truly from a heart of equity. I want to build up, not tear down.
___________________
• *An Amish man will not even look me in the eye and say the word “pregnant,” and sheepishly says, “in the family way.” And from what I understand from my grandmother that word was not spoken in mixed company in her generation either, and so I feel free to say that the concept of free love was scandalous.

...

So I see this:

I've read Warren's work, and one of Warren's pet peeves was very well communicated by Warren as a rejection by him of other people speaking for him.

So the connecting medium between the very serious problem of Criminals causing abnormalities in the human reproductive cycle, according to you, is a writer speaking for Warren, whereby now you have found one of the Top 10 guilty people responsible for causing abnormalities in the human reproduction process, and that is Warren and his "Free Love" blasphemy.

That is what I see as to what you are doing.

"a) Warren and Andrews and I am sure there are others advocating free love (which was scandalous to a moral society*) as opposed to the current order of society and which was naturally by family tribe."

Warren, as far as I know, had nothing to say about "Free Love", unless indirectly the concept of Voluntary Association is used by someone, ON THEIR OWN, to act freely, not harming anyone, in ways that you may not like.

If that is the case, that you don't like how someone else is acting, Voluntarily, then that can be seen as a problem BY YOU.

So setting aside the problem of the Top 10 criminals who are currently busy destroying the natural human reproductive process (unless you still think Warren is on that list) and setting aside any contemplation of that destruction of the human reproductive process as a SYMPTOM of a greater problem (Legal Crime), and zeroing in on a problem you personally do not like, can it be published by you, so as to leave no more room for Plausible Deniability, as to what exactly is it that you don't want other people doing, and then is there an actionable thing that you can do to stop other people from doing what you don't want them doing, and then having your example of how to solve the problem you have identified, other people can copy that example, if they too want to stop those people from doing those things, and then, instead of pretending to do good things, according to you, you can actually start in the direction of doing good things?

In other words: What is The Problem?

I get: "Free Love" (whatever that means) is the problem.

Then: What is The Solution to the Free Love problem, as far as you know so far?

Note: Here is a Born Again Christian, so named, faced with 3 or 4 (Warren, Andrews, Spooner, and Joe Kelley) offering a very precise definition of the most serious problem facing mankind today, where each of these people on this list have worked and found actionable methods by which The Problem is not only solved, but The Problem won't happen again, and this Born Again Christian goes past those messages and the Born Again Christian Zeros in on The FREE LOVE problem, but fails to offer a precise definition of the problem and does not offer actionable solutions to that Free Love Problem so named.

Christianity = Ant-Free Love

Which means what, exactly?

Christianity = UnFree Love (obey without question)?

I'm asking, not telling, so a Knee Jerk reaction to my questions, if you follow the script, is to blame me for some ambiguous wrong doing in the effort to cover up the question asked.

"b) I hear Alan Watt say that collectivist break down and rebuild society by sexual revolution."

So...naturally, it is a good idea to follow up on such things and find actual people who actually are these "collectivist" people and then do what, avoid them, stop listening to their lies?

So...naturally, you find in Warren, Andrews, and I (perhaps we can throw in Spooner but he is more the conservative type so maybe not) this "collectivist" stuff whereby we say that a Voluntary Association is OK while an Involuntary Association is not OK, at least not according to the person suffering from deceit, threats of violence, or violence targeting the victim, and making the victim a victim, including enforced marriages, and that turns out to be Warren, Andrews, and I, collectivists that we are, causing harm to the natural reproductive processes, and we can look past things like Fluoridation of the water, because everyone works harder each day to send more Monopoly Money Units to a single Collective Fund and then somehow that POWER is used to make water everywhere fluoridated.

But Warren and Andrews did it.

And now you have at your disposal another one of those guilty people who go around causing abnormalities in the human reproductive process, this Joe Kelley evil one, with his Voluntary Association lies, which you twist into something you call Free Love, and that means something specific to you, but you prefer not to spell it out?

What exactly is it about this Free Love stuff that you find worthy of your problem solving, or is this a mere exorcize in academic study?

You have traced the cause of The Free Love problem back to the source, a guy named Warren, and then a guy named Andrews, and now this Joe Kelley guy, all of which are the source of the problem that you call Free Love, and if only we had not done what we did, or are doing, the world would not have any of this Free Love stuff destroying the normal human reproductive process?

"b) I hear Alan Watt say that collectivist break down and rebuild society by sexual revolution."

Sexual Revolution, having been caused by Warren and Andrews, and helped along by this Joe Kelley evil one, is Free Love, and so, if so, what can be done, or nothing can be done, the damage is already done, and by the way the fluoride is still flowing into the water, and who cares what it does and who cares how much of that fluoride is still flowing into the water.

"c) I see God who is creator saying man and woman (not coerced, but in voluntary love) are to be one flesh joined together permanently."

And I see such a thing as two people voluntarily joining together and then one being coerced to go on a Crusade to enforce a Money Monopoly Power, returning home, and the significant other finding a monster joined, but no longer voluntarily, and what may then be permanent is the fear of what the monster WILL do at any moment so long as that bond remains permanent.

Meanwhile, perhaps, the kids and the parents are all drinking the water, and their genes may be altered, and they may then grow up in an unnatural way, had they not been coerced by deceit into drinking the fluoridated water.

But it is more productive to blame Warren, Andrews, and Free Love, while significant others are sent on Modern Day Christian Crusades, Spreading Democracy, Stamping out Free Love, whatever, and keep the Home Boys in line with Fluoridated water, and keep the Money Flowing that is needed to pay off all the contractors making a killing?

"Why did Warren and Andrews and whoever else take it upon themselves to seek free love. I don’t want to control them and “make them behave.” I want to know WHY the behavior was encouraged."

Which behavior? If you can find where Warren says anything about Free Love, then please nail that to that donkey's behind. If you are speaking about Andrews and you care enough to use quotes, then I can see which quotes you select out of the supply, and in so doing I can get an idea as to your true motives, since there are plenty of very good quotes published by Andrews concerning exactly what he did seek and encourage, and exactly what he did not seek and encourage, so if you cherry pick among all the work done by Andrews, finding specific things that you can then twist around, I'll know if that is what you are doing.

Absent any actual connection between your twisted concept of Free Love (if it is Free it is Free, and if it is Love then it is Love, and if it is TWISTED then it sure as hell can't be called Free Love) and Warren, or Andrews, is missing the actual connection, such as a quote by Warren, or a quote by Andrews.

"Why did Warren and Andrews and whoever else take it upon themselves to seek free love. I don’t want to control them and “make them behave.” I want to know WHY the behavior was encouraged."

Why wait?

Andrews
"It was a saying of Daniel Webster that “if a thing is to be done, a wise man should be able to tell how it is to be done.” "

http://praxeology.net/HJ-HG-SPA-LMD-2.htm

If Free Love is a problem worthy of fixing, then please consider offering a method by which that problem can be fixed.

If all you want to do is to connect Warren, Andrews, and I to this Free Love problem, then please consider making that connection real, instead of making a counterfeit version of a connection between what you see to be a problem (Free Love) and anyone, anywhere, who is part of that problem.

Then you cement the unnatural, counterfeit, BOND between Warren, Andrews, and I with Lenin? We are as guilty as Lenin, now, once you have managed to construct this counterfeit connection between Warren, Andrews, and I, and this concept that you call Free Love, whereby people like Lenin destroy many families, so as to do what, create a Money Monopoly Power?

Stalin and the Bolsheviks too, all the same bunch, Free Love supporters, Warren, Andrews, Stalin, Lenin, me, all the same bunch, free, free, free love, running amok, destroying so much of God's work, and all Published on this Forum for all to see, so clearly.

I see no connection, and I'm asking for one, just in case I've been led down a false path. Where is the connection?

Warren wrote Equitable Commerce. Where does Warren connect to your concept of FREE LOVE?

Andrews is quotable from that link on Marriage and Divorce, where is Andrews connected to YOUR concept of Free Love?

What is your concept of Free Love, and is your concept of Free Love a connection you make to Bolshevism as exemplified by Stalin who just happened to have been given the Start-up Money, in Dollars, from Wall Street, to get started on his Free Love campaign?

Free Love = Bolshevism (a false front for a Money Monopoly Fraud and Extortion Power made Legal)

Free Love = A False Front covering up very evil people doing very evil things.

Warren = Free Love

Warren = A very evil person doing very evil things

Free = Evil

Love = Evil

Someone has been busy working on English?

"Love is not free. Love has a great cost. Love is a sacrifice as one puts down one’s own preferences and desires for the person and family who are loved. When 2 become 1 there is a new entity and the idea is to direct the voluntary actions toward that single entity and not against it."

Your concept of Love is not mine. Your concept of free is not mine. If our concepts of love and freedom are not the same, what can you do if that bothers you? What can you do to help other people if you see a problem when other people do not share your concept of love and freedom?

Love is not free?

Love is the most freest thing I know so far.

Love has a great cost?

Love is as close to living costless as I know so far.

Love is a sacrifice as one puts down one’s own preferences and desires for the person and family who are loved?

Love is a desire to help in any way possible those who are loved, as far as I know, so far.

We have reached another demarcation line, obviously, and to me it is much better to get this out in the open rather than ignoring it, so thanks again. You are on one side where Love and Freedom are nearly opposite to me, and that should be known, it seems to me, early on in the conversation, since that understanding could explain many other misunderstandings along the way.

"She is a free woman, but she loves him and expectantly waits for him each time he goes off to prison. What is the answer for this situation in our little town of 700? How many times has that story occurred in the last 2 weeks in the population of our country?"

So, what is the answer?

Make the husband Love the wife according to your definition of what Love is or according to my definition of what Love is, and make the husband Love the wife freely according to your definition of freedom or according to my definition of freedom?

There is no way to discuss this, English is useless, we can't even agree on the meaning of Love or Freedom.

English is a medium of exchange, by the way, and apparently it is so corrupted with falsehoods that two people can't even agree on the meaning of love or freedom.

Perhaps the woman in the case above should force the man to love the women the way the woman says she, and the baby should be loved, and when the man asks, hey, what does love mean, the answer is your version or mine?

You version intends to force the man to love the woman?

I know my version, the same as Warrens, and the same as Andrews, whereby Love is the opposite of force, so the solution is to let the man and the woman part or not part AT THEIR OWN COST - so long as one does not resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence upon the other innocent one, or two, and if a crime is committed, then your solution is to make sure that the criminal remains connected to the victim?

That is called The Final Solution as far as I can see where that Solution goes eventually.

"Are individuals islands to themselves? Is it possible to practice immoral behavior without affecting anyone else? Can immoral behavior be defined as not loving God and not loving our neighbors as ourselves? Everyone is our neighbor. Who is God?"

When Free Love means, exactly, without deviation, the same thing as Crime, then we are back to solving the crime problem.

So what are some actionable solutions to the crime problem?

Stop providing the means by which we suffer the crime problem?

You can't undo all the damage done by Warren or Andrews, as they created Free Love Crime, but you can undo all the damage I do while I keep spreading Evil words that cause all this damage to the natural human reproductive process, so what is the solution, stay connected to me?

Some day I might learn your way of seeing the truth?

I'll stop spreading the evil I spread with my "free love" lies?

"Why are hearts hard?"

People pass on costs, and the victims pay those costs too much?

"Does the state come into greater power when people cannot morally govern themselves? If so, who would want to destroy the morals of the people?"

A thing does not gain power, such as a State, which is a Legal Fiction, but the State may include a Tax Fund, a collection of a whole lot of Purchasing Power, and then there are people who gain the power to spend that power, and morals, if any are left, would suggest that there is only one possible reason for providing the means by which we suffer, that way, and the one possible reason for providing the means by which we suffer is that we want to suffer.

If that is not the reason for the victims providing the means by which we suffer, then what is the REASON?

We want free love, and this is how we get it?

One dollar at a time?

"Will you forgive me for causing you to feel attacked by me this week?"

At some point I have to realize, reasonably, that your concept of forgiveness may not be the same as mine, so I really don't know what you expect out of me along these lines. I can say that it may go a long way toward forgiveness if I can understand the reasoning behind the attacks, and I don't even know if we share the same understanding of what constituted an attack.

"Such is humanity, and yet I want to empathize sincerely and truly from a heart of equity. I want to build up, not tear down."

So...reasonably, what can be done in the case offered, concerning a husband who is not bound to the wife, and baby, in the way that you think they should be bound?

"• *An Amish man will not even look me in the eye and say the word “pregnant,” and sheepishly says, “in the family way.” And from what I understand from my grandmother that word was not spoken in mixed company in her generation either, and so I feel free to say that the concept of free love was scandalous."

There is an identifiable disconnection between you and I concerning the meanings of words in English. We are not speaking about the same thing when you say Free Love and when I say Free Love, one version is one thing, and the other version is another thing.

I can be speaking about corn, and you can be speaking about rocks, and it is ludicrous to expect one of us understanding the other on the subject of corn or rocks, so which is it, corn, or rocks?

When corn and rocks are mixed up, is the color grey?

Joe

What is Free Love?

I did not understand:
"Christianity = Ant-Free Love

Which means what, exactly?

Christianity = UnFree Love (obey without question)?"
____________
What is Ant-Free Love? Are you talking about subracting love from an insect?

Christianity = Love God + Love People
____________

What is free love? Honestly, before you gave me Andrew’s link on marriage I had never even heard of free love. It was all news to me that there were problems with love and marriage. But here is what I am understanding by the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love
“In 1857, Francis Barry wrote that "marriage is a system of rape," stating that the woman is a victim where she can do nothing but be oppressed by her husband, as he tortures her in her home, which becomes a house of bondage.[5] In one of his articles, Barry wrote:
'The Object of this [women’s emancipation] Society,’ according to Article 2 of its [free love] constitution, ‘shall be to secure absolute freedom to woman, through the overthrow of the popular system of marriage.’[6]
At the turn of the 20th century, some free-love proponents extended the critique of marriage to argue that marriage as a social institution encourages emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement.[citation needed]”
________________________
I like your words:
Me: "Love is not free. Love has a great cost. Love is a sacrifice as one puts down one’s own preferences and desires for the person and family who are loved. When 2 become 1 there is a new entity and the idea is to direct the voluntary actions toward that single entity and not against it."

You: “Your concept of Love is not mine. Your concept of free is not mine. If our concepts of love and freedom are not the same, what can you do if that bothers you? What can you do to help other people if you see a problem when other people do not share your concept of love and freedom?
Love is not free?
Love is the most freest thing I know so far.
Love has a great cost?
Love is as close to living costless as I know so far.
Love is a sacrifice as one puts down one’s own preferences and desires for the person and family who are loved?
Love is a desire to help in any way possible those who are loved, as far as I know, so far.”

Your words are beautifully written.
_____________
Perfect Love: I Corinthians 13: 4 Love is never tired of waiting; love is kind; love has no envy; love has no high opinion of itself, love has no pride; 5 Love's ways are ever fair, it takes no thought for itself; it is not quickly made angry, it takes no account of evil; 6 It takes no pleasure in wrongdoing, but has joy in what is true; 7 Love has the power of undergoing all things, having faith in all things, hoping all things.

I am not perfect and I do not have perfect love: I can get tired of waiting, I am not always kind, I can suffer from envy, I can take thought of myself and what I want.

