19 votes

The American People Can Start The 2nd (3rd?) American Revolution. Here Was The 1st Nail In The Coffin Of The Constitution.

It took me a while to find out about it.

Read: to fully realize the veiled intent.

Yes, this was the first nail in the coffin and it matters as much as all the others that followed.

Because if one talks about a coffin and about a nail, this denotes the displayed intent, the start of going for action... to destroy.

If I dare say:

we can almost "forget" about the 16th Amendment.

we can almost "forget" about the Federal Reserve Act.

Those are pleasant distractions compared to their predecessor, first of their kind... nail in the coffin of the Constitution.

Here it was to start and to last, until the complete destruction:

The nail was hammered on July 9, 1868:

"[...] Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, [...] shall not be questioned [...]"

Do you see the nail?

Do you really see it? Emphasis mine.

It's not about nitpicking on "validity". Or "authorized by law", or etc.

It's about what I see as THE GREATEST OXYMORON instrument of plunder ever invented.

"Public debt"?

What is debt?

I can always open a dictionary on "debt" alone, but I can also phrase it in my own words, to convey the same idea:

It's a temporary extension of one's fairly acquired credit, and subject to repayment.

If I give someone credit for something they have said, done, or thought, I RECKON the value of what they produced, or uttered, expressed.

Their "credit" is their reputation that I am willing to acknowledge, spontaneously, without anyone, including them, forcing me to do so.

Now, of course, we all have only limited "credit" at any point in time, in reputation, or stocks of goods, capital, wealth, you name it.

We sometimes wish we had more, so, we borrow. We find someone else (individual or several) to "extend" our credit, by temporarily granting us MORE in addition to what we actually own, in values.

Now:

Doesn't this mutual consent - which consists in borrowing on one side, and in lending, on the other - LOGICALLY implies, FIRST AND FOREMOST, the SHARED PREMISES, by BOTH parties, that this extension of credit CAN, OUGHT, AND WILL be repaid (by the borrower, to the lender - with or without interests)?

If it does... what is the SECOND most important assumption to be made?

Isn't it that the borrower ACTUALLY HAS the capabilities to repay, in anything of value?

So, let's look again at "public debt"... we are presented with a strange concept, now:

that the "public interest" represented by the force of government and the laws it enforces, ever had, or will be capable to have, or to produce, ANYTHING of value.

But isn't government force only? Aren't laws supposed to be about the rendering of justice only?

Where is "the product", there? Where is the value, there, supposed to "repay" for a "public debt"?

In truth: there is none.

Government cannot produce anything.

It can only enforce, and sometimes, OFTEN ACTUALLY! with such force which the People granted it, it can TAKE from the People, or even, redistribute - unjustly, IMO, although we can still find proponents for arbitrary redistribution by govt, these days.

Anyway, back to the point:

The mere installment and acceptance of government by the People STILL cannot "create" anything of value which can be used to repay anything - AND EVEN LESS A SUPPOSED "EXTENSION OF CREDIT" which would have been granted to it.

The only "credit", IMMUTABLE, NON-EXTENSIBLE, of government and just laws, that can be acknowledged is in its defense and protection of the natural rights of the People, who are BORN with those rights, that the government and laws never "granted" the people with.

This is at least the uncontroversial, and non-negotiable spirit of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?

So... "public debt"... just does not make any sense - it is self-contradictory - a pure oxymoron, which from minute #1 was promising to be utterly hazardous, disastrous.

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE CREATED DEBT IF YOUR "CREDIT" WAS NON-EXTENSIBLE - EVEN TEMPORARILY - IN THE FIRST PLACE

You can EVEN make this a business rule in code, in a computer program which operates on a model about anything:

if the "credit" variable - on that particular instance/object called "government" - is in fact A CONVENTIONALLY FROZEN, DEEMED TO BE A CONSTANT IN TIME AND SPACE, NON-EXTENSIBLE BY DESIGN - there is NO WAY you can associate to it ANY "debt" (temporary extension to compensated later on).

Meanwhile the "credit" of individuals or corporations IS extensible - with "private debt" - which ties them to the lenders of same or different kinds, numbers, etc. There, borrowers CAN, theoretically at least, repay, as THEY'RE ASSUMED UPFRONT, capable to produce something or provide services of value.

Government, being force, can only have assets, time, energy that the People have accepted TO GIVE AWAY, TO ABANDON to it, but government NEVER produces ANYTHING out and of itself.

Even less : it CANNOT REPAY for anything it gets, or take, from the People. Government ought to say "thank you" more often, though.

