16 votes

The Annette Spencer Project "beta" - this is BIG, please review and comment

Dear Friends at the DP,

First thing, I want to thank Michael and Company for this indispensable source of news. I'm one of your "looky-looers". The DP is the second tab on my browser when it opens up, after the Ron Paul Institute. This site is where I get my first news of the day, every day. You - all of you who moderate, post, and comment - are doing an amazing job. I think sometimes you doubt yourselves. Don't. The view from the outside is amazing and I am proud to have you as a reflection of my values and beliefs.

This is my first post. This is the first time I’ve ever had anything that I consider worthy of posting here. I don’t have the right to ask, since I’ve been taking for so long without giving, but I have an idea, and I need your help.

I think I’ve figured out a way to save the Constitution, invoke state sovereignty, eliminate the power of outside influences on our federal government, and give you (and me) something meaningful and targeted to do, right now, when we desperately want to be fixing this mess we’re in.

It’s called the Annette Spencer Project. The website is www.annettespencer.org. The project is named after my mother. There’s a little story about her on the website.

It's basically community organizing for the liberty movement, with some state legislation to back us up. We get to "review" our reps in Congress in our home towns at town hall meetings that we host, and vote to retain or relieve them. If our state supports us and we relieve them, they step down as soon as the review process is complete, and we elect new reps. There's a lot of incentive in the legislation for the states to support us, I think. Our next rep assumes office knowing what happened to the last one. I think it's sweet. And it's easy, and we each pay for our own town hall meetings, which won't cost that much.

If you would do me the honor of scrutinizing the project (not the website please – I’m a pathetic amateur and I know it’s a pretty sad attempt), tell me what you think about it, what won’t work, how to change it to make it work, how to “un-confuse” it if it’s too confusing, etc., anything and everything you have to say about it is what I’m looking for. I created this project for you, specifically, and tried to keep it as politically neutral as I could so that we get help from every American who loves the Constitution but doesn’t necessary agree with us.

Also, since the project is primarily for you, I also need to make sure I didn’t offend you with anything I wrote. I'd also like to make sure I don't offend anyone else.

There are pages in the website that aren’t on the navigation bar. I haven't gotten that far yet. The links start on the “Donate” page and then return you to that same page, so you know you’ve seen all the pages.

I’m still writing and still have a boat load of information for the project that I’m going to put into .pdf format, but it’s not ready yet. I think there’s enough on the website to get you started, if you like the idea and you think we should go forward with it.

Again, thank you so much for your help with this. I think this is the solution that we’ve been looking for, and I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say about it.

In Liberty,


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This is so much more than I expected.

Thank you all very much for your input. You didn't waste any time, and the substance of what I'm reading from you is right in line with what I've come to expect. Keep them coming!

My objective is to form the project around you, make it something you can do and want to do. I'm tired of feeling so helpless while I watch things get crazier and crazier. I want to do something.

Some Comments About the Website

1. I found the "speckled egg" wallpaper background a distraction.

2. I suggest unique numbering (1, 2, 3, ...) of the specifics of the proposed legislation instead of bullet items, for clarity.

3. The First Piece of Legislation, item one, states, "Impose term limits of 8 years for U.S. Representatives and 12 years for U.S. Senators of the state."

I take it to mean that representatives and senators cannot serve in congress more than the term limits in total, mandated by the proposed statute. This is to eliminate career politicians which I agree in principle. It does not mean a revision to the term served by representatives and senators in one election cycle since that would take a constitutional amendment to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 respectively.

Question; How did the creators of the website arrive at these term limits?

4. The First Piece of Legislation, item eight(?), states, "At the town hall meetings, the specific issue is discussed, and then a vote is taken to retain or relieve the U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator in question."

I am not aware of any constitutional provision accorded to the electorate to allow removal of a member of congress other than voting them out of office at the next election cycle. I do not believe this is practical or doable and quite frankly is politically amateurish to even suggest in a legislative act.

Good points, thanks...

1-2. I didn't much like the "speckled egg" wallpaper either, and I think the font is too small. I'll see what I can do about the numbering. I've never done anything like this before, but with everything that's going on right now, I thought it would be better to get the idea out there and worry about the way it looks later. As important as I know it is to the person that's trying to read it, I'm concerned that I may lose people because of the way the website looks.

3. You have it right. Their constitutional terms don't change, just the number of terms they can serve. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that term limits can't be imposed by the states, so it seems that the states could do this with no problems.

As far as the number of years for the term limits, they are entirely arbitrary. They are numbers plugged into a space where numbers are required, and the states and their citizens are free to fill them in with whatever numbers they wish. I went with the term limits of my state reps and senators. They seemed pretty "neutral" to me.

4. The fact that there is no constitutional provision to remove a member of Congress is the beauty of the Constitution. If it's not there, it's up to the states and the people. See the 10th Amendment.