• John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

• Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

I see the love as of giving one self. It is given freely, but may be at the cost of the giver. Hopefully it is reciprocal so no one is out any cost but all costs are mutually replaced. When I say that there is a cost I do not mean that there is absence of desire to do to love and care for the other person, but if the desire is not there, then the choice of love can to be made. i.e., if I feel impatient, then I can choose to be patient which is choosing to act in love.

God loved the us so much he gave his son. It was a great cost. And yet, He desired to do it.
__________________
“You version intends to force the man to love the woman?”

I cannot force either one to do anything. I do not want to force anyone to do anything. If a man freely marries a woman, he is supposed to love her and visa versa. They have to choose to live in love. As far as I can tell, marriage is wonderful and having children is wonderful, but neither are perfect sanctuaries all the time. I think the goal would be to encourage love as opposed to encouraging withholding love. Love could be encouraged by:
Teaching love
Showing love
and
Living love
___________________
I most likely am not qualified to speak on Warren and Andrews. I can only tell you that I was alarmed that Warren had a system set up in his society such that children would be cared for someone besides their parents. That is a red flag for me because of the things I heard Alan Watt speak regarding tearing down the structure of society. I find Andrew’s work on marriage unpalatable. However, it is very possible that I have a skewed view of history since I live in a day of “freedom” and enjoy the love of my husband.

Could it be that rigid laws were put in place so as to exacerbate injustice for women so that the powers that be would have a crisis that needed to be solved? Was it a part of political turmoil in order to wage war against freedom…just like the abortion issue today…held hostage by both parties to secure a power base…both parties equally guilty of murder because neither really wants to solve the problem? (please excuse my word “parties” I know they are things. I mean the people who are power brokers within the parties.
__________
This isn’t Warren or Andrew’s speaking either, but perhaps it is a more competitive are at least a competitive view:
“But residents were upset when feminist divorcee and free-love lecturer Mary Gove Nichols moved in and promptly announced that anyone thinking of moving to Modern Times must be dedicated to free love and "willing to be considered licentious."
In the end, Modern Times' pioneers cared more for ordinary happiness than a life in the radical vanguard, says State University at Stony Brook historian Roger Wunderlich. He said monogamy, not bed-hopping, was the norm. Men and women living "in sin" usually married each other as soon as pending divorces became final.”
____________
“There is an identifiable disconnection between you and I concerning the meanings of words in English. We are not speaking about the same thing when you say Free Love and when I say Free Love, one version is one thing, and the other version is another thing.
I can be speaking about corn, and you can be speaking about rocks, and it is ludicrous to expect one of us understanding the other on the subject of corn or rocks, so which is it, corn, or rocks?”

Yes, perhaps I see red and foam at the mouth. Perhaps it is a deficiency of mine to assume meanings without realizing it instead of asking questions. Is equitable discussion possible under the circumstances of my deficiencies?

“So...reasonably, what can be done in the case offered, concerning a husband who is not bound to the wife, and baby, in the way that you think they should be bound?”

I suppose under Old Testament Law her husband would have been stoned by the community for being a glutton and winebibber and she would go back to live with her parents or marry his brother/relative. I suppose if he knew he was going to be stoned and his brother would marry his wife, he might not take her money and her car.

I do not know what it would have been like for a person in this situation in the 1800’s.

Today, outside of prayer, kindness and support, I do not see that anything can be done. (People within our church will probably pay her rent. I have offered to drive her back and forth to work.) She does not want help from law enforcement. She does not want him to get into trouble. So instead she absorbs the trouble. She has to make her own choices. I think her husband “loves her” and wants to love her, but is unable to beat his “the drug demons” [a figure of speech, maybe]. Maybe Teen Challenge could help him? I don’t have the answers. There are no answers as far as I know. I am sure prison was horrid for him. I am sure his wife does not want him to go thru that again. If she divorced him and sent him packing, I would understand, but I think she loves and protects him. Then you get into the psychology of co-dependent relationships. This is her 2nd marriage. I do know what happened in her first marriage. I do not ask, and I do not care to know. I care about her as a person.
_______________
“At some point I have to realize, reasonably, that your concept of forgiveness may not be the same as mine, so I really don't know what you expect out of me along these lines. I can say that it may go a long way toward forgiveness if I can understand the reasoning behind the attacks, and I don't even know if we share the same understanding of what constituted an attack.”

Joe, I said I did not realize I was attacking you. I was not trying to attack you, but it seems to me that I did attack you because you told me to bring it on. And that is why I am apologizing. When I ask for forgiveness I am asking you to not lay the offence upon my account, or to hold it against me.

Thinking about it now though since you have asked me for the reasoning behind the attacks, I will say I was reacting after I felt you hurt my feelings by asking me to try on the shoe of a yellow canary sniveling coward. That hurt my feelings. And when I brought it up, you said you asked me if I was that. Well, it seems to me if you have to ask, you must be thinking it. So I asked you if you were deceived. I made a point of “asking.” I should not have done that. After all, when you ask me if a shoe fits it hurts my feelings, so why should I do the same to you other than to prove a point. I am sorry. It was the wrong thing for me to do. I should have turned my cheek. I should have never handed you a shoe. That is why I need you to forgive me and not hold my wrong against me.

I get the impression you may be hanging me out to dry as a Born Again Christian. Are you trying to hurt me? If that is the case, then please do not do that to me.

“Note: Here is a Born Again Christian, so named, faced with 3 or 4 (Warren, Andrews, Spooner, and Joe Kelley) offering a very precise definition of the most serious problem facing mankind today, where each of these people on this list have worked and found actionable methods by which The Problem is not only solved, but The Problem won't happen again, and this Born Again Christian goes past those messages and the Born Gain Christian Zeros in on The FREE LOVE problem, but fails to offer a precise definition of the problem and does not offer actionable solutions to that Free Love Problem so named.”

I have failed.

...

Competitive viewpoints

"I did not understand:"

I ask you to tell me what Free Love is, according to you, and I offer guesses as to what you think Free Love means. How can you not understand?

You are on this Free Love Crusade, so you must have a concept in mind, as to what Free Love is, or as to what Free Love is not, so what is it, the question is asking you, what is Free Love, as far as you are concerned, what is Free Love?

If you have a concept of Free Love in mind, then confessing exactly what that is in your mind, right away, before you connect your concept with the concept being communicated by anyone else, such as Warren, or Andrews, or I, then someone other than you can evaluate the connection you make between your concept of Free Love and the concept of Free Love explained by Warren (who I don't think uses the terms) or Andrews - or I.

Free as in Freedom as in political economy (not religion) means to be IN Liberty, or it means to be disconnected from Crime, or it means to be Free from one person resorting to deceit upon another person so as one person willfully injures another person by that resort to deceit upon that victim, and FREE means to be FREE from one person resorting to threats of violence as a means of targeting an innocent person and then willfully injuring the innocent person by that employment of those threats of violence, and FREE means to be FREE from the horrible, and torturous, and terrifying use of violence by a criminal upon an innocent victim, and that is what FREE means in the context of Free Love according to Andrews, perhaps not you, perhaps not anyone else, but Andrews most demonstrably can be understood in that context, as can I, when dealing with the word FREE, as in Free Love, or as in Freedom from Despotism, or as in Freedom from Legal Crime, as IN Liberty.

So if anyone has a beef with the Free Love that is morally and materially supported by Andrews, or I, then they must be, by those definitions, supporting deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon innocent people to injure innocent people willfully, because they desire to make Love UNFREE.

__________________________________________________
I did not understand:
"Christianity = Ant-Free Love

Which means what, exactly?

Christianity = UnFree Love (obey without question)?"
__________________________________________________

You can go on forever claiming that the genuine thing is the counterfeit thing, and the counterfeit thing is the genuine thing, but that does not mean that I have to go along with the charade.

"What is free love? Honestly, before you gave me Andrew’s link on marriage I had never even heard of free love. It was all news to me that there were problems with love and marriage. But here is what I am understanding by the term:"

Honestly, I can repeat a competitive viewpoint, whereby this Free Love topic appears to be a crusade that you are currently on, while all around us there are very bad things being done by very bad people, from the top down, as everyone is measuring their own successes and failures with score cards denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, and if you don't know what I mean by that I can explain what I mean by that, or we can go around, and around, and around, confusing Freedom with Despotism, and we can confuse Love with Hate, as if Free Love can mean anything other than something good in English.

If you are going to now connect Andrews with Francis Barry, go ahead and publish that ambiguous, and very likely to be false, connection, since you are so fond of making these connections between frauds and the genuine articles.

To me this is like someone blaming God for the crimes done by the people who later became known as The Inquisition.

If God did all that, had any part in all that, other than creating the living beings involved in it, then that is not the God that I know to be the true God.

We could be on yet again another line in the sand here too.

"Your words are beautifully written."

I can get a quote, if you care to know the actual quote, from my On Language book by Noam Chomsky concerning how language is a mirror into the mind.

Do you understand the concept of language being a mirror into the mind, or as I prefer to think: Language is a mirror into the soul?

What IS an individual may not be what is said by the individual, and that can mean many things, not limited to willful deception, and not limited to confusion, duplicity, error, and misunderstanding.

In context of the present discussion concerning what Andrews thought and what you fear about modern diversions from natural reproduction (if that is your fear) there may be very WRONG connections made between what Language appears to say, and what IS.

A good soul may have a very hard time expressing what IS a good soul when the connecting mediums between one soul and another soul are subject to misunderstanding.

No such misunderstanding on the other end of the scale is possible, it seems to me, as one Evil soul may be unambiguously Evil, while the victim soul is having their bodies willfully destroyed by that Evil soul.

The Evil soul, I suppose, could be claiming to be helping the victim while pulling off finger nails from the victims fingers, and the point here is to point out that Deeds are more powerful than Words, and the connecting medium, at that point, is a pair of pliers.

If my words cause you injury, or your words cause me injury, then something is wrong. We are not, I trust, and I believe, willing to pull each others finger nails off, supposedly to help each other, so the connecting medium, which isn't a pair of pliers, may be a considerable source of misunderstanding.

Free means what?

Love means what?

Unambiguously, as if someone needed to know, what does Free Love mean?

If the speaker is Andrews, then Free Love means that one person does not pass on costs to another person, in that context alone, you can know, as I know, what Andrews means by Free Love.

If you want to know what Stalin meant by Free Love, then you may find a different meaning compared to Andrews, and it may be a good idea not to confuse the two meanings for Free Love.

Stalin was free to love roughly 20 million people to death.

Andrews, on the other hand, risked life and limb, reputation, and public opinion, and even peer pressure, to help Free Slaves, he was an Abolitionist before it was considered wrong to use the "n" word (I assume that you prefer not to read that word spelled out in the text you read).

If Andrews knew people who considered their husbands to be no better than Slave owners, being slaves themselves, then why would Andrews feel any less obligated to Abolish those cases of Legal Slavery?

Does that mean that Andrews was Anti-God, Anti-Family, Anti-Normal Reproductive Processes involving 2 people where one is Male and one is Female, joined in a Voluntary Bond Naturally?

Andrews is not alive to ask, but I am, and I get the concepts, I understand the concepts, I know the concepts, and I can explain the concepts understood by Andrews concerning what Free means, and it means to be Free from the routine practice of treating each other as PROPERTY, to be consumed and known by the measure of how much COST is passed on from Master to Slave.

So the answer is NO, just because Andrews tried, desperately, to Free the Slaves, including those Slaves being made Slaves by Monsters claiming to be Spouses, all nice and legal like, just because Andrews worked to Free the Slaves, does not mean that Andrews had anything to do with destroying The Family as The Family naturally occurs in a FREE social network.

There is no way to connect one to the other without making these false connections, unless you are still holding back, ready to report the missing link, where you can connect Stalin to Andrews without resorting to some very big leaps of faith like crossing the grand canyon in one single bound. So be Super Man, please, and show me where Andrews destroys The Family with his work that could be called Free Love, if two words could summarize the work done by Andrews in his time on Earth.

Stalin, and other "communists" like him, killed 200 million people therefore Andrews is bad because of Free Love?

Really?

"I see the love as of giving one self. It is given freely, but may be at the cost of the giver."

There is exactly the point offered by Andrews, unmistakably that, exactly that, and anything else you may invent to then blame on Andrews is false, in my viewpoint. When a person creates COSTS and then forces someone else to pay for those COSTS that is what makes the relationship un-free WHEN the person paying the costs decides that they have paid too much, and they will no longer pay anymore, if it is in their power to do so, and here is where something valuable may become obvious.

Why do some women (or some men) remain in very destructive relationships, whereby one of the "spouses" tortures the other "spouse"?

I know this to be true, so there is no room for claiming otherwise, as men, in particular, violently beat their wives into near death, on a regular basis, and yet the wives remain faithful to the husbands.

Why?

You tell me.

"I can only tell you that I was alarmed that Warren had a system set up in his society such that children would be cared for someone besides their parents."

You appear to be confused in that Warren abandoned any employment of any force upon anyone against anyone's will, and what happened is what happened once there was no longer any compulsion employed by anyone to make anyone else do anything.

So one of the consequences of no longer forcing people to do as ONE might want someone else to do was something like Sunday School?

What actually happened in those nurseries or day care centers or whatever was invented when people were no longer forcing each other to abide by each others will?

Perhaps as important a question, what exactly do you think is wrong with someone taking care of someone else when the one being taken care of is a child and the one caring is not a child, but not the parent?

You can, if you invent this invention, you can claim that Modern Day Enforced Public Schools, where "tax payers" {producers of the stuff worth stealing) are Extorted, and they provide the means by which they suffer, and those provisions arrive in the form of Dictates Demanding Forced Indoctrination, you can confuse all that Public School Nonsense, you can confuse that, if you want to confuse that, with a competitive child care center on one block in Equitable Commerce, and another competitive nursery on another block in Equitable Commerce, and a Sunday School on another block in Equitable Commerce, whereby parents can pick and choose which nursery, day care center, or Sunday School, or whatever is higher in quality and lower in cost to supply the demand they demand, without your permission, or without having to get the permission handed down by False Gods hiding behind Legal Crime False Fronts.

If you do confuse one with the other, I'd like to know if it is me that is confused, not you, so where is the connection between Equitable Commerce, as explained by Warren or Andrews, and these ongoing crimes made legal called Public Schools - if that is now the connection being made by you.

You can't claim that Warren or Andrews supported National Income Tax Payments in Federal Reserve Notes, and that is the connection currently operating between those who Enforce Public School Attendance and those who are fooled into attending Public Schools.

"However, it is very possible that I have a skewed view of history since I live in a day of “freedom” and enjoy the love of my husband."

Who advises the victim of an abusive husband (or wife) to remain connected to the abuser?

Not Andrews.

Not me.

You?

God?

If that is your God, then I want nothing to do with your God.

Your God, if that is your God, is unpalatable to me.

Please keep HIM to yourself, if that is your God advising battered women to hang in there and take their just rewards for being faithful.

Another line in the sand?

"Could it be that rigid laws were put in place so as to exacerbate injustice for women so that the powers that be would have a crisis that needed to be solved? Was it a part of political turmoil in order to wage war against freedom…just like the abortion issue today…held hostage by both parties to secure a power base…both parties equally guilty of murder because neither really wants to solve the problem? (please excuse my word “parties” I know they are things. I mean the people who are power brokers within the parties."

