33 votes

Free the Planet by Morning!

http://freetheplanet.net/file_download/39/uniform-bonding-co...

I got great news.
Do you know what the most horrifying words a public official will ever hear are?
"I have the name of your bond underwriter and I have a copy of your bond right here. You can either execute the duties of your office faithfully or I can file a claim against your bond. What would you like to do?"
If the official is paid by the county - the bonds are a public record available to anyone at the county recorder of deeds. If it's a judge they are most likely at the state level recorder.
If it's a cop the city hall has them.
[8:05:08 PM] Vincent: Enjoy your freedom. :)
[8:06:04 PM] Vincent: The bond terms specifically say they are to "execute the duties of their office faithfully" - that means constitutionally.
[8:06:14 PM] Vincent: No bond - no work.
[8:06:21 PM] Anon: ((y))
[8:06:28 PM] Vincent: Checkmate.
[8:06:38 PM] Vincent: Spread the message.
[8:07:15 PM] Vincent: Let's work fast and get the word out - we have a country to save.
[8:07:22 PM] Anon: I will
[8:14:59 PM] Anon: we r many....................
[8:15:54 PM] Vincent: ((flex))
[8:16:12 PM] Vincent: With great power comes great responsibility <--- remember that brother.
[8:22:34 PM] Anon: 100% agree ..
[8:38:00 PM] Vincent: WE THE PEOPLE - HAVE THE POWERRRRRRRRRRRR!
[8:38:18 PM] Vincent: ((bow))Thank you God :)
[8:39:00 PM | Edited 8:39:14 PM] Vincent: Okay I hit everyone on my contact list - about 200+ or so... if everyone does that plus hits facebook, twitter etc... we should have the country saved by morning.
[8:39:18 PM] Vincent: Heck the whole world!
[8:39:42 PM] Vincent: Now I'm going to hit up my email list...

Spread the message brothers and sisters :)

Blessings :)

Here is some important information on bonding public officials:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Look what the side show has

Look what the side show has to offer in cali: http://www.dailypaul.com/260519/its-official-ron-paul-and-ju...

Really, those activist in Cali acheived getting RP as a write! Please, attend your side show and write those 7 letters:

R o n P a u l

...

Real vs Counterfeit

There is the side show, and it is televised on the Union Shop Television Networks.

Then there is the "not for public consumption" stuff, as you have so bravely stuck your neck out to pass on, generous as you are, and thanks again.

I will be happy to write in Ron Paul as my choice for a representative of Liberty - Under Duress.

Might we all want to turn our flags upside down soon?

Joe

Just found this

There is great power behind the WriteInRevolution. Learn why Ron Paul supporters can make a difference and take real redress against the cheating through writing in Ron Paul and why this vote of redress, even if sympbolic, has more impact than any other:

http://youtu.be/nQdD3f6bO6k

from here: http://www.dailypaul.com/260454/dr-k-speaks-about-the-write-...

As if you don't have enough with which to concern yourself.

Yes,

I think that upside-down flag thing is a good idea. I think I will do that starting the day after the election. A great time to launch a new campaign for Liberty in the public eye? If Jeff will let me...

Joe, thank you for making the effort to write in Ron Paul. I realize the elections are fixed. Nystrom has a post at the top of the "Originals" top write about the whole election fraud thing.

I haven't watched his attached video because I could not bear it after watching Yuri and Griffin.

Maybe in addition to signing up under duress we should see if we can somehow tackle the vote count fraud issue.

Maybe if there are still 4 years it would be worth working on. Maybe there are not 4 more years and they will pick us up at 4 in the morning and shoot us.

No need for a Gulag system? A bullet is cheaper, too, for the loud mouths?

Worse yet

Normal people are not prepared to see the truth, it is too horrible, and this is unfortunately very well known by the Friends of Legal Crime.

Why waste bullets?

What do you think is behind the Fluoride, Vaccine, Medical Union, Nuclear Power, Aspertame, Persistent Vapor Trails, FDA, and similar campaigns?

The Good news, if you caught onto it, is that it is now 30 years after the reports offered by the KGB Agent predicting the fall of America, so why is the schedule being delayed?

What do you think is going to happen as more and more people realize the truth about this Bonding stuff, and this Sovereign Citizen stuff, where moral law is still working in America?

Joe

I have not finished reading

but, I have to stop right here and say, Josf, I am not threatening you, or if I said something I did not realize, it was not my intent to threaten you with the Wrath of God. I do not wield the Wrath of God. It belongs to God alone. Josf, I have spent time praying for you this morning before I ever received you reply.

The Wrath of God is something to fear, but it is His alone and anything He executes will be Just and Righteous. He looks upon the heart, not the outward appearance. He also knows our hearts deceive us. He also paid the price to purchase us with His own life. Just like the revolutionaries paid the price to purchase Liberty with their own blood, so He did for us. But it is a Spiritual Liberty so that we no longer have to belong to Satan.

OK, I will finish reading now. I just want you to know, I do not intend ever to threaten you. I was feeling a bit boisterous yesterday, so perhaps I was not careful with my words. I am sorry.

....

...

How?

"Not yesterday, and not tomorrow, but now, how, are the criminals making money these days, while the rest of us are "providing the means by which we suffer"?"

Qe3 at a tune of 40 BILLION per month which is depreciating your Federal Dollars printed by that same entity...how much? Are you yelling at me about offering you Chuck Baldwin? Did you read the SLP report I linked? Try searching on Baldwin and then you tell me if he is serious about what he is doing. Yes, you have been at this 15 years more than me...probably closer to 20. You tell me not to stick my neck out? Just how do you think you are going to fix things at a local level? Seems you are willing to stick your neck out? For what? Traffic judges getting a stipen per case? How about the fact that NDAA and the Patriot Act and the War on Terror are raging at a NATIONAL Legal Crime Level and nothing you do at a local level is going to fix anything except get your neck chopped off for nothing. Do something with that chess piece. Why trade your neck for a pawn? How about if we quit playing and start doing...like Ron Paul asked us to...to RETAKE the GOP so that we do not have a SINGLE choice at election time.

No, you are not where I am, and I am not where you are. I am far behind you. But, know this...the Finger of God inscribed those stone tablets so you better be careful what you call the Word of God.

Exodus 31:18 KJV
"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."

I may not know a Friend of Liberty, but I know enought not to listen to a fool, so it is my job to know a fool and I do not know what Carl Miller or the other guy are at this moment, Nor do I know about Speer, but I just found it interesting that he knows about Ron Paul, per the Exhibits starting around page 314.

...

More contradictions

Bear,

I have been forging ahead in the Speer book about The Pied Pipers of Babylon and the word Equity is now firmly added to the words Nation and Federal as contradictions in need of resolution - in my opinion.

Can I reiterate the base from which I launch my assaults on crime and the falsehoods that cover it up first?

The Power struggle is the struggle between life and the end of all life, go one way and what happens, go the other way and what happens, in time?

One way is the life way.

The other way is the life is no longer existing - way.

Power is required.

Crime consume the power required.

That which is not crime, in accurate measures, makes more power out of less power.

Having that aside, and for the Topic readers in general, and for you in particular, I see a need to return to Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, and I do so to explain my focus of attention on the Power Struggle in the sphere of Language, Words, in English, and in our lives, where some people use words to convey accurate meaning, sound currency as it were, and other people counterfeit those words, so as to befuddle those who intend to employ words productively.

Words are a medium of exchange.

Money is a medium of exchange.

Accurate words are sound words, powerful words, because they communicate accurately, the facts, from one person to another person, facilitating that POWER of numbers, as people specialize, divide labor, and make more at the end of the day than they had at the start of the day.

More what?

Falsehood?

Threats?

Violence?

Which group is defined by their propensity to resort to deceit, threats, and violence?

Hold our breath for confessions?

Why is the word Equity being confused with crime made legal?

Is that a legitimate question?

From my base of operations, my standard of value, I can offer a defense against falsehood, in the effort to save a word from counterfeit, that word being equity, for your consideration:

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

Merely offered in defense of equity (not the counterfeit version).

Joe

Equity

It seems you and I had a conversation about equity being the opposite of iniquity and after I finally did all the research...I agreed with you :)

I wonder if the term equity means something different in law? I finished watching the 2nd Miller video today and one of the things a person is supposed to ask is if this is a court of equity. Do you remember that? It was in the last 40 minutes.

Maybe if one could look up equity in Black's Law Dictionary one could find what they are refering to when using the word equity?
-----------------
I think there may be a current social use of equity under the term social justice which from what I understand is not a good thing. I may be not connecting dots correctly and I don't have time right now to look into it so I am just tossing it out there. I gotta get dinner now.
--------------------
Josf,

I read some pages of the Pied Pipers…. I do like having a new topic of discussion. So it is good with me if it good with you. I will read unless you tell me not to, or unless I cannot.

I would like to discuss reading as it occurs if you do not mind. That way my thoughts are fresh and not overwhelming by the time I finish reading. I understand in doing this I may not be reading in context of the whole work, which could be trouble. But you are further along in the reading than I so you will know if the context is correct.

Here is the first paragraph that gave me pause…yes,, I read the forward and preface today…
From the news release of the Book Review on the 2nd page of the PDF written by B)" Charlie O'Donald: “
“Once again today Americans are the
victims of an attempt to force this
foreign law on them, whether you call it
the law of merchants, maritime law, or
equity-s-slightly different variations
taken by the civil law.”
-------------
It seems to me that the word equity is being used in a negative light. I wonder why?
------------
Page x

“During the centuries, these two systems have
had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of
society, the civil law and its fundamental con-
cepts being the instrument through which ambi-
tious men of genius and selfishness have set up
and maintained despotism the common Law, with
its basic principles, being
the instrument
through which men of equal genius, but with love
of mankind burning in their souls, have establi-
shed and preserved liberty and free institu-
tions. The Constitution of the united states
exemplifies the loftiest concepts yet framed of
this exalted concept.”
-------------
It seems the constitution is highly regarded as natural law as opposed to civil law.
-------------
Page xi begins to explain national vs. federal, but I have not read it yet.
--------------
Is this the kind of discussion you wanted to have?

,,,

Not abnormal

I realized this morning that it is not abnormal for Legal Criminals to create a counterfeit version for everything that threatens their power to perpetuate crime made legal.

So...in place of equitable commerce (voluntary methods of arriving at equity among people trading in a free market) they create a counterfeit version.