It may be "amateurish", as I am most definitely an amateur at this, but it is the only way I can think of to break the cycle of Party politics that leaves us with Obama and Romney, McCain, Pelosi, Boehner, etc. If we can neutralize Party politics by relieving Party politicians within our states, the Parties will lose their power, just as every other powerful outside influence on our government will lose its power.

What we are doing is not working. Empowering our states and holding reviews could work.

Your comments were right on. Thank you!

Just imagined a person in

Just imagined a person in office taking the innitiative to vote and confer, based on a pre peoples vote taken online....per bill....not per elections

If they can spend time and money on creating a global spy/manipulation system......they can spend the same on an infallable per bill voting system.......open to public input, of said system, not closed or run by any one person

Open source, a technique which gives us thousands of accountability eyeballs.......bribery's nightmare, by no means 100%, but a hell of alot better then the current mind set of a closed voting system

I reckon its about overdue time for programming genius's to start entering the scene......innovation, either new, or using the old in new ways

Dont mean to expect these things from your project, just musing my thoughts to your post, gd luck with your project

Exactly :-D

Your ideas are the kind of thing that could result from a project like this. If we can manage to get our reps in Congress to focus on what we want because their jobs depend on it, then an online bill vote for constituents - out in the open - is something that would be in their own best interest, and ours.

Thank you.

In that case, god speed, god

In that case, god speed, god bless and most assuredly, goodluck

Did you join the GOP?

I don't beloeve you joined the GOP or have any idea how a major party is actually set up.

There are many ways to eliminate and elected person, but it doesn't happen often because elections are expensive to the tax payer.

This is why Ron Paul's invitation to the GOP was so important in the rEVOLution.. it took a learning curve many were unwilling to begin. You needed to learn the county, state and national by-laws (how to remove someone within in contained), you needed to learn Robberts Rules of Order, you needed to study who is who and what and why and how they operate, and this includes the organizations.. and how lobbiests work, how political aides operate,, who the federal, national, states, county, city, unincorporated/rural areas were mapped politccaly, who is elected, who is appointed, what department has what power.. how the military overlays all these areas and how to chalange that.. Ron Paul gave us all the opportunity to get in and get with the program.. BECOME THE GOVERNMENT YOU WANT TO HAVE.

And boy oh boy is it an education.. talk about rabbit holes.. the propeganda churns, and doesn't stop but increases in mass daily.

I commend you for having an idea. If you really believe you idea is worth, get involved in the GOP and join those who have more than ideas, but the guts to actually become the government.


I am,
A proud Ron-Rand RepubliCAN Committeeman!
We are the GOP now, and We Are Winning!

Exercise Liberty!

America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Oh I do like Rand!

I think he's doing a fine job of carrying the baton.

Nope, I didn't.

I did join a local meet-up group during the 2012 election cycle, and there I met quite a few people who had joined the local GOP for the 2008 election cycle.

I was an alternate delegate to my district and state conventions. At the state convention, we ended up split into two RP factions - one side was rigid about the RP-only slate, and the other side shared a slate with Santorum supporters. So we had two slates. We didn't have the numbers to win, and at the beginning of the convention they played a video of Santorum telling his supporters to stand with Romney. It was over already at that point. And I was not impressed at all with the process. Then I moved about this time last year and haven't gone to a GOP meeting since.

You see, I consider both parties as part of the problem. They are powerful outside influences on our representatives, like all the other outside influences. Boehner recently threatened something like 70 representatives who stood together against the senate's immigration reform bill. Besides Boehner's threat, the fact that there were only 70 of them is very telling to me about where the GOP stands today.

But I do agree that winning over the GOP is the clearest path to saving the Constitution, within the system that has already been established for us. It sounds like you've really gotten in there and you're getting things done. That's a front that needs to be handled, definitely.

I think this project would make what you are doing a lot easier, especially since you would know and could explain why the project would be wreaking havoc on establishment Republicans in Congress. Then when it came time to come up with a replacement for a rep who had been relieved, it would make sense to nominate pro-Constitution and liberty candidates, to save yourselves the trouble of having to deal with "us", yet again.

Do you see how the two fronts could work hand-in-hand?

I don't want to wait as long as I think it will take to win over the GOP, and I never want to have to choose the GOP over the Constitution. I'd happily pay whatever taxes are necessary to hold an election because my rep was relieved for not representing me. My guess is that I'd only have to do it once. The next guy would know the deal when he assumed office. They all would, eventually.

We could have this project going on in six months, all over the country. Then both parties would watch their establishment influence vaporize as we call the guy they chose for us back for review, any time we see the need, and relieve him.

I commend your efforts within the GOP and thank you for your comments. They really made me think. :-)

I'm confused...(Won't be the first time!)

"Nope, I didn't".
Meaning you did not join the GOP? Correct?

"I was an alternate delegate to my district and state conventions".
How could you have been an alternate delegate if you are not a member of the party?

Please. Enlighten me.

"I don't want to wait as long as I think it will take to win over the GOP".
Cheer up! We're not trying to win the old guard over! We're taking over!