Government only has a symbolic "credit" - small or big, doesn't matter - but anyway an ABSOLUTELY CONSTANT, NON-EXTENSIBLE "credit".

Government cannot create any meaningful "public debt".

If words mean ANYTHING.

Thus, on this "public debt" deception:

This, IMO, was the origin of everything else of central planning, central management of the People, being denied their Constitutional rights slowly but surely through always more numerous unjust laws and unconstitutional Acts.

THIS was the first nail in the coffin.

There is no point in wasting time talking about the "validity" or what the "public debt" ought to denote, encompass.

For it cannot denote anything.

This was the first tool, the first nail, to strip the People out, down the road, inevitably of EVERY SINGLE OF THEIR INALIENABLE rights.

Because the state had found there the ultimate justification to weaken the People's wealth, to steal from them, ad infinitum, and by any means it would see fit ... FOR WHATEVER AGENDA IT WOULD DEEM useful to sustain itself and to keep growing.

Nothing can be surprising any longer.

The reinstatement of central banking, of new oligarchies controlling the money (preferably fake, for their purposes as central tyrannical managers) was only one out of many of the STRICTLY LOGICAL consequence of accepting this phrase in the section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

As I see it, we ought to REJECT THE VERY NON-EXISTENT CONCEPT of "public debt" - ON STRICTLY LOGICAL GROUNDS - just like sane people, sane cultures usually reject "theft" or "slavery" or "abuse" or, etc - on grounds of common, natural morality.

It is a fraudulent notion which may have worked for centuries all over the place under various tyrannies, but until the 14th Amendment, the United States of America were A UNIQUE NEW PLACE for liberty, peace, and prosperity, precisely because, even beyond the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, of the land HADN'T INTRODUCED (yet) anything of this classical tool of plunder over populations.

We can re-read the Romans and about the Fall of Rome if we need refreshers.

Or the Terror period in the French Revolution (which soon after 1789 failed, btw - unlike in the USA). Etc.

Call "CRIMINAL NON-SENSE!" on the so-called "public debt", American people.

Get rid of it. Make it indefensible, morally, and legally.

And maybe, one day, the Republic will be restored.

I am afraid it simply cannot be otherwise, as long as this OXYMORON of plunder will be around.

Recall Congress. Or fire them.

Just get rid of "public debt". Throw it away TO OBLIVION.

Say "public debt BE DAMNED" in language, to start with.

Indeed, in truth:

LOOK AT "YOUR" WARS.

They are THE UGLY, INHUMANE OFFSPRINGS of that "public debt" the traitors have forced on you.

ARE THEY NOT?

Just look back at how they unfolded.

I don't think I'm inventing anything.

AM I?

For liberty.

Cyril




Comment viewing options

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

You got the date and the

You got the date and the Amendment right, but picking the debt clause as the issue is not seeing the forest for the trees. It is the Entire 14th Amendment that is the root of all our modern problems. It is the proclamation that all persons born or naturalized in the [U]tied States, and subject the the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.. that is the basis of the all the subsequent perversions of the Union. Why does this statement have to be made? Because before 1868 their was no such lawful status a US citizen, only Citizens of the States. (Art. 4, Sec. 4.)

Read The Red Amendment and see the forest. Link below.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

The problem was building the coffin

not how many nails got hammered into the lid.

break it down brother...

you'll have that much more effect and that much more impact ykis?

why are pandas exempt from RICO statutes?

Thank you again Cyril

The truth and principled posts here on DP have been diluted by a lot of issues related things recently.

Thank you for bringing the discussion back in this post.

*100 hat tips for you bringing something earlier that never will go away.

Cyril's picture

No, Thank You. You're so welcome,

No, Thank You. You're so welcome, this means a lot to me that you acknowledge. But it's only natural here, as I truly believe in your foundations I so wish to see restored!

The road isn't going to be short to undo all the infamies :(

So, one idea at a time! Let's not quit!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

the "moneychangers" change money.

from an instrument of worth, to an instrument of debt.

and yes, that is enough to piss off even the prince of peace. and make him display anger.

pretty simple...huh?

Cyril's picture

Proverbs 11:1

I know (sigh).

Proverbs 11:1

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I did not learn this from a preacher, brother.

I learned it right here and from Ron Paul.

now you know why I do not call myself a Christian anymore. when I call myself a Deist I get funny looks. and I can spot out the fake Christians better.

peace.

Cyril's picture

Bah. I learn little from what people only claim or call.

