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

Comment viewing options

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

Speers x-xi

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImTXVBWEpJb2I4V1E/edit?pli=1 
more from page Pg. x

Interesting to note these words:

“Common Law, certainly as finally developed
in America, the source of all the law is the
people. They, as a whole, are sovereign.”

I find these words interesting because of the last sentence “They as a WHOLE are sovereign.” My question…is that different than the sovereignty of the individual? The contrast is being made between Civil Law where the Ruler is Sovereign and Common Law where the INDIVIDUALS AS A WHOLE are sovereign. -----------
-----------------
Also from Page 10 it seems that the Constitution of the United States is attributed to as the loftiest of man’s goals as Common Law

“The Constitution of the united states
embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of
this exalted concept.”

----------
Pg xi
I wonder if this was the truth or an assessment from a well paid liar?

“The people expect relief from their present
embarrassed situation, and look up for it to
this national convention; and it follows that
they expect a national government.
[James Wilson, in Convention, June 16, 1787.]”
-----------------
Pg xi Madison to Stevenson indicates a LIMITED national government:

“The term (National) was used, not in contra-distinction
to a limited, but to a federal government.”
--------------------------
I believe this to be what Patrick Henry warned of when he spoke of a contract with the people instead of the states (I am not getting that quote…I think you probably know it by heart.):

“As the latter operated within the ex-
tent of its authority thro' requisitions on the
confederated states, and rested on the sanction
of state Legislatures, the Government to take
its place, was to operate wi thin the extent of
its powers directly and coercively on individ-
uals, and to receive the higher sanction of the
people of the states.”

NOTE the definition of requisition from http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,requisition
“REQUISI'TION, n. [See Require.]
Demand; application made as of right. Under the old confederation of the American states, congress often made requisitions on the states for money to supply the treasury; but they had no power to enforce their requisitions, and the states neglected or partially complied with them”

My 2 cents: The problem is now the centralized government requisitions directly from the people, but does not have to beg for it…they just take it. All the sudden Washington DC has the power over the states because they have by-passed the states and taken money directly from the people and now Washington DC does what it wants to do with that money because the people literally have no voice because the ratio of representatives to the people is no longer commensurate…by design?
------------
I have read the info on feudal/federal and nature/nation as well as the colors (fringed flag) in the prologue, and spent some time in the 1828 dictionary but I don’t know the answers to the suppositions about the intended meaning of those words or the fringed flag. I want to think about it some more and re-read those pages tomorrow. I perhaps am going slower than 10 pages a day…am I looking to closely at the rocks?

Baby or Bathwater?

Seriously, to me, it is that simple.

The baby is a smaller version of a human being, breathing, crying, laughing, so it is not too tough to distinguish the baby from the bath water, as the bath water is watery, and dirty, having just washed the baby.

" My question…is that different than the sovereignty of the individual? The contrast is being made between Civil Law where the Ruler is Sovereign and Common Law where the INDIVIDUALS AS A WHOLE are sovereign."

One of the biggest lies is to create a false God of some sort, whereby this ENTITY is a responsible being to be held accountable for good things, or bad things, or whatever, so this guy Speer already has a few things to expose as contradictions and this is up the same alley.

Individuals are either responsible or there is no responsibility. When someone begins to claim that an aggregate of individual actions, an average, or a statistical analysis, IS an entity unto itself, then my guess is that such nonsense is either careless employment of language, parroting lies out of ignorance, or deceit = bath water - NOT BABY.

"Also from Page 10 it seems that the Constitution of the United States is attributed to as the loftiest of man’s goals as Common Law"

Same thing to me. Either the guy is ignorant or deceitful. Alexander Hamilton under the direction of who know who exactly, and Robert Morris in particular, was working to create a Central Bank even before Central Banks were dreamed up by Carl Marx, or Engels, or Stalin, or Ben Bernanke.

So...bath water to me.

Not baby.

“The people expect relief from their present
embarrassed situation, and look up for it to
this national convention; and it follows that
they expect a national government.
[James Wilson, in Convention, June 16, 1787.]”

That all falls in line with the Monopoly Founding Fathers Myth, where these guys were all on the same page and a very easy way to refute such nonsense is to read what Patrick Henry had to say about the Consolidated Government.

“The term (National) was used, not in contra-distinction
to a limited, but to a federal government.”

Madison was the Author of The Constitution and he was the useful idiot at that time. Later Madison recanted and joined forces against the UNION with those things called The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

Before dying, in old age, I read that Madison turned his coat again, back to red, or blue, or whichever color is the bad one now.

"My 2 cents: The problem is now the centralized government requisitions directly from the people, but does not have to beg for it…they just take it. All the sudden Washington DC has the power over the states because they have by-passed the states and taken money directly from the people and now Washington DC does what it wants to do with that money because the people literally have no voice because the ratio of representatives to the people is no longer commensurate…by design?"

You are not alone. In the Carl Miller lesson on The Constitution he shows wherein the myriad labyrinth of legalese whereby The Federal Income Tax isn't even a law.

The fraud of direction taxation from the National Level directly to The People is unmasked in many ways, yet, people still buy into legal torture and mass murder, so as to what?

Get lower gas prices?

Make war for the good of the economy?

" I want to think about it some more and re-read those pages tomorrow. I perhaps am going slower than 10 pages a day…am I looking to closely at the rocks?"

The bear connects the things that threaten the bear cubs and then what happens?

Joe

Speer x - xi reply

Josf, it seems I am intent on identifying bath water. I suppose that is because it is in opposition to that which you have identified as a baby so I am crying “bath water” bath water” LOOK there is “bath water” here…it looks like it is dirty to me. Now, since I can see bath water, I am wondering if I can see the baby?
-----------------
“Before dying, in old age, I read that Madison turned his coat again, back to red, or blue, or whichever color is the bad one now.”

It seems in the last year I read something about Jefferson coming on board as well…because he was truly concerned that the methods of the French Revolution may find themselves upon the shores of America…at least I think it was Jefferson. So maybe Madison turned again as well, seeing that cohesion maybe necessary to avoid a blood bath? Or perhaps coercion just prolongs the time of peace. I don’t know.
---------------------
“The fraud of direction taxation from the National Level directly to The People is unmasked in many ways, yet, people still buy into legal torture and mass murder, so as to what?
Get lower gas prices?
Make war for the good of the economy?”

Perhaps not for those reasons at all, but because of coercion: The price of not going along to get along is what?
----------------
“The bear connects the things that threaten the bear cubs and then what happens?”

The bear knows better…though it may be a painstakenly slow process.

...

Persistent Vapor Trails

On the topic is the concept of actionable things to do, where one person begins, then two, then four, then sixteen, along the lines of no longer "providing the means by which we suffer", and this morning I see another possible example of calling to file a complaint on someone's bond.

Months had gone by this summer without a persistent vapor trail in the blue sky. I went from here in Barstow California to Las Vegas Nevada a while ago, perhaps a month (I do not maintain an event calender) ago, and in Las Vegas the sky was checker-boarded with persistent vapor trails, and on the way back home I saw the silver layer pass by and I returned back to a blue sky.

A few weeks ago the sky above me went to silver for about 3 days as the checker-boarded persistent vapor trails returned for those three days, which were followed by very strange heavy rain lasting for at least 12 hours, more or less, and definitely odd compared to the rains that were common when I first arrived in this Mojave Desert in 1972, where rain commonly lasted a few minutes and then it was over with heavy rain for a short time (flash floods were common), then a year may go by without any rain.