From sea to shining sea. Granger is way out in Northern California and they are winning.
I'm all the way across the country in South Florida and we are winning.

For example.
Recently we held our elections for local party leadership. Our liberty candidate for the Chairmanship lost by only 20 votes of a total of 280+ voting members! But it didn't end there!
Within three weeks, the new Chairman once realizing that the "party" was over; resigned his position. Buh-Bye!
We held an emergency election and lo and behold...Liberty Rising! We own this local GOP.
So how long do it take? Not long at all if we have the numbers.

How hard is it to push a Cadillac up a hill?
Not hard at all if you have enough people helping to push.

In college, we pulled a prank on a friend.
My buddy says, "Hey, we should pick up Danny's VW and put it on his porch!"
I'm thinking, pick up a car??? Really? That seems a bit heavy and hard! Let alone carry it to his porch!!?
Ok, it only took eight guys. We lifted it easily as if it were a sofa.
There is extreme power in numbers. Grow in numbers. Insurmountable quickly becomes achievable.
So grab an end of that sofa!

Remember, we are not trying to win over the RINO. We are taking over. We are dismissing them into extinction!
They are invalid and unconsequential. They are no longer desired of. We wish them well as they truly believed they were doing the right thing all along. And many were for a while...

Your ideas are excellent. There are accountablity mechanisms in place within the party. By way of communication and discussion amongst the membership and presentation to the body for consideration and consensus vote whereas the Chair makes direct contact with the elected officials as a result. Responsible accountability. Those responsible for getting one elected demanding and monitoring accountability.

Exercise Liberty.

America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

You're right...I didn't "officially" join the GOP

I joined a local RP meet-up group in 2011 as soon as I found out there was one. In that group, there were people who had joined the GOP during the 2008 election cycle, which was awesome. They told us how things worked and already had their strategy for our local area planned.

At the meetings, we talked about the county caucus and the leaders got all the names of the people in the group who could and would run for delegate positions at the county caucus. My state doesn't require us to choose a party to vote in the primary or run for delegate seats at the caucus. I signed up at a meeting, went to the caucus, put my name on the board at the caucus, and got enough votes to be an alternate delegate at both the district and the state conventions.

You sound really upbeat about what you're doing in your GOP. It's good to hear. I don't really read too much about how that's going on here these days, but I'm glad it's working out well.

I changed counties last summer and found out that there is a GOP meeting here once a month. I guess I need to go to one and at least see what's going on. Where I came from, it wasn't cool to be a Ron Paul supporter. They took that whole "hijacking the party" thing very seriously. Hopefully they're more receptive here, especially since the election didn't go as the GOP expected.

What are you doing about your members of Congress? You have some Republicans there, right? Are they establishment or liberty? I am under the impression that once they're in, you can't run a primary against them. What do you do about that? Some of those guys really need to go.

Thanks for the pep talk. :-) Keep up the good work!


Ron Paul cured my apathy also! :-)
I too belong to our local Ron Paul Meetup. The members of the Meetup are all Precinct Committepersons in our local GOP!

Am am happy to say that we have placed Trey Radel in the US Congress. He was one of two Liberty minded candidates in our primary. Both good men. And we are watching him like a hawk! Trey was a local radio personality with a talk show. Man, he liked to smack down people with the Constitution and common sense!

We also placed Cecil Pendergrass as a County Commissioner along with Larry Kiker. The first order of business for the new session was to elect a Chairman of the Commission. They elected Cecil unanimously! I remember at one of the candidate vetting forums when the Tax Collector, Larry Hart introduced himself as a candidate and joked about property taxes being due and what forms of payment are accepted...followed by Cecil standing up and saying, " I'm Cecil Pendergrass and I'm running for County Commisioner to try to keep him from getting your money!"!!! Larry Hart is a good man, but that was funny!

We placed conservatives in many local and state offices. We elected conservative, Liberty minded PCs to State Committee.

Your question about "Once they're in".
I signed an Oath to not actively support anyone other than the winner of the Republican Primary. I do not have a problem with that. I supported Byron Donalds for Congress, not Radel. Lucky for us they are both pro Liberty!
Some have asked, "How could I support Romney?". I did not. :-). I did not sign an oath to actively support the primary winner; but to not actively support someone other.
No Romney signs in my yard. No volunteering. No campaigning. No money. Nada. Not just me, many others!
We just sat back and watched the whole thing fall apart on him. Even our Chair at the time said he was weak, not the right candidate.
And nobody tells me what to do in the voting booth.
As far as running a primary against a seated Elected Official, absolutely! Primaries are open season!

"Not Receptive, yeah, I hear ya!
It starts out as a trickle, before you know it is a raging river. A river of Liberty washing over us all.
When I ran for PC and won the election, there were few of us. At least a few that we're recognized as such, but there were others that hadn't "come out" yet. But they were there. And even others that heard our voices and read our literature that would soon be cured of their apathy as well. Within a year the swell of Liberty minded PCs was obvious. The cat was out of the bag. The jig was up. Disdain and disssapointment were rampant among the old schoolers, RINOs and neocons from the heavy losses in the party and to our Republic. They were easy to sway over. The desire for Liberty is a strong motivator, when you are clearly losing it.