The time period for Warren, Andrews, even Spooner was extremely bad for Legal Crime, too many people were gaining too much power, and this was even before the use of Petroleum as a means of making power very abundant, so this time period was a time when the Legal Criminals had to do something drastic, and this time period was, as it happens, just before the Civil War.

The Civil War was done by Legal Criminals upon their Victims so as to Solidify The Involuntary Union.

Specifically obvious was the case of Warren, who was inventing, producing, and maintaining answers to the Legal Crime Problems of the day, but Warren had enemies, and his work was censored, as it was difficult for Warren to advertize his work to other people, so much so that Warren invented his own printing press, and was thereby able to get past the MONOPOLY POWER of The PRESS at that time, before The Civil War, and this is very instructive as to your stated hypothesis concerning the things you do not know.

I think your stated hypothesis is on the right track.

"Could it be that rigid laws were put in place so as to exacerbate injustice for women so that the powers that be would have a crisis that needed to be solved? Was it a part of political turmoil in order to wage war against freedom…just like the abortion issue today…held hostage by both parties to secure a power base…both parties equally guilty of murder because neither really wants to solve the problem? (please excuse my word “parties” I know they are things. I mean the people who are power brokers within the parties."

Women are seen as property even today, as was common practice in those days, according to many sources, so a person like Andrews speaking out against Slavery makes more sense in that context, it seems to me.

Racial Slavery, Gender Slavery, are all symptoms, to me, Masters or Slavers, or Criminals, or Legal Criminals, are color blind, gender blind, they see themselves as God, and they see their victims as THINGS to be consumed.

___________________________________________
"This isn’t Warren or Andrew’s speaking either, but perhaps it is a more competitive are at least a competitive view:
“But residents were upset when feminist divorcee and free-love lecturer Mary Gove Nichols moved in and promptly announced that anyone thinking of moving to Modern Times must be dedicated to free love and "willing to be considered licentious."
In the end, Modern Times' pioneers cared more for ordinary happiness than a life in the radical vanguard, says State University at Stony Brook historian Roger Wunderlich. He said monogamy, not bed-hopping, was the norm. Men and women living "in sin" usually married each other as soon as pending divorces became final.”
____________________________________________

If the historian writing about Modern Times invented by Warren, produced by Warren, and maintained by Warren, and all who volunteered in that effort, is a historian who does not get the point of it, then what is the story going to tell?

Is it a story that misses the point, and does the story not tell about Cost being the Limit of Price, and does the story not tell about the nature of Individuality, and does the story not even report on the significance of inventing, creating, and maintaining legal monetary competition?

What does the historian want the reader to know, exactly?

Does the historian want the reader to not know something specific?

Does the historian consider involuntary taxes to be the right way that the lesser of two evils will be benevolent when dictating the methods by which those involuntary taxes will be extracted from the weaker people by the mightier people?

Does the historian think that Liberty is a quaint but outdated concept?

Does the historian think that U.S.A. is The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, because that is what the historian was taught in Public School?

"Is equitable discussion possible under the circumstances of my deficiencies?"

Is a soul capable of accurately communicating with another soul?

There can be a scale on which to measure competitive answers from your capacity to communicate with your baby while it is not yet born, something that does happen, without question, on one end of the scale of Capacity to Communicate Accurately Through the Available Connecting Mediums, a placenta?

On the other end of the scale, back on the rack in the torture chambers, can you see a beaten wife trying to communicate to the husband how much the wife still loves the husband even while the husband is crushing her skull, and breaking her back?

Does not compute Will Robinson?

"So instead she absorbs the trouble. She has to make her own choices."

All are powerless to help the weak as the weak are perpetually pounded into submission by evil people?

Where is my stone, when I really need one?

You can't see the solution?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home

To me, again, these local tragedies are symptoms, as the most Evil among us are Collecting all the POWER they can get from their many victims, and they are using that POWER to PURCHASE exactly what you see all around you when you see exactly what EVIL WILL buy when otherwise good people are now providing the means by which we suffer exactly this way, exactly this much, as each Federal Reserve Note flows the way they are designed to flow one Dollar at a time.

No, everything can't be fixed, but those Dollars buy the Opiate Drug Monopoly Power, among other things, so ignore it, and it may go away?

You can't see the solutions, the problems are insurmountable?

"Today, outside of prayer, kindness and support, I do not see that anything can be done."

Weren't you the one who blurted out something about Jesus not being on the schedule we may prefer at this time, or something along those lines?

"I care about her as a person."

Care is still affordable?

Is it?

Do you see the design feature in The Money Monopoly Power: nothing can be afforded by any of the victims on this road.

Nothing.

Either Americans will find the courage or we will pay all the costs passed onto us by our home grown Legal Criminals, and those costs are absolute.

There is hope.

It had better be well focused.

"Joe, I said I did not realize I was attacking you. I was not trying to attack you, but it seems to me that I did attack you because you told me to bring it on. And that is why I am apologizing. When I ask for forgiveness I am asking you to not lay the offence upon my account, or to hold it against me."

That may have been more misunderstanding concerning my often repeated error of Getting up on the Soap Box, speaking to everyone, then stepping down and speaking to you personally, then back up, then down, and I should not do so, because that is the cause of the misunderstanding. If you are going to attack me, not that you do, but if you are going to do what Will does, he does attack me, then I say bring it on brother, bring it on sister, I'm asking for it, I need it, but if you do the attacking, please don't attack me with vapor, or marshmallows.

I think that was the context of that exchange, so there is no need, on my part, to refuse honorable requests to engage in equitable discussion, if you think that that may be my viewpoint.

I see possible lines drawn in the sand, and I am still able to question my viewpoints despite having apparent irreconcilable differences concerning a few differences of perspective.

Many things can be done wrong, and I don't need any help doing things wrong, I can take care of all the wrong things I do very well without any help, so the concept of equitable discussion continues to be a search for help in doing the right things.

Proverbs, so far, with your help as messenger assistant, passer on of things worth knowing, are valuable in that light.

Personal angles of view offered add much in the way of context too, in that light.

Equitable discussion, again borrowing from Noam Chomsky in On Language, is the way that people know so much despite having only a brief time alive.

One person can't know everything at once, yet somehow many people learn enough to be able to help one another survive better.

How is that possible?

"Thinking about it now though since you have asked me for the reasoning behind the attacks, I will say I was reacting after I felt you hurt my feelings by asking me to try on the shoe of a yellow canary sniveling coward. That hurt my feelings. And when I brought it up, you said you asked me if I was that. Well, it seems to me if you have to ask, you must be thinking it. So I asked you if you were deceived. I made a point of “asking.” I should not have done that. After all, when you ask me if a shoe fits it hurts my feelings, so why should I do the same to you other than to prove a point. I am sorry. It was the wrong thing for me to do. I should have turned my cheek. I should have never handed you a shoe. That is why I need you to forgive me and not hold my wrong against me."

That is not the way I see things. In the first place I do not consider someone to be a coward always and I think we are all cowards sometimes, so the concept of asking if you ARE a sniveling coward is a challenge to you to see if you can see past such nonsense, and if you can, you can, and if you can't you may yet see past it. Try it on. You don't like it. Do something about it.

You can ask me to try on any shoes.

I don't bring marshmallows.

This is serious business to me. I would not be typing if I did not think that this is very serious business. I am typing because I see this as very serious business.

No kid gloves.

It is a Power Struggle.

"I get the impression you may be hanging me out to dry as a Born Again Christian. Are you trying to hurt me? If that is the case, then please do not do that to me."

Again, no kid gloves. You had better have your ducks in a row, I am a sparing partner here, as far as I am concerned. If you do not see these equitable discussions in this light, then know, please know, I do see these discussions in this light.

If your viewpoint is weak, I will be finding the weaknesses, challenging them, and I do this because I was where you are, on the verge of doing something, going out and confronting the people who are The Problem, and I had help, I had a sparing partner at work, he is a good friend, a very capable person able to challenge any weakness I have in my thinking.

If you don't want the challenge, to any of your viewpoints, then opt out, stop while you can.

"I get the impression you may be hanging me out to dry as a Born Again Christian. Are you trying to hurt me? If that is the case, then please do not do that to me."

That is your viewpoint, not mine. I am not here to hurt you, as if somehow I get a pay off for hurting someone, that is ludicrous. If the Mormons arrive at the door I don't throw marshmallow at them, so why should I play favorites with you?

You tell me.

If you think you are being hung out to dry then why do you think that you are being hung out to dry, exactly why, not ambiguously why, not imprecisely why, not DARKNESS, why?

If you don't want the challenge, then find something much better to do with your time, there is a world of much better things to do, and I will still thank you for all your help up to this point.

I don't read from your script no more than I read from the script handed down from Legal Crime Central.

Suppose I was hanging you out to dry, what does that mean, please?

"I have failed."

If the goal you seek is ambiguous, then how can you succeed?

"I have failed."

And you have two children?

"I have failed."

You have failed what exactly?

A step backwards may reveal a better path, a path around the problem?

Observe, orient, decide, act.

How is Jeff managing with the book that I claim to be a story about what American is all about?

Is it time to move on to important matters?

Joe

Monsters, Marriage & Love

"I did not understand:"

That is right. I do not understand the equation:

Christianity = Ant-Love

I STILL do not know what “Ant” is.
______________
“You are on this Free Love Crusade, so you must have a concept in mind…”

I was not on a free love crusade. I was on a break down of the family in order to break up society crusade so that the despots have easy pickings. I think there is a difference. And I mistakenly understood that what Warren and Andrews advocated was Free Love as I define it:

As in what goes on in a soap opera…or in the TV show Friends, where everyone sleeps with everyone at some point in time because that is what circumstances bring to pass. That is how I hear the term. No need to marry, just try it on for size and if works for you, then keep it as long as you like and then pass it down or on when you want to try a new one. Free=freedom from responsibility; love=sex. And please do not make fun of me.

I suppose I foam at the mouth a lot when I hear words.
_______________
OK, I think I see this, you are saying that free love is love that does not pass on costs.

I understand what you are saying I think now so I will try to put those thoughts into words: Josiah Warren saw the Legal Criminal Monopoly and created a system where by people could live together in harmony without passing on costs, but where individuals are each responsible for their own actions, and where the Legal Criminals could not exercise despotism. Josiah Warren saw a problem and created a solution.

But aren’t some costs unavoidable? I have passed on a lot of cost, not by choice, but by circumstance, to my husband. We have medical debts. He did not incur them, I did. But we are one so what is mine is his and what is his is mine. If I start thinking of all the ways I have cost Jeff, I would drive myself crazy. He has definitely gotten the short end of the stick. And he never mentions it. He doesn’t count the costs I have incurred upon our lives together.
______________
“If you are going to now connect Andrews with Francis Barry, go ahead and publish that ambiguous, and very likely to be false, connection, since you are so fond of making these connections between frauds and the genuine articles.”

I am not fond of making connections. I don’t even know who Francis Barry is. It was on a website and it sounded a lot like what I read from Mr. Andrews.

By the way it seems to me that both of those gentlemen, Andrews and Warren, likened the work of a woman to burdensome labor. That bothered me. Those words seemed like they could be used to breed discontent in the minds of women who were otherwise happy. And no I am not talking about women who were beaten or raped. Have you been around women with a chip on their shoulders who are man haters? I have and I don’t appreciate them putting all their man hating into my court as if I hate men and I feel like I have been cheated in life by men. I have no such feelings or thoughts.
______________
“I can get a quote, if you care to know the actual quote, from my On Language book by Noam Chomsky concerning how language is a mirror into the mind. “

If you would like to get the quote from your book On Language I would be happy to read it. But you said you have trouble understanding that book. I have trouble understanding you, so how do you think I am going to understand Chomksy? But I would like to know what it is like to read some of his words.
_____________
“Do you understand the concept of language being a mirror into the mind, or as I prefer to think: Language is a mirror into the soul?”

Is it like these words of Jesus:

• Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh .

Or

• Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh .
_______________
“If my words cause you injury, or your words cause me injury, then something is wrong. We are not, I trust, and I believe, willing to pull each others finger nails off, supposedly to help each other, so the connecting medium, which isn't a pair of pliers, may be a considerable source of misunderstanding.”

The connecting medium being the written form of the English language whereby one has to carefully set symbols on a page to carry the exactly intended meaning and thought progression without leaving meanings to subjective interpretation?
___________
“Free means what?”

Without Cost (I suppose I was thinking cheap, but that is not the same as free)

Love means what?

• 1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Sure, it can be an emotion, but to to me love is expressed by loving actions and the absence of hateful actions. Loving actions are described in I Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long , and is kind ; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself , is not puffed up , 5Doth not behave itself unseemly , seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked , thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Maybe love does not count costs? Maybe love is both people giving 100% as opposed to 50%/50%

“Andrews is not alive to ask, but I am, and I get the concepts, I understand the concepts, I know the concepts, and I can explain the concepts understood by Andrews concerning what Free means, and it means to be Free from the routine practice of treating each other as PROPERTY, to be consumed and known by the measure of how much COST is passed on from Master to Slave.”

It is hard for me to imagine women as being property. I am not Jeff’s property. We belong to each other, but not like property, but like a living organism working together to make a home and raise a family where we mutually benefit and where we mutually absorb cost. As far as I can tell there is cost to life. Proverbs 14:4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.
___________
“There is exactly the point offered by Andrews, unmistakably that, exactly that, and anything else you may invent to then blame on Andrews is false, in my viewpoint. When a person creates COSTS and then forces someone else to pay for those COSTS that is what makes the relationship un-free WHEN the person paying the costs decides that they have paid too much, and they will no longer pay anymore, if it is in their power to do so, and here is where something valuable may become obvious.”

I suppose maybe the word cost needs defined?

When I think of cost I am not thinking of beatings and rapings. I am only thinking of things like, well, if Jeff had never married me, then he could drive a race car, or he would not have a wife who is depressed or has the family in thousands of dollars in medical debt. You have a very good mind at thinking about pliars and fingernail pullings, or a wives with broken backs and pulverized faces. Those things do not enter my mind.
____________
“So the answer is NO, just because Andrews tried, desperately, to Free the Slaves, including those Slaves being made Slaves by Monsters claiming to be Spouses, all nice and legal like, just because Andrews worked to Free the Slaves, does not mean that Andrews had anything to do with destroying The Family as The Family naturally occurs in a FREE social network.”

But why just free women, why not put those monsters in jail where they belong? Why not Trial by Jury for the monter? Why not Peer Pressure? Is the answer only to free the women. How about due process of law whereby the punishment meets the crime? Why bring marriage into question when the actions of the monster are the question?

The marriage didn’t do it.

The monster did it.

Which thing needs attention? Marriage or Monster?
________________
“Why do some women (or some men) remain in very destructive relationships, whereby one of the "spouses" tortures the other "spouse"?
I know this to be true, so there is no room for claiming otherwise, as men, in particular, violently beat their wives into near death, on a regular basis, and yet the wives remain faithful to the husbands.
Why?
You tell me.”

I don’t know why. People do not have to stay married. The police will come and take the guy away if she will call them. I suppose she is psychologically dependent on her abuser. But that does not mean the marriage did it. So why does marriage have to be questioned? It is the monster that needs correction, not marriage.

My marriage has nothing in common with a monster so why is the institution of marriage being questioned? What if we were to question the institution of manhood? No that is stupid. Lets just question the monster. It is not all marriages, it is not all men, but it is all monsters.
__________
“Perhaps as important a question, what exactly do you think is wrong with someone taking care of someone else when the one being taken care of is a child and the one caring is not a child, but not the parent?”