Bah. I learn little from what people only claim or call. I learn a lot more from their examples, positive or negative, and from my own mistakes.

And then, yes, if I'm in a mood good enough, from what people might say. ;)

But I hear you. True, in our time, Dr. Ron Paul and only a handful others really distinguished themselves without much effort for me to see. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

A call is given.

A call is questioned. Bravo.

why are pandas exempt from RICO statutes?

Cyril's picture

"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because..."

I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.

Blaise Pascal

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The Limitation as to What taxes could be collected for

The limitation as to What taxes could be collected for, was discussed in the Ratifying Conventions;

In the case of the "Welfare Clause", and in response to George Mason indicating that the term "General Welfare" would be perverted to it's (the Constitution's) "destruction", the limitation as to the power is clearly established:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Read The Day Convention In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Mason: "...Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government,and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE", and under their "OWN" CONSTRUCTION, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the "ten miles square", when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare "of the Union", I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to "ALL" powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

>>>>>Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "PERVERTED TO IT'S DESTRUCTION".

--- "... In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to "any power Congress may please". "

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the "PUBLIC DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE"; >that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the "GENERAL POWER OF LEGISLATION" (APP: A VERY IMPORTANT LIMITATION), but to the >PARTICULAR POWER> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise AS MUCH (APP: ONLY) MONEY as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", "IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL well-regulated communities (State or County or Community), determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers,the "JUDICIARY" "WILL" declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE" it "VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence.

"THE POWER" of providing for the "GENERAL DEFENCE" only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts,

But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. "THIS WAS MISREPRESENTED".

If I understand it right, "NO" "NEW" power can be exercised...."

What is clear when reading this, is that the legislative could not "create or legislate new debt" outside the limited delegated powers; And this is what is so critical about the fact established in the "Ratifying Conventions" (That define the meaning of the words in the Constitution) when they establish that the states nor federal representatives could not use the ratifying or amendment process to grant the federal government powers outside the DELEGATED powers.

The Ratifying and Amendment process was meant to make changes to limit misuse of powers WITHIN the limited and defined DELEGATED powers;

The Ratifying and Amendment process was NEVER MEANT to ARROGATE POWER UPON the federal government "OUTSIDE" the ORIGINAL LIMITS set by the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT.

To hammer this home, the founders made this limitation clear during this same day convention:

Mr. HENRY replied that, "...if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers. This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any DEPARTMENT or officer of the government.

Mr. (EDMUND) PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,

(N)OR to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE". (APP: THINK ABOUT THAT!)

But it gives them power over the LOCAL (ONLY) police of "THE PLACE", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT".

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be. WHAT, THEN, IS THE POWER?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate THERE, in order to preserve {440} serve the police "OF THE PLACE" (ONLY) and their "OWN" personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.

(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation "WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF THAT DISTRICT".

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the "MOMENT" it would go without "THAT PLACE"; for their exclusive (SUPREME) power is "CONFINED" to THAT DISTRICT. Were they to pass such a law,it would be "NUGATORY"; and EVERY MEMBER of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.This exclusive power is "LIMITED TO THAT PLACE SOLELY", for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. ..."...

"...The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "CANNOT be EXERCISED, OR INTERPOSED", without the "application of the STATE ITSELF". This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "FAIR CONSTRUCTION".

With respect to the necessity of the "TEN MILES SQUARE" being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,

I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

Now lets review a few things where the federal legislature has exceeded these limitations and used the "general power" (expressly prohibited) under the "Welfare Clause" to legislate "DEBT":

Can they create the "Welfare bureaucracy", no. Social Security, no. These are all "regulations" that "EFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE"; Environmental regulations, Mandates, ... all exceed the limitation. College loans? no.

How about governing "police" outside the the 10 miles square? Clearly as stated by the Founders above, the federal legislative HAS BEEN GIVEN "NO SUCH AUTHORITY". FBI, CIA, ICE, ATF, etc.

ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL

HOW ABOUT INCOME TAX? NO. as the income tax (including a FLAT TAX or a FAIRTAX for those who would ask) is an arrogated power that changes the limited DELEGATED power of "ENUMERATED" taxation, into UNLIMITED, UNENUMERATED taxation which is a HUGE STEP PAST THE DELEGATED POWERS.

And "EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED".

Stay WITHIN the DELEGATED powers, and there would be no debt.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Also now on Facebook with Choice Articles and Videos:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Haven't finished reading your comment, but...

When I saw this: "He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers?"