The real advantage we have is that the party is thin in its ranks. Most precincts have several open positions. Filling them is easy. If there are open seats simply request to be appointed as an Interim Committeeperson. When election time rolls around, if no one runs against you or there are still additional seats open; you automatically win. They don't even bother to put your name on the ballot, no one is running against you! This was crucial to our victory here. There were so many available positions, we just took them all!
Example: if there are 100 seats and only fifty taken and we jump in those empty seats, we just took control of half they local party. Then we elect the right leaders for our party, the right state delegates and put forth and support the right candidates. Those that support Liberty, Constitution and Republic.

Now, The Granger had a much more difficult time, yet they have achieved the same success. Don't mess with The Granger, she don't play that! :-)

I'm glad you are no longer a Lookie-Loo! Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. Dive in!

Exercise Liberty.

"Winners plan for success, while losers contemplate the consequences of failure."

America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Awesome work!

It's good to hear that you've had so much success with electing liberty candidates. Your enthusiasm for what you're doing is definitely contagious!

I'm glad to hear that your "old school" counterparts are looking at liberty and the Constitution as viable additions to the party, both as voters and as candidates.

I will see when the next meeting is and make plans to attend and scout it out. I need to know what's going on over there, either way.

Thanks for the pep talk! The Granger, also. She made some good points.

Instead of waiting

GET INVOLVED join me. It's a whole new ballgame.

I commend your past efforts.. this is no time to let apathy regain your heart and mind.

I see what was is no longer because WE ARE THE FUTURE.

Come on.. You gotta come to my toga party at the RNC 16.

Double Secret Probation? I Say TOGA!!!


Exercise Liberty!

America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Catch up?

Can I catch up?

If we who are older could pass on what we know to those who are younger then that would be a power we gain.

We who are older would have to learn how to listen to those who are younger, in essence, therefore, we who are older would have to learn from those who are younger.

In other words, power transfer is a two way street.

That is my attempt to pass on to you a lesson worth learning.

If you then know that fact, which is an awareness of a process, a process that transfers power from one human being to other human beings, then you can apply that knowledge, which is power, to this present concern that almost every thinking human being shares.

What can be done to improve the process we claim as our government?

Are you following along?

I can listen to hear back from you, so that I can learn from you, as to what works, and what does not work, to pass on what I know, so that you can catch up, or so that I can retrace my steps back to where I made a wrong turn.

Restated, rewritten, in other words, and reinforced, the perception that someone can DICTATE to another person, with ONE WAY, or MONOPOLY POWER, is a false perception, and a false perception that can be exemplified in every single case where a human being claims to govern another human being.

The person claiming to govern anther person has to open a channel by which the governed is allowed to defend their viewpoint, and absent that open channel the claim made is false, the claimant is not governing, the claimant who claims to be a governor is a criminal.

I have already written so many words above, much more than a sound bite, but that is how POWER transfer actually works, in self governing, in Liberty, in human action that is not criminal, in voluntary association, in two-way, competitive, free market, open source, human interaction.

Why are my words so foreign to so many people?

One way, criminal, dictatorial, non-competitive, closed, exclusive, destructive, and only powerful in the sense of destruction, connections, associations, govern us, because, unfortunately, the criminals, right here in America, took over in 1788.

So all those words above will not only fail to communicate, for reasons I won't know specifically, because the general process of making crime legal works the way it works.

Information flows ONE-WAY.




That is how usurpers usurp.

So all those wasted words above are offers, with the person offering those words leaving a channel open so as to allow TWO-WAY communication to occur, whereby the claim of knowing something worth knowing made by the person claiming to be supplying what was demanded in this Forum Topic, listens, so as to learn, so as to share, so as to improve, so as to compete, so as to shed false ideas, and so as to increase the quality of ideas, perceptions, and then to have productive action available because knowledge is the governing power.

Why, for example, would anyone look at The Constitution (which is in opposition to both The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights) and see anything other than a Usurpation, as The Constitution is inculpatory evidence proving a crime is in progress beyond any reasonable doubt?

So, with that in mind, if at all possible, what can be seen here, with this project, is both solution, or remedy, and, on the other hand, at the same time, there is a negation of that solution, and the impossibility of reaching the goal of remedy.

In other words, yes, dividing the Monopoly False Federal Power into competitive Republics is a workable solution that was proven to be a workable solution between 1776 and 1788, under The Articles of Confederation, but no, no, no, it was The Constitution Fraud that was the dirty deal, actually called The Dirty Compromise, which Consolidated, or Monopolized, or destroyed Liberty, so that fact, in my opinion, has to be known.