In the 3 way chess game there may be a chess clock that is used to force a player to complete his turn in a specific interval of time.

I have this Bonding chess piece now, and I have not found, yet, the best place to place this new piece on the chess board. It is as if I've been given a Knight where the move is potentially as powerful as any other piece but the Knight isn't a straight line and easy to see attacking move.

I've been wrestling over the concept of Admiralty Law, or Commerce Law, or Contract Law, or Equity Law, trying to see the good in it, and picking up the opponents moves, and knowing the facts in the cases, as they are brought into view.

How about, for your consideration, please:

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

Look through Article III.

The Admiralty and Equity Law ISSUE is not a side show dreamed up by agent provocateurs seeking to ferret out the good people among us, and then chop off their heads as they stick their necks out to see what the ruckus is all about with this Admiralty ruse.

Note: Spooner is right about you and I not signing onto any Constitution, there is no Treason for us, until (and according to Contract lawyers willing to enforce their contract laws) we sign contracts.

Note 2: Carl Miller offers some help with the signing of documents with the additional declaration of being Under Duress.

Quote from the official U.S.A. (corporate) Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

You may not know about the dividing lines between Common Law and any other Law, since you are so well versed in God's Law. Other people claim that Common Law is God's Law, and to me that makes sense, but only in the sense that any one person, any individual person, anywhere, anytime, is capable of knowing God's Law, and then applying it in real time. Over time, day in, day out, year in year out, century in, century out, from the first human being walking the Earth, to these days when our children now walk the Earth, God's Law expresses itself, God expresses life on Earth, in forms that we can better understand, over this span of time, so we have, at our disposal, competitive examples on a scale, for us to know better, as to what really is God's Law, and what is not God's Law.

Counterfeit versions are not God's Law, and this is in scripture, not just my own feeble mind.

So, please, build a scale for us, a competitive one, and I can offer a starting point, to exemplify what I mean to ask you to do.

You are much more well versed in God's Law than I am, and you have much more, authoritative, expert, specialized, help that I have access to, so your scale can be much better than mine:

1. Do no Harm
2. Golden Rule
3. Ten Commandments
4. Ancient Athens Government by Sortition
5. Icelandic Commonwealth
6. Holland Confederation
7. Switzerland Confederation
8. Declaration of Independence
9. Articles of Confederation
10. The Constitution
11. The Bill of Rights
12. A Mortgage Contract denominated in Federal Reserve Notes
13. The Divine Right of Kings / Absolute Despotism / exemplified by The Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc.

Which rules are too complicated for the average person?

Which rules are too complicated for the weaker people among us whereby the measure of weakness is only relevant when measured relative to those of us who have strength in figuring out the difference between an honest person and someone who is willfully working to deceive targeted innocent victims?

Who is victimized first, and worst, and who manages to survive longer, inside Legal Crime?

In other words: Which Laws in the list above are easily understood by anyone, including people who are very good people, very productive people, very honest people, but they are very naive people who are easily deceived, and therefore they are powerless against people who are very good at the "art" of deception?

I did not yet describe to you the concept of "Job Security" as that term is used by Union members who work in a Closed Shop, which is a Monopoly Union of Workers.

Job Security involves many tactics by which the Union Workers make sure that their security in their jobs remain powerful, whereby they do things to make sure that there will always be a high demand for their place in the work force, and they do such things as sabotage, whereby things that a repairman does, which is fixing things, is always in high demand, so the repairman breaks things, to be fixed later.

If the Union repairmen fix everything the first day, then their employers won't need them the next day, so the Union repairmen overtly fix things, and they covertly sabotage, so as to break things, so as to maintain "Job Security".

I was not often "Good" in the eyes of my employers, relatively speaking, because I tended to work myself out of a Job, while my coworkers were so much more busy, when the employers were around, looking much better than I, relatively speaking.

I also told them what was happening, not what I thought they wanted to hear.

"Job Security" works in Law too. If a "Law" can be made ambiguous then the "Law" can only be understood by the enforcers, and this should not be news.

Returning to the subject matter by way of Patrick Henry:

"The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome instances of the people losing their liberty by their carelessness and the ambition of a few."

Energy is spoken of here as the Bait dangled before the masses of people by those who intend to sabotage.

That is a clue.

In that time period there were how many Laws IN FORCE whereby innocent people, not knowing (ignorant of) these Laws, become criminals according to these laws, and without Expert Advice, those innocent people will be injured by the Law Enforcers?

How many people, as a percentage of the population, in that time period, 1700/1800 were aware of the dangers presented by Greeks offering Gifts of Energy?

Not enough - obviously.

They did not have the Internet.

They had print media.

Where Common Sense by Thomas Paine worked to connect the dots between Friends of Liberty, The Federalist Papers falsely accomplished the same thing, rallying the troops around and polarizing them onto one path.

Common Sense, it seems to me, intended to preserve Common Law/Liberty/Natural Law/ Free Markets/ and even God's Law.

The Federalist Papers PRETENDED to preserve Common Law/Liberty/Natural law/ Free Markets/ and even God's law.

The person of Alexander Hamilton, in particular, broke the campaign promises promised in The Federalist Papers, and what became the Law of the Land, despite The Bill of Rights, is, obviously, Contract Law, or Admiralty Law, or the falsely named Equity Law.

But the battle continues.

Why?

Because the true Natural Law, or Common Law, or Liberty, or God's Law prevails in any case where actual equity exists, not counterfeit equity, and that brings me back to this mornings thought.

Equity does not include the POWER of deceit.

Equity does not include the POWER of violence being threatened upon one party by another.

Equity does not include the POWER of aggressive violence being perpetrated by someone guilty of crime upon someone innocent of crime.

If any of those POWERS are being employed then the use of the word Equity to label those POWERS is, in its own self evident existence, a confession of guilt.

If any of those POWERS are being employed, then in fact, the case is a criminal case, not a case of equity.

In other words: Equity exists in Liberty, or within a Free Market, whereby that market is Free because there is no deceit being employed by someone upon someone, no threats of violence being employed by someone upon someone, and no violence, no crime, being perpetrated by someone upon someone in that case of Equity existing in Liberty.

Equitable Commerce.

What, consider please, would a poor honest farmer do, in any case, anywhere, if said individual were attacked by lies, threats, and violence, in defense if their Liberty?

Accuse the attacker, face the attacker, and have the attacker tried by 12 members of a randomly picked Jury that is assembled quickly, from the local population, to try the criminal case, to render a judgement concerning the facts discovered during the trial, facts that are demanded by the Jury, so as to accomplish at least two simple things.

1.
Avoid convicting an innocent person (suggesting a need to try a counter case concerning false accusations) and thereby avoid becoming that which we supposedly abhor.

2.
Avoid abandonment of a victim to further victimization at the hands of criminals (in effect: making crime profitable) and thereby making sure that crime does not pay so well.

Bear,

I told you about my recent experience with Trial by Jury. I was prodded along with everyone else, through Rapiscan scanners, across The Bar, making "oaths" to God (which I did not recite), and being interrogated as to my worthiness as a Juror.

Instead of following the herd I informed everyone there as to the actual need to accomplish those two tasks listed above, and the authorities present excused me, claiming that I was, in effect, unfit for Jury Duty.

If we do not preserve Liberty, who will?

"It seems to me that the word equity is being used in a negative light. I wonder why?"

I throw so much information at you all at once, and somehow you manage to employ it, so uniquely, it is surprising to me. To me: you earn much respect as a competitive person capable of challenging the authority of well established, but false, or counterfeit, versions.

I think Equity is voluntary, mutual, agreement, absent deceit, threats, or violence, therefore such things are outside courts, having nothing to do with courts, so the word is obviously being used as a False Front - or bait and switch routine, or Legal Crime.

Why does anyone go to one of those Equity Courts if Equity exists? If everyone is happy as a clam, what is the need for a court? If all parties are satisfied that no deceit, threats, or violence is involved, then why involve a "Court" where Equity already exists?

The Authorities intend to enforce equity?

That is like fornicating your way back to virginity.

"It seems the constitution is highly regarded as natural law as opposed to civil law."

There are many traps to fall into, such as a confusion of The Declaration of Independence with The Constitution or similarly a confusion of The Bill of Rights with The Constitution. I've shown you where The Constitution is OPPOSITE The Declaration of Independence. Why would anyone confuse the two?

One document declares the DUTY of rebellion against a criminal government, the other document authorizes the suppression of those rebellions. How can it be any more Black and White?

But I think the general theme of the information is useful and there may be a very important lesson concerning exactly how deep the lies go down into our souls.

Example:

Why are there two words used to describe regular people, you, me, the neighbor as such: Public and Private

Who is this Public person?

Who is this Private person?

Why two words for people who are supposed to be self-governing people?

What causes a person to cross over the line from Public to Private or from Private to Public?

I think the answer is right here in this Bonding/Admiralty Issue.

I think the answer is the same answer to the following, parallel, question:

Why are there two words for regular people as such: Employer and Employee

What causes a person to cross this invisible line from being an Employer one second, and then becoming an Employee the next, as one person may put on a Workers Hat, take it off, and then put on a Suit?

Then take off the suit, and put the hat back on?

"Is this the kind of discussion you wanted to have?"

Yes, in my opinion, this is vital stuff. Will you ever be on a Jury?

Do you see the folly of voting when voting is compared to the power a member of a Jury has in our actual world?

Voting is pure fantasy. Look around and see how many people are caught up in that side show called an Election.

Look at the ENERGY wasted by so many people, and for what, so we can move faster and closer into World War III and have all of our "legal" power moved to China after we are on the schedule to lose World War III (we being everyone except those who make the schedule)?

We being everyone who pays the costs of our own failure to defend Liberty, we being everyone who provides the means by which we suffer, we being everyone who transfers our earnings to those who know how to get our earnings well enough, and without even a wimper from the powerless victims who do what, dress up their children in uniforms and send them gladly into the mean grinder while paying at least half of their earnings in various ways to a the orchestrators of the same meat grinder?

Joe

Fast Thoughts

Josf, today is Saturday and I must get busy, but I wanted to give you 2 thoughts on that list of laws.