Because I know women who would like to stay home and raise their children and their husbands make them work such that they have to leave newborns in a day care. Even women who want to work have to leave their newborns and it is an unnatural thing if you ask me. I have heard them speak of the struggle and tears after leaving that 6 week old baby for the first time in the hands of a stranger. It is not natural. OK Big Target on my Back, but that is my opinion and I am allowed to have it. So when I hear someone in the 1800’s talking about leaving children, I automatically fast forward to today where children are left all day everyday from 7:30 to 5:30 to be cared for by people who may or may not love that child and may only be collecting a paycheck. IMO Legal Criminals want to take children out of the home as early as possible so that the imprinting of the parent is not left on the child. So…whose imprint will take the place of the parental imprinting? How about that Obama Flag…
_________________
“Please keep HIM to yourself, if that is your God advising battered women to hang in there and take their just rewards for being faithful.”

I will close with saying my God loves women. I do not know anywhere where He tells a woman to be abused by a man or to stay with her abuser. He created us. My God says husbands love your wives. My God says I love you and you are to love one another: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-john/4-audio.html

My God also indicates that divorce is a very serious matter, not something to be taken lightly.

I am stopping at 5 pages. I cannot go further. It is too much for me.

Math and Morality

"But aren’t some costs unavoidable? I have passed on a lot of cost, not by choice, but by circumstance, to my husband. We have medical debts. He did not incur them, I did. But we are one so what is mine is his and what is his is mine. If I start thinking of all the ways I have cost Jeff, I would drive myself crazy. He has definitely gotten the short end of the stick. And he never mentions it. He doesn’t count the costs I have incurred upon our lives together."

In the sense of accounting there can be a case made for you passing on costs, but that is an amoral accounting. The concept of passing on costs in context of Political Economy or Equitable Commerce has to do with a specific willful intent by someone to pass on costs to other people because they can, because they are powerful enough to overpower the target that is being targeted for passing cost ONTO.

Again there is a specific meaning and an ambiguous meaning for the concept of passing on costs, and the specific meaning, in my opinion is crime, not charity.

If you are charitable you will love Jeff, and if Jeff loves you too, being charitable, then your condition of existence, injured, or whatever, is not a factor, if anything you will be giving the best gift you can give if you heal. How is that ever accounted in Federal Reserve Notes unless there is no way that Jeff can get any Federal Reserve Notes and therefore you are never healed by people who demand Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for their special talents and knowledge concerning how to heal you?

Jeff is powerless to help you, and that too is measured in Federal Reserve Notes?

"But aren’t some costs unavoidable?"

Avoiding institutionalized CRIME made LEGAL was the point behind Equitable Commerce, and Josiah Warren spent no time explaining who did what, when, and where, as to how Civilized Cannibalism came to be the Cultural norm, to do onto others before they have time to do unto you, instead the person merely offered workable solutions after explaining the problem in English.

Costs, such as natural disasters, not Man Made Disasters (that profit a few at the expense of everyone else) are of course unavoidable, like accidents, they happen, so what is the concept of insurance, if that is the subject to be inspected, these unavoidable costs?

If an accident happens, then it is unavoidable by definition, it happened, but one accident suffered by one person can serve as a warning for another person, if another person wants to avoid the same fate.

"I am not fond of making connections. I don’t even know who Francis Barry is. It was on a website and it sounded a lot like what I read from Mr. Andrews."

Really?

"I am not fond of making connections"

That is one sentence.

"it sounded a lot like what I read from Mr. Andrews."

That is a connection being made between one thing and Andrews, because it "sounded a lot like" the Andrews sound?

If you are not fond of it, then why keep doing it?

"Have you been around women with a chip on their shoulders who are man haters?"

Now there is a connection being made to Warren, and Andrews, and Man haters, so, why connect Andrews and Warren to Man Haters now?

You are really not fond of doing that, really?
_____________________________________

On Language:

http://www.amazon.com/Language-Chomskys-Classic-Responsibili...

My copy has a bland cover, not that colorful one.

Reflections on Language Page 4 Chapter 1

"One reason for studying language-and for me personally the most compelling reason-is that it is tempting to regard language, in the traditional phrase, as "a mirror of mind." I do not mean by this simply that the concepts expressed and distinctions developed in normal language use give us insight into the patterns of thought that the world of "common sense" constructed by the human mind. More intriguing, to me at least, is the possibility that by studying language we may discover abstract principles that govern its structure and use, principles that are universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident, that derive from mental characteristics of the species. A human language is a system of remarkable complexity. To come to know a human language would be extraordinary intellectual achievement for a creature not specifically designed to accomplish this task. A normal child acquires this knowledge on relatively slight exposure and without specific training. He can then quite effortlessly make use of an intricate structure of specific rules and guiding principles to convey his thoughts and feelings to others, arousing in them novel ideas and subtle perceptions and judgments. For the conscious mind, not specially designed for the purpose, it remains a distant goal to reconstruct and comprehend what the child has done intuitively and with minimal effort. Thus language is a mirror of mind in a deep and significant sense. It is a product of human intelligence, created anew in each individual by operations that lie far beyond the reach of will or consciousness." (Noam Chomsky)

"The connecting medium being the written form of the English language whereby one has to carefully set symbols on a page to carry the exactly intended meaning and thought progression without leaving meanings to subjective interpretation?" (Bear)

And have an interest in doing so, which to me is vital. (Joe)

"Maybe love does not count costs? Maybe love is both people giving 100% as opposed to 50%/50%"

Love is beyond English, there is that intuition working (perhaps), something beyond mere sounds, beyond symbols on paper, beyond text, and even beyond gestures. Something deeper? What did Helen Keller exemplify?

Deaf and Blind people can still communicate?

What happens if someone is deaf, blind, and can't feel by touch?

What if someone is deaf, blind, and unfeeling by choice?

Where is my muzzle, blinders, and ear plugs Made in China?

No love?

"Proverbs 14:4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox."

There is much to think about in Proverbs.

"I suppose maybe the word cost needs defined?"

So much is made of price these days, and it seems to me that cost is price, as Warren suggests, but there has to be a way to recognize the nature of networks or connections, since we are not alone, singular, one, only, separate, disconnected, life form. We are human beings, not ants, but we are connected to one another, and the connections have to be understood if the idea is to know this Price/Cost measure of LIFE.

A cost, or a price, for someone who does live a life completely alone, a baby born and then dropped on a deserted island, having no contact with any other person ever, a cost, or a price can be defined by that single person in whatever way that single person defines cost, price, or any other word. Words would be a method of introspection, the single person talks to his or her self?

What is the cost of today's meal?

The question is not the same thing asked by the one person alone as it is in a network of people who are connected in many ways.

What is the price paid by the one person alone, to eat today?

Then, by some miracle, another person arrives on the scene and then who has the authority to determine the price and the cost of the next meal?

Who eats, who is made to make the meal, and eat crumbs?

The price is set by one upon the other, without question, or is the price found by some other method?

Both people wait for the other to produce the meal, and there can be no price, because there is no meal, and the cost is starvation.

One enslaves the other, and the costs are passed on, and the benefits are "given" out in a quality that just barely keeps the slave alive, long enough for the slave to keep paying the price, and paying the costs too, of producing the next meal, and eating the crumbs?

And what could have happened had both cooperated, making their power to produce exponentially greater?

What is reproduction?

2 people become 4.

4 people become 16.

What is slavery?

16 people become 4.

4 people become 2.

The last one eats the weaker of the two last ones.

"You have a very good mind at thinking about pliars and fingernail pullings, or a wives with broken backs and pulverized faces. Those things do not enter my mind."

These things are real, not a construction of my imagination. My wife does not want me to publish her intimate history, so I will leave this at that, and you don't need much imagination to figure it out.

"But why just free women, why not put those monsters in jail where they belong?"

At that time (Modern Times in the 1800s) the Legal "Institution" of Marriage protected monsters who owned people, abused people, tortured people, and killed people, and that has not changed, see if you can accuse Obama of Droning Wedding Parties to death, see how far you get with that effort to get what you want.

You want jail?

I don't.

Why not stop providing the means by which we suffer and see how much suffering still goes on, now that we don't buy so much of it with our Federal Reserve Notes?

"Why not Trial by Jury for the monter?"

In those days the men were nodding and winking at each other, life is good, women are property, and that is "our" idea of a "family" since that is how our parents grew up, so we will conserve this Institution of Legal Marriage?

Which men were winking and nodding, pardoning each other, for beating their slaves heads in, if the slaves dare get out of line?

Do you think this is all my imagination?

"Why not Peer Pressure?"

Are you now finding the elements of the Power Struggle?

"Is the answer only to free the women. How about due process of law whereby the punishment meets the crime? Why bring marriage into question when the actions of the monster are the question?"

Because Crime is now Legal, so it all fits like a glove. When the Federation was working, a Slave could run away from one State to another State, that has been proven, so what can the Federal Employees do, if a slave runs away?

The Federal Employees were limited in what they could or could not do, they could not tax people directly, they could not force a State to pay Union Dues, and that is how a Voluntary Association is defined, in that way.

Now the Masters own everyone, so they can make slavery legal, gender slavery, for as long as those gender slaves will take it, race slavery, for as long as the slaves will take it, tax slavery, for as long as the slaves will take it, fraud slavery, same thing.

A Power Struggle.

For as long as the slaves will continue to provide the means by which we suffer.

We suffer.

You, me, any sane person, and reasonable person, any moral person, has to pay a cost for each victim being injured anywhere.

We all have to suffer, and that is the way it is.

Who cares?

Will enough people care enough to stop providing the means by which we suffer, and then how many people are still slaves?

Those who can't live without being a slave?

What is now?

Those who can't live without being a slave. How much? Follow the money.

Which money?

The one legal money.

Those who can't live without being a slave prove the fact, one dollar at a time.

Provide the means by which we are slaves, because what?

We can't live without being slaves.

No, say it isn't so, Joe.

I'd love to.

What do we have now?

"Which thing needs attention? Marriage or Monster?"

When Crime is made Legal, monsters get paid a lot of money for being better monsters.

How is that not very painfully obvious?

"I suppose she is psychologically dependent on her abuser. But that does not mean the marriage did it. So why does marriage have to be questioned? It is the monster that needs correction, not marriage."

Legal Marriage no longer protects the man who abuses the wife, as much, so what happened since those days when it was more common for men to get away with murder, just because there was a Legal Marriage?

Now they have to join The Military (public or private)?

Marriage is a voluntary association until it is involuntary, unless Police with badges say otherwise, then it is "voluntary" and every wife has "volunteered" to stay married, like it or not.

Marriage is a voluntary association, so why is anyone claiming that Marriages have to be Legal?

So, if someone points out that a Marriage does not have to be legal, then you think they are saying that Marriage is bad?

Legal Marriage is a contradiction in terms.

I said it.

So now, according to you, I said: Marriage is bad.

Do I understand you well enough yet?

Is it even possible to arrive at a mutual understanding?

"My marriage has nothing in common with a monster so why is the institution of marriage being questioned?"

Legal Marriage or Marriage without the need to hire someone to make me suffer so as to then be able to Marry someone?

Voluntary Law or Involuntary Law?

Genuine or Counterfeit.

Who confuses the two?

"What if we were to question the institution of manhood?"

We?

What if you are going to confuse genuine manhood with the counterfeit version?

"No that is stupid. Lets just question the monster. It is not all marriages, it is not all men, but it is all monsters."

There is a Power Struggle, it is not NEWS, and there are Criminals and there are Victims. The victims provide the means by which we all suffer, including the criminals, and if that stops, who still suffers?

BREAK

"Even women who want to work have to leave their newborns and it is an unnatural thing if you ask me."

People send their earnings to get peace, and instead they are paying criminals to destroy peace, so that goes on and on, and the logical result is less peace and more crime made legal until there are fewer and fewer hours in the day to earn Federal Reserve Notes required to pay more and more to get less and less peace.

So that happens and it is Warren and Andrews who are guilty of destroying the family because they want Free Love?

If the people who are working harder and harder to pay the payments demanded of them OR ELSE, stop obeying that order, without question, and they then have their earnings which can then be used to earn more, will the result be less or more Quality Family Time?

I don't know. Who wants quality family time?

I don't.

I want to do the right thing.

Call me a lunatic.

" So when I hear someone in the 1800’s talking about leaving children, I automatically fast forward to today where children are left all day everyday from 7:30 to 5:30 to be cared for by people who may or may not love that child and may only be collecting a paycheck."

Yea, you don't like making these false connections, yet you do it all the time.

"I am stopping at 5 pages. I cannot go further. It is too much for me."

So God does not make women "provide the means by which they suffer" at the hands of abusive husbands?

I just want to be clear about this, if possible, but these are just offerings from a lunatic, so please avoid everything that costs too much of your time and energy - please.

Joe

On Deception Completed

I, Joe, am the lunatic because I asked you if were deceived when I am actually the one who has been deceived and did not even know it.

I will be working on a reply to your fine comments and will return here to place them. I am sorry I stopped at page 5, I just could not go further. Maybe if my reply is not too long I will go back and pick up some thoughts that were past page 5.

I am so glad the communication from this week over and we have been able to move past it. Joe, it is a pleasure to speak with you, and I appreciate your time in ways you do not know. I regret my inability to always understand and inequity in jumping to conclusions. Thank you for your patience and willingness to continue to help me. I will try to do better, but remember, you are speaking a grasshopper. I wonder if Grasshopper ever asked that master if he was deceived?

_____________________
“The concept of passing on costs in context of Political Economy or Equitable Commerce has to do with a specific willful intent by someone to pass on costs to other people because they can, because they are powerful enough to overpower the target that is being targeted for passing cost ONTO.”

OK, So a cost isn’t just a burden passed or shared, but a cost is a specific, deliberate, willful and intended (probably continuous?) “iniquity” at the expense another person? Could the word iniquity be interchangeable with the word cost? Is the difference in an equitable relationship that the parties try not to act iniquitous toward one another, even though, sometimes imperfection may arise, but that are not the norm or intention? And in a relationship where cost is passed upon the victim it is deliberate, purposeful, and intended? But think of that lady whose husband when on the meth binge. I am sure he did not “mean” to do what he did, he fell back into his old patterns. I guess what I am trying to say, is: Some people act out of physical and or psychological deficiencies…like an addict. They can’t help that they pass costs can they? Is an abuser trapped by abuse? I think you told me one time something about sick people who think their victims are making them perpetrate their evil acts upon them. I guess that is not political economy is it. That is more social economy?

The concept of cost that you have explained helps me here in my Bible understanding:

I John 3:6Whosoever abidethin him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him

This has always been explained that Christians do not practice continual in sin, it is not a life pattern, etc. The way you explained passing on costs helps me to understand this part of the Bible better.

I had this thought also…Josf, we cannot help but sin, it is within our nature. Why would God not provide a way for us not to have to pay for something that we cannot help? It would be like God punishing me because I was created with the ability to use language as described by Chomsky. If language were a sin, what kind of God would not provide a propitiation for something that is done unwillfully? So then, there is a difference between devising sin: 1) Passing on costs: purposeful and deliberate, planned and ongoing; and 2) Committing sins as they randomly occur because it is a part of the human nature to do so.