Failing to know that fact could focus all defensive effort against crime into payments of economic earnings paid to the criminals by the defenders as if doing so, as if providing the means by which we suffer, as if paying liars to lie, as if paying criminals to commit crimes, would result in anything other than more crimes perpetrated by those high paid criminals.

If that does not help, I am hard pressed to figure out what could work.

Here is one (of many) sources proving the fact:


The Constitution is a piece of paper made by The People as a means of chaining their employees running a Republic down to strictly moral actions.

Each Republic in a Federation has their own competitive Constitution in a Federation or Confederation.

When the employees hired by the Republics claim to have Monopoly Power over everyone, then The People have a duty to resist that move from Liberty toward absolute despotism.

The cold hard facts are not easy to know, and the criminals depend upon that ignorance, they help make that ignorance more powerful, and instead of the defenders defending, the defenders are made to invest in crime made legal.

My words, sure, stupid words from me, sure, incomprehensible nonsense from me, sure, but I am not alone.


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

Pay criminals a lot of economic power for perpetrating very evil crimes, more pay for more evil, and what do you think is going to happen?

1. Unlawful Authorities at Work

2. Dangerous Criminals at Work

3. Adoption by the finest Evil

4. Drug Wars for Profit and Fun

5. The Final Solution coming to a Theater Near You

How bad is it?

Giving any credit at all, any credit, to those criminals running The FALSE Federal Government, for being anything other than criminals, with almost no exceptions, now that Ron Paul is no longer in office, is making what is bad: worse. The Legal Criminals gain more power and the defenders of Liberty grow weaker.

It is well past time to know better.


I think I get what you're saying...

At least I think I get the part about the Constitution itself being a usurpation of liberty. I actually mentioned that in the website, but I get the impression that those pages were buried too deep. The links are at the bottoms of the pages, not the top, and they start on the bottom of the "Donate" page.

Here's my dilemma with the Constitution being illegal. Well I actually have more than one.

First, the way I understand it, the Articles of Confederation weren't working for the original states the way they hoped they would. You say the Articles of Confederation were workable. I could definitely be wrong - I learned that in a college history class. Since there were only 13 states back then, and they couldn't get just 13 states to keep the Articles of Confederation in place, I don't see how we could get 50 states to do it now.

Second, the way the founders/framers went about creating and ratifying the Constitution was the wrong precedent to set starting out with that new form of government. What they did to New York and Rhode Island was not right. Then there was the whole slave issue. It was definitely screwed up from the beginning. But they did it, and the people allowed it to happen.

Third, as soon as they put the Constitution in place, they started violating it. That should have been the people's first clue, but I guess they figured they were "free" enough. Maybe they would have been more responsible about governing themselves if they'd known what the future was going to look like, but they weren't so here we are.

And last, the Constitution is the current basis of our form of government. As bad as it is, it provides us with a means to protect ourselves against the monstrosity of a government that is in our face right now. All we have to do is exercise the means. I'm not excited about the prospect of opening up the can of worms that would be involved in replacing the Constitution. There's too much bad stuff happening, and there's no one to trust to get a replacement document "right", whatever that means.

There are 315 million of us, and we all have opinions. I don't see how we can create a better basis for a central government, or no central government, that would be satisfactory to 315 million people at this point. And as members of the world, we've done too much damage to try to eliminate our central government entirely. We'd get smoked by the rest of the world, right? Who could blame them?

I think saving the Constitution that we know, and empowering the states so that they can help us keep the federal government in check, would improve the condition of our liberties with the most, and fastest, "bang for the buck".

I see the ship sinking. I'm just trying to plug the holes and bail out the water with this project. Once that's done, we can have another look at the Constitution itself, if that's what we want to do. But today, I'm way less concerned about the legality of the Constitution itself than I am about its death in front of my eyes.

You are smart and you know a lot more than I do about this stuff. I agree with you about the stupidity of paying the criminals to be criminals and liars to lie. It's insane. I don't think you're saying that we should do nothing because the whole thing is illegal anyway and to do anything would be to acknowledge and validate its existence. Because no matter how true that is, it thinks it exists, and it has almost all of us convinced that it exists.

The points you raised were like a good shake. Since the point is to save the Constitution, it's a good idea for me to know what I'm trying to save. I know where the Constitution came from, and I still think it's worth it to stop the nonsense that's going on now. Thank you for making sure that I understand all of this. :-)

Please excuse my unorthodox methods of discussion.

I stop reading and I comment before I continue reading.

I stopped here:

"First, the way I understand it, the Articles of Confederation weren't working for the original states the way they hoped they would."

Those who were promised profits for the Revolutionary War, you know the routine I'm sure, you know, we all know, those who profit from war are not happy about not getting their profits from their no bid contracts, where they barely even managed to supply the shoes and things on their end of the contract, but they still demand payments, ON PAR, for their "contributions" in the war effort, and sure enough, yes, those guys are not happy about how a Voluntary Union works, they tend to be found out, and no one pays them, so what else is new?