1. Do no Harm
2. The Golden Rule
3. The 10 Commandments.

# 2 is the night. An L shape. Not just a straight line of Do No Harm, but an L. I will treat you nice, because that is the way I want to be treated. It precludes harm. I would say Do No Harm is defensive. The Golden Rule is the offense…never needing to get to the point of defense. The 10 Commandments are the How of Not doing harm. Jesus boiled the 10 commandments into 2: Love God, Love your Neighbor. Love is the night (which I call the horse LOL). Love is the golden rule offensive move whereas Do No Harm and the 10 commandments are the defensive move.

It seems to me that sortition per GregP is because of man's base nature to consume others. That way that nature is pre-empted by sortition.
-------------------
You made me laugh with your 2nd grade pissing episode. It reminds me of my youngest who has not done that at school, but has been creative with his fire hose. You Joe, would have had your hide tanned so as to not chase people around and piss on them..My youngest has been in big trouble for exercising his fire hose in the screened in, carpeted patio on multiple occasions. The least he could do is go to the grass to alleviate the clean up.
----
I listened the half of the 2 hour 3rd video of Miller. I found it interesting. I had mixed feelings in the first 10-15 minutes wondering what you would think about his take on the Vietnam war. He also discussed the money system which I thought would be of interest to you. I fell asleep so I need to relisten to the rest.
--------------
I also watched this yesterday. It is about 17 minutes. I hope you will watch it. It is Griffen. It made me scared and feeling like what is the hope. But a remedy is given at the end, but I do not know how to exercise the remedy. Please if you have a chance, listen and give me some words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8LA-5fmrs G. Edward Griffin Interview Of Yuri Bezmenov
--------------------
The other thing, you gave me the latin definitions of nation and federation. I wonder what happens when you add the word con to federate. (Or if that 'ate' changes the meaning as well) It seems to me that “con” has different meanings: Contra wise or conglomerate or contain or Spanish con is with i.e. chili con queso. This is an idea I was going to bring up back in the great abyss when we were discussing Patrick Henry’s work on the constitution, but it seems when con is used with confederation it did not support my argument so I did not pursue it with you. Was that deceit? I just thought of that question…Sorry, but I think at that point I thought you were the C word. Anyways, I cannot exactly remember now what the Con with confederate meant, but I don’t think it meant contra.
------------------
Tell me what you think about this…yes to the feudal system. It was a system of joint power of individuals against a monarchy? Was not the feudal system that which brought about Magna Carta?

The nation would be where the feudal system would be bypassed so as to make a direct contract with those born where by removing the feudal power of the individual states which were actually protectorates of the citizens? That is a fast and not thought out theory so I am tossing it out to you. I know we like equity, but people are people and we are all born into different stations and abilities, so I suppose there will always be those who rise in power so if that power is righteous power it will be protectorate of individuals who have less power. Is that wrong?
I have to get busy now on the things of life. Thank you for the funny 2nd grade story. Joe, you may be base and all those words you said about yourself. Please compare that to Holy God and see why he purchased spiritual liberty with the shedding of his own blood. We are all base. Some of us put on a front, some of us don’t and some of us have the very spirit of God living in us to counter that baseness. And that is where the rubber meets the road in the life of a Christian.

More on Romans 13:
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery , Thou shalt not kill , Thou shalt not steal , Thou shalt not bear false witness , Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake * out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed . 12 The night is far spent * , the day is at hand : let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Can you identify old English of Do no Harm in that passage?
----------------
I am glad you are looking at the law issue with chess in mind, the counter play. That is something that I do not do much of.
----------------
Did you see where I asked if you would read or listen to 1 chapter of Romans a day while I read the Pied Piper? I think the book of Romans would be a good one to look at while you are looking at law. A competitive point of view to add to your knowledge?
----------------
If I have missed something that I should have answered, please tell me. Thank you for your discussion. It is food for thought. Seems my "2 thoughts" turned into many.
...

Test anyone

Please

Examples 1,2, and 3.

Example 1:

The Declaration of Independence declares the moral duty of rebellion against criminal government.

The Constitution authorizes the squashing of rebellion as if the rebels are cockroaches.

Example 2:

Capitalism, at the root of it, is a method by which each individual will secure their own requirements to the exclusion of all others.

Socialism, at the root of it, is the sovereignty of the individual supreme among man made laws.

Example 3:

You do not have to have a license to work any job in America according to the supreme law of the land.

Now, Bear, you offered the Interview with Griffin and the Ex-Bolshevik Russian Legal Criminal Mercenary - defected, and he says:

"The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last 35 years, actually over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success; most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before:
Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information with the authentic truth, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his bottom, when a military boot crashes, then he will understand, not before."

I have shown you, using the official documents printed and published from the official sources where:

The Declaration of Independence declares the moral duty of rebellion against criminal government.

AND

The Constitution authorizes the squashing of rebellion as if the rebels are cockroaches.

You can see that, perhaps, I do, and you are among how many people willing, and able, to see it? Do you know that those facts point to a Money Monopoly Power that is not unique to The Soviet Union?

I've can show the documentations, how the World Reserve Currency Power, at the time when it was stationed in England, was allowing, making, The Revolutionary War real, but it did not matter who lost, or who won, since the Monopolists had agents like Alexander Hamilton able to subvert the Common Law (moral law) and turn it into Legal Crime, and then move the Money Monopoly Power to America, from England.

Who, look around, anywhere you look, can see the truth there?

The Constitution was the usurpation. Legal Crime won. Legal Crime is the Money Monopoly Power at the root.

I can link Patrick Henry spelling everything out about The Constitution, and who, look around, has their eyes open, and the bananas taken out of their ears?

You may have past that test, and you may see the truth too.

Next:

I've shown you how Capitalism, according to the Capitalists, Carl Menger specifically, proves that Capitalism is a pricing scheme, used by people who "secure their own requirements to the exclusion of all others" where Scarcity determines Value, where there can be no value if things are not scarce, and, and, and, I've shown you where socialism started as a mutual agreement to recognize the sovereignty of the individual as the supreme man made, equitable, law, as reported by Stephen Pearl Andrews, and I've shown you how The Communist Manifesto openly rejects socialism and makes a specific reference to the links, through Fourier, to those who became known as the Individualist Anarchists, whereby the following is understandable as being true:

Capitalism, at the root of it, is a method by which each individual will secure their own requirements to the exclusion of all others.

Socialism, at the root of it, is the sovereignty of the individual supreme among man made laws.

Who is even remotely capable of seeing the truth when presented with that test?

No one.

Look far and wide, in America, and know that Yuri Bezmenov is telling at least half the truth. The half he is not telling is that it isn't Soviet Russia that is the root of the POWER causing these things. The root of the power causing these things is the root found at the end of the World Reserve Currency POWER trail, as anyone can follow the money to that source anytime they please. Some people do, and they speak to The Sound of Silence.

Call Common Law, or Moral Law, by any name, anytime, and how long after the moral people begin to access it, before the name will change as if by magic?

How long before Red becomes Blue, seemingly over night, by some mysterious force of magic?

You won't dare admit that socialism was once a synonym for common law, never mind your power to admit that socialism was a synonym for God's Law, so far from that truth are you, in my opinion, that you might as well be on a different planet from the truth of it.

I have been wrong often, and there is no skin off my nose now if you can show me exactly where I am wrong in this case.

Again the proof:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

I've shown you the information connecting the dots, but you can't see it, it is outside your power to do so, and that is OK, there is so much that is outside my power to see too. We are in the same boat that is described by Yuri Bezmenov.

On to test 3, which is something new to me, something I tried on my wife, and something just today I tried on my own mother as a test:

Example 3:

You do not have to have a license to work any job in America according to the supreme law of the land.

My wife and mother, and myself for that matter, have Real Estate licenses. I know the facts, and so do they, but when I ask either one of them if it is lawful for someone to sell or buy Real Estate in California without a license they jerk their knees and say no.

No, they say, you have to have a license.

Licensed lawyers will say, no, you have to have a license to practice law in California.

Licensed doctors will say, no, you have to have a license to practice medicine in California.

How deep does the falsehood go down into our souls?

And as far as the name "socialism" for those whose brains turn off at the sound of it, please know the truth offered by Shakespeare, and please know that I don't define words according to dictates offered by you or anyone else, I define words according to specific definitions according to the original meanings intended during the inventing process of those words, when the occasion demands that method of defining words. Current meanings of words do tend to be opposite of past meanings of words for some mysterious and strange reason.

Liberal was once a word used to describe a person who was a Friend of Liberty, such as a Thomas Paine, or a Patrick Henry, or Samuel Adams.

Now, as you may be pleased to do, you can throw stones at Liberals and feel good about it - perhaps.

Shakespeare:

JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Now, Bear, note how my neck is stuck out, and the Mob can now stone the socialist, if someone were to connect the false dots, and yet all I do is offer the information discovered during my pathetic example of a Trial by One Juror.

I can get back to the video to see what else is said by the Ex-Bolshevik communist working for who, and intending to cause what to happen to who?

Joe

Failed Test

I do not understand the test instructions so I do not know how to take the test. So I have failed the test because I have failed the instructions.

It could be worse

You could still be caught in the closed loop.

Joe

I have a copy

If you want to start a topic on that book I can go through it page for page and show you where it is self contradictory.

I'd actually like to do that, having not revisited it in awhile, but there are so many more things pending, and on my end of our discussions we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of Product 1 and Product 2.

I have pointed you to that Topic, but it is entirely without interest to anyone, so far, except me - which is really weird from my viewpoint.

The Caterpillar has the raised drive unit so it is not an H model. I don't know why the ones I operated were D9L or D10N, which had the raised drive unit. An H model, as far as I know, had all the wheels in a horizontal line, without a driving unit raised up.

I spent a little bit of time on a D8H, and that is an interesting story to me, since the Boss at the time was testing me, to see if I could measure up on a berm building expedition, so I found myself showing off.

The real test, as far as I know, involves making a smooth grade, a road you can haul butt on after you cut it, a road that the Grader doesn't have much work to do after you cut it.

Joe

I am interested in Product 1 and 2

I am interested in Product 1 and 2. I asked to be your first customer. I would like a 1% mortgage loan and I would also like a loan to apply towards energy independence and perhaps energy surplus. We don't need to talk about that book. I was just looking at Misus because it was their 30th anniversary and Ron Paul had a clip and somehow I saw that book and wondered if you had read it. I should know better. I haven't and am not going to.