The other thing I want to bring up, I am not waiting til I die to have my wrongs forgiven, I am able to live with a clear conscience today as I confess and turn from sin, God forgives me today. I do not have to carry guilt. I know I told you I would cast myself on the mercy of God when I stand before Him, but honestly, I am able to cast myself upon the mercy of God in my daily life as well when I find that I do not act in love.
_________________
Jeff and I talked Saturday about marriage bondage. He explained to me like you did, that right after the slavery issue, women’s rights were addressed. He used the word chattel. He told me even of a woman he remarried to a 2nd husband in the recent past whose first husband forbad her to leave his property without him. We also talked about the nice lady in Clinton who kept the pregnant drug addict and now is keeping the porch sitters. Seems her husband would not let her drive his truck. He said she would have to walk before being able to drive her husband’s truck. He told me of another family whose husband would not allow plumbing and made the family use 5 gallon buckets as toilets. He said those men did those things to control and dominate their “wives”. I have had a very easy and sheltered life. I remember before the nice lady in Clinton’s husband kicked her out, he made the remark that the men in the church had failed him. I never understood what that meant until you mentioned the winking and nodding that went on between the men as they looked the other way when women were abused. It seems the men at our church were more equitable than what her husband desired. Connecting dots?
____________
“Really?
"I am not fond of making connections"
That is one sentence.
"it sounded a lot like what I read from Mr. Andrews."
That is a connection being made between one thing and Andrews, because it "sounded a lot like" the Andrews sound?
If you are not fond of it, then why keep doing it?”

I didn’t realize what I was doing until I told you in that other thread that I like to connect the dots. I suppose that is being “fond” of making connections. Yes, I like to make connections, but I do not like to make wrong connections for the sake of making connections. I was wrong to do that and did not realize my error. I guess there is a reason we were talking over there so I could see my hypocrisy over here. I did not realizing I was connecting dots. I thought those men were saying the same thing or stood for the same thing. But I am going to say if you say they are not, then they are not. I just want everything to have a reason. You know cause and effect. I guess that is the way my mind works, but I should not construe cause and effect. I will try to be more careful. Really, I did not realize that I was putting pieces together that didn’t belong together.

Josf, one thing that bothered me about Mr. Andrews was that he published a very personal matter having to do with I think it was Mr. James’ relationship with his wife. That seemed like a cheap and hurtful shot to me. Do you know what I am talking about? I think I like Mr. Warren better than Mr. Andrews so far.

“Now there is a connection being made to Warren, and Andrews, and Man haters, so, why connect Andrews and Warren to Man Haters now? “

I think it is because I have wrongly connected their words with the modern women’s liberation movement. Is that a wrong assumption?
_____________________________________
On Language:
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Chomskys-Classic-Responsibili...
Reflections on Language Page 4 Chapter 1

Very interesting thoughts on language. Thank you for taking the time and effort to set them down for me.

I like the words: . “To come to know a human language would be extraordinary intellectual achievement for a creature not specifically designed to accomplish this task.” Because those words made me think of how we are different than animals and also how we were designed by God to be able to communicate. It makes me think now of how animals cannot understand humans much, and how that might parallel our ability to understand God.

I like these words too: “It is a product of human intelligence, created anew in each individual by operations that lie far beyond the reach of will or consciousness." To think that almost every individual human is capable of speaking and it is not done by will power but is achieved at a subconscious level...like seeing or like digesting food. It is just something that happens involuntarily…I wonder, if we couldn’t talk, would we be able to think? Does thinking require words? Does Chomsky say anything about humans communicating within their own minds with themselves using words?
___________________
"The connecting medium being the written form of the English language whereby one has to carefully set symbols on a page to carry the exactly intended meaning and thought progression without leaving meanings to subjective interpretation?" (Bear)

“And have an interest in doing so, which to me is vital.” (Joe)

Yes that is a much needed addition.

And let’s add: …,and in equitable communication, doing so without the intent to deceive. (bear)
______________
“What if someone is deaf, blind, and unfeeling by choice? “

Would that question lead back to that conversation about sociopaths we started to have on another post? Maybe it was on your Top 10 interview post? Someone who is purposefully deaf, blind, and unfeeling towards the inhuman treatment, suffering and passing of costs/iniquity to another living being might have something missing in their brain that would allow them to turn that blind eye and deaf ear? Is that something on which you wanted to start talking a discussion?
_________
“Which men were winking and nodding, pardoning each other, for beating their slaves heads in, if the slaves dare get out of line?
Do you think this is all my imagination?”

No, I did not mean it is your imagination, I mean it is hard for me to imagine such injustice. (I remember having the impression to scoop up a little boy when hearing of your school years. There is also a little girl that I would scoop up as well and comfort. I am sorry for you both. I cannot imagine her heartache and it saddens me to do so.) These things are not something I think about or write words about. I suppose you are having to write them though to get it into my closed mind.

The thing that is hard for me though is that not all people were like that…were they? Not all people were winking and nodding. You know Little House on the Prairie. They seemed like a happy old fashioned family. Patrick Henry’s wife went crazy. Some men had their wives institutionalized where they were chained to a wall in a windowless cell in a so-called “hospital.” He would not do that. He prepared a place for her at the house and cared for her himself. I suppose also he saw those ministers being beaten in the town square and that inspired his Liberty or Death speech. He was inspired by the misery around him to do something. So, Warren saw and did. I can understand.
____________
“Are you now finding the elements of the Power Struggle?”

Yes, I was thinking about the Power Struggle while sitting in church last evening. I thought of Paul’s Words: Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Overcome evil by doing good. So, in the Power Struggle, it is important to do good so that evil is less powerful. Is that how you would see it?

“You, me, any sane person, and reasonable person, any moral person, has to pay a cost for each victim being injured anywhere.
We all have to suffer, and that is the way it is.”

Can we apply the “overcome evil by doing good” principle to the above situation so that we do not have to pay cost but instead we are doing good to negate the evil? Did Warren employ good to overcome evil: Equitable Commerce [good] to oppose to Civilized Cannibalism [evil]?
_________
“When Crime is made Legal, monsters get paid a lot of money for being better monsters.
How is that not very painfully obvious?”

It is now. I hope I can remember it though. I cannot believe we have been talking about Legal Criminals all this time and I did not understand the situation with Warren and Marriage Bondage. But Joe, do you really think all husbands were acting inequitably towards their wives? Was it a problem blown out of proportion? Did all men forget to love their wives? And that is where I must see the grey.
______
“Marriage is a voluntary association, so why is anyone claiming that Marriages have to be Legal?”

Like this? Genesis 24:58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said , I will go…67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death. [full context: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/genesis/24-audio.html ]

I suppose that above is “legal” enough. The girl says, “yes,” she is “taken” and in that consummation she becomes his wife. He loves her and she comforts him. They become one flesh as long as they are both living.

“Legal Marriage is a contradiction in terms.”

I could say yah, and dw thinks voluntary tax is a contradiction in terms and willl thinks legal crime is a contradiction in terms. So I suppose you can say legal marriage is a contradiction in terms and I can say…when a man and woman consummate their marriage it is then legal because in that action they become 1 flesh before God. The marriage license does not make them legal before God. A public ceremony does not make them legal before God.
________________
“So now, according to you, I said: Marriage is bad.
Do I understand you well enough yet?”

It sounds like you may understand me better than I understand myself and if you hadn’t done such a good job explaining everything yes, that would be the case, but I understand. Now I am wrestling with people “living together,” and not being “married” I suppose that is another subject, or the same subject? I suppose if they have become one flesh they are married, since I just wrote that above.
__________________
ME: " So when I hear someone in the 1800’s talking about leaving children, I automatically fast forward to today where children are left all day everyday from 7:30 to 5:30 to be cared for by people who may or may not love that child and may only be collecting a paycheck."
YOU: “Yea, you don't like making these false connections, yet you do it all the time.”

Jeff and I talked about it Saturday. We discussed a swinging pendulum. I suppose both sides of the swing are out of bounds but the middle would be perfect. i.e.

a) wrong for monsters to have their way with women
b) women have freedom
c) a woman leaves husband and 5 children because she want to “have fun.”

Same with day care:
a) Mother can never leave children,
b) mother can leave children some
c) mother leaves newborn all day.

I suppose I fail to see the grey area which is neither left or right of the pendulum swing, and I erroneously attach the opposite extreme to someone (Warren) who has only but tried to bring the pendulum back to middle which would be equity. I suppose also that as the pendulum swings it would be in the benefit of Legal Criminals to keep the momentum going past middle equity. Maybe that is why movement towards equity is co-opted.
_________________
“So God does not make women "provide the means by which they suffer" at the hands of abusive husbands? “

No. God says husband love your wife and give yourself for her. Leave your parents and cleave to her. Wife respect your husband and give him a safe haven in this world. Man: love and do everything within your ability for your wife and woman in turn respect your husband for his love and sacrifice (Proverbs 31 talks about a kind of wife whose husband’s heart safely trusts in her). Any man who does not love his wife is sinning against God. It is God’s will for a wife to be loved. Jeff just stood here in this room so I could ask him about it. He said he would not counsel any woman to stay with an abusive man, and said that abuse is not limited to physical abuse, but can also be psychological and verbal.
____________
“Note: Here is a Born Again Christian, so named, faced with 3 or 4 (Warren, Andrews, Spooner, and Joe Kelley) offering a very precise definition of the most serious problem facing mankind today, where each of these people on this list have worked and found actionable methods by which The Problem is not only solved, but The Problem won't happen again, and this Born Again Christian goes past those messages and the Born Gain Christian Zeros in on The FREE LOVE problem, but fails to offer a precise definition of the problem and does not offer actionable solutions to that Free Love Problem so named.”
I have failed.

I said that because it seemed to me that you are blaming the fact that I claim to be a born again Christian as the fact of deficiency in my ability to bring answers to the table. I can promise, if Jeff had time to talk, he could explain everything much better than I. He is not myopic and can look at both sides of a coin at the same time. So, it is not the Born Again Christian, that is the problem, it is me, bear, that is deficient and my failure is that you would blame my belief in Christ instead of me. It sounded like you were mocking a Born Again Christian. I would rather you mock me.

As far as an actionable solution: I have one word that will solve all the problems and it is simply “LOVE.” [goodness] If everyone operated out of love, there would be no problems to solve, but instead many operate out of hate [evil]. We can end the fed, irs & troops and if many still operate out of hate, evil will still abound and overcome. We could keep the fed, irs and troops and if love is the rule, those “things” would operate with equity. Because it is not those “things” that do the evil, it is evil that uses those 3 things. Can you imagine if those 3 things were operated out of love? The world would not be starving and victims would not be paying for demise, but for good things, meaning there would be no victims. I John 4:8 “…God is love.”

I think Rand Paul speaks to this starting at about 5 minutes (he is speaking to a “Christian” audience and he is definitely not his dad as he is speaking “to” his “audience” it seems to me, but he speaks of practical, actionable solutions, not abstract theory): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QMtrh...
__________________
“Lines in the Sand:
To me this is like someone blaming God for the crimes done by the people who later became known as The Inquisition.
If God did all that, had any part in all that, other than creating the living beings involved in it, then that is not the God that I know to be the true God.”

• 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishnessof preaching to save them that believe .

• Luke 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

I Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company , if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat .

As far as I can tell, we are to speak the gospel to those who will hear, if people do not want to know Christ, we are to leave them alone. As far as people not “behaving,” if someone professes Christ and is living in sin…passing on costs, I am not to pal around with them. If someone is not a believer and lives in sin, well what should I expect, I can spend some time eating with them. After all, we are both in this world together and this person does not profess Christ, so how is that person supposed to live as Christ?
___________
“Who advises the victim of an abusive husband (or wife) to remain connected to the abuser?
If that is your God, then I want nothing to do with your God.
Another line in the sand?”

I don’t think so. Proverbs 24:11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; 12 If thou sayest , Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

Do not turn a blind eye, but rather help those who are victims?

The lady whose car is lost, I haven’t encouraged her to leave her husband. If he was beating her, I can imagine myself doing that though. Jeff cautioned her when he gave her his car for the day, that it was for that day, and that her husband needed to take responsibility…(he needed to absorb the cost, not us?). And yet, I imagine we would help her again, but Jeff has set the bar. She has been calling all the wreck yards in the phone book to see if they have her car impounded. Jeff told her that her husband needed to be doing that. Seems he hadn’t come down from his meth binge yet. I hear it takes about 4 days to finally get some sleep. I imagine her car has been pieced out. No one seemed to think that is the case. Although when I mentioned it to Jeff, he paused a bit. Me, connecting dots again.

Just got a phone call meant for Jeff as I am editing this post…seems there was some screaming and arguing this fine Monday morning on the children’s playground there at our church. Seems the lady’s husband and the lady’s father (who has heart trouble and does not go to our church) were having words and the father was driving his truck around the playground (through the grass) in an irrational way, and if I understand right, he was chasing her husband. The trustee who happened to be up at the church doing some repairs called the sheriff. I can only imagine what that was all about…did the father just find out what the lady’s husband has been up to the last 2 weeks? Or did something else happen? She does try to protect her husband’s costs from her parents. Seems they have had enough of his passing on costs. I suppose in the Old Testament those parents may have been some of the first to throw some stones? …Maybe the only way to liberate their legally free daughter from an iniquitous situation?

I suppose for some reason, I think the worse when…connecting dots.
___________________
“I think there is a serious error in failing to know that the current government is counterfeit, or crime made legal, and therefore the concept of defense against crime is falsely viewed as being morally wrong, as morality and legality are confused by that bait and switch routine.” – Joe Kelley

(I copied that quote and had it saved in my library of links doc. You said it several weeks ago. Do you remember writing those words? Those words struck me so I saved them. Maybe someday you will have a quote page dedicated to you on this connecting medium. Or maybe you do already…You are writing a book. Quotes can be one way communication, but are very powerful.

...

Lost

I typed a response this morning and hit BREAK and send to get some chores done, when I returned the reply was lost somehow.

So...I have practiced responding to this and when I get back I can actually respond to this latest offering in this discussion that I think is working out well.

Joe

Concession

Josf, I concede. I cannot bring it on and I cannot bear for you to bring it on. I am a sniveling coward this morning and the shoe fits. I am no match for you. I cannot even understand the equation:

Christianity = Ant-Free Love

I do not know what is meant by the word “Ant.” And you do not know that I do not know even when I try to explain that I do not know.

I cannot bear to spar. If you wish you may grind me into the dirt. I have enough pain in my life without interpreting your words as painful.

Jeff has not had time to open his book again since the morning of his birthday. He has very little free time.

Update

to add Day 14
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/14-audio.html

Summer Patriots? http://www.dailypaul.com/254756/ten-hut-the-million-patriot-...
_______________________
Joe, there are words in here that talk about the wicked one snatching away the Word so that some are unable to believe. I ran across this this week and did not share it with you right away because I didn't like what it said about people not being able to hear. But I cannot change what God's Word says so I am sharing it. May I introduce you to Jesus:

Audio:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/luke/8-audio.html
Text:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/luke/8.html

Also adding Day 13 http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/13-audio.html

...

Summer and The Word

The call to do something on a specific date to me is sound, but the Power struggle requires a wave of understanding taking hold of enough people, polarizing them, to share a common goal to be accomplished in time.

What is the common goal?

I can think of 3 competitive common goals and vacationing in Washington D.C., or going to The White House to ask for mercy, or going to Congress as One Group to demand redress, is not on the competitive list, in my view.