"weren't working for the original states the way they hoped they would"

Shays's Rebellion after The Revolutionary War, and before The Constitution Usurpation, is a legal precedent worth knowing about, and here is a few sources of information that are well references for further study:


The reason why the Central Bankers, Slave Traders, War Profiteers, Monarchists, Monopolists, Criminals with Badges, the reason why they didn't like the Voluntary Union is simple, obvious, and accurately measurable, slaves that have power, such as the power of knowledge, are apt to avoid being slaves.

I don't want to sound as if I am raining on your parade either, not at all, if you are to zero in on money competition, instead of giving the "federal" employees any credit at all, then you gain, each Constitutionally Limited Republic (you), gain, gain, gain, the POWER to say NO, as in NO We The People in this State (Republic or Sovereign State), we, you, me, I, us, won't, no, we won't, pay for that, or that, or that, so buzz off.

That is what "they" didn't like about The Articles of Confederation.

The States still had the POWER to say no.

No, no, we can have our own Legal Money Power, without your offer of a Single, Monopoly, Money Power that just so happens to be fraudulent, criminal, and a case of extortion made legal, so not thanks.

Sure there were criminals running the States too, so they tried, and even succeeded (Massachusetts) to run their own Money Frauds and Extortion Rackets, but the POINT of a Federation is that the free people could vote with their feet without a "federal" power enforcing slavery.

Daniel Shays's walked on up to Vermont after the Massachusetts criminals (with badges) forced that free person out of that Slave State.

What happens when all the wannabe Masters and all the wannabe Slaves vote with their feet, freely, to the Slave States, and everyone else votes with their feet to the Free States?

That was the point. That was the design of a Federation, which is opposite the design of a false federation, the point was to find out what happens when free people have a free state of their own making to be a part of, voluntarily.

Criminals are criminals and they know how to take over governments, and that was known back then, so why is it not known now?

So if you will return back to a Federation then you will have the power to offer competitive money, you will, I will, and any other competitor will, because failure to have that in place will result in ONE MONEY POWER.

How easy it is to accurately measure how EVIL one money POWER is in fact?


That is the "official" record of the crime in progress. The criminals still claim that they are doing legitimate work.

They are frauds, they are extortionists, they are counterfeiters, they are money launderers, they are rapists, they are pedophiles, they are torturers, they are serial killers, they are mass murderers, they are war profiteers, they are sociopaths, they are psychopaths, they are pathological liars, they are easy to find, all one, or all many, have to do is follow the Federal Reserve Inculpatory Notes of the crime in progress to the source of those Notes.

If your efforts result in 50 State Employees with 50 Separate Criminal Fraud and Extortion Rackets, each with their own Legal Fraud Money Monopoly, then that is effectively the same thing as what exists now with one VITAL exception.

The Victims can see, from that vantage point, which Criminal Gangs are not as Criminal as the next one, on a list of Criminal Gangs, and of the 50 Criminal Gangs with the 50 competitive Money Supplied which one sets the bar the lowest?

Which of the worst Legal Money Power is the highest quality and least expensive from a VICTIMS viewpoint?

The World Reserve Currency POWER is always the least expensive from the victims viewpoints, so all the other gangs of criminals with badges are using more destructive money powers, growing fat on the backs of their victims faster.

Where is any honest money?

What did Iceland do recently?

What is Utah working at doing right now?

How many other States are working to move back to honest, accurate, competitive, high quality, and low cost money?

Is there anything on your list of things to do that move toward competitive offerings of high quality and low cost legal money?

If so then that goes right to the heart of the Vampires like a wooden stake.

"Since there were only 13 states back then, and they couldn't get just 13 states to keep the Articles of Confederation in place, I don't see how we could get 50 states to do it now."

The criminals, or Central Bankers, whatever you want to call them, called themselves Federalists, they were not Federalists, they were Slave Traders, Monarchists, Nationalists, hell they were Communists before the Communists stole their ideas from those false Federalists.

How well does deception work?

The actual people, like Patrick Henry, and like George Mason, to name only 2, were active in promoting an effective Confederation, or Federal Union, or Federation, and so the Communists of the day, had an idea, and it worked, their idea was to call the people working effectively at building and maintaining a Voluntary Union, or Federation, call them, call those guys, Anti-Federalists.

See how that worked?

Hi, I'm a Nationalists working to enslave you.

No, that does not work.

They say, hi, I am a Federalists, and they do that because it is the same routine as the wolf wearing a sheep costume.

Why is that tough to know?

I don't know.

How did "they" get their Monopoly Legal Power or Crime made Legal, when so many people in those days were working at creating a Voluntary Union?

They lied, they promised things, then they were elected, then they broke their promises.



"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

I am nobody, but the facts speak for themselves. I don't have an argument. Why would I argue?

Voluntary association is what it is, does what it does, and the opposite does what it does, because that is how criminals do things.

"Second, the way the founders/framers went about creating and ratifying the Constitution was the wrong precedent to set starting out with that new form of government."