Yesterday I commented to my mom, who needs my help, about the crazy weather in New Jersey, where we have been born, and where relatives still live on the Jersey Shore, Belmar, Point Pleasant, etc., and my comment had to do with weather manipulation FACTS already proven, even to the point where treaties are signed by the major powers concerning the wrong of manipulating the weather.

She looks at me and is at that point very honest with a question that goes like this: "You don't really believe that "they" are manipulating the weather, do you?"

So, I explain things to her, and that is not the point now. The point now is that this morning I woke up to help the old lady for this morning and on the way up the Blue sky was checker-boarded for the first time since the heavy rain last month.

I took pictures.

What would happen if the people ordering the spraying were called on their bond - if they have one - by enough people filing complaints.

Joe

Speer x - xi reply to repy

Your poor mom. One day your telling her you don’t need a liscense to practice real estate and the next you are telling her the weather is being controlled by air planes. If it weren’t so true I would think you are a nut. Josf, I am laughing so much this morning. I hope you can hear the tone I am saying those words with. If I had to say them out loud to you, you probably wouldn’t even think I am speaking English. Anyways, I guess one has to laugh to keep one’s sanity. It is heard to believe “they” are doing “that.” And yet it is so disgusting sometimes I want to cry when I see those vapor trails here…you know, the ones that no one else notices or thinks are a natural weather phenomenon. Let me add this to the list of paranoia. I think it is very possible that we are being poisoned with all the imported beauty products from china. OK, there, I said it. How do I know that the soap I opened yesterday, made in China, does not have some kind of health hazard in it…purposefully?

Calling bonds are ye, well let me just say, those persistent vapor trail people have a lot of money at stake. I cannot see that it is any different than calling a national level congressional bond.

Look here….a bunch of people calling “bonds?” http://www.dailypaul.com/260419/rico-lawsuit-seeking-return-...

I know they are not calling bonds, but my point is, is that it is a bunch of people together. A formidable foe? Can they possibly hack to death the children of all of them? http://www.dailypaul.com/260919/43-trillion-bankster-lawsuit...

And that is my point about calling bonds on highly visible people. Can it be done in the form of a lawsuit with multiple plaintiffs such that a single citizen is not subject against the greater powers that be?

...

Effective remedy

"Calling bonds are ye, well let me just say, those persistent vapor trail people have a lot of money at stake. I cannot see that it is any different than calling a national level congressional bond."

Along the lines of the investigators investigating these things, where a person actually goes to an airport, finds the people who are hired to spray the aluminum and barium, and then recording this on video, uploading the video onto Youtube, and while there, asking for information that may lead to a Bond issuer, who can then be called, and then a complaint made on that Bond for that Federal (Legal Crime) employee, contractor, whatever, who is busy, ohhhh so busy, injuring The People, and therefore liable for damages, and therefore bonded because of that liability.

The Congressmen/women are insulated, but perhaps not their minions, and that is the point, at least that is what I think is the point, of this bonding issue.

Reap people, real places, real things being done that injure innocent people, the facts are known, the liabilities are calculated, proving the facts of risk, and a bond is made, and an injured person makes a claim.

The Legal Criminals use this as their measure of morality, much like the character in No Country for Old Men, the sociopath, uses a coin toss as his personal measure of morality.

Is it right to poison everyone so as to increase the number of ounces of gold in my account?

Heads is yes.

Tails is no.

Bonding is sure, go ahead, but if too many people complain, then try some other angle of attack.

Does that make sense?

The trillion dollar lawsuit is a case in point, measuring the "insulation" that insulates the worst evil people from the victims, as the Nation State is their baby, and they pull the strings, so is someone really thinking that they will just give up, and confess, and say well, you caught me, so now what are you going to do to me?

Joe

Speer x - xi reply to reply to reply

“The Congressmen/women are insulated, but perhaps not their minions, and that is the point, at least that is what I think is the point, of this bonding issue.”

How are they insolated? They have public voting records. They have taken an oath of office. I cannot understand how they are insolated.

“Reap people, real places, real things being done that injure innocent people, the facts are known, the liabilities are calculated, proving the facts of risk, and a bond is made, and an injured person makes a claim.”

I can understand those words though. But aren’t national congress people real and haven’t they done something real by not upholding the constitution? Have they not created a war on terror from sea to shining sea on the very soil we tread under those checker boarded skies?
--------------
“…so now what are you going to do to me?”

Oh, we aren’t going to DO anything to you, but YOU are going to AWARD DAMAGES in the tune of 43 trillion back into the national treasury.

Zeros in the fraud account

"Oh, we aren’t going to DO anything to you, but YOU are going to AWARD DAMAGES in the tune of 43 trillion back into the national treasury."

There are plenty of scape goats to be thrown to the angry mob, people who really didn't cut it among the evil ones, or those who failed to measure up, or honor the code among thieves, and what is a few less Legal Criminals anyway?

The culprit is caught red handed, and a fine is ordered, and zeros move from one account to another, big zeros, many zeros, and all is well, go back to work for more zeros?

43 Trillion of what?

If things proceed along the path that is well worn then the dollar units of currency will no longer be the World Reserve Currency power, the Gold will be moved, the new owners of the store, with a new name, a new color, and new money, takes over, the new boss, same as the old boss, and what better way to celebrate the occasion than having a few of the lesser evils hanging by ropes?

The National level theater of operations is insulated from the local DMV office, the local court house, the local Homeland Security Investments in POWER that has one source, called Liberty, where people actually start out in the morning with less power and by the end of the day, through efficient employment of that scarce power, there is more power, at the end of that day, that the power that was employable at the start of the day, and where does that excess power go? Where does the surplus wealth go, from this location, locally, and that location, locally, and this and that, here and there, locally, many locations, providing the means, meager means at the local level, adding up, more means from here, more means from there, adding up, from this city, to that city, that county to this county, a State here, a State there, providing the means, more means at the end of the day than the start of the day, in Liberty, moving that means, moving that surplus wealth, moving that power to purchase, adding up, and up, and up, flowing, flowing from all those individual places, locally, flowing along the fraudulent path, flowing, flowing, flowing, currently flowing, as currency, flowing, into that ONE place.

Do you think you can target that one place and assault it head-on, by claiming damages, and then they listen and then they say, yup, we injured you, so here you go, I will walk into your city, walk into your courthouse, turn myself in, and I will be tried by a Jury of my Peers, 12 randomly picked citizens, and they will discover all the facts they demand, and it will take all 12 to convict me of this injury to you, and it will take only 1 of them to set me free, so have at it?

Make my day.

No.

If every single victim says no more, in unison, tonight, then there is no more of it.

That won't happen either.

Somewhere in between YOU, one person, making a claim against the worst person, Ben Bernanke's real boss, or at least someone on the Top 1,000 list of worst human beings ever to defile God's gifts, torturing and murdering millions, for fun and profit, somewhere between YOU, one person, zeroing in on the worst of the worst and everyone at once refusing to be a victim at all, not again, not on our watch, there are, perhaps, things that can work, and who provides the examples, if such a balance on the scale does exist?

Jesus?

God does not speak to me, so that leaves me out, but I could pretend to be like Jesus, with a lot of good acting on my part.

John Boyd?

I'm not in the military.

Moses?

I don't get the memos in that way either.

Bill Gates?

Oprah Winfrey?

Where are the examples worthy of emulation if the idea is to stop providing the means by which we suffer whereby every morsel of surplus wealth flows from those who create it in Liberty to those who steal it by deceit, threats, and violence, so as to keep stealing it by way of deceit, threats, and violence?

I look.

I think the person known as Ron Paul provides a very good example.

I think that the person known as Carl Miller provides another very good example.

I think that you provide another good example, as does your husband.