Josf, I haven't been a good discussion partner lately. I am sorry. I feel badly about it and sad. That does not mean you need to say you are sorry just because I have said it. You have nothing to be sorry for as far as I can see. I am throwing mine out there so if you will accept it I can have a do over. Or if you think my competitiveness has run its course I can understand that as well. It is not my goal to waste your time. I know you have important work to accomplish. You spent your time giving me well thought out comments and questions and I did not apply myself to understand.

If you want to discuss Product 1 and 2 I will try to do that and remain focused, or if you want me to take the test you offered I will do that if you will help me get started. Or if you are still interested in Speer’s work I will report on my next 10 pages. Or if you would like me to leave you alone to your work I will do that. I would like to do what seems best to you at this point in time, I just need some direction. Just cut a smooth path so this grader knows where to go.

Or maybe you can haul butt so fast on your smooth paths that this grader cannot keep up? And in that case maybe a cat is needed. Maybe I am not a grader at all, but a hiker looking at all the scenery and rocks cast aside? I can sit and look at rocks for hours and fill my pockets and the back of the van with them to take home to add to my collection. I am a detail person. I get hung up on a single rock or if there are too many of them I want to pick them all up and take them with me. Jeff takes a glance at a rock and he has seen it and understands it. Sure he will haul it for me, even load his pockets, but I want to turn it over and look at it and admire the intricate patterns and defects and wonder about each one.

You have explored the landscape of liberty for years now, I have just begun. I got lost in that landscape this weekend, and I must not do that again. Jeff spoke to me of the blogasphere black hole…I didn’t know one existed.

Thank you for helping me out of the closed loop, now I must stay out of the black hole.

That town, League City, on that Cat Tree Moving video is where Jeff and I lived in Texas before moving to Missouri.

I caught Jeff reading his Boyd book last night. He was at the end of the book. He reads books out of order...skipping to parts that interest him. I read every page in order. He was interested in the Desert Storm part last night so he took the liberty to skip to the back of the book. I teased him of course.

We are all different.
...

The voice of reason

I appreciate the competition because that it what you bring to the table. To me the voice of reason, made by man, is not the absolute truth, often enough, to suggest a word of caution. What do you caution against? Reason, it turns out, is the result of actions, driven by willpower, so who is to say which is better in any case?

Example 1:

1.
Never question any supposed authority.
2.
Never recognize any authority.

Example 2:

1.
One living, willful, and therefore responsible, and therefore accountable, entity dictates every thought and every action that will be thought and acted by every other living entity in the infinity of time and space.

2.
No one is ever responsible and no one is ever held to account.

The point of the examples is to point out the possibility that another point of view may be demanded when the established points of view are not working very well at this moment.

To be outside of the closed loops, where there are, obviously, and accurately measured to be, false choices, is a whole world more competitive than to be stuck inside those Business Psychos.

You, to me, linked information that actually lent support to Andrews history lesson, as the Step taken by Martin Luther was merely a step along the way, from what was to that which is becoming what it is in time.

The same general movement of STUFF is exemplified with this Internet phenomenon. When information could be bottled up, and made scarce to the majority of people there was, then, something that could be called LEVERAGE, held by those who had that information bottled up.

I illustrated that once with the concept of a killer virus, where one person invents both the virus and the cure, but excuse please my new way of reporting this same illustration.

The new virus spreads over one continent in one day, killing everyone, so there are a few days left before everyone on the planet is killed.

The cure, in the old days, could travel by horse. Call the virus The British.

The British are coming, The British are coming!

Here take the cure.

Thank God for horses?

No, wait, the cure is not a "not for profit" thing for "public consumption, so...

How much is the going rate for the cure these days?

Carl Miller doesn't charge anything, not charged to me, I have access to the youtube Television Channel.

How about Jesse Ventura, or Alex Jones?

Less cost to get the information?

No cost?

Public access?

If the fuel for the disease is diseases human minds, called criminals, and the spark that ignites the plague is one criminal making one crime legal, followed by two, then four, then 16, then how long before human kind dies from that plague?

How much in demand is the cure, when the victims are holding onto the false belief in applying the disease as a means of curing the disease?

So the cure has to be at least that moment in time when a person knows better than to provide the means by which we suffer, spoken so clearly by the Socialist Democrat Liberal Thomas Paine when he invented, produced, published, and distributed his work title Common Sense AT COST, or below.

So the Austrian Economics Conservative Capitalist Republican Christians, or whatever, can't listen to me, because?

Because words which once were synonyms for good are now connected to criminals with badges, criminals who torture, mass murder, for fun and profit, well, the connection (which is false) destroys any authority concerning what I have to say, which disconnects anyone so disposed from the information offered, willfully, purposefully, rejecting, with prejudgement or WITH PREJUDICE.

Carl Miller suggests something worth considering.

Without Prejudice.

The blogasphere black hole is an interesting comment and here again the main principles between Monopoly and Competition are brought into view, with one qualification that is often glossed over, missed, ignored, or otherwise left firmly in the dark.

As such (in detail):

I.
A.
True Competition
B.
True Monopoly

II.
A.
False Competition
B.
False Monopoly

Take the question of authority over the facts for example.

We two can share, with others who are similarly electing ourselves as a competitive authority over the facts, that God exists, at least in a form that conceptualizes Absolute True Factual Authority Monopoly, where the buck stops every time.

That is a true example of a monopoly, one that we can see, because we give ourselves the authority to see it, God willing.

The Devil, another concept, shared by many, including me, is a True Competitor to God, in the sense that factual knowledge

BREAK

Joe

The Devil, another concept,

The Devil, another concept, shared by many, including me, is a True Competitor to God, in the sense that factual knowledge can be consumed by people or lies can be consumed by people, where both factual knowledge and lies are choices that can be willfully chosen by people at any given moment anywhere in time and space - human beings on earth in reality.

The sign says heaven goes right or left.

The sign says hell goes straight.

The sign says heaven goes straight.

The sign says back up if want to avoid further destruction.

Do you obey all the signs at once, without question?

Someone arrives on the scene, with a badge, and says hey, listen to that sign right there, and forge ahead, while I wait here to see how it works out for you.

Someone arrives on the scene with reasonable documentation showing what that person has been doing and how things have been working along that path, and that someone says something along the lines of "Use your head for something other than a hat rack."

God willing, we will make the right choice.

Among all the true competitive choices are the true monopoly paths taken by all the people who do good, because they chose the one path that does not harm anyone for any reason since that path avoids all reasons that cause people to harm each other, a true monopoly path, and among all the competitive choices are lies aimed at abusing and destroying innocent people for fun and profit, threats of violence aimed at abusing and destroying innocent people for fun and profit, and torturous, horrible, and terrifying violence aimed at abusing and destroying innocent people and that, as it turns out, is another MONOPOLY path chosen by everyone who takes that false, destructive, and life murdering path.

If the blogoshpere was nothing but all the good things people have to offer other people in peace and harmony then there would be, in that sense, a monopoly POWER dictating only that path to be taken by everyone OR ELSE.

So, what is wrong with Dictatorship of Absolute Despotism when the Dictator is Benevolent, Good, True, Life Sustaining, and so far above human kind, in a POWERFUL sense, that life gets better and better for as long as it can - God willing?

Nothing is wrong with that, unless, as it happens, YOUR decision is to harm other people for fun and profit, by resorting to deceit, threats of violence, and violence, including the hiring out of mutated human beings, called sociopaths, to do your dirty work for you, if that is your choice.

Just check the box that says Evil, more or less.

So there out of paradise on earth ONE person offers a competitive invention that threatens the Monopoly Power of God, and the idea spreads from one person to another exponentially?

No, the nature of falsehood is such that the perpetrators are FOOLED into going down a path that is false, where the goal is to do something good (the monopoly of God, or moral monopoly path) while the actual path is the opposite way.

There is more to it.

The Monopoly God, or moral monopoly, path includes as many paths as can be invented by anyone, avoiding the ONE FALSE COMPETITOR path, which can be summed up with few words: Willful Destruction.

What is the goal when a person chooses a lie that intends to injure the target of the lie, which has to be distinguished from a person infected with falsehood who is not willfully inventing the lie him, or her self?

Liars who invent these lies do not suffer from the destruction of the lies, not directly.

Here is where the Austrian Economists like Hans Hermann Hoppe offer the concept of Time Preferences, and the fact that a person who willfully destroys someone else may actually be suffering from their own lies, since a choice of helping someone else, instead of "getting something for nothing" from someone else, may work out to be much more production, total production, further down the road, where everyone has all they ever wanted, instead of many people left with less than nothing.

That is where the Product 1 and Product 2 idea begins to dig down into the future possibilities with something much better than doom, gloom, end times, torture, mass murder, horror, terror, and perpetual war for perpetual "something for nothing peace".

War, they say, after all, is good for the economy?

"Just cut a smooth path so this grader knows where to go."

Speer, back to Speer, may be a good idea.

I am doing the same thing. Taking time to read the rest of The Pied Piper of Babylon and finishing the Know Your Constitution work offered by Carl Miller.

I've been schooling my children on the concept of Without Prejudice and my daughter is listening, then rejecting, but at least listening to the concepts. My son is, perhaps, ahead of me on the game, but he proceeds with much greater caution than I do, so his advantages in theory won't turn into advantages in action, right or wrong, assuming that I can do something before God is done with me.

I think that I need to, eventually, go back over Carl Miller's work and get those specific references in hand, study them myself, and become fluent in Common Law, which he calls an argument, but I don't see it as an argument. I see it as discovering documented facts, and if an argument ensues, then to me there will be either a shared desire to resolve the contradictions, or someone, somewhere will be propping themselves up as absolute dictator of knowledge, God, in human form. That will turn out to be a false God, of course, someone who resorts to deceit, to win the "argument", resorts to threats of violence to win the "argument", or resorts to violence to win the "argument".

Product 1 and Product 2 belong in the Liberty Day Challenge thread, and again that is meant to scratch through the surface of all this doom and gloom, this legalese, these arguments, and that is meant to begin seeing a much more productive future for everyone, in a very reasonable way, actionable, honest, cooperative, and mutually beneficial; whereby the total power in the morning is much less than the total power at the end of each day, because that is the goal, and that is opposite the goal whereby total power is made scarce on purpose, bottling it up, choking it down to a trickle, throttling it down, so as to jack up the price of it, since everyone needs power, and without power many people will do just about anything to get some.

The Boyd book offers a similar story to those accounts of Jesus, not in a way that is blasphemous, just a story about someone who does something right, despite all the powers of wrong that are actively threatening anyone who may dare to do something right.