Note, please, how to me your words confess a mind that has been monopolized. There were not ONE GROUP of happy fellows called founders/framers, there were the genuine volunteers and there were the criminals who wore the volunteer suits as a disguise.

Criminals can't take over government if they say in advance, hey, look at us, we are here to enslave you.

When the victims are led to believe that there is only ONE authority, well, what do you think happens?

"It was definitely screwed up from the beginning. But they did it, and the people allowed it to happen."

They is us, us is they, we are them? The criminals do what criminals do, so blaming us for what the criminals do is how the criminals do what the criminals do perpetually. We blame ourselves for what they do, and they blame us for what they do, and everything works that way until a competitive idea is tried.

Voluntary Union.

"Third, as soon as they put the Constitution in place, they started violating it."

Patrick Henry, George Mason, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, warned of the Usurpation taking place so who are "they"?

Everyone? All the "founders" of a republic (each State) or all the "founders" of a Confederation or Federation?

No, it was the criminals at work, hidden within those actual founders who actually worked to create and maintain voluntary government.

I want to return to finish this, but for now it is lunch time.


"As bad as it is, it provides us with a means to protect ourselves against the monstrosity of a government that is in our face right now. All we have to do is exercise the means. I'm not excited about the prospect of opening up the can of worms that would be involved in replacing the Constitution. There's too much bad stuff happening, and there's no one to trust to get a replacement document "right", whatever that means."

I call that Checkmate. The criminals take away the power to defend against crime by offering crime as the defense against crime. It works wonders, every expense of power employed to fight the criminals empowers the criminals instead while the victims grow weaker with every failed attempt.

A constitutionally limited Republic is a workable method of defending liberty from unlimited or criminal gangs where the criminal gangs are very powerful, where the criminal gangs call themselves legitimate, with this or that false front.

Where is there a constitutionally limited Republic? If you have the solution, to find a working constitutionally limited Republic then that is a start.


New Hampshire?




Will all the other criminals in all the other unlimited Despotic States gang up on those who dare to limit the criminals from perpetrating heinous crimes against humanity?

No, not these days, because these days the lid is being blown off the facade that hides the criminals, and every effort to increase their criminal power is now adding to the mounting evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those criminals are nothing but criminals.

They, those criminals, those criminals hiding behind a thin and growing thinner facade of legitimacy, reach for World War when the natives grow restless, as the natives are now very restless.

If you have been at this whistle blowing, this job of playing the part of Paul Revere for as long as I have, for the past 25 years, then you may see what I see, which is a quickening, an awakening, where once no one listened to a word of warning, and if someone did listen then would shout you down, ridicule you, attack you viciously, for daring the speak ill of the criminals behind their curtains, and where now, instead, more people are offering more evidence, from more sources, proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the criminals have taken over, here, here, here, and here.

So where is the Constitution that Limits those criminals so that those criminals are not so powerful? The ONE MONOPOLY Constitution or the Competitive, lesser power, State Constitutions?

If all power has been annexed, already, while the criminals used the ONE MONOPOLY Constitution to do all that annexing, do you really think that that Constitution limits any of the criminals in any way?

Those who employ written law to defend Liberty, as far as I've seen, are employing The Bill of Rights, not The Constitution, and in that way, in this State, or that State, a defender of Liberty has power, because of those additions to the ONE MONOPOLY Constitution.

Those additions were attachments demanded by what little power was left in the hands of the true Federalists who were at that time period called Anti-Federalists by those who managed to gain fraudulent control of Mass Media during that time period.

Again, the fix is not possible with Monopoly Power, the fix is the opposite, the fix is possible with many competitive solutions, such as 50 State Constitutions whereby The People in those States can pay for, nor not pay for, join, or not join, a Voluntary Federal Union, and if a person is in one of those States that is working to Consolidate, or Annex, all the other States into ONE MONOPOLY, or Despotic Nation State, then The People who know better, like Daniel Shays's exemplified in the past, those people, knowing better, can defend Liberty by fighting against, or moving to an actual, working, Constitutionally Limited Republic, or Sovereign State, whereby The People in that State are not working to Monopolize, Take over, Annex, Incorporate, all States into ONE POWER, and the key, the thing to look for, is the MONEY POWER.

Is there only ONE LEGAL MONEY?

If there is, then there is only ONE POWER.

Follow the one money to the source of it, and there are the culprits caught with their blood red hands.

"There's too much bad stuff happening, and there's no one to trust to get a replacement document "right", whatever that means."

That is again, Checkmate, as no one can accurately identify the difference between right and wrong? If someone creates an involuntary association, by definition, by that fact, there is someone perpetrating a crime, an aggressor is accurately identified as the aggressor moves aggressively upon a targeted victim.

Why is that at all difficult to know, in any case whatsoever?

Did you read the work done by Murray Rothbard on Generalisimo Washington?




His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen.

People are nowadays so full of crap that people actually claim that democracy is Mob Rule.

That is false.