We will make mistakes. Some of us will think that we are stopping the power transfer, or slowing it down, when in fact we will be working for the enemy, providing moral and material support to the enemy, despite a reluctance on our part to do so.

Why not start at a point that will work once the particulars of the case are thoroughly examined and there is a confidence in the facts that determine the workability of the case in question?

If I am at an airport, as I have been, and I see something that looks like an office used by people being paid to spray aluminum and barium over the pests, then I think I can use what I know now to ask some questions, seeking a specific data POINT where I can, perhaps, call a number, and file a complaint.

How many other possibilities exist?

Not just traffic tickets.

Not just working a job without a Union License.

Not just Jury Duty from a knowledgeable point of view, if a Union Judge and a few Union Lawyers consider you fit for Jury Duty?

Not just knowing better than to blame someone for the nebulous crime of evading a National Tax.

How many possibilities exist in the realm of actual things to do before God is done with me in this living body?

Joe

Speers x - xi reply to reply to reply to reply

"If I am at an airport, as I have been, and I see something that looks like an office used by people being paid to spray aluminum and barium over the pests, then I think I can use what I know now to ask some questions, seeking a specific data POINT where I can, perhaps, call a number, and file a complaint."

Just please be careful. Our skies were checker-boarded here today too. I didn't know till I went out this afternoon.

I guess I just liked the idea of $43 trillion being transferred to the US Treasury because then we wouldn't be in debt and then maybe we wouldn't have to have income taxes and then the pie in the sky would be real.

I wish the Daily Paul had a way to keep up with whether comments had been replied too. I am getting lost. But I will be able to figure it out, it is just they could easily add tht information to the Me page where I could easily see to what I have replied.

Do you even look at all the active forum topics at the side? Right now there is one that says "Rand messes up again." I want to click on it...another rock to look at. Some folks are being merciless to Rand...the OP of this post seems to be a Johnson supporter. It is all so confussing...even if it is a side-show.

...

Question

I am going to begin reading my next 10 pages. But, here I go presenting a question in the meantime (plus I have more to say about your reply but I don’t know if I should or if I should read because if I say more we will have 2 conversations going…as usual.):

"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"

Does not socialism require that each individual gets an equal slice of that combined power? Or am I misunderstanding that part? I guess what I am trying to understand is who gets to collect the power and who gets to decide what to do with the power? Says who? An army with badges? If power is collected from individuals and at least a reciprocal portion is not returned then would there not be an individual power deficit? What happens if my power is collected and I do not like what is being done with my power? Is it the collection of power optional from my stand point, or is it usurped? What if I voluntarily give my power and then the rules change? Can I get my power back? OK, now you are going to tell me about state competition. I get to vote with my feet? But the rules changed and I cannot vote with my feet. So, is it not better to keep one’s own power instead of pooling it making someone or something stronger than the individuals combined?

Before the axe falleth

upon thy neck, might it pleaseth thee to kindly giveth Josf's definition of Socialism because that Communist Lenin sayeth Socialism necessarily precedeth Communism.

Not mine.

The definition of socialism was quoted above, already.

I don't own it. It is not mine to give.

If I could get a copy of The History of Socialism by Stephen Pearl Andrews, then I could probably offer a more accurate definition of socialism, from that person who studied that subject at that time.

Note the time period, please.

Please connect the links I am intending to connect here, as the Principles are at work even now.

Who decides if God's Law is worth a hoot?

God

Jesus

Anyone else?

You can claim that Moses speaks for God, sure, anyone else?

The Principle at work here is the fact that we, mere mortals, are as capable of making mistakes as the next mere mortal.

So who elects who to dictate to who?

Think about it.

Those who have thought about it are many among men, and women, and some of those who have thought about it have arrived at the conclusion that an individual person is the boss of that same individual person, and the boss POWER stops at that point.

What would you call that point of view, in fewer words in English?

Go ahead and author some English words along those lines.

What do you call it when a person proposes that each person is boss of his own life?

Hazard a guess.

Please.

"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."

The time period of those words being published is The Civil War time period, around the time of the Wildcat Banking era, where in America banking competition was working, just after the time period when Andrew Jackson killed the Monopoly Bank.

That was the time period where communism was erupting, and capitalism was growing as an anti-thesis.

If you can get it, I mean really, actually, realize IT, you can understand that any eruption of any POWER that threatens the Money Monopoly Power will be subverted, in time, if at all possible, every time, because that is the name of the game.

The most powerful among us, powered by deceit, and powered by threats of violence, and powered by very horrible and terrifying violence upon the weakest, the innocent, among us, love it when men are raping women, and men are torturing each other, and all hell breaks loose.

The worst among us know how to profit from the carnage.

I have no stake in the name socialism. It can be Fried Chicken for all I care, want's in a name, to me.

Nada.

You won't see it, as reported by the KGB dude, and then a question arises: why not?

Joe

Claims

“I have no stake in the name socialism. It can be Fried Chicken for all I care, want's in a name, to me.”

Then why do you care when words are redefined and twisted to mean the opposite if you can just call it Fried Chicken?

To me you what you are saying is, it doesn’t matter what the word is, but rather what matters is the definition.

If it is the definition that is important to you, then I reassert that you submit to the current dictionary definitions. Because if some day the term “Fried Chicken” actually means “Raw Chicken” I would be very careful when I ordered at a modern restaurant if I wanted my chicken to arrive breaded and cooked.
-------------
"You can claim that Moses speaks for God, sure, anyone else?"

No, I claim the opposite. No individual speaks for God.

I claim that God spoke on various occasions...thru Moses and other individuals.

Do you see the difference?

Moses was the puppet, God was the ventriloquist.
---------------
“that an individual person is the boss of that same individual person, and the boss POWER stops at that point.
What would you call that point of view, in fewer words in English?
Go ahead and author some English words along those lines.
What do you call it when a person proposes that each person is boss of his own life?
Hazard a guess.
Please.”

My Answer: Individual Responsibility &/or Individual Accountability = Individual Sovereignty

My Question: To whom is the sovereign individual responsible and to whom is the sovereign individual accountable?

My Answer: To the One and Only Sovereign God.

Question: How is a person supposed to know for what Sovereign God will hold that sovereign individual responsible and accountable?

My Answer: An Individual’s personal responsibility and accountability is defined by God and only by God in the Holy Bible.

Question: What is Sin?

My Answer: Sin is anything that misses the mark of God’s holiness.

My question to Josf: If a sovereign individual is personally responsible and accountable to Holy Sovereign God, must one be perfect?

My question to Josf: What is the remedy for an individual’s inability to be perfect?

...

Actions

Not words

"Then why do you care when words are redefined and twisted to mean the opposite if you can just call it Fried Chicken?"

The worst of the evil people create euphoria in their victims while the victims are tortured to death, nearly so, or exactly that, on a scale - it seems to me.

How can anyone trust a well paid liar on his, or her, word?

It is not the word that concerns me, it is the defining of the word being done by the person commanding that word, or any tool, any pointed stick, any medium of communication, money, language, television, print, whatever, the deeds define the true color of the person.

Is that not understandable?

"If it is the definition that is important to you, then I reassert that you submit to the current dictionary definitions. Because if some day the term “Fried Chicken” actually means “Raw Chicken” I would be very careful when I ordered at a modern restaurant if I wanted my chicken to arrive breaded and cooked."

If you care not to understand the meaning of individual sovereignty, as it is defined by individuals, and if you prefer to focus your attention on the name attached to that acts, then that is your business, but how does that business of yours turn into my error?

I don't see the point in eating raw chicken just because someone calls it Fried Chicken.

"No, I claim the opposite. No individual speaks for God."

So that applies to Jesus too, or am I missing something?

"Moses was the puppet, God was the ventriloquist."