As to the actual rightness of making the U.S. corporate Military POWER more POWERFUL, overall, the scope of that account, as to the total good or bad done by John Boyd, is not within my power to judge, nor is it my power to judge the total measure of anyone, anywhere, including Jesus, or Moses, or Stephen Pearl Andrews, or Carl Miller - or me.

The John Boyd story is inspiring in many ways, and including in the way that suggests that more good people in the Military, like John Boyd, may actually be the POWER that tips the balance in favor of Friends of Liberty instead of the POWER being tipped in favor of Legal Crime.

More than one person has to obey unlawful orders for Legal Crime to reach the point where torture and mass murder is now legal, and so those same people have to decide, on their own, to obey moral law, such as their own Universal Code of Military Justice which is based upon A constitutional government, not a perfect Constitution by any means, since one thing can mean anything in that Constructively Interpretable Constitution.

Note:

Carl Miller does make a reference to a Constitutional Law that authorizes the suppression of rebellions, but who determines what constitutes rebellion against what?

Traitors running the "government" (which is socialism no matter how you slice it) will have already taken over a moral government, and turned it into a criminal government, so they will then use that suppression of rebellion LAW to crush any moral law, which is a competition to Crime made Legal.

Moral people running the "government" (which remains to be socialism, as individual power is collected into a fund, and then the total power in the fund is used as purchasing power to purchase stuff) are supposed to use the suppression of rebellion Law to keep the criminals out of government, or to defend The Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Again, the tools are what they are, and what anyone does with the tool can be known accurately as being moral, immoral, or perhaps amoral.

Making torture legal is a clue that ought to clue the moral people in on the fact that criminals, who torture, have taken over.

Again:

1.
Do not abandon the victims because that makes crime pay.

2.
Do not become that which we supposedly abhor because punishing innocent people is called crime.

Joe

Speer xiv - xvi

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImTXVBWEpJb2I4V1E/...

Page xiv
Blacks Law 1933
“The United states has been generally styled,
in American political and juridical writings, a
"federal government." The term has not been im-
posed by any specific constitutional authority,
but expresses the general sense and opinion upon
the nature of the form of government••• "Federal"
is somewhat appropriate if the government is
considered a union of the states ~ "National" is
preferable if the view is adopted that the state
governments and the Union are two distinct sys-
tems, each established by the people directly,
one for local and the other for national purposes.”

Then the statement by the prologue author:
“How about that! According to Black's, by 1933, the
United states had been generally styled a "federal govern-
ment" with no specific constitutional authority to do so”

Well, it seems to me that Virginia Resolution uses the word Federal:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resoluti...
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact…”

So it seems to me the word was in use well before 1933 by a state that advocated state' s rights.
Josf, which of the definitions as set out by Blacks do you prefer (regardless of the word that is being define. I am asking not about the word, but about the definition.

If I am understanding correctly, the author of the Prologue prefers the definition of national where by the states and the consolidated government exist independently and the people vote both into office and are therefore subjected to both. I think this is the problem that was expressed by Patrick Henry:

I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.”
--------------
Anyways, it seems that the stage is being set to take 1933 as a turning point:
“sad to say the 1933 Edition of Black's was absolutely
correct and the year 1913 was the year of the coup de grace
subsequently followed by a major coup. on June 5, 1933.”

So it seems a foundation is being built on terms that may or may not be defined correctly, used correctly. This is the bath water? But if it is a foundation, how can the baby really be a baby?

The prologue author continues to go on talking about the states of emergencies and the laws enacted. It would seem to me if we held to the definition as given by Blacks, of a compact between states, then the people would not be in jeopardy by those laws. But if we go with the definition of national which the author prefers, then of course with 2 separate groups of governments (state & national) the people are under jurisdiction of those new laws because they are subject to the national government and the state cannot protect them. What year was the 17th amendment ratified whereby the State’s legislatively elected Senators were elected at large by the people of the state? Hmmm? 1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...

Something happened in 1913, but I don’t know that it was federal in nature because the states were more far removed from the national government thru the loss of direct voice thru their senators. Perhaps a dictatorship?

It also seems to me that if one is going to use Blacks at different revision levels, it would be important to use the preceding revision wording to show the significance of the change.
------------
Page xiv-xvi
On the subject of the Flag:
I understand what is being written about the flag and military “colors” and that it is the colors that are being flown in the courtroom and Blacks law indicates that it is the descretion of the individual to determine whether they will submit to the jurisdiction of the military power/ship, but reserve my comments because I have none other than that this idea has been marginalized within the general public. I cannot say at this point whether this idea of maritime law is truth or a fraud. I would like to know of all the cases of those who have tried to exercise this law and have ended up in the ship’s hull.

Furthermore, one thing that I have not brought up RE: Miller, if someone gets a ticket for speeding, and they truly are speeding, is it right to play con con to get out of a ticket. Please know my father was good at speeding and at getting tickets and at paying lawyers to get the tickets dismissed. I never as a child thought that was right. He taught my brother the same trade…my brother had several near death auto accidents. My father died in an auto accident and my brother is dead too by house fire. Perhaps when one gets a ticket they should think twice about speeding and save their loved-ones the heartache of the reality of a fear that was always resident…if you don’t quit driving like a maniac you are going to kill someone or get yourself killed.

I will try to start on Chapter 1 tomorrow.
...

Ambiguous

"Josf, which of the definitions as set out by Blacks do you prefer (regardless of the word that is being define. I am asking not about the word, but about the definition."

The definitions are worthless to me, due to the fact that the words say nothing, except for a confession.

When the authorities write things that only they understand, and therefore you need the authorities forever, then the confession is that they are creating "Job Security", just like the Union Shop Repairman who breaks things to keep the demand for his POWER to fix things high - which is making his POWER scarce relative to the number of broken things that need to be fixed.

" each established by the people directly,
one for local and the other for national purposes"

So...the National Employees, who we hire to do our bidding, are not allowed, by us, to have any power over us, while we remain in our local jurisdictions?

or

We hire them to make us provide the means by which we suffer in the National Interest?

Who decides what is IS?

When Federal means: States pay or do not pay anything to the Federal Government unless they alone decide to pay, or not pay, at any given time, or place, or any amount, for as long as the State remains a choice by The People to be in that State, on their own say so, each individual person, where those people will, or will not, find sanctuary in another State, or another place, anywhere but that State, if that State becomes Crime made Legal.

Where Federal means that the Federal Government exists, or does not exist, depending upon the supply being voluntarily supplied to meet the demand, and if the Federal Government wanders off the limits of the supply demanded, then the States CHECK that wandering off of the limits of the supply being oversupplied by refusing to pay any more Union dues.

Wherein the Federal government is NOT used as a means of keeping the runaway slaves chained up to their masters as the Federal Employees are sent in each State to retrieve those slaves and take them back to their Masters in another State.

National, to me, merely means Monopoly, or Legal Crime - Fraud combined with Extortion.

National = Despotism = Legal Crime when I use that word.

"Is this a monarchy, like England a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely."

Clearly, it is not, clearly, demonstrably, it is Crime made Legal.

Before The Constitution the Federal Employees did not invade Vermont with a Conscripted Army led by a newly crowned Dictator in Chief to summarily, and legally, crush "so fatal a spirit" as The Spirit of 1776, but after The Constitution that very things was done according to the whims of the then current despotic regime of Central Bankers and their hired mercenaries.

So...Patrick Henry was right.

Who listened then?

Who listens now?

"So it seems a foundation is being built on terms that may or may not be defined correctly, used correctly. This is the bath water? But if it is a foundation, how can the baby really be a baby?"

What must be understood is the fact that there will be living things that threaten and destroy innocent human babies, children, teenagers, young adults, men, women, old men, and old women, and those living things include wild animals, human beings called sociopaths, and human beings called pathological liars, and human beings called Mittens, and human beings called Obsama Bin Obama, or human beings calling themselves Politicians, Lawyers, Judges, Authorities, Police, Generals, Sheriffs, Central Bankers, etc.

Why not call them criminals?

Cui Bono?

If crime will happen then a power must exist by which the criminals are not powerful enough to overpower their victims and that is The BABY.

There is the baby, there is the criminal, the criminal is targeting the baby, if we do nothing, what happens?

If we do something, what do we do?

Do we send Fraud Money to sociopaths and hope for the best?

Baby is proven to be The Baby, not the bathwater, when the criminals are not molesting the babies, and torture is not legal, and mass murder is not a National Sport.

Bath water is perhaps occurring as we provide the means by which we are tortured and mass murdered as we fail to realize that an alternative exists.

When Baby meets Bathwater, the baby knows, and probably cries, or screams, so why can't we hear such things, as it happens often enough?

Too busy making (fraud) money because the tax man (extortion) knocks?

"I would like to know of all the cases of those who have tried to exercise this law and have ended up in the ship’s hull."

If everyone stopped providing the means by which we suffer, all at once, it would be easy to do, before tomorrow morning.

That may not happen tomorrow.

So who is going to act now, and will they be in the hull, or will they be nailed to wooden boards and paraded about town to let everyone else know what happens when someone questions the order to provide the means by which we suffer?

"Perhaps when one gets a ticket they should think twice about speeding and save their loved-ones the heartache of the reality of a fear that was always resident…if you don’t quit driving like a maniac you are going to kill someone or get yourself killed."

If someone is speeding down a road where children will be wandering into the street then shooting the driver dead before he proceeds another block could work out to be the lesser of two evils, if, in fact, the driver would have plowed through a dozen children killing or torturing all 12.

So...

A.
Do something that stops CRIME

B.
Work harder each day to make more Fraud Money to then pay sociopaths so that that sociopaths can destroy all life on Earth.

What is the specific question?

Why be ambiguous?

Cui Bono?

Joe

Speer xiv - xvi reply

“then the States CHECK that wandering off of the limits of the supply being oversupplied by refusing to pay any more Union dues.”

That word “union” brought a whole new meaning to me just now. I remember you speaking to me about the labor union you were “asked” to join. I remember you told me you could not work when the “union” was on strike. I think you also told me something about “union” pay…the con con was a “union?” The kind where dues are not optional? Is that what you are trying to get me to understand…in the terms of the states being forced to join a labor union…and those states include individuals that used to be free from the “Union?”
---------
“If crime will happen then a power must exist by which the criminals are not powerful enough to overpower their victims and that is The BABY.”