A democratic army of militiamen were exemplified, defined, by those volunteers. All volunteers.

All volunteers.

What does that mean?

A Voluntary Association.

What is the opposite?

I have work to do, I want to return to this later.


I like your unorthodox methods of discussion.

I hope you enjoyed your lunch. :-)

Before I forget, I have to ask you a question. It's out of order, but like I said, I don't want to forget.

"...everything works that way until a competitive idea is tried."

Can you be more specific about the "competitive idea"? That sounds like the solution to the problem, right? But like what? I'm looking for something that's actually doable, by us.

Ok, back to the top.

Am I naïve to think that when people, either back in the "toddler" years of the U.S., or right now, or anywhere in between, figure out that they've been manipulated by criminals, they have a duty to step up and make it right by refusing to accept responsibility for the criminals' misdeeds? You talked about the country's debts that were created by criminals and that the thing to do was to tell them to "buzz off".

That's where my hang-up is about "us" letting "them" do that to "us". I think that's exactly what we should do - tell them to buzz off. Now keep in mind that you clearly know more about this than I do, but I don't think we should have to pay back a cent that has been spent in our names since 9/11. I don't know about before that. I wasn't paying attention at all to anything like this back then. But it seems to me that all of the money that was spent implementing the Patriot Act, DHS, the Iraq War, everything that was spent after 9/11 all the way through now, for no other purpose than increasing the size and power of government is on the government and not us. And we the people should refuse to pay it. Who knows what kind of trouble that attitude would make for us but that seems fair. And all that spending has to be stopped, right now.

What do you mean by "zero in on money competition"? Is that what you are talking about with Utah? Is that what they're doing? The thing you said about eliminating the "one money power" and having all 50 states have their own fake money, that would help because people could move to the state that was destroying their currency the least, if that was what motivated them. Is that right? I see how that would be helpful. When all the states have the same currency, there's nowhere to go to get away from it.

The only other state I know of that's trying to have honest money is Arizona, and the governor doesn't want it because she can't figure out how to tax it. I don't know what Iceland's doing.

"Criminals are criminals and they know how to take over governments, and that was known back then, so why is it not known now?"

I think it is known now, today anyway, much more than even a few months ago. All the criminals from the time the Constitution was ratified are dead. We have real, live criminals to deal with now. They seem to be preparing to deal with us and have been for quite some time. It's the "coming out" part that alarmed me enough to come up with this project.

I think that if we work together, we can make at least Congress stop acting so crazy. We could almost close Congress down for a short time. We need that down-time and that ruckus in Congress so that they can't just keep on functioning on auto-pilot while we jump up and down screaming but not making any noise.

If we can first put the emergency brake on Congress, then while we have their attention, give them our marching orders, might they execute those orders out of fear? Maybe?

I can't even suggest any solutions to the Fed or the IRS problems because those problems are so far above my pay-grade. I know something big needs to be done, but someone way smarter than me (maybe you ;-) ) has to come up with that plan.

But we can totally fix Congress, and I bet we could do it by the 2014 elections. If the states imposed term limits on them, we'd have a whole bunch of freshmen in 2014. That would put the brakes on them pretty well all by itself. The awareness that they could be tagged for review at any time probably wouldn't do anything by itself, but when the first rep was relieved by his constituents, I think they'd all start paying attention.

I know I say "rep" and you think "criminal", but I'd rather have criminals running scared than running loose. If we can fix Congress, we are one step closer to restoring honest money, aren't we? If so, then yes, I'm definitely trying to move in that direction.

This is fun. I keep writing way too much and taking way too long doing it. You are right, I am monopolized to the point that the buck stops with the Constitution because it's what we have to work with right now and I think it's way better than what we're having to live with. I think we can make things significantly better than they are. It will take some time but not that much. To me, that means if we don't, then it's our fault for having the means to do it and not trying.

I hope you write again, Joe. You are really making me think about what I really think.

Principally and specifically.

"Can you be more specific about the "competitive idea"?"

The criminal idea is very simple, it is only competitive in the power one criminal has over other criminals at gaining the most market share of victims.

That is one idea.

That can be the only idea and then there is no competition other than that one idea.

In math it is called The Prisoner's Dilemma and it goes like this:


If everyone volunteers to be a criminal or if everyone is forced into being a criminal then there are no producers of anything worth stealing.

That is the ONE idea.

That is the non-competition idea.

Now take any other idea so long as any other idea is not the criminal idea.

Here is one:

Stop paying the criminals any rewards, bonuses, authority, credit, loyalty, or anything of any value that can possibly be kept away from the criminals. Call that the crime is no longer affordable idea.

Just stop paying criminals so well for the crimes they do idea.

So now you only have two ideas to look at, but none of these two ideas actual produce anything worth stealing, so there may need to be some cooler heads working on solving the problems associated with having no food, shelter, clothing, or power to heat up the water so that a shower can be enjoyed with some heat in the water.

1. Criminal Idea, Monopoly Idea, Non-