I had this thought: illegitimate powers are illegitimate. Regardless of who "determines" them.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Cyril's picture

Well, thanks for sharing. But...

Well, thanks for sharing.

But if the point you're trying to make is about the moral hazards that can follow from allowing taxation in the first place, you're only preaching to the choir, on this end (as the OP).

However, what I tried to point out, after Rothbard seemingly, is all about an even weaker assumption leading to a stronger conclusion:

for, even if one allows, say, just one limited form of taxation ever, we are nevertheless confronted with an unavoidable assessment to make.

That which is, such wealth lawfully abandoned by the people to the state (for whatever rationale of a so-called "general public interest") CANNOT, by any means, be reutilized and leveraged as a supposedly EXTENSIBLE credit reckoned to the state.

In other words (paraphrasing my post again):

whatever is ABANDONED by the people to the state to fund whichever public project (whether by people's time, energy, or money) is INDEFINITELY UNRECOVERABLE, once obtained - by the state - and by definition of NON-EXTENSIBLE credit, CANNOT be further used to justify INCREASED taxation to be repaid later on.

I argue that the only form of NON-EXTENSIBLE, credit that the state has, is, at best, the legitimacy of using a FORCE that the people granted to it, for the sake of rendering justice and protecting the universality of applying just laws - those laws only meant to allow the rendering of justice, precisely, in regard to the individual's inalienable rights of life, free speech, association, and assembly, and private property.

For the state cannot repay anything it takes and consumes totally, immediately, as early as from the very first second that has been granted / abandoned to it by the people.

You cannot claim for a DEBT be reckoned, i.e., any EXTENSIBLE amount of temporal and material credit, if you are incapable of providing any evidence you can EVER repay it (with or without interests), in any foreseeable and tangible form of value.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Rothbard: "Repudiating The Nat'l Debt" - Audio And Text

http://mises.org/media/7671/Repudiating-the-National-Debt
http://mises.org/daily/1423

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Cyril's picture

BUMP. I knew I just couldnt have possibly discovered this first

BUMP. I knew I just couldn't have possibly discovered this first, AND SO LATE.

Thank you for these pointers.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

oh my goodness. No one has

oh my goodness. No one has time to read a full manifesto on this board.

Jason Robinson
Secretary
Republican Liberty Caucus of Idaho
http://www.IdahoLibertyCaucus.org

Cyril's picture

BUMP. :)

BUMP. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Yes, you axed this one

Great post, informative, educational, and actionable. (at least for a while)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Cyril's picture

BUMP. And thank you.

BUMP. And thank you.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

I can only but thank the true American legacy.

Thoreau once said:

"There are thousands striking at the branches of evil for one striking at the roots."

Guess what, American people.

I have no intent to claim or stay alone defending this argument which I do know is revolutionary.

I won't cease to seek for others joining in the effort of making "public debt" not only unconstitutional but also, FIRST AND FOREMOST, strictly irrelevant, NONSENSICAL.

To be recognized as what it is: AN ABSURD OXYMORON which ought to have never been written in any legal document OF THIS COUNTRY, after the 13th Amendment.

We were suspicious already about the 14th.

On this end, all the remaining doubts HAVE SIMPLY VANISHED, if only because of that section 4, and that sentence, that compound noun.

The first, and most powerful betrayal of language against the Constitution. MANY OTHERS have followed.

UNSURPRISINGLY.

So, let's put it that way, let's prepare ourselves to make the point IN NO-BRAINER SPEAK for others to hear and ponder on "public debt":

Can we speak of "righteous theft"?

Can we speak of "loving rape"?

Can we speak of "truthful lie"?

Can we speak of "fair injustice"?

No.

WE CANNOT.

I cannot speak of "public debt".

YOU cannot speak of "public debt".

WE CANNOT any longer.

WE are connecting the dots.

WE are standing on the shoulders of giants of liberty:

the founding fathers, Thoreau, Bastiat, and now Ron Paul.

WE ARE NOT going to let liberty die.

WE ARE NOT going to let the ideals for a Republic of freedom, peace, and prosperity be thrown to the trash.

I, for one, WILL NOT.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Amen...

...And to quote the last sentence of our Declaration of Independence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Our ideals of Liberty WILL, and ARE, prevailing, my friend.

The Republic shall be Restored.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

That was a great poem.

Seriously, I think you nailed it.

why are pandas exempt from RICO statutes?

Interesting...

...Always good points.

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours that I disagree with, or have not found worthy of my time. :)

Thanks for the read Cyril, keep it up brother.

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org