The competitive list is:

1.
End the FED (competitively)
2.
End the IRS (competitively)
3.
End the Criminal employment of The Military (competitively)
4.
Assemble all The Friends of Liberty into ONE Marching Band focusing all the POWER onto ONE Place, at ONCE, to accomplish something ambiguous?

It does not fit, as a competitive thing to do, for We The People who are truly Friends of Liberty, so as to ensure that we are truly Friends IN Liberty by a specific time and day, for us to become a MOB and wander over to ONE place, and then expect to perform a miracle?

Luke 8, to me, does not address the snatching away of the Word, so there may be something I am missing, but I read the link, and I think the parable sounds a lot like the Power Struggle whereby Power can be used to make more power, such as what happens when plants grow more numerous if they are farmed efficiently, one seed can become many seeds, one plant can become many plants, and failure to find the understanding of how to farm efficiently does not result in one seed becoming many seeds, and one plant becoming many plants, so then, naturally, KNOWLEDGE can be FARMED efficiently, so as to farm other things efficiently, and therefore The WORD, no matter what you call it, IS, in fact, meant to be instructions on preserving life (everlasting), or at least as long as The PEOPLE seek The WORD.

A Powerful person is one that knows better?

How can ONE person ever make life last more than ONE generation?

It can't happen.

One person must be able to pass The WORD (instruction, understanding, wisdom, fear of evil, whatever works RIGHT at preserving life) to another?

Osmosis?

Joe

Its a...............Book!

I had to laugh this morning as I thought of this little scenario and I cannot wait until you finish your post to share it.

Grasshopper bear: Joe, you are so smart, why don’t you write a book?

Joe: bear, what do you think you are reading? Am I not writing a book?

bear: Oh, you mean books don’t have to come from the store anymore! How exciting! Very competitive indeed! Bear is learning all kinds of things from this free book! You are very smart Joe!
____________________
You were having such an nice conversation with willl over there in that Goode post. What happened? Did you hurt his feelings by calling him a dictator? Joe, he seemed like he was learning. He accepted your premise about the consolidation of power in a single day practically. I took me months before I was able to stomach it. Remember who I thought I was talking to? I even asked you if you were the “C” word. Why did your conversation end so soon with willl? Because he had “respectful,” and yes he did use that word, disagreements? Maybe he just didn’t understand yet and needed to talk more. Didn’t you like talking to him? Or I suppose it could be a her. Lots of guys seem to think I am a him. I also thought you were having an equitable conversation with ajnock until he had trouble with fiat currency, but I think he turned around abit on that. People are not used to speaking your language. You know your words to mean what you know they mean, but most people hear the words and think of the counterfeited meaning. Isn’t it just possible to explain and teach to establish Friends IN Liberty? Maybe Friends of Liberty misunderstand and need to understand. Maybe they do not know they misunderstand.
_____________
I enjoyed your explanation of good farming and passing to the next generation!

Here are the words that troubled me in Luke 8:8 “…And when he [Jesus] had said these things, he cried , He that hath ears to hear , let him hear .9 And his disciples asked him, saying , What might this parable be ? 10 And he said , Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see , and hearing they might not understand.

It says to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others it is not.

And also Luke 8: 12 Those by the way side are they that hear ; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved .

And in that verse the devil take the word so that they cannot believe.
__________________________

I watched this http://www.dailypaul.com/254511/the-road-to-world-war-3 this morning. My first though was it was a communist plot to thwart our country. My next thought, stages 1 and 2 sound like Josf. Last thought, I wonder if this is a military psych op to flush out dissenters. (video includes interview of madam not-so-bright and her famous words that you spoke to me about last week.) OK here I am begging more time of Josf. Will you see what you think of the video..less than 15 minutes. Last week you talked to me about what does the message instill within…well as you can see, the message instilled many things, but left me wondering about the source of the message and when the 3 stages were being discussed the music changed and made me afraid. So I am asking you, what does this message mean? Can you add a little bit about it to your book?

Did you hear Tom Woods on Infowars? http://www.dailypaul.com/254284/tom-woods-on-the-alex-jones-...

Did you know Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s campaign manager resigned from Campaign for Liberty and went to work for Mitch McConnell’s campaign? A lot of people think he is a traitor. He is Ron Paul’s Grandson-in-Law and people think he sold out the campaign. I think there is a lot of unrest and there is not a leader. Is a leader important? Or maybe not because G Edward Griffen says pyramids lend themselves to being taken over by collectives...but how in the world is someone in the mix supposed to know who to believe. Or is that just it…believe no one?

bearhopper…full of questions for your book.

...

Economic Information Revolution

"bear: Oh, you mean books don’t have to come from the store anymore! How exciting! Very competitive indeed! Bear is learning all kinds of things from this free book! You are very smart Joe!"

How interesting is it to find out that marketing can include such things as dumping?

Not only can someone be greedy, a Scrooge, supposedly evil incarnate, by miserly practices of always making sure that the soiled end of the stick is handled by other people, and not only are there generous charitable people who give away everything to other people, supposedly copies of Jesus Himself, but there are people who give things so as to then take things and there are people who take things so as to give things, and in the middle is equity?

Modern day information transfer is nothing short of a revolution and in order to compete there are inventions that include free, or no monetary price, information packets available everywhere on these terminals we call Lap Tops, Cell Phones, Personal Computers, I-Pads, and many other names for basically the same thing: terminals.

Individual connecting points, or terminals, connecting to one homogenous medium of exchange and here you may want to know a thing or two about Electricity and the concept of how electricity finds the path of least resistance.

If violent people require falsehood and false people require censorship and targets for victimization require accurate information concerning their impending injury then how does that information manage to travel from one potential victim to another through a medium of exchange whereby there is the least resistance resisting the free flow of that vital information?

I have cases in point, and so do you, and we can compare these medium of exchanges, how they were produced, why they were produced, how they became corrupted and abused, and the capacity these inventions presented mankind in linking one to another for good or bad.

1.
Books
2.
Television
3.
Internet

Person A desires to murder or enslave Person B, while Person C desires to inform Person B of that impending doom.

Person B is busy in the pursuit of happiness while avoiding any resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence upon other people, so categories can be as such:

Person A is a Criminal

Person B is an innocent person (innocent of crime so named)

Person C is informed about crime and generous or honest or merely talkative a blabbermouth or the town crier, or a Modern Day Paul Revere, a whistle blower, informer, news outlet, author, writer, sign maker, inventor, producer, and maintainer of vital questions and competitive answers, intending to connect the information about criminals to each current or potential victim, just in case the victims may want to travel past all the resistance and just in case the victims may want to find out in time that information, so as to have the time, and the resources, to avoid being victims.

So accurate, informative, useful, productive, defensive, information, where the information can empower the victims with the power required to avoid being victims WILL weaken criminals and raise the costs of doing crime and lower the benefits of doing crime on the criminals scale of cost over benefit.

So criminals place road blocks in between the information and the victims as the criminals invent, produce, and maintain these costly investments, whereby they are faced with that very unfortunate consequence of the Law of Diminishing Returns, as each victim connects to the powerful information that allows them to avoid being victims RAISES the need to find more victims, and to squeeze more value out of each victim, so as to invent, produce, and maintain more road blocks that keep the victims in the dark.

Books, like the Bible, connected The Word with people who were powerful enough to read The Word, so criminals had to invent ways to censor The Word, or their way of life would run out of victims rapidly, and their way of life would starve out the number of criminals, as the costs of living for criminals increase beyond a sustainable level, and as the benefits for crime dry up along with the ready supply of ready victims.

History books, written by Inquisition Victors, Pogrom Victors, Crusade Victors, and other Winners of massive expenditures of POWER aimed at massive torture and massive slaughter, throughout the history that has become common knowledge among the recent past and current generations of mankind.

A person capable of reading The Bible, and The Word, may be powerful enough to accurately discriminate the difference between information that benefits the criminals and information that benefits the victims including the true meaning of such things as The Inquisition, The Crusades, and World War II.

Burning witches, for example, and extracting confessions through torture, may have worked well for the criminals at the expense of the victims for a time that lasted too long, but no such False Front can be repeated in Modern Times.

Seriously?

Is there a book, available to anyone who may want to know, sold at cost, where the author warns the potential victims of a new adaptation of The Inquisition, in Modern Times, whereby the criminals have again taken over the sources of POWER and are again on the March, torturing and burning people for fun and profit?

Common Sense?

76 Pages that include such things as this:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

What if a few people, or just two people, manage to combine their disconnected studies of divergent information, one being a spiritual education, and the other being a political economy education, and it becomes obvious, at least to these two individuals, that government does not have to be evil at all, and therefore this information, if it is true, can empower the current victims, and the potential victims with the defensive power that can enable honest productive people to be able to afford life on Earth for a little wile longer, if not for eternity?

What is that called?

Ravings of conspiracy theory combined with bible thumping Jesus freakishness?

Heaven Forbid!

We two may not be as alone as I may think, and my guess is that you have similarly experienced crushing despair in the face of what may first appear to be insurmountable opposition to the truth.

How much does one person give up in the effort to transfer vital questions and accurate answers to fellow Friends of Liberty and is the cost benefit analysis profitable for that individual?

How is profit measured?

If someone knocks on the door, someone soliciting a connection, and the messenger intends to connect the person behind the door with The Word of God, does the messenger encounter resistance, and is there a way that the message can find the path of least resistance, around the door, and can the message find the eager listeners, those who are desperate for vital questions and accurate answers?

Is there bad things coming?

Can those bad things be avoided?

Pay more and don't question the payments?

"You were having such an nice conversation with willl over there in that Goode post. What happened? Did you hurt his feelings by calling him a dictator? Joe, he seemed like he was learning. He accepted your premise about the consolidation of power in a single day practically. I took me months before I was able to stomach it."

Will encountered my "if the shoe fits" routine. You know how that works, don't you? He may have tried on the shoe, and he may have found that the shoe cannot fit him, or her, and so such things are a waste of time.

What if the shoe fitting resulted in a well fitting shoe, like Cinderella?

I don't know, but I notice how you set the standard as to how discussions can work with me. Why has our discussion managed to bear fruit, and the discussion with Will was lacking the will to continue?

I don't know, one of us isn't confessing?

" I took me months before I was able to stomach it. Remember who I thought I was talking to? I even asked you if you were the “C” word."

I took that as you asking me to try on the Communist shoes, and I have to ask, real Communists like Lenin, or counterfeit Communists like Hippies in the 60s?

Which shoe, exactly, do you want me to see if the shoe fits?

I have a long way to go before I order the legal deaths of 20, or 200, Million people, for fun and profit. I prefer not to start down that road of Communism. I prefer to warn people about how far down that road we are already progressing.

I prefer to warn people about how the Dirty Compromise in 1788 was a huge step down the road that can be called Communism, even before Lenin or Marx coined the word Communism.

"Why did your conversation end so soon with willl? Because he had “respectful,” and yes he did use that word, disagreements? Maybe he just didn’t understand yet and needed to talk more. Didn’t you like talking to him?"

Will laid it out, it seems to me, without reservation, which is a whole lot more than many people do, and so I am grateful for such generosity of spirit, that is The Spirit of Liberty, it seems to me.

I just happen to think that Will is suffering from a closed loop involving a false principle concerning how power works in our human condition. Authority of Man upon Man is a lie, so why believe it? I'd like to know, but then that door was shut?

Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences, or semantics, depending upon want is is?

Man upon Man is confused with Man for Mankind? One can be confused with the other when language becomes deceptive?

Can language become deceptive or do people use tools to reach the goal of deception?

How can deception be measured?

How about an exemplary sentence, to be measured for deception?

Authority of Man upon Man is a lie, so why believe it?

Is that sentence deceptive? Does that sentence confess my goal of seeking deception?

"I also thought you were having an equitable conversation with ajnock until he had trouble with fiat currency, but I think he turned around abit on that."

Again, a few days ago, I'm talking with my wife, heading up to Las Vegas, to spend some time with our niece the nurse, time spend under the Aluminum Overcast, and on the way I tell my wife about the Standard being set on "how to" discuss with me. You set that Standard. This bear person, a she, and my wife is normally very suspicious about her husbands motives, even after 25 years of honest faithfulness, but in this there isn't even a hint of jealously, for some reason, possibly because there isn't any reason to be jealous, because discussions with me can be so difficult, special, but difficult, and better for everyone involved, when a Standard is being set, and set very high, as the conversation goes, my wife and I, as I inform my wife, about this Standard of discussion, now documented on this forum - in book form.

Again, I tell my wife, yesterday, how this is working out, and is it coincidence?

I don't know.

I've had the book idea, telling my wife, for some time now. I call the book Liberty for Kids. I say, other people discuss the topic, and occasionally I find someone, and I ask them to ask me questions, you know, I say, questions I ask myself all the time, I do this all the time, this is what I do, all the time, I say to my brother, for example, who appears to be waking up, and then that stops, no more questions being asked, and so the book sits, and is not written, I don't know how to do this alone, like playing chess alone, it is a closed loop, and then Bear shows up out of the blue.

What do you call that: coincidence?

BREAK

"I also thought you were having an equitable conversation with ajnock until he had trouble with fiat currency, but I think he turned around abit on that. People are not used to speaking your language. You know your words to mean what you know they mean, but most people hear the words and think of the counterfeited meaning. Isn’t it just possible to explain and teach to establish Friends IN Liberty? Maybe Friends of Liberty misunderstand and need to understand. Maybe they do not know they misunderstand."

Gold bugs? What is the meaning of that? Gold is fine, very good, but very expensive money, when adding up the costs associated with crime prevention, as it may not be a good idea to carry around pockets full of Gold in crime infested waters, advertizing the fact that, hey, look here, I'm ripe for the plucking, having, and holding large amounts of very launderable money.

Cash.

Real cash, if not the stuff needed for Tax Liabilities.

So the competition is really bad, you know, that fraudulent stuff used by very bad criminals who steal the law power, and then make it crime to use any other money.

Really bad things, those paper dollars, bad, bad, evil, evil, paper, the scourge of the earth, that paper, that, that, worthless, worthless paper?

So what is it, exactly, since I'm receiving mixed messages here, either the paper is worthless or it is evil and it can't be both can it?

Can it be worth less and be so powerful as to consume every scrap of extra value including the nails that nail down anything the can be nailed down?

I don't know, but I can ask the question, and find the accurate answers, such as the offering offered by Stephen Pearl Andrews in his essay that he thought or wrote, was "of interest to Gold Bugs", you know, the concept of a 3 sided fence.

BREAK

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/labadie/2916966.0001.001/2?rgn=f...

I was once more desperate to gain the ears of Conservative Republican Austrian Economists Gold Bug types, to get their angle of view clear in my mind, concerning information such as the above, which is based upon the work done by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce, but after so many decades of seeking this information, and coming up very short, it occurs to me that such things are trade secrets, keep secret, for fun and profit?

In the absence of confessions I am left with guess, and my own research, finding Menger and Rothbard, which was a Topic plopped onto the discussion table, here in this forum.

Splat, like a tortured human body wet with blood, sweat, and tears?

Or more like the splattering sound that might be heard when a Tar Baby is served up at the otherwise very attractive dinner on the dinner table?

Where are all my workers, employees, and the like, when good help is so hard to find - at a discount?

"It says to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others it is not."

Here again the concept of closing doors quickly when Bible Thumpers appear on the threshold of the Kingdom, what happened to sanctuary?