The Baby = finding the power that exists to mitigate the criminal power
---------
“When Baby meets Bathwater, the baby knows, and probably cries, or screams, so why can't we hear such things, as it happens often enough?”

I think it is because people do not know there is a baby and people do not know there is a bath water because there has been a con con and a con is not a con unless someone is conned.
----------------
“So who is going to act now, and will they be in the hull, or will they be nailed to wooden boards and paraded about town to let everyone else know what happens when someone questions the order to provide the means by which we suffer?”

I am not feeling brave. I suppose you make it too real. Those people in Washington, they are not real. Those people who face judges and get thrown into the hull, they are real. I know that is not logical, but it is the way my mind is working at the moment.

“If someone is speeding down a road where children will be wandering into the street then shooting the driver dead before he proceeds another block could work out to be the lesser of two evils, if, in fact, the driver would have plowed through a dozen children killing or torturing all 12”

Is that not preemptive justice? Isn’t that the problem with the wars in the middle east…preemption of the boogie man that may or may not be?

What if someone speeding down a child inhabited street gets a ticket and goes to courtand play common law?

“What is the specific question?”

The specific question is, if someone breaks the speed limit and is pulled over and given a ticket is it just to go to court and use common law to “get out” of paying the ticket? If common law is a grand thing, why use it in such a degrading way. Why not just drive the speed limit, or if you break the law pay the fine for breaking the known law?

“Why be ambiguous?”

I wasn’t trying to be ambiguous.

“Cui Bono?”

Who benefits from what?

...

Speer xii - xiii

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImTXVBWEpJb2I4V1E/...

Page xii
“Foedal is pronounced "few-dal," and is the same as
"feudal. " "Feudalism" is a federal system in which
servant, serf, is bound by a foedum or campact to his master
or lord.”

My thoughts on the statement above. Did not each state already have a state constitution? Was that not a feudal compact? I wonder how the state governments came into power. Were they elected of the people, by the people and for the people. (I suppose I would have to start reading state constitutions to find out…) And then those feudal systems (the states) made federal compacts with one another; i.e., a contract between nations (the states). What then is the “national” constitution but a feudal compact? Is not that compact between the individuals of the nation and the government of the nation? So then, where does the statement come “of the people, by the people, for the people?” Perhaps then the constitution is a contract between the people and the people the people elect and that is why it is no longer feudal?
Speaking of which I decided to read the Kentucky resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resoluti... since you alluded to it regarding Madison in your reply to me about pages x and xi and found that that resolution speaks of a compact between the states and the general [consolidated] government thus that may be why Jefferson and Henry were regarded as a Federalist and why the term federal is preferred by JTK as opposed to national?
------------------
Page xii
“The Articles of Confederation that followed was
federal in nature and totally failed to work on a free and
independant People”

The text above that quote says the articles of confederation were civil law as opposed to common law. Joe, have you read the Articles of Confederation? Do you think I should stop and read them, which I have never done before? (I only started reading the constitution back in 2008 after the Constitution Party gave me a “Citizen’s Rule Book.” Yes that little white book that Miller has in his video. And I am happy to report that I have read it all the way thru more than once LOL.)

The other thing that I would like to note from the Kentucky Resolution…the part that I did read is that the term “general” government is used. Not “national” not “federal,” but “general.” The Virginia resolution uses the term “federal.”

This makes me think about something else. I remember reading in Patrick Henrys discourse on the Constitution something about the Sheriff’s overstepping on the people. And then I start thinking back on that quote quoted by Speer regarding the people expecting a “national” government. Is there a chance that the states were abusing their citizens and thus the people wanted relief thru a national government? Part of the Con Con, or just the way humans begin to treat each other under any system?

This quote from page xiii fits with my statement above:
“The federal government, under the Articles of Confeder-
ation, was a feudal compact between sovereign states and had
unlimited powers over the individual.”
--------------------
Page xiii
Per Madison:
"... in this new and unique system, government
was to operate directly and coercively on individuals - ONLY
WIIHIN THE EXTENT OF ITS POWERS."

Those words lend me to the very first post I read of yours which interested me in your point of view: http://www.dailypaul.com/224429/liberty-versus-legal-crime and my comment http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2359063 If I am remembering correctly, this is the very beginning of my JTK education. Hmmm, but I don’t think I ever saw this link http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1117.html at the top of your post. It kind of blended in with the heading and I didn’t find it today until I started looking for the quote you were quoting: “The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,”

But I digress. What I was keying upon in the quote from Speer’s work was “coercively” and that brought me to the point you made in that post at the beginning of the great abyss about the constitution being a dictatorial document while the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights were oppositely Liberating Documents. But according to that Speer’s quote from Madison, those “COERSIVE” powers were supposed to be “LIMITED” by the [Dictatorial per JTK] or [Common Law per Miller] or [General per Jefferson] or [Federal per Henry] or [Con Con per Hamilton/Morris????] Constitution. bear says take your pick, I don’t know, I am just a messenger reporting the message that I see and I may be out of the closed loop, but I do not yet know how to interpret what is going on in that loop.

Perhaps this is the proper interpretation?

“This was the grand and noble experiment, an entirely new
concept in the annals of government. The National COnstitu-
tion and the National government which it created, was lim-
ited in its powers over natural born persons (individuals)
to those expressly granted (Le., beyond the extent of
powers granted the natural born inhabitant was to be
governed by the Laws of God and Nature, the Law of
Conscience) “

And perhaps the problem is that the Legal Criminals have relegated God to the trash bin of history and now no longer are rights God-given or common to men, but rather now men in the form of government in the form of Legal Criminals interpret and give those rights instead of God. And they say so much either ignorantly or subversively: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2808132

OK the end of page xiii begins to talk about 1933 Black’s law dictionary. I am going to stop my comments and reread that information that I read yesterday. I am going to reread about the fringed flag too. I will comment on those issues tomorrow or at my next opportunity.

...

Crime is crime

"And then I start thinking back on that quote quoted by Speer regarding the people expecting a “national” government. Is there a chance that the states were abusing their citizens and thus the people wanted relief thru a national government? Part of the Con Con, or just the way humans begin to treat each other under any system?"

If I don't know enough about the LEGAL PRECEDENT that occurred with Shays's Rebellion, then I'd like to know better.

As far as I know the LEGAL PRECEDENT of Shays's Rebellion was a runaway slave running away from a Legal Crime Organization called Massachusetts as those slaves ran to Vermont for sanctuary and that is what they found INSIDE the Common Law of The Articles of Confederation.

Here is what Patrick Henry says (in part):

"The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy?"

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

Liars lie.

Is Patrick Henry lying?

The largest and most powerful Aggressive Army Invaders For Profit was DEFEATED under The Articles of Confederation, where runaway slaves could run from one state to another and find sanctuary.

Is that significant or not?

Liars lie.

Who is rendered powerless by lies?

You?

“The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,”

Alexander Hamilton wrote The Federalist Papers as a False Advertizement campaign to PROMISE a "Federation" when in fact he claimed, otherwise, that he wanted National Debt, so as to FOOL the FOOLS who already had Good Faith and Credit into t FALSE believe in the Good Faith and Credit being issued through Monopoly License from a Central Bank.

That is all on the record for anyone to find themselves.

As Treasury Secretary, if I remember right, under Washington the new Currency War which was Shays's Rebellion became The Whiskey Rebellion only NOW, instead of Separate Sovereign States with all Volunteer Armies there was a Consolidated Government with a Conscripted (Slave) Army to Crush an competitors who may offer a competitive money (Whiskey).

That is all very well documented.

Madison finally figured out the Fraud and sided with Jefferson after abuse, after abuse, after abuse, that was not limited to The Alien and Sedition Acts or the earlier Whiskey Rebellion where Washington suppressed The Spirit of Liberty which Washington, in his own official words, as President, claimed that Spirit of Liberty to be " so fatal" to what?

Legal Crime.

Monopoly Banks Money Power.

License - Union - Scarcity of Power.

I had this thought today:

Jesus was a capitalist because he owned the most valuable capital in the world, the Word of God, and how much did he charge for that most valuable capital that was so scarce at that time?

What was the price Jesus set for the Scarce Capital he was offering the Free Market of ideas?

"But according to that Speer’s quote from Madison, those “COERSIVE” powers were supposed to be “LIMITED” by the [Dictatorial per JTK] or [Common Law per Miller] or [General per Jefferson] or [Federal per Henry] or [Con Con per Hamilton/Morris????] Constitution. bear says take your pick, I don’t know, I am just a messenger reporting the message that I see and I may be out of the closed loop, but I do not yet know how to interpret what is going on in that loop."

Why call crime anything other than crime?

Who benefits?

Cui bono?

“This was the grand and noble experiment, an entirely new
concept in the annals of government. The National COnstitu-
tion and the National government which it created, was lim-
ited in its powers over natural born persons (individuals)
to those expressly granted (Le., beyond the extent of
powers granted the natural born inhabitant was to be
governed by the Laws of God and Nature, the Law of
Conscience) “

The Philadelphia congregation was a reaction to Shays's Rebellion and a reluctance on the part of States to "provide the means by which we suffer" to Criminals who were infesting the Continential Congress with their no bid contracts and their lies, and their slaves, and their fraud money, and their Monarchy, and their Crimes, and their Crimes, and their Crimes, so someone had to do something to make crime legal.

You don't see it, but other people did see it, not only Patrick Henry.

http://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/274secret.htm

The only reason why the people behind The Constitution (instead of The Articles of Confederation) had to resort to deceit was the fact that no one wanted the same Crime made Legal that they fled England or Germany, or wherever, in the first place, so the Liars had to dangle the false promise of a Federation in front of the masses of dupes, at that time.

This is a very familiar story.

Joe

Speer xii - xiii reply

“If I don't know enough about the LEGAL PRECEDENT that occurred with Shays's Rebellion, then I'd like to know better.”

Well it might be the other side of the coin that needs to be examined. Why did Shay’s have to run? Who was extracting taxes from him? Was it lawful? I think I remember you explaining that he went to the revolutionary war and then came home and had no money to pay taxes demanded and lost his land? Is that right? If so, what entity was causing him grief? State or Consolidated government?
------------------------
“Liars lie.
Is Patrick Henry lying?”