And Jesus a puppet too?

This is interesting to me, since I took some time to look into Martin Luther and I found this:

The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God's.
Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.

This is, incidentally or not, on the topic of Sovereign Citizen, it seems to me, since Puppets, or subjects, or vessels, vassals, whatever, or rocks for that matter, or possessions, come to think of it, are not sovereign, they are mere tools, being strung up, and moved about, according to the will of an actual sovereign.

"My Answer: Individual Responsibility &/or Individual Accountability = Individual Sovereignty"

There is, it seems to me, the contradiction. If there are mere puppets among us, then they can't be responsible, no more than a rock can be responsible for deciding to be a rock.

____________________________________
My Question: To whom is the sovereign individual responsible and to whom is the sovereign individual accountable?

My Answer: To the One and Only Sovereign God.
____________________________________

Back to the question of which individual human being, claiming to speak for God, and which human being not yet having their strings pulled by God, the decision to believe or not believe that it is God commanding this or that, and not just another criminal hiding behind a false front of some nebulous authority, is left up to who?

Is it not inescapable, while alive, where the individual decides one way or the other, when the individual actually commands the power to decide one way or the other?

And my own understanding falls back on the concept of judging the actions, not the words.

Meaning is defined in the actions of the people employing the words, it seems to me.

_____________________________________________________
My question to Josf: If a sovereign individual is personally responsible and accountable to Holy Sovereign God, must one be perfect?

My question to Josf: What is the remedy for an individual’s inability to be perfect?
_______________________________________________________

My understanding of God is such that things which make life and make life worth living are good things and things which destroy life and make life not worth living are bad things, after that, God is a mystery to me.

If God wanted perfection, it seems to me, why waste time with the humans?

For all I know God is flipping a coin and when it is heads he pulls the strings on everyone and makes everyone kill each other, for fun and profit. I have not yet had those strings pulled.

Which puppets are the best at it when it comes up heads?

When I listen to a person like Carl Miller, my estimate of the person is such that he has done his homework, his actions speak louder than his words, and his words are worth their weight in gold, and then some.

I do not consider Carl Miller to be perfect, and if I get a chance to talk to him, I would ask some serious questions concerning specific things, and my guess is that I would get specific answers.

I've been wrong often.

"My question to Josf: What is the remedy for an individual’s inability to be perfect?"

Die?

In human terms, people being alive and facing serious decisions, I think it is important to realize that will power exists, and it can be tested easily, proven, and therefore it may be a good idea to use that power when deciding which way to go, which things to do, so as to not leave the kids with an empty bag of broken promises.

That power, to decide, and then to act, to me is the defining of sovereignty in real terms, and that is the opposite of the defining of blind obedience to falsehood - to me.

Joe

Mightest thou explain

Mr. Andrews words from http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm :

"This, then, is the spirit of Socialism, and it is neither more nor less than a still broader and more comprehensive assertion of the doctrine of the inherent Sovereignty of the Individual. The Socialist proposes association and combined interests merely as a means of securing that which he aims at,--justice, cooperation, and the economies of the large scale. Hence it follows that the Democrat resists and the Socialist advocates Association and Communism for precisely the same reason. It is because both want identically the same thing. The Democrat sees in connected interests a fatal stroke at his personal liberty,--the unlimited sovereignty over his own conduct,--and dreads the subjection of himself to domestic legislation, manifold committees, and continual and authorized espionage and criticism. The Socialist sees, in these same arrangements, abundance of wealth, fairly distributed among all, and a thousand beneficent results which he knows to be essential conditions to the possession or exercise of that very Sovereignty of the Individual."
-----
I did start reading Science of Society at one time...I had those words saved to ask you about, and this seems the opportune time since thy neck hath been stuck out and I prefereth to save it.

...

Historical Study

As with a contemporary of the time period, the person named Lysander Spooner, the person Stephen Pearl Andrews did his homework.

The time period was volatile, the moving of forces was ended with that no so Civil of Wars, later called The Civil War - to what end?

Free the slaves?

Which History of those times do you trust, and here is where the Bible does not instruct specifics.

If we are to study, then we may do a good job of it?

"The subject which I propose to consider this evening is the true constitution of human government.
Every age is a remarkable one, no doubt, for those who live in it. When immobility reigns most in human affairs, there is still enough of movement to fix the attention, and even to excite the wonder of those who are immediately in proximity with it. This natural bias in favour of the period with which we have most to do is by no means sufficient, however, to account for the growing conviction, on all minds, that the present epoch is a market transition from an old to a new order of things. The scattered rays of the gray dawn of the new era date back, indeed, beyond the lifetime of the present generation. The first streak of light that streamed through the dense darkness of the old régime was the declaration by Martin Luther of the right of private judgment in matters of conscience."

Who is this Martin Luther character?

Joe

Retrenching

Josf, why are you giving Martin Luther quotes when I asked you to explain why Andrews said what he did about socialism?

How about this from Andrews http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm :

"The blunder of Socialism is not in its end, but in its means. It consists in propounding a combination of interests which is opposed by the individualities of all nature, which is consequently a restriction of liberty, and which is, therefore, especially antagonistic to the very objects which Socialism proposes to attain. It is this which prevents the harmony of Democracy and Socialism, even in France, from becoming complete, and which renders inevitable the disruption of every attempted social organization which does not end disastrously in despotism,--the inverse mode in which nature vindicates her irresistible determination toward Individuality. Let that feature of the Socialist movement be retrenched, and a method of securing its great ends discovered which shall not be self-defeating in its operation, and from that point Socialism and Democracy will blend into one and, uniting with Protestantism, lose their distinctive appellations in the generic term of Individual Sovereignty. "

It seems to me he wants to "retrench" socialism? Does that me he wants to redefine it? Is he allowed to redefine it? Says who? I suppose any word can be redefined at any time? Socialism is now Fried Chicken...or is it Raw Chicken? Or is it Communism? Maybe Socialism's means is one and the same with its end?
-----
Do you really want me to talk with you about Martin Luther? Baptists are not Protestants...

...

Starting at the start

"Josf, why are you giving Martin Luther quotes when I asked you to explain why Andrews said what he did about socialism?"

Here is the link:

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

Here is the Introduction published from the link above:

__________________________________________
Introduction
This little treatise on the....
__________________________________________

It goes on to mention Martin Luther, that is to say that Stephen Pearl Andrews went on to mention Martin Luther in the context of the work titled The Science of Society.

I thought that that would be a good place to start.

Your quotes taken from the same work explains the work of Fourier, among others, and they blundered, in measurable ways, and it was Fourier who was mentioned in the Communist Manifesto, by Marx or Engels or whoever actually wrote the specific part of the Communist Manifesto relating to Fourier.

I can get that again, easily.

Here:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

I've gone over this before. There were reformers who called themselves socialists, among them were Andrews and Bakunin, they went to the First International, which was a beginning type of world wide reformers discussion group, which turned out to be a usurpation, as the event was taken over by, well, criminals, what else, and both Andrews and Bakunin, so the story goes, were black balled, kicked out, exiled, sent packing, for doing what, exactly?

The words taken out of the Communist Manifesto explains part of the story, where the reformers had good things in mind, but bad methods, the "Owenites in England, Fourierists in France", blunderers according to Andrews, and "repudiated" by Marx and/or Engels, as the story went, there were reformers who were starting a ball rolling down hill, and then the criminals took over as it went on down the hill, and this is not news.

Look at the tea party.

Look at Occupy Wall Street.

What happens?

Good intentions at the start, wrong methods, and if there is a threat to the Legal Crime Cabal, the momentum of the reformers is usurped.

What do you think was the deal with The Revolutionary War and then the take-over by the Monarchist/Central Bankers like Alexander Hamilton and the useful idiot Madison (who later woke up)?

You disparaging Andrews for being a "socialist" is the same thing as someone else disparaging Patrick Henry for being a Liberal.

Deeds are the universal measure of credit, yes or no?

You stop paying on your mortgage and how many times can you say "I'll pay you on Tuesday, and the checks in the mail" before the Sheriff shows up with a request that you move on?

Is it about time to question the authorities on a few things?

"Let that feature of the Socialist movement be retrenched, and a method of securing its great ends discovered which shall not be self-defeating in its operation, and from that point Socialism and Democracy will blend into one and, uniting with Protestantism, lose their distinctive appellations in the generic term of Individual Sovereignty."

Andrews is setting the stage to reiterate the findings reported by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce, leaving no room for ambiguity. So...assuming that the effort is to know better, it may be a good idea to start at the beginning of that work, if the idea is not merely a questioning of the use of one word, where that word is "socialism", and where that word has, as many words have, two meanings and the two meanings are often opposites.

What happens when everyone is their own boss, making their own money, and succeeding or failing on their own merits?

You can't stand for it?

Putting aside the word in question, the S word if you will, putting that aside, and generally speaking about the improvements gained by knowing the WRONG done by the earlier reformers, and avoiding making those same mistakes, it became known, and provable, that competition forces quality up and costs down, proven by the fact that when individual people are FREE to invent, produce, and maintain their own individual forms of money, the obvious result is winners and losers, where the losers either learn to emulate the winners or they keep on losing.

So much for Andrews, and what he has to say?

So much for Equity in Commerce?

So much for an actual Free Money Market proven to work?

"It seems to me he wants to "retrench" socialism? Does that me he wants to redefine it? Is he allowed to redefine it? Says who? I suppose any word can be redefined at any time? Socialism is now Fried Chicken...or is it Raw Chicken? Or is it Communism? Maybe Socialism's means is one and the same with its end?"

The work titled The Science of Society speaks for itself, not needing me to interpret it - imperfectly.

The major error done by all reformers is to place authority, falsely, into lies, distortions, false fronts, legal fictions, fables, fantasies, "groups", entities, False Gods, False Religions, make believe, and anything other than where authority really exists.

You tell me, please, where authority really exists, and if you claim that real authority is God, fine with me, but you are the one making that claim, not me.

So you are right, sure, and I am dead wrong, sure, but the point of the present concern, as far as I am concerned, is the authorities that actually arrive at the door and collect the money they say we owe them, and then they make us suffer more since they are even more powerful after they collect that money, and we are weaker.

What money do they say we owe them?

It is Monopoly Money.

Equitable Commerce, which was a reforming event, well documented, and occurring near that time period after Andrew Jackson Killed the Monopoly Bank, near that time period when Wildcat Banking was legal, and before that thing that was called a Civil War, equitable stuff, commerce as it were.

Civil Law, Civil War, real definition or counterfeit version of Civil?

Equitable Law.

Monopoly Money.

Competition is against the Law.

Union Shops.

You have to have a license to breath?

When is enough enough?

What can be ONE solution among many?

Tomato Jar Money?

"Do you really want me to talk with you about Martin Luther? Baptists are not Protestants..."

I'm leaning more toward moving the discussion to the topic. Warren and Andrews explain the concept of Individual Sovereignty, which is on topic, much better than I can.

Martin Luther, as far as I know, was a reformer too.

God was once a commercial business run by Union Closed Shop Licensed Practitioners, who, incidentally, gave themselves the license to torture confessions out of innocent people, or no, wait, it was God who told them to torture innocent people for confessions, and Martin Luther, of course, was a heretic.

Which reformation works best?

I'm leaning toward Carl Miller at this point, back on topic.

Joe

"Tell me which group

"Tell me which group represents the Sovereignty of the Individual"

No Group.

That is the point.

That is, according to the FACTS, no matter how many FACTS presented to you, you will refuse to see it, not until the boot is booting you personally, as told by the KGB dude interviewed by Griffin.

The individuals, not the group, represent the Sovereignty of the Individual, and here is WHY the "groupy" false front works so well for the Legal Criminals, as you appear to "feel" the need to shoot me, as I am the messenger, for some strange reason, you think I think Protestants are better than Baptists, and therefore I have to defend one Group over another Group, based upon a score count of good deeds done by a Group?

A Group is being held to account for the actions of individuals?

How does that work in your world?

That does not work in my world, unless you are speaking about a Military Team, or a Football Team, and the Team follows a specific set of rules to accomplish a specific goal, and the followers, each an individual, is employing their own creativity, their own power of will, their own inventiveness, there own discipline, to remain within the rules, and to then work cooperatively to arrive at the goal, and only then is the TEAM knowable as a Sum Total of all the actions that are accountable to each person, and at no time does the TEAM become a thing onto itself, to become a separate living entity, or Legal Person, or any other blasphemy of honest, and accuracy measurable, human perception, where the intention may be to make believe that the TEAM is itself a living being that can be held to account, blamed, or otherwise BECOME a responsible entity.

The Protestant Religion didn't do anything ITSELF.

The Baptists didn't do anything as if it were one Thing, to be scored on a scale of good, and earning itself a ticket to heaven.

You may not see what I have to say, sure, I get that, but why?

You tried the Griffin interview of the KGB dude on me, and I see it, and I understand it, and so I test 3 things on you. How do you score on the 3 tests that I offer you? I don't care if you pass or not, and if you don't care if you pass or not, then you are no help to me, to see, if my findings are true concerning the true intent and meaning of The Constitution, as a usurpation, as an opposite intent compared to The Declaration of Independence, and an opposite intent compared to the Bill of Rights, according to those who forced it into use, and according to those who continue to employ it in the way it was originally intended to be used.

Concerning the intent, by the original inventors of Capitalism, it was in their own words a method by which each individual will work to gain at the expense of each other individual and that the concept of value is a synonym for the concept of scarcity, you will be of no help to me, if you care not if the facts I present to you are, in fact, true.

Concerning the intent, by the original inventors of Socialism, it was in their own words a method by which power was no longer transferred to nebulous Legal Fictions, or False Gods, and instead the individuals inventing socialism were intending to use Science as a method of improving the daily commerce conducted by the individuals as they interrelate with each other in time and place, you have no interest in doing anything with that other than shooting the messages, shooting the messengers of old, and eventually, if this persists, you can turn on me, and shoot me too.

Concerning the last test, the present one, there are those among us who are pioneers in the effort to employ a constitutional form of government, not a perfect Constitution by no means, but A constitution none-the-less, and therefore A disciplined set of rules, once understood agreeably, can apply to everyone without exception, including, as I am learning right now, such things as Treason, for those who are among the employers of A constitution in general, and this Constitution in particular.

Do you need a license to work in America?

How many people can be shown the facts and be incapable of understanding the facts until such a time as they are being jack booted into a gas chamber and who knows, maybe even then they may feel right as rain as the shower bathes them from above?

At no time did I step into the game of scoring which Religion is scored higher than another, that is your work, not mine.

Joe

Josf, the point I was trying,

Josf, the point I was trying, ever so poorly to make, was that of the Protestant Reformation coming out of the Catholic church. There have always been churches thru the ages that were never a part of the state. Never a part of the "God Monopoly." Even the Lutheran church became a state church and killed those people who would not be a part of the God Monopoly, those Anabaptists. What I was trying to point out was that what Andrews may have seen as revolutionary, may not have been revolutionary at all, but just another state church. I was trying to get you to see this quote http://www.theblackboxspeaks.org/anabaptists-7-theses.html :
"The Threat of the Anabaptists
They achieved the dubious and dangerous distinction of being labeled heretics by both Catholics and Protestants. And why?

This was because their radical theology was a threat to the existing social order in which church and state were collaborat”ors. This radical criticism of the very structure of society resulted in the unrelenting attempts of Catholics and Protestants to stamp it out.?”
------------------------------
I thought maybe you would like to see that there were those who resisted the state controlled structure of society; anarchists?

Compared to:
“Church, State, School, and Army
There were areas where Luther did want his reformation to make a difference in society. One of them was compulsory education. He compared it to the state's supposed right of appropriating a man's life and compelling him to bear arms and kill other men in war. If the state could do one, it could do the other.
But I hold that it is the duty of the temporal authority to compel its subjects to keep their children in school, especially the promising ones we mentioned above... If the government can compel such of its subjects as are fit for military service to carry pike and musket, man the ramparts, and do other kinds of work in time of war, how much more can it and should it compel its subjects to keep their children in school. [6]
The state could compel citizens in this manner because to Luther the citizen was the property of the state. So you can see how Reformation theology would be very useful to princes! In fact, the Reformation, especially that part of it under Luther's leadership, ended up exalting the authority of the state even more than it was under Catholicism. He upheld in his teaching what scholars call "princely absolutism." “
------------------------------
I am not blaming Andrews, he probably did not know. I just wanted you to know that things may not have been as stated.

I suppose it is not fair for me to throw documents at you without quotes. You do not do that to me. I am sorry. How could you even know what I was talking about. I was lazy and that was not right.
-------------------
I know this license thing has you in deep thought. Let me tell you about lunch last week with the 70 year olds. Seems the guy was in the armed services in France during the La Mans. He spoke about how the people buzzed up and down the roads going whatever speed they wished and that they didn’t even have licenses because it was part of their French citizenship to dive without license. I made the remark that I thought that was great. He did not think so. He said it was a very dangerous place to drive.

Another visit with some 80 year olds from Colorado last month: this guy was also in the service. He was remarking about how stupid and backwards our county is because we do not have rural water, but that people had to dig their own wells. I remarked and said I thought it was nice that people had control over their own water. He did not think so.

My remarks to both the 70 year old and 80 year old men were because of my JTK education. However, those men seem to like the license and control offered by the state.

I remember Jeff made a remark during one of his sermons about how it was good that there were govt. people that inspected the gas pump meters to make sure people were not being ripped off at the pump. I sensed a little negativity in the audience by his statement. Seems we live in a backwards area that does not like anyone telling them what to do. I could understand why we don’t need “inspectors” after my JTK education.
---------------------
I am sorry I made it seem that I was putting you in a position to judge religion. I thought I was on topic because we were talking about the Sovereignty of the Individual, and my point is that there have always been voluntary groups of people choosing to retain their sovereignty of religion outside the church/state monopoly control over people's lives. One more set of quotes from that link:

"Because they [Anabaptists] taught that believers should imitate Christ and obey His commands (including the commands to lay down the sword, to not take oaths or serve in government), the Anabaptists were charged with preaching "works righteousness." Disobeying Christ's commands was not "works," but to put any urgency on obeying them was. For this heresy, the state churches, Catholic or Protestant, ruthlessly persecuted the Anabaptists. "

Do not take oaths or serve in government...seems we baptists have grown very far from our roots. I wonder if a license is an oath? I don't know where the do not serve in government is found scripturally, but that would lend itself to less government. That is all I was trying to point out; not to judge.

...

Too many irons in the fire?

"I thought maybe you would like to see that there were those who resisted the state controlled structure of society; anarchists?"

From this Topic to an interview by Griffin with a KGB dude concerning how people refuse to see the facts until it was too late I offered a test, to anyone, you, me, anyone, with 3 subjects:

1.
The Constitution (Law Power)
2.
Socialism/Capitalism (Economic Power)
3.
Collectivism/Individualism (Spiritual Power or "what do I do now boss?")

Did you take any of the tests?

Andrews is rejected on the grounds that he sounds like a collectivist, despite repeated statements documenting the opposite fact.

Andrews is being taken to task for want of something, it seems to me, and it isn't anything Andrews did that earns him such scrutiny, since my effort was merely to show the facts to you, historical facts, concerning what?

"I thought maybe you would like to see that there were those who resisted the state controlled structure of society; anarchists?"

Resisting control by people, through deceit, through threats of violence, through aggressive violence perpetrated upon the innocent, for fun and profit, upon people willfully, even if the perpetrators claim that Uncle Sam did it, the pointed stick did it, Sam the Dog made them do it, God did it, the Gun did it, The State did it, etc.

Resisting anything controlled by anything other than actual individual people is like digging a whole, filling the whole back in, only without the benefit of working up an appetite.

Resisting anything controlled by anything other than actual individual people, ON TOPIC, is like providing the means by which we suffer as we are sent down false paths to complete false goals so as to perpetuate Legal Crime.

The Legal Criminals even confess that their "state controlled structure of society" is FICTION.

Shadow boxing for the hell of it?

Now:

"The state could compel citizens in this manner because to Luther the citizen was the property of the state."

Before that:

"What I was trying to point out was that what Andrews may have seen as revolutionary, may not have been revolutionary at all, but just another state church."

So Andrews, in 1840 or so, picks a name, and an event, out of the hat of history as a reference point in the time line, the name is Martin Luther, and then things move along from that point in time.

Revolutions may not be sudden.

Back to the topic, it occurs to me to point out the concept of something I eluded to earlier concerning how the present Top Down Despotism may actually be overpowered in the form of a Military rebellion, and that is partially why I suggest reading Boyd by Robert Coram.

Please note the references made by Carl Miller concerning honorable Military Leadership, which does not necessarily mean Generals with many stars adorning their blood, oil, coke, or heroin soaked uniforms.

Further into the work by Andrews are words intending to accurately discriminate the difference between TRUE authority and the counterfeit versions.

Luther was a point at which to begin measuring the movement from whatever was to whatever is and then whatever will be in a context that involves such things as the concept of Individual Sovereignty, a POWER, and how it works in relation to other Individuals who are more or less sovereign according to each others judgement.

"I am not blaming Andrews, he probably did not know. I just wanted you to know that things may not have been as stated."

No what, here is where I do not make leaps of connections out of thin air, what exactly is it that you assume to be ignorance on the part of Andrews?

I don't get it.

"I suppose it is not fair for me to throw documents at you without quotes. You do not do that to me. I am sorry. How could you even know what I was talking about. I was lazy and that was not right."

Point by point from my end:

Griffin offers the KGB dude as evidence, FACTS, concerning efforts made by specific people in specific places at specific times to cause specific things to happen in American life, call it whatever you want, and I call it stupefaction.

If it works, then you can show any American the FACTS and they won't believe it, not until they are booted into unmistakable misery and torturous death, and even then, it seems to me, the victims may still believe it is right, good, and even necessary.

That is a point worth pondering.

Are the ways that anyone can test themselves to see if they are so conditioned as suggested by Griffin and the KGB dude?

I offer 3 things.

Your response is to pick out words from the information I offer on Test number 2, concerning Socialism/Capitalism/Economy/Power, taking Andrews to task for reporting the history of Individual Sovereignty, through the time period where the Church (he picks out protestantism), the State (he picks out democracy), and society (he picks out socialism) are moving from point A to point B, whereby Individual Sovereignty not only plays a part in that movement, it is, in his words, "the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all" and why?

Because responsibility is individual or it is nothing at all, because the State didn't to it, the pointed stick didn't do it, and it may be a good idea to stop believing the Legal Criminals who make you think that The State did it, or the Government did it, or the Protestant Religion did it.

"I suppose it is not fair for me to throw documents at you without quotes. You do not do that to me. I am sorry. How could you even know what I was talking about. I was lazy and that was not right."

Fairness for want of what? What is the point, exactly?

Did you take any of the tests offered?

Can you know the truth (or can I) concerning The Constitution as a tool invented by, constructed by, and employed by criminals for the purpose of perpetuating crime made legal?

Yes or no?

Can you know the truth (or can I) concerning Socialism as a Scientific verification that Individual Sovereignty is the essential element in cooperative, non-criminal, human relationships, and that Capitalist, at best, is a method of pricing things that are made scarce on purpose?

Yes or no?

Can you know the truth (or can I) concerning the actual POWER of law in America, while using the same Constitution used by Legal Criminals, to actually BE a Sovereign Citizen, not in fantasy land, but in actual reality?

Yes or no?

Simple tests, so what is the problem?

Discussion is or it is not discussion.

What is it?

"He said it was a very dangerous place to drive."

The license did it?

The license made it a safe place to drive, and then without it, without the license it is no longer a safe place to drive?

My opinion on that is that that person may not be passing the litmus test very well, but what is the standard of measure?

I have only me, in my corner.

"I remarked and said I thought it was nice that people had control over their own water. He did not think so."

Again, to me, the pieces are moving closer into view. What is the reason for separating people into two groups known as Public and Private?

I use Public water, you use Private Water?

Really?

Who owns the Sun?

Who owns my son?

"My remarks to both the 70 year old and 80 year old men were because of my JTK education. However, those men seem to like the license and control offered by the state."

My mother is rendered silent as I repeat, just this morning, the concept of absurdity concerning her false belief in the need for a Real Estate Seller, right here in this town, to have a license. She expresses the absolute absurdity of justifying punishment perpetrated upon someone daring to cross the picket line.

Where I worked I was non-union for some time. The same guy doing the same work next to me was paid more than 3 times as much as I was being paid, and I was teaching the new guy all that I knew, so that he could then compete against me better. I like competition that much.

A small Italian guy shows up one day, this is a true story, and a very large Italian guy was tagging alone, and they go past me, and they go right to the Union worker, never giving me so much as a glance.

The Italian guys wanted to know what the Union guy was thinking, if everything was all right etc.

Soon after that the employers forced me into the Union.

Get that please.

The Union didn't care if I was not in the Union. I was working at the job well before the Union showed up. I had, in their words: seniority.

The Employers forced me into the Union, with not much effort of course, I didn't have problem with either situation. My pay jumped up three fold.

Same job.

Then the Union, later, awhile later, the Union ordered a strike. I went to the employer and asked if I could keep working, they advised otherwise, and I know what orders from the employer means, in no uncertain terms, they order, I obey, that is how that works.

I know where the door is, and I didn't, eventually, let it hit me in the rear end on the way out, but that was much later, after my body wore out, and then the employers set themselves, specific people, set themselves to the task of forcing me out. All that had to do with me was to say we don't want you here anymore. No need for the lies, no need for the game, no need for the broken promises, just let me know, and I can move on sooner, rather than too late.

I don't need a license to operate a crane, a bulldozer, a loader, a welder, a cutting torch, a wrench, my brain, my power, my being, and how is that not commons sense?

How deep into our souls does the falsehood go, exactly?

How about a few tests, for the truly curious among us?

"I could understand why we don’t need “inspectors” after my JTK education."

Well, it seems to me, the concept of judging people as criminals before they commit a crime is a lie in itself, so why do it? If, on the other hand, a person does resort to deceit, threats of violence, or violence to get something from someone, a crime, an innocent victim injured by the criminal, measurably, factually, perpetrated, then what can be done in that individual case by individuals who work with a very simple and short list of things to do?

1.
Do not abandon the victim to be further victimized by that criminal or other criminals.

2.
Do not become that which we supposedly abhor, do not punish an innocent person.

Why is that not easy to know?

Isn't that a test?

Who passes the test?

Why would anyone fail that test?

"For this heresy, the state churches, Catholic or Protestant, ruthlessly persecuted the Anabaptists."

Your participation in this discussion uncovers vital facts again, proving the point, as true authority is what it is, and not what it is not, and a test of true authority is to see if it exists without resort to deceit, without resort to threats of violence, and without resort to violence upon people who are doing no one any harm whatsoever.

I don't know what is to be apologized for, no one is perfect, and I can apologize too, for want of knowing what for.

I can apologize ahead of time: I won't be a very good person all the time, and I will make many mistakes, and I will hurt people despite my intention to avoid hurting people.

Moral people are not the ones who cherish those moments when they get to torture living things to death, and love it when the victims scream bloody murder.

What is the subject matter under discussion?

What are the consequences of failing to know better in time?

"Do not take oaths or serve in government...seems we baptists have grown very far from our roots. I wonder if a license is an oath?"

You failed that test too, in my field of vision.

You use the word government as if there were only one such a thing.

How is God's Law not government?

How is obeying the obvious necessity of NOT torturing and murdering everyone you meet not government?

Which government are you talking about?

Why confuse good with bad as if they were the same thing?

"I wonder if a license is an oath?"

Ask one person and you only get half the truth when dealing with people connecting to other people.

So who has the power to ask for or enforce any oath?

Can a dishonorable person invent, produce, and maintain an oath - BY DEFINITION?

"I don't know where the do not serve in government is found scripturally, but that would lend itself to less government. That is all I was trying to point out; not to judge."

Which government? Where is this responsible entity called government?

I did not edit.

Joe

Yes,

I have too many irons in the fire. I have been blabbing on and on until 3am this morning on this computer. I was on it all day yesterday and all afternoon today when I should have been getting some rest. I have not sent cards to people that I actually know who could use a card, I am failing in my personal life because I am living in some internet wonderland and I do not want to disengage.

I didn't even understand that I was supposed to take a test.

No I have public water. I live in town. But if I lived out in the country in my county I would have to use well water...and no one would be putting flouride in it. However, I may suffer from the Cold War missle silo leakage or farmland run off. I really don't care at this point. Is there something wrong with drilling a well? Is there something wrong with putting a solar panel on my house? I am not following the logic.

And no, this is not a discussion because I am talking about what I want to talk about and you are talking about what you want to talk about and I am not staying on task to talk about what you are talking about and that is my bad for not exercising discipline.

But you told me you wanted to talk about Speers book and then somehow we started talking about Andrews and Socialism which lead to Luther to which I added Anabaptist. And now I think you want me to talk about Miller. I cannot play 3 way chess. One of those topics is taxing for me. And besides, I cannot even understand when you present a test and today I am too tired to take one.

...

Divide and conquer

There is no honor among thieves.

Exactly why this approach would potentially work. As the monied powers only care about two things... money and power... they would start dropping public officials left and right when they get too many claims against them.

Remember: They can always hire more public officials. Plenty of people want to work for "the government" - At that point there would be a general awareness that if someone even says the word "bond" then you better lay off.

Our job is to create that awareness.

Got a call from the bond claims department.

According to him, the process is quite simple. You call up the claims department and file a claim with them. What happens with that claim is that it is investigated and if the claims company feels it has merit the public official in question is notified and told that basically: Either you fix this or we will.

The public official is then compelled to either fix it or face the possibility of not being able to be bonded. In additional response to the brother below... The second amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed... PERIOD. So should someone's arms be taken from them based on some statute - which is rules for public officials being used on the public... that would be a clear violation of their bond.

The bond secures their oath to the constitutions - NOT THE STATUES. Statues are RULES for PUBLIC OFFICIALS who have consented to them VIA TAKING THE JOB - they are not rules for people. People need to realize this is FACT.