How was it purchased, and who is handed the bill, to be paid without question?

Based upon as much as I can gather from your words there is little to disbelieve, mere common sense, reinforcements concerning ideas and concepts that are plagued with doubt and uncertainty, given the weight of the consequences for failing to know better.

As to the demarcation lines, well drawn, there is still room for equitable transfers of reinforcing information, despite the confidence in current belief, in my case, I just don't know, for example that this person named Jesus died for me. I just don't know that fact, if it is a fact, and we can call it belief, and how does that work in English, in other words?

"It says to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others it is not."

OK.

Makes sense to me.

I don't HAVE, as in possession, a need to disbelieve that God can sacrifice his only begotten son for me, and my sins, while, currently, I see no such thing even being possible.

Would you be jealous if Jesus has a private conversation with me, before he pencils you in on his busy schedule?

Not me, but I'm not the type to slam the door in HIS face either.

________________________________________
And also Luke 8: 12 Those by the way side are they that hear ; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved .

And in that verse the devil take the word so that they cannot believe.
_________________________________________

I make sense of that, even past my line in the sand concerning someone else being held to account on my account, and what makes sense here, to me, is that Fear of God being written in 8, which is still not well understood by me, not enough understood to rattle it off in current writing.

I have to check the words again, and I can do that now, trying to connect the dots, again.

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate."

And now:

"Luke 8: 12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved."

To me, being so far incapable of accepting all the Words in the word (drawing the line in at least one place), the above makes sense in that The Word is (indirectly or directly) Hate Evil.

The Word = Hate Evil (English symbols, not Ancient Hebrew)

Take that away, not he symbols, but take away whatever IS hating evil, and what happens?

They, meaning human beings, will fail to know better, and Evil will Consume them? They will consume themselves?

Human Power will be used to destroy all life on Earth?

And such things, being Evil, and such things being deceptive, can be the False Front of Global Warming hiding the fact that productive people are providing the means by we suffer having Aluminum and Barium sprayed into the atmosphere causing Global Warming so that the few most powerful among us can inspire us to pay them even more of the stuff that provides the means by which we suffer?

Tax payments of aluminum cans? That explains why the least powerful among us are hanging out by the trash cans, collecting aluminum, so as to have it moved from the trash back into the circuit where the aluminum can then be sprayed over our heads?

If people can get one plant, a tomato plant, and farm it well enough, seeds can then be used to make more tomato plants, and then more, and then more, and that is too much power in the hands of just anyone, so let's send the authorities enough provisions to take the power of farming away from all those terrorists daring to grow their own food, and then, having only ONE licensed tomato seed producer, the price of a tomato seed can be jacked up to whatever a starving person is willing to do to get a meal, including hanging around garbage cans looking for aluminum cans?

Where is the door I can slam on that information?

Were are my ear plugs, my muzzle, and my blinders, when I need them so desperately, and now they don't even work, anymore, since they are Made in China and sold at WalMart?

Isn't it Football season?

BREAK

http://www.youtube.com/user/StormCloudsGathering

http://naturalrightsfoundation.org/

"Will you see what you think of the video..less than 15 minutes."

I am inspired by the video to go to the web page and submit articles for publication. I can write one up on my angle of view concerning the schedule where Americans are the losers, on purpose, so as to move World Reserve Currency POWER to Asia.

I have chores to do today, but I can work that angle soon.

" Last week you talked to me about what does the message instill within…well as you can see, the message instilled many things, but left me wondering about the source of the message and when the 3 stages were being discussed the music changed and made me afraid. So I am asking you, what does this message mean? Can you add a little bit about it to your book?"

I think there is a serious error in failing to know that the current government is counterfeit, or crime made legal, and therefore the concept of defense against crime is falsely viewed as being morally wrong, as morality and legality are confused by that bait and switch routine.

The Rebels in 1776, for example, were genuine agents of good government, when they avoided resort to deceit upon the innocent, and when they avoided resort to threats of violence upon the innocent, and when they avoided resort to violence upon the innocent.

That is very well recorded in many ways, such as the following quote:

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” Sam Adams

How does that stack up to this:

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

Friends of Liberty, seeking to work toward being, and remaining, Friends IN Liberty (borrowed from Bear) do not resort to crime as a means of anything.

Government didn't do it.

The Gun didn't do it.

So I have that criticism of the inspiring video, if someone is inspired to confuse good government with crime made legal.

One is the opposite of the other, and confusing the two IS THE PROBLEM.

BREAK

Bear,

I have to get work done. I stopped the Tom Woods video on a very good suggestion by Tom Woods and we can play along. I will hit this ball back in your side of the court and ask you to offer the Top 10 Questions that will not be asked during the Election Debates (which I won't be watching without a representative of Liberty allowed into the "debates") and then when I get more free time (ha, ha) I will offer my Top 10 Questions That will be censored from History, or whatever title works best for these Top 10 Questions.

I will have my Top 10 done before returning, and then we can compare notes, to see which questions are more competitive, and why.

If you are inspired to consume your scarce power in this specific way - of course.

Joe

Top 10 + 1

I feel very elementary in my questions, and I am sure that you can state them better. Most of these questions are as a result of our conversations. I have asked in my post below if you would consider making your posed 10 questions that will not be asked a separate DP string. It may be a very competitive source of information as well as an education tool. Mine:

1. Will you end the Federal Reserve and support competitive money policy?

2. Will you end the IRS so as to end superfluous growth government?

3. Will you bring the troops home?

4. What are your goals to restore competition against monopoly power in order to restore the freedoms and power of the people?

5. What are your goals to restore power to the people of These United States in order to remove enemy controlled politics within the RNC and DNC. Please answer as applicable to your sponsoring party?

6. What are your goals to restore power within These United States in order to reverse the flow of power to China?

7. Why are the Liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights being castigated and despotism is being enforced against the American people and what are your goals to restore and guarantee these natural rights to the people?

8. How do you plan to restore and maintain the sovereignty of Each of The States against the Consolidated Central Government?

9. How do you plan to restore and maintain the sovereignty of These United States against the Consolidated World Power?

10. Who has bought and paid for your presidency? And in context of that question, what allegiance is due to that person?

And, the Bonus Question:

11. How will you restore Actual Trial by Jury as set forth in Magna Carta?
________________________

I would like to come back and further discuss your post above. I will do it in a 2nd post so as not to interrupt any reply you might want to make here.

Jumped ahead

I wanted to get to that 10 questions challenge first, so I jumped past earlier replies. A new Topic on this sounds great. I think I can get that done today.

Your Top 10 are competitive, while my angle may have merits too.

Here are mine (I can cut and paste from a saved word file):

1. Will you continue to allow The Federal Reserve Frauds to perpetrate The Federal Reserve Fraud?

2. Will you continue to allow The Internal Revenue Service Extortionists to perpetrate Extortion?

3. Will you continue to order National Troops on Aggressive Wars for Profit and therefore will you perpetrate the same crimes the Nazi’s were found guilty of perpetrating and were sentence to death for committing since Aggressive Wars for Profit were deemed the worst crimes against humanity up to that point?

4. Will you continue to order National Secret Police to carryout torture upon people who are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty through due process of law, such as Trial by Jury?

5. Will you continue to order Monopolization of the Opiate Drug Trade by National Secret Police?

6. Will you continue to order the financing of enemies foreign and domestic?

7. Will you continue to commit fraud upon the American people?

8. Will you continue to allow Monopolization of the Agricultural Industry including the continued airborne aluminum and barium spraying causing crop failures and global warming?

9. Will you continue to criminally abuse the power you are hired to control in the work of destroying power worldwide so as to cause World War III and then move the World Reserve Currency Power to Asia after you cause America to lose that next World War?

10. Will you continue to pardon all the past Criminal Presidents, and their masters, and their minions, who are as guilty as any Nazi ever was guilty of Crimes against Humanity?

I can also offer a bonus question since that door is now open.

Bonus Question:

Will you resign and turn yourself in for due process of law through Trial by Jury, randomly selected (sortition), if any of the above questions are answered falsely by you, were impeachment proceedings followed through according to The Constitution, IF it does prove true that you are a fraud after all?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

It is interesting to me to note how we both start out with "Will you" in our questions: getting to the point?

Since I run for President every cycle now, I can even answer those questions.

Yours first:

1. Will you end the Federal Reserve and support competitive money policy?

Maybe, and yes.
I have an Economic Idea that will be made known in great detail concerning at least two new competitive legal products that I call Product 1 and Product 2 whereby these products will either End the FED competitively or the people at the FED can start offering these products too. Product 1 is a no interest mortgage loan so that honest productive people in America will no longer need to buy 3 houses just to get one. Product 2 is a 1% interest loan offered to anyone who can buy a power producing product and then make more power from that power producing product, and this requires detailed explanation, which is possible, if there is an INTEREST in knowing better about such things. In the Spirit of sound bites, that is the condensed answer.

"2. Will you end the IRS so as to end superfluous growth government?"

I will use my power to apply due process to anyone in the Federal Government currently engaged in Fraud or Extortion such as The Federal Reserve Fraud System and the Internal Revenue System of Extortion. Heads will roll if anyone continues to perpetrate fraud and extortion in the FEDERAL government which won't be National once I am elected, since I can read plain English, such as the English Text written into The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence, and my constructive interpretations of The Constitution are such that this Country can return to a Democratic Federated Government and States can pay their Union Dues or they can Opt Out as they please, which means that there will not be a Civil War unless one State dares to attack another State, and then the Federal Troops WILL be ordered to defend the State being attacked, and the Federal Troops WILL NOT BE ORDERED ON OFFENSIVE WARS FOR THE PROFIT OF THE FEW CENTRAL BANKERS FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

Is that clear? Can you understand plain English?

"3. Will you bring the troops home?"

Yes, home IN LIBERTY, in Spirit, if not in body, and certainly not in Body Bags fighting for the profits of a few central bankers foreign and domestic. But I am an outsider and not privy to the most current information concerning how far along the worst human beings among us have gotten on their way in purchasing World War III, on our dimes, and nickles, and with our Gold, such as may no longer be in Fort Knox, for example of one storage place that is supposedly storing American Legal Money. Once in office I plan on interviewing my military officers, finding those who are honest, and those who know better than the Frauds that have infested the counterfeit leadership within the American Military Forces, including the Private Armies, and I will set those better officers, according to my power to know better, on specific tasks that include an accurate, timely, assessment of the current State of Military Power world wide. Liberty will reign World Wide as never before if I have anything to do with the employment of American Military forces. This is a very troubling subject, and I can state firmly, that we will no longer be financing Dictatorial Strong Men, such as was the cases in The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Al-Qaeda Terrorists. I will not simply abandon defenseless people who may be currently suffering because of our previous investments in Aggressive Wars for Profit of a few Central Bankers foreign and domestic. That can of worms will require diplomacy and Special Forces empowered in Defense of Liberty.

This is too important to leave at a sound bite.

Why can't I go, myself, as President, by Private Plane, to an example case of exactly what I am speaking about, such as Jerusalem?

Why can't I go to the front lines between Israel and Palestine to find out for myself exactly what is being done with all those Federal Reserve Notes being transferred into Israeli Banks, and find out exactly what is being done with all those F-16s, all that ammo, all those guns, Made in America with parts imported from China?

Yes, so, reasonably, I had better pick a damn good vice-president, but those are my intentions. What is the story on the ground, on the front, as to what the Troops are currently doing, and if it looks like crime to me, the order will be to for me and the troops to get back on the plane, go back to our Home Base, and get back to work, for the troops being trained to be the best killers the world has ever seen, in Defense of Liberty, because the Troops are no longer going to be in the "Peace Keeping Business". If you want to know what I will be looking for in Military Leadership then you may want to read John Boyd by Robert Coram, and learn yourself what America is all about, in reality, not some cooked up False Front Fantasy world of Peace Keeping.

We in America will be doing things, and we in America won't be trying to become someone, not in The Military, not if I have anything to do with it, as President.

If it turns out that all we have been doing is crime, nothing but Aggressive Wars for Profit, exported, and imported in places like Waco, with our American Military, then all of it will end, if there is, and this is highly likely, actual threats to American Liberty, then that will be found out, and that will be addressed by our best and brightest, in ways that are effective from a Military Standpoint.

I don't sign onto the notion that Russia, Iran, and China are Evil Empires, any less or greater in degree, than America has been while America has been controlled by a few very Powerful Central Bankers both Foreign and Domestic. Diplomacy in my viewpoint will target The People of Russia, and The People of China, and The People of Iran, and The People of Palestine, not their Central Bankers, not the Puppets that are hired by their Central Bankers, and if it turns out that the Leaders, the true Leaders, of these Foreign Countries are as interested in promoting the Liberty of The People as I am, as we are, then We The People, World Wide, can turn our defensive powers upon those Central Bankers, in Unison, and with that much Power Focused Upon those worst criminals among us, those worst criminals among us will find out that their crimes no longer pay so well, and they will then be inspired to get real jobs, and please consider how the Ben Bernankes would look serving you a Big Mac at McDonalds, or if he can't muster the productive genes that he may not even have, then he can fight with the other homeless people rooting through the trash for aluminum cans, or get in a line at the local homeless shelter.

If, on the other hand, China is already taken over by the same very powerful people who had America under their thumb, then our Military will have to be FORCED into very serious house cleaning, very serious training, so as to present China, or any other Criminal Nation State, with an overwhelming Defensive Force that they know better, unless they are insane, to fight, anywhere, on this planet.

You, and I, have NO IDEA, how truly corrupt our Financial, Government, and Military have become, infested with Frauds, and if you think McCarthyism was a witch hunt, you are a Dupe, and you wont' be voting for me anyway, but if you think that McCarthyism was a house cleaning that was derailed, corrupted, and then shunted like an electric power circuit going to ground, wasting the productive power, then, welcome aboard, and lets roll our sleeves, because it is now time to clean house. You can help, get up, go to the mirror, and conjure up the courage within you, and then get down to your local governments, and demand those Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and then find the Frauds who have been perpetrating that Fraud upon you, or, at least, understand what can happen if someone, anyone, in your city does that chore, that cleaning of house, and don't listen to the "MOB" as the "MOB" may chastise, or ridicule, or marginalize, such patriotism as that type of example.

Find out the facts, and then do something about it.

"4. What are your goals to restore competition against monopoly power in order to restore the freedoms and power of the people?"

There are a few Fronts involved in reaching these goals, The Comprehensive Military Front is one, including not only the "Public" but also the "Private" American Military Forces that have grown so large, so divided, and so corrupt Nation Wide, at what should be The Federal Level.

State Level Military Forces, in my opinion, should be encouraged, as State governors, directed indirectly by The People, with their voting franchise, and their power to move from a worse State, to a better State, voting with their feet, encouraged to Defend themselves, especially if a State is being Threatened by a National Government. This answers your question in part. A Federation is divided and made less powerful, and potentially uncivil, as one State could, theoretically, fight another State, ONCE those States (the actual people in them), once those States begin to think in terms of their own individual sovereignty. That is how that is supposed to work, by that competitive design, a thoughtful design feature, designed into a Democratic Federated Republic.

Suppose I decide to use American Troops to defend Palestine Sovereignty, not likely, but I can't rule that out, since I know there are liabilities already created as so much in the way of investment (Federal Reserve Notes, F-16s, bombs, guns, ammo, etc.) has been invested in crushing Palestine as a Sovereign Country, so there may be cause to withdraw equitably, reasonably, and avoid leaving many innocent people to be slaughtered with criminal forces that American power has financed.