No, I suppose Patrick Henry had lived long enough and stayed politically active long enough to see a Con Con or a Shell Game in action:

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html
“But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth�suspicions of my integrity�publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country.”
----------------
“The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,”

= Money Monopoly. I keep forgetting about Morris and the bank. Josf, it is so hard for me to keep the whole picture in view. Thank you for your continual reminders.
----------------------
“Jesus was a capitalist because he owned the most valuable capital in the world, the Word of God, and how much did he charge for that most valuable capital that was so scarce at that time?”

It was freely given and it cost Him His Life, which He also freely gave.
-------------------------
“Cui bono”

The question that must be asked when looking at facts and players? May I direct you back to my reply above and ask: “Cui bono?”

I will try, try, try to remember: Cui bono when I look at things. But also, one has to remember sometimes those beneficiaries are determined by the benefactor. Not all benefactors are evil.
-----------------
“so the Liars had to dangle the false promise of a Federation in front of the masses of dupes, at that time.
This is a very familiar story.”

Yes, I believe we are seeing it before our eyes today…you perhaps for more than 20 years, me maybe the last 5…though I knew Waco and Ruby Ridge were blips, I did not stop to examine those rocks. And perhaps now, we saw a Champion of Liberty grace the scene and that Voice of Liberty has been replaced with a voice within the Libertarian party that tangles Liberty.

What I am struggling with today is the difference between States Rights and Natural Rights. Does the state have the right to squelch a Natural Right? What if the Book of Romans is true? http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/1-audio.html

Have your read this: http://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/274secret.htm ? I will add it to my library doc.

...

Not what it seems to be?

"I will try, try, try to remember: Cui bono when I look at things. But also, one has to remember sometimes those beneficiaries are determined by the benefactor. Not all benefactors are evil."

Jesus could have refused? It was his choice to act or not act? He decided on the path he thought was best?

The fight is not over Jesus the Capitalist/Fascist/Dictator or the Socialist/Communist/Collectivist is it?

Jesus, or anyone, can decide to obey God's Law, Moral Law, Common Law, or Natural Law, and decide to give all those COSTS to whomever will welcome those gifts, or sell those things, whatever they are, at a profit, and so long as deceit is not resorted to, upon the innocent, and so long as threats of violence is not resorted to, upon the innocent, and so long as violence is not resorted to upon the innocent, on purpose, for fun and profit, then it isn't CRIME, so we won't be talking about CRIME.

If we are talking about CRIME, then why not call it CRIME since that is what it is, and if we call it something that it is not, then again:

Cui Bono?

If we call it something that it is not, then who benefits by our resort to deception?

Who are we deceiving if we call it Socialism when it is clearly CRIME?

Who are we deceiving if we call it Capitalism when it is clearly CRIME?

Who is the victim we are targeting with our resort to deception when we cover up CRIME with our man-made false flags?

What constitutes our pay-off for resorting to deceit when we cover up CRIME with these False Flags of ours?

"What I am struggling with today is the difference between States Rights and Natural Rights. Does the state have the right to squelch a Natural Right? What if the Book of Romans is true?"

Before looking into the references I can say that a Federation/Republic/Confederation/Legal Competition is a design by which the States are experiments in solving the problem of CRIME at a Military Level, and the Counties and Cities are experiments in solving the problem of CRIME at more local levels, and the concept of the Confederation (using Patrick Henry's word choice) is to organize the State Defensive Military POWER, of one State, with another State Defensive Military POWER, so that the combination of State Defensive Military POWER is greater than both States acting separately, and exponentially greater, not just a sum of the two parts.

All that is LIMITED to only that, and if one State becomes despotic, the FORCE OF COMPETITION works to make that State weaker as the victims find sanctuary in other States less despotic.

I will take the time, again, to find supporting documentation of this very thing, in my copy of the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

Note the title:
______________________________________________

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy [NOT MOB RULE so don't see RED/SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS/PLEASE]-to experiment with various policies and programs. For Example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens [with involuntary taxes = Legal Crime = Despotism, and not being strictly limited to defense of liberty which is defense against crime?], the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care [The Force of voluntary choices being the force that forces quality up and cost down = Free Market in the genuine sense not the Fraud, or CRIME, sense where Free means Free from moral conscience and free from accountability]. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention [why not call it CRIME?], the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector [why are people pigeon holed into either public or private divisions/sectors/categories/or prejudices?]. With national plans and programs, the national officials [Legal Criminals] simply roll the dice for all 284 million people in the United States and hope they get things right."
____________________________________________________________

Now, the author is assuming that the "authorities" at the National Level are actually working (but failing) to get things right, which is patently absurd, since they confess, often enough, as to their actual goal which is the enslavement of mankind to their exclusive power: where "they" are criminals who make their crimes legal.

In particular:

1.
Federal Reserve Fraud made legal.
2.
Federal Income Tax Extortion made legal.
3.
Employment of the Military Power (the actual reason for a State) in Aggressive Wars for Profit, of which there is a precedent concerning that Crime, as being the worst evil of mankind, where a trial was already done, in Nuremberg, where some of the perpetrators (but not the Wall Street Bankers financing Hitler) were sentenced to death, and then put to death for those crimes - supposedly.

They (legal criminals) do confess on a regular basis, such as that Nuremberg confession, in FACT.

Aggressive Wars for Profit are not nice, but "we do it anyway".

Who and what army are going to stop us?

If The Articles of Confederation worked to defend Liberty against the largest Invading Aggressive War POWER for Profit on the planet, during the Revolutionary War, why were the supposed Federalists so keen on getting rid of that experiment in Confederation?

Hamilton confessed, and I showed you that too, he wanted National Debt, so as to pretend to be the benevolent supplier of good faith and credit of the combined total sum of individual people in America.

I can look at the links offered.

Joe

Speer xii - xiii reply to reply

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You sure are using we and our alot and I thought it was a cardinal rule of discussion not to include other parties.

You are using the word Crime a lot by itself as well. What happened to the term Legal Crime? (oh wait, I see it reappears at the end. Good, because I ran into willl again today and had to goad him abit. All in fun you know. Even if I am supposed to know better for the trenches.)

Joe, how do you possibly remember which words are in which books? I can’t even remember words from books. Except maybe some of Henry and some of Paine now.

Under Book Description http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck... :

“Reclaiming the American Revolution examines the struggles for political ascendancy between Federalists and the Republicans in the early days of the American Republic viewed through the lens of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson and Madison saw the Alien and Sedition Acts as a threat to states' rights, as well as indicative of a national government that sought unlimited power. The Resolutions sought to return the nation to the tenets of the Constitution, in which rights for all were protected by checking the power of the national government. Watkins examines the two sides of this important controversy in early American history and demonstrates the Resolutions' relevance to current politics.”

Note the first sentence…now there is a contrast between the words “Federalists” and “Republicans.” Oh, now look in the 2nd sentence…we find the words “national government that sought unlimited power.”

Let me see…the bill of Rights became effective December 15, 1791 (from my trusty little white Citizen’s Handbook)…now let me look regarding “The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?
-----------------
“With national plans and programs, the national officials [Legal Criminals] simply roll the dice for all 284 million people in the United States and hope they get things right."

Would that be called Criminal Socialism? A Criminal Scientific of Society at a Whole without the consent of those being governed? But you know…they tried their little socialized medicine experiment in Massachusetts? And now the PRESUMPTIVE nominee of that Party called Republican is indeed the Republican Candidate and the discussion is no longer will we have national health care, but rather what kind of national health care shall we have.
---------------
“3. Employment of the Military Power (the actual reason for a State) in Aggressive Wars for Profit, of which there is a precedent concerning that Crime, as being the worst evil of mankind, where a trial was already done, in Nuremberg, where some of the perpetrators (but not the Wall Street Bankers financing Hitler) were sentenced to death, and then put to death for those crimes - supposedly.”

I would like to modify number 3. On the list to End the Wars (against Terror, Poverty, Illiteracy, Drugs, Foreign and Domestic alike. We have been in a domestic state of war:
Speer xiv
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a
state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are
now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of
national emergency:
In addition to the national emergency
declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the
states of national emergency proclaimed by President Truman
on December 16, 1950, and the two declared by President
Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”
------------------------
Excellent Question Joe: “If The Articles of Confederation worked to defend Liberty against the largest Invading Aggressive War POWER for Profit on the planet, during the Revolutionary War, why were the supposed Federalists so keen on getting rid of that experiment in Confederation?”

Cui Bono?
-------------
“I can look at the links offered”
Thank you

....

No help

"Joe, how do you possibly remember which words are in which books? I can’t even remember words from books. Except maybe some of Henry and some of Paine now."

I went the same path you are on, but I had almost no help. I had to find my way in books, and I can retrace much of my path in those books, as new information fit so well that the event of finding the new information that fit so well had me pacing and pulling my hair out each time, mumbling to myself, "of course", "of course", and I talk to my dad, who is dead, and other such manic things, because I am crazy, relative to almost everyone else, and yet I manage to avoid death somehow, avoid the asylum, etc.

I read Equitable Commerce much faster than a read The Law by Bastiat, before those I had read Mises book: Socialism.

Mises was speaking about Legal Crime, not the Socialism spoken of by Andrews.

After Equitable Commerce I had to find the works done by Andrews because it was Andrews who wrote the EDITOR’S PREFACE, to Equitable Commerce. Andrews and Warren speak of the future prognosis of mankind which includes the employment of science toward understanding the human condition, which inspired me to grab the book by Lindner, then Howard Bloom, then Eric Fromm, on that subject, so I know the stepping stones, each adding the pieces they add, and not long along the path I started to write notes, then bend pages, then it all started to coalesce into Product 1 and Product 2, so now the path taken is a distant memory, but the epiphanies along the way are memorable.

How about an example?

I ran into censorship when dealing with Capitalists, so named, so I had to answer the questions I was asking myself, and those answers I found in the works of Carl Menger, and Murray Rothbard, so I know exactly where I found those answers to those questions, but I don't have a copy of Menger's work, and it can be difficult finding a source on the internet, but I found it again, and that was reported here in my topic that earned me even more censorship from those who want to make that information scarce.

"So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?"

On my path I have 5 vital books that help solve the problem of knowing better as to what happened with those Articles of Confederation and why The Constitution was forced into being a replacement for Common Law in this Incorporated Union which was once a Competitive Legal Power System.

The Battle is for POWER, and individuals seeking methods of avoiding crime are fighting against individuals seeking to make crimes legal, and that is a competitive description of reality.