Reference noted...

Will check it out. Thank you. Always wanting to learn more.

Keystones

This is like the few remaining puzzle pieces that complete the picture and this particular puzzle piece is looking like a keystone on an arch type piece of the puzzle.

This is the stuff that, once understood, unmasks much of the hidden forces that drive so many of the people who are be lead toward Despotism (I call it Legal Crime) as they are led away from Liberty.

I don't know where to start, because this is just now forming new paths in my brain, like that keystone piece now put in place so as to carry the load that was previously not bearable without the supporting device.

How about working on the concept of insurance and the concept of gambling at once and then applying those two concepts to the concept of Political Economy, and then see if I can communicate, better, the significance of this POWER to defend Liberty with Claims made against a Bond?

Gambling and Insurance were very less POWERFUL before the age of computers and before advances in the science of Statistics, in fact, measurable fact, Knowledge of Statistics has moved the concept of Gambling much closer to factual documentation and much further away from "Flipping a Coin". In other words; the ability to learn from statistical data has removed much of the mystery out of why, when, and how things happen in human life, so that predictions are no longer predictions, a future event is now almost a certainty, based upon the scientific application of statistical data. I don't want to dive too deep into just this subject, but an example of statistical data is a Personality Test designed to discover if the person taking the test will lie on the test, and the tests are tested on many people, a statistical number of people that are representative of the entire population of people, and then data is gathered after the test, to check to see who lied, and who did not lie, and then the test is improved, and then the tests are tested again, and again, and the competitively better tests are used and the competitively worse tests are discarded, and eventually the tests work, statistically, on almost everyone, with almost no exceptions, but as with lie detector devices, there are a few, abnormal, or unusual, or better trained, people who know how to fool the tests.

So a Gambling Casino in Las Vegas, armed with very precise Statistical Information can tailor make the rules of their games so as to ensure, make sure, NOT GAMBLING, that their efforts are profitable, including rules that quickly identify the WILDCARDS and take them out of the game.

Moving onto Insurance and the concept of SAVING for a rainy day, which is a gamble when considering the possibility that you could use the POWER you SAVE, for that rainy day, in current productive investments, instead of taking that POWER out of working investments, and if the Rainy Day never arrives in your life time, then you have a lot of POWER that did nothing for a long time, and decisions to make as to what to do with that POWER before you are dead.

That is wagering, gambling, betting, saving, NOT investing, and even investing is gambling, but hold onto SAVINGS for now - please.

A BOND, if I understand this right, is only useful if it is secured and not spent, or invested, or otherwise tampered with, so it is essentially a SAVINGS account.

I want the Original Poster, OP, to take a look at Assassination Politics by Jim Bell, while at this juncture. Hold on, please.

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

So...a Bond is a Nest Egg, or Savings Account, and it is an Insurance Policy, or it is a Gamble, or Wager, or Bet, and the Bet is placed on the chances of the Bonded thing (not just people?) to be free from any loss specified in the Bond Contract, such that the Bond Money (Power to Purchase) would be transferred to whoever Claimed a Loss resulting from whatever the person, or thing, did to cause that loss.

Perhaps the most important point here is to point out the fact that the Bonding Agents, the ones who have Legal Control over the Money, Purchasing Power that is taken out of circulation and Purchasing Power that is held IDLE in a Savings Account, not to be tampered with, ARE, the Bonding Agents ARE going to react to Claims being made against the Bond, because it is in their own best interest to do so, within reason. In other words: a person who is causing many people to make Claims to the Bonding Agent will ALERT the Binding Agent as to the need to do something about that person who is causing many claims to be made to the Bonding Agent, so as to stop that process of having Claims made to the Bonding Agent.

This is like an Insurance Company (a free market one, not a fascist one whereby it is the Law Power forcing people to "buy" insurance) discovering one of their customers succumbing to many unusual accidents occurring on a regular basis, and that Insurance Company is paying out a lot more money out of the Savings Account than expected, so they do something, to find out why that WILDCARD was not discovered during their methods of mathematically figuring out the profitable PRICE they charge for an Insurance Policy, their payout amounts per claim, etc., which are all done by Actuaries, as Statistical Data is computed with formulas, and improved over time, again no different than what a Gambling Casino will do to remain in business, against competitors who offer the same thing, only better, so there is no cheating without suffering greater loss once the customers discover the fact that one Gambling Casino is cheating compared to another, or one Insurance Company is cheating compared to another.

Why is this important? That may be the question after I have offered such wordy offerings in response to the Topic.

No one can get anywhere in America, so long as there remains anything MORAL in this country, without a BOND. When I was about 19 years old, I am now 53, I worked at a Bank, and I had to be Bonded. I did not know what that meant, nor the significance of it, until now.

Judges have to be Bonded.

Police officers have to be Bonded.

If you lose your Bond, if you are unbondable, that means that no one is willing to bet on your ability to avoid having claims made against you.

This is so important because this is that Lesser of two Evils according to the most Moral among us, while someone like me does not see any evil in gambling, so long as it is honest, and if this lesser of two evils is no longer working, then that means that the criminals have completely taken over, and once that happens you will either survive well based upon your ability to be a better criminal, or you will not survive well.

In that condition of human life where the criminals take over, completely, which some people mistakenly call it Anarchy, Might wins, not Right, and as much as the criminals may want to say that Might makes Right, it does not, what that is IS crime made legal, and it is everyone for themselves, and it is do onto others before they gain the power to do unto you, it is abject slavery to the worst that human beings have to offer the concept of life.

Meanwhile, as the worst criminals have not yet taken complete control of everything in America, but are damn close to it, there are still Bonds, or insurance policies, governing the elected officials in government, and that, in essence, is their BOSS.

I do not agree with this as being a good way to run a competitive government, I prefer to think that a Republic works better, such as the example between 1776 and 1788, but this is the stuff of Monopoly Government, and it does what it does even if I don't like it.

The Bondsman, or Bonding Agent, either Bond someone or NOT.

If Not, then that person does not work in government?

I have to add that as a question, since I'm still wrestling with this as I type.

Why is this not common sense knowledge today?

You find someone in government who is not to your liking and you begin to access DUE PROCESS, a law power that is due everyone without exception, and among those processes due to you, among those processes that you have in your individual CONTROL, is the process of making a claim on the bond of the person, the individual, in government, who has caused you injury of some kind.

What would happen if that knowledge was common sense knowledge for every Tax Payer in this Country called America?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

All that Bonding, by the way, is (or is not?) denominated in Federal Reserve Notes.

Joe

A tangential note....

Interestingly, the science of statistics emerged from the huge interest in its applicationto gambling. Follow the money! ;-)

Bearable Questions?

How does one know given the unlimited "legal" supply of money maintained by Legal Criminals that the Bond Companies are not part of the Cabal, or cannot be bought with that unlimited supply of federal reserve notes?

I read in this comment http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2791537 something about the bond company will investigate...who is the investigator? Can the investigator be bought?

Who has more money to make it in the best interst of the bond company to be honest...Legal Criminals or Victims?

How can one know if the Bond Company is or will remain on the side of Justice?

Why cannot Legal Criminals just create their own Bond Companies?

Maybe there will be a need to Bond the Bonding Companies?

Legitimate questions.

IMO - Only one way to find out the answers. I think however with the FED up against the wall and now wearing out the zero on the keyboard... I assure you the supply is not unlimited.

The supply will last about as long as it takes till Joe Sixpack can no longer afford his beer and cable fees to watch the game.

As soon as the sports fans realize they've been screwed well... you've heard the stories about France and King Louie.