Suppose that is what I do, not likely, again, but suppose that happens, and then suppose that The People in New York are upset, and those people in New York start thinking less in terms of a Government Monopoly at the Nation State level, and they start thinking in terms of a more Local, Limited, Government at the New York State level, and they begin to withdraw moral and material support BECAUSE of my Stand for Liberty in Palestine (not likely but possible) and how does that work in reality? Does New York refuse to send their Troops? See? New York has no Troops, all the Troops have been sequestered by the Puppets who work for the Central Bankers who work only for their own Special Interest.

So the answer, on one front, is to divide the Nation power back down into State Power, and The Military Front is one facet of that move from Involuntary Union (Legal Crime) back down to Voluntary Union or Liberty, or Liberty in the Legal Form of a Democratic Federated Republic, which are possible, as current and past examples prove, in our time between 1776 and 1788 (Articles of Confederation), in Holland, in Switzerland (more federated and less democratic), in ancient Athens (more democratic and less federated), and in The Icelandic Common Wealth (more democratic and less federated).

"5. What are your goals to restore power to the people of These United States in order to remove enemy controlled politics within the RNC and DNC. Please answer as applicable to your sponsoring party?"

No Party wants me, so I have no party sponsoring me, and as people realize their own power in Trial by Jury, to deal with criminals on their own terms, people will be less concerned about giving up their power, by throwing counterfeit money at it, through the IRS, in the futile effort to give money to criminals so that criminals will solve the crime problems those same criminals create, so as to keep the power flowing, as the victims are fooled into providing the means by which we suffer.

"6. What are your goals to restore power within These United States in order to reverse the flow of power to China?"

That question requires an understanding concerning the nature of the power flowing either fraudulently or the opposite nature which would be power flowing voluntarily and without resorting to deception to make the power flow, and without resorting to threats of violence to make the power flow, and without resorting to violence to make the power flow from people in this Country to people in China. There is no reason for The Federal Government to have anything to do with sending money to China or borrowing money from China, as Gold, or as Federal Reserve Notes, and if there is a reason found, one that I have not understood as yet, then it had better not be a reason that involves the employment of deception, the employment of threats of violence, or the employment of violence on us by people in China, or by Me, or anyone here in American, upon people in China, because that is crime, and if those crimes are made legal, then I see a serious problem - that will stop if I have anything to do with it.

If, on the other hand, upon my gaining the position of President, and finding that China, as a POWER, is already at War with us, whereby deception has been officially sanctioned by people in the Chinese government, upon citizens of America, or threats of violence have been officially sanctioned by people in the Chinese government, upon citizens of America, or violence has been officially sanctioned by people in the Chinese government, then as President I will seek Congress to evaluate the evidence proving those facts, and then either declare war, because it exists, or declare that there is no war, because it does not exist, and we either defend ourselves or we have no reason to defend ourselves in either case.

Imagine the next trip to China, by me, The President, when I am negotiating the latest findings concerning World War III?

What can I say, what is my position, what do you think will be the Chinese Governments position?

No, we in America, while I am still alive, are not participating aggressively in the World War III scenario?

It has been our mutual misfortune that criminal elements have been at work in America, causing World War III to proceed on schedule, that has stopped, America will stop that, how about China?

Have you, China, similarly disconnected the link between The People in China and The Central Bankers foreign and domestic?

Free Trade, not Counterfeit Free Trade, is exactly what it is, and it does exactly what it does, which is the opposite of the counterfeit version.

Free Trade, or Free Markets, or Choices Produced by Producers seeking to supply what people want, is a FORCE, and it is a voluntary FORCE, and that FORCE, FORCES quality up and cost down.

So it is very important to judge accurately when judging which power is allowed to flow and which power is avoided altogether.

Productive power is voluntary power, and who, not me, will not allow that power to flow?

Destructive power, or criminal power, is involuntary, and who, not me, will tolerate any of it, if it is within my power, or your power, to avoid it altogether?

Let the voluntary power move to and from China, to and from America, unless Congress finds that China has declared War on us, and China thought better of telling us minions, us Tax Payers, and Congress is in on the deception, and your former "leaders" here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) were in on it.

I won't be in on the deception. I can go to China myself, I can find out for myself, so, again, I had better pick the best man, or best woman, for the job of vice president, and it will be one that takes the vice out of the vice presidency.

"7. Why are the Liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights being castigated and despotism is being enforced against the American people and what are your goals to restore and guarantee these natural rights to the people?"

Here is where it is very important to employ the power I have, as President, or as a Juror, to inform everyone, as soon as possible, of the precious legal privilege afforded by each one of us to each other one of us here in America. We The People license each other, deputize each other, so as to empower each other, to safe guard our Liberties, and each one of us, of age, of productive capacity, of sound mind and body, are potential Jurors on a potential Trial by Jury, and we have the exclusive, executive, judicial, and legislative LEGAL POWER to judge any other person as to guilt or innocence and as to the JUST punishment due, as in due process, anyone.

That was once, here in America, known as the Palladium of Liberty, that POWER, that Legal Power, contained in each potential juror, in each potential Trial by Jury.

So, imagine my Presidency, as I inform, on Youtube, a free access television channel, so I can bypass the expense of sequestering "National Television", and then those people running "National Television" can televise the speech from Youtube, and my message is to deputize everyone, to let them know that they have the POWER already, and to ask of them that they don't, please, don't, give up that power, don't, please, don't listen to Judges committing fraud, if a Judge tells you that you are limited in your legal power, don't believe that lie, since any human being empowered with Common Sense knows that a person, an individual, will use their own conscience when an individual judges any case whatsoever.

You have the power of Trial by Jury, do not allow that power to be usurped, for if it is gone, you had better have guns, and you had better know how to use them, because enemies foreign and domestic will steal everything else you may hold dear, once you allow yourself to become completely defenseless.

That is why "the Bill of Rights [is] being castigated", as the productive people who produce things worth stealing are rendered defenseless for failing to know better than to allow Trial by Jury to atrophy into nothing more than a cartoon of its former self.

"8. How do you plan to restore and maintain the sovereignty of Each of The States against the Consolidated Central Government?"

Ending the Fraud in progress known as The Federal Reserve System (by producing actual money instead of counterfeit money) and ending the National Level Legal Extortion Racket known as The IRS, by trying the suspects for the crimes they may continue to perpetrate despite warnings, severs the Direct Links between the Despotic Nation State and The People residing within this Country. After that is done those people are then much more powerful since they no longer provide the means by which they suffer through those criminal enterprises so named as The FED and The IRS, and then, being more powerful those People may then be SUBJECT to Direct State Income Taxes, at various levels of Despotism, or Fraud, or Extortion, or some other less despotic means of taxation, and those people can vote according to their State Constitutions, or those people can vote with their two feet, or their cars, and they can then FORCE government at the State level, to higher quality, and lower cost, in a Free Market of Government, which is how a Democratic Federated Government has proven to work, right here in American, when it did work as designed, in such cases as Shays's Rebellion, which occurred under The Articles of Confederation before Slavery was made legal with The Constitution Usurpation of Liberty.

That isn't even the most detailed explanation, but as President I could command more than one interested listener?

What is the Bully Pulpit?

"9. How do you plan to restore and maintain the sovereignty of These United States against the Consolidated World Power?"

I went though much of that explanation concerning cleaning house in public and private military forces that fall under the command of The Commander in Chief, setting one soldier to help improve the quality of the other soldiers, in the killing business, not in the Peace Keeping Business. You really need to read about John Boyd, an American, when seeking an answer to this question. We will present the world with a powerful deterrence, one the world has never seen before, and one that will shine as an example to any group of people anywhere on earth whereby The People are suffering from domination by Legal Criminals. We won't allow that here, and we can then show other people how high the bar can be set, how no one, anywhere, can render us their subjects again. Not on our watch.

Liberty can be defended, so roll up our sleeves and clean house. The American Military is back in the business of Defense of Liberty, which is Defense against such things as Legal Torture, Legal Mass Murder, in the forms of Aggressive Wars for Profit, or Peace Keeping as the Frauds are apt to call it, a False Front, and this goal is common sense, necessary, vital, and so long as one despot continues to seek despotism, a counter POWER must exist to ensure that those crimes made legal are no longer profitable, despots have to be made to know better, they have to understand that it will cost them everything and they will get nothing if they go down that path of making Aggressive Wars for Profit Legal.

If there is an honest man, or woman, in the CIA, FBI, HOMELAND SECURITY, TSA, Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, Blackwater, or any Secret Force not known to me as a mere potential Juror (or tax payer, or citizen), but to be known to me as President, then that individual will be recognized, deputized, empowered, and set with all the power required to begin helping me clean house, to root out the criminals, stop paying them, or set Jurors upon them in due process if someone cares enough to accuse someone found to be possibly guilty of very serious crimes upon some very tortured or murdered victims, at least stop paying them to torture and murder innocent people, such as the current practice of sending Drones to Wedding Parties and Funerals in Foreign Countries, stop paying them so well to do that, get them out of their seats, and replace them with honest people who understand the vital necessity to KILL enemies of organized crime rings, who may be hiding behind a false front of an Army, or Navy, or Air Force, of some supposed legitimacy, IF, only IF, Kill only IF, if we are attacked by such a Criminal Military.

Let that be understood, please, that The Defensive Military must be more powerful, more able to KILL, The Aggressive Military if an Aggressive Military exists. This is not the "Peace Keeping" business, there is, unfortunately, a Kill or be Killed business. The Military that is Aggressive can be hidden behind any false front, set on coursed to enslave any weak people anywhere under any color of law, false pretenses, lies, or whatnot, so we have to NOT BE THEM, and we have to be more powerful than them, and imagining such things to be NON EXISTENT is pure fantasy, and so we in America must carry out the Tradition of producing the highest quality killers at the lowest cost, which is the FREE MARKET way of preserving Liberty against all aggressors foreign and domestic.

This has to be understood, in my opinion, this isn't a game. If the Military is Aggressive, sent on "Peace Keeping Missions" against innocent, defenseless, weak, VICTIMS, such as much of recent history, in Iraq, in particular, then The Military can afford to be of low quality and high cost - for a limited amount of time.

On the other hand, if The Military is going to preserve Liberty from every POWER that threatens Liberty, then The Military personnel, each individual, has to be setting the bar higher, not lower, in the business of making sure that our individuals are the ones alive after the fight.

You, me, and every single person in America, in my opinion, and provable in fact, MUST understand this, or Liberty, in our Modern Times, will continue to evaporate before our eyes.

The solution is competition, even in The Military. The Best Military Powers in history were those that worked upon the principle of Meritocracy, and not Merits of who can be more peaceful, but instead, not peaceful, but instead the best Killers, Merits of which individual soldier was the best, and which individual soldier was the brightest at staying alive in a fight while the enemy was no longer capable of fighting - even when it boiled down to who had to kill the other one before being killed him, or her, self.

That type of Meritocracy has to be returned, nourished, in American Military POWER, we can't afford Peace Keeping False Military Legal Crime, obviously, measurably, and this road, this Peace Keeping Road, this Legal Crime Road, this Counterfeit Military road, LEADS to America losing World War III, like lambs to slaughter. You, in the Military, and you Tax Payers, are buying your own demise, as your "leaders" are selling you out, and moving to Asia.

You think I'm not worthy of notice, let alone a vote for President, sure, I get that, but how much of your time, your costs, have been spent by you, being Juror, being focused on Defending Liberty, competitively speaking?

The proof of authority is gained by results, by merit, so you will get what you invest in, and right now, if there is a moral bone in your body, or a moral thought in your head, you are providing the means by which we all will suffer, so that a very few very powerful inhuman beings will continue to RULE this planet with an IRON FIST, hidden behind such attractive False Fronts as The FED, The IRS, and whatever other smoke or mirror works ON YOU.

"10. Who has bought and paid for your presidency? And in context of that question, what allegiance is due to that person?"

I have paid for everything concerning my presidency, and I plan to keep it that way. I owe allegiance to God as I know God to be real, and as common as sense can be, with or without English to transfer the meaning of God from one person to another.

______________________________
And, the Bonus Question:
How will you restore Actual Trial by Jury as set forth in Magna Carta?
______________________________

The Bully Pulpit aught to be defined in this manner exactly, to have someone of some notable authority, a candidate for President, or an officially sanctioned acting President currently speaking on this subject through various connecting mediums, television, YouTube, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, telephone, open forums live or recorded.

Hey, you, you are a potential Juror, and that means you have the exclusive legal power to judge anything concerning any case whereby your presumed to be innocent fellow citizen may or may not be found guilty by you and then you will be held responsible by your peers for your decision to convict and punish someone or to acquit and keep that innocent individual free IN LIBERTY.

There is no fence, the fence is an allusion, a false front, if you let someone else liberate themselves, it may be at your cost.

You have as much power IN LIBERTY as anyone else legally when We The People demand and ensure our Liberty, and as We The People no longer tolerate any one pretending to be legally more powerful than anyone else, in any court anywhere from east to west, and from north to south, it is our business to stay out of anyone else's business unless someone resorts to deceit, threats of violence, or violence upon an innocent person, with or without a badge, any criminal, with or without a badge, daring to injure any innocent person, IS OUR BUSINESS, as Jurors, and we won't tolerate such nonsense, not another day, not on our watch, and that has to be done, by us, if we are going to bring our sorry behinds back IN LIBERTY.

Roll up your sleeves.

It is time to clean house.

Joe

Updated Partial with Sunday

Day 16
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/16-audio.html

and a song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAbs8bNWL5U

I am thinking on those debate questions. Are you going to make that a stand alone DP post? You might get 100's of competitive answers!

________________________
Day 15
http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/15-audio.html

I am dropping Proverbs 15 off here and will update this comment when I reply to your post. I am working on the Banker/Lawyer reply now.

Thank you once again for your time and energy.

Backing up

http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/9-audio.html

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

That is after 8 which was

The fear of the Lord is to hate evil...

This is not easy to piece together so, for me at least, it is going to take some time and effort, some taxing of my brain power which is in a constant struggle, a self-contained, self-evident, animated contest for freedom from...

Joe

You saw my comment here:

You saw my comment here: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2744562 ?

Does it help any?

Yes

Reply in progress at that place in the order (?) of things.

Edit: I had already replied to that, and it helps more than double when I have access to another human viewpoint, like (figurative speech) growing more eyes, ears, and thoughts, since my viewpoint is very limited.

Joe

Well lookie, lookie, I was wrong again:

Proverbs 1 does NOT says the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

THAT ABOVE IS NOT QUOTED CORRECT:
____________________
Corrected:
Proverbs 1:7 The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of KNOWLEDGE” but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 2:4-6;9 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God, For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding…Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment , and equity; yea, every good path.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
I only included portions of chapter 2. I think maybe taking a look at Proverbs 1 & 2 again might gain a better understanding of Proverbs 8 & 9.

Slow down please

I did not get past 10 on Proverbs yet, as far as I can remember, and after Proverbs 8, which required a lot of time to sink in, and it is still working on me, I need to slow down on the instructions.

Please

Joe

Yes, definitely.

I am sorry I have bombarded you. For sure, let portions work and when you are ready for more, or have questions, just let me know. :)