If the criminals can convince the victims that their injuries are caused by anything other than precisely that which the criminals are willfully doing, then that amounts to "check mate" for the criminals.

Who can avoid the injuries caused by government?

See?

No one, ever, is injured by government, it is a false question.

Common Law is where some individual has as much power as any other individual when utilizing Due Process of Moral, Common, or if you prefer, God's Law, whereby the injured person, or even the potentially injured person, accuses, and faces, the accused, and then something is done to remedy, rectify, redress, or make the crime stop and make the crime not proceed any further.

That is half the battle.

Individual people working to figure out ways to avoid crime.

Which ways work?

Trial by Jury based upon sortition works.

Who says it doesn't?

Cui Bono?

Who resorts to deceit when they say that Trial by Jury doesn't work, when they point out this case, or that case, where it wasn't really Trial by Jury working, it was a counterfeit version of Trial by Jury working, so again:

Cui Bono?

The Friends of Liberty side of the battle don't get to use deceit, threats of violence, and violence as a means of avoiding crime, that would be in the sphere of interest, and the sphere of influence, existing in the other camp, where the criminals congregate.

You know - conspirators.

This is not a theory.

They conspire, because they must, honor among thieves, or a counterfeit version of honor, but they must conspire, or crime is only as powerful as one individual all alone, acting alone, like the supposed lone gunman theory that is so often planted into the brains of the targeted, gullible, foolish, victims.

What is not Common Law?

Presidential Pardons?

Executive Orders?

Threats of Drone Attack upon anyone who questions the Legal Criminals POWER to torture and mass murder with impunity, and a handsome retirement plan?

BREAK

"So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?"

Again you fall into a POSSIBLE trap with your thinking, but I can't know exactly what you are thinking, so it is only possible from my point of view. If you have fallen into the trap then that is a fact.

The trap is to attach responsibility and accountability to FALSE GODS such as the False Front of "The Bill of Rights" where "The Bill of Rights were not sufficient too..." do anything.

The Bill of Rights can't do anything.

I know that is it much more efficient to use English in a manner that avoids having to make a list of names of all the Friends of Liberty who work to GIVE each other Rights, despite all the Friends of Legal Crime who work to take Rights away from all their targeted victims.

So...it is easy to use The Bill of Rights instead of using a list of names that lists all the Friends of Liberty, and all their addresses, occupations, dinner menus, when speaking about what all the Friends of Liberty can, or cannot do, including a voluntary agreement to abide by a set of moral laws such as The Bill of Rights.

So...when speaking of what all those Friends of Liberty can or cannot do, for each other, or to each other, on any given day, it is convenient to use the term Bill of Rights instead of listing all the names and list all the actions done by, or not done by, all those names on that list of names of people who are Friends of Liberty.

"So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?"

Joe

More Forum Delays while editing

"So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?"

Here is a link to:
Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

__________________________________________
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation
BY AUTHORITY
By the president of the United States of America
A Proclamation
__________________________________________

You wrote:

"Let me see…the bill of Rights became effective December 15, 1791"

So...The Bill of Rights in 1791 and then a Conscripted National Army (the size of the all volunteer one used to defeat the British) was assembled by the Dictator in Chief to invade Pennsylvania where the tax slaves were revolting, and crush the Spirit of 1776 out of their sorry behinds, done in 1794.

Quoting from the end of the Proclamation:

__________________________________________________________

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- four, and of the independence of the United States of America the nineteenth.

G. WASHINGTON,
By the President, Edm. Randolph
_______________________________________________________

During Shays's Rebellion the Central Bankers demanding a Tax on a money competitor (Whiskey grown at home on the farms), demanded to be paid in Gold, the tax was demanded to be paid in Gold, was too much of the same old Dictatorship for the Revolutionary War veterans, who were making a living without Gold as money, since the Gold was no longer available, because the Central Banker Fraud money the frauds used to finance Aggressive Wars for Profit into Canada, was no longer accepted by importers who imported goods into Massachusetts, or any of the other States resorting to deceptive money, which means that the Gold leaves the Continent by way of something called Gresham's Law, where Importers of goods only accept Gold, not Funny Money, not Monopoly Money, in exchange for their imported goods, so no one, except the No bid Contractors, the legal Criminals, and the then working Military Industrial Complex, and the Foreigners importing goods, has any Gold, not the farmers, only the foreigners have Gold, not the farmers who pay taxes, only those who don't pay taxes have Gold, not the farmers, only the foreigners, no Gold left for the farmers, so they make and use Whiskey instead of Gold, being inventive people, so the Revolutionary War Veterans, doing fine on their Farms, with their own money, that they can make at home, this Whiskey stuff, are not happy to have fought a war, betting their farms on winning, winning the war, going home, and finding that the new bosses are the same as the old bosses, when the new bosses step over the line and demand Gold as payment of taxes on whiskey, but since it is Shays's Rebellion, and not the later Whiskey Rebellion, and since it is under The Articles of Confederation and not under The Constitution (with or without the Bill of Rights), the Tax Evader Slaves Rebellion, although crushed in Massachusetts, isn't so bad for the Runaway Slaves, like Daniel Shays, as they can run into Vermont, which is still part of the voluntary Union under the Articles of Confederation, and the Federal Level Employees, hired to preserve Liberty, Legal Criminals or not, do not do anything to return the runaway Slaves from Vermont back to Massachusetts.

The precedent is set. Not in stone.

Why skip over that interesting part of the story?

Why skip over that and go 6 years later, going past the Alien and Sedition Acts, and then going into the time period where the useful Idiot Madison grows something remotely resembling a conscience?

Am I being overly repetitive when I keep going back to the precedent set by Shays's Rebellion?

Under the Articles of Confederation the Country of freedom fighters managed to repel the largest Invading Aggressive Army for Fun and Profit on the Planet Earth, and it was done with an all volunteer Army, despite a dictatorial General named Washington, and with the help of the French who were also working to fight against the same Invading Aggressive Army for Fun and Profit, which was also the headquarters for the World Reserve Currency Power at that time - The Bank of England or whatever False Front was used on the stationary.

The Volunteer Military Power Defended Liberty in American under The Articles of Confederation.

The Volunteer Military Power Defended Liberty in American under The Articles of Confederation.

The Volunteer Military Power Defended Liberty in American under The Articles of Confederation.

The Volunteer Military Power Defended Liberty in American under The Articles of Confederation.

I think that bears repeating.

Why skip over that point?

The Conscripted Military Power of Aggressive War for Fun and Profit, defending the Central Bank Monopoly, invaded the formerly sovereign State of Pennsylvania in 1794, headed by the same Dictatorial General who mismanaged the previous Revolutionary War, Washington, now Monarch of the New Legal Crime Regime of Frauds and Extortionists, so as to CRUSH THE SPIRIT OF 1776 for at least another 200 years.

Why skip over that point?

Why jump past those events and leap into The Alien and Sedition Acts, or leap over, skipping over, Crushing the Spirit of Liberty, in 1794, and move into the time period where Madison turns his coat?

I don't get it.

"We" (the mouse in my pocket) have skipped over the crushing of liberty out of America, in 1794, so as to focus attention on other things, because we both agree that the 1794 crushing of the Spirit of Liberty, which was also the crushing of monetary competition, which was also a display of another Aggressive War for Fun and Profit by a National Level Dictatorial Power without restraint, and having agreed that the 1794 crushing of Liberty was of the utmost significance, we move onto other things?

"So it appears that the Bill of Rights were not sufficient to protect the electorate seeing the resolutions followed almost 10 years afterward?"

The Invasion of the former Sovereign State of Pennsylvania by the Conscripted Army of Aggressors for Fun and Profit, which was reported to be an Army the size of the Army used to Defend Liberty during the Revolutionary War, was reported to be a bit of an excess, since a few actual PEOPLE were injured, or killed, in that abuse of POWER by a Legal Criminal Cabal that included one named Alexander Hamilton was overkill.

Not a very economical employment of Criminal Power, but, then again, who pays the bills?

Alexander Hamilton was working on the Central Bank PLANK of the not yet written Communist Method.

10 Bill of Rights

10 Planks to the Communist Method

Central Bank Plank of The Communist Method not yet written, exactly, in 1794, which was 4 years after The Bill of Rights is supposedly "law"?

No where in the Bill of Rights does it say the we the people agree to buy only one money from one source from now on until we die, and our children die, in that type of fraud and extortion made legal.

No where in the Bill of Rights does it say the we the people agree to trade our good faith and credit for debt instead.

If I believe in lies, then I am powerless against those who invent those lies, because they know better and I don't.

___________________________
“With national plans and programs, the national officials [Legal Criminals] simply roll the dice for all 284 million people in the United States and hope they get things right."

Would that be called Criminal Socialism?
____________________________

Please consider holding up your part of any future agreements we make between each other as I am now at a loss to understand where we are concerning the use of the word Socialism.

Are we avoiding the S word, or are we demonizing it?

Take your pick, and I can agree to avoid using it, and if you continue to demonize it, I will continue to point out the fact that there are 2 version of it, one is genuine, and the other is counterfeit.

If you continue to demonize IT, and you are demonizing the counterfeit version, then my response will be the same response of asking you to consider calling it CRIME since it is CRIME, not socialism, and therefore who benefits when YOU cover up CRIME with a False Front?

"Would that be called Criminal Socialism? A Criminal Scientific of Society at a Whole without the consent of those being governed? But you know…they tried their little socialized medicine experiment in Massachusetts? And now the PRESUMPTIVE nominee of that Party called Republican is indeed the Republican Candidate and the discussion is no longer will we have national health care, but rather what kind of national health care shall we have."

How about another Test that you will refuse to take?

A plague begins to kill everyone in Europe.

The plague lands in New Jersey, and everyone in New Jersey is now dead, and the plague is spreading to your town.

Meanwhile someone invents a cure.

Capitalist methodology:

The inventor of the cure prices the cure at that which the market will bear, and he or she makes a killing, becomes very rich.

Socialist methodology:

Science is applied to the problem and the obvious scientific conclusion is that the cure, if priced below cost, will result in less dead people.

How did you do on the test?

Are we done with Socialism for good?

I have no problem with avoiding the word socialism at all costs, if that is our mutual agreement.

If you want to demonize socialism, and you are actually wanting to demonize CRIME, then why call it something other than CRIME - cui bono?

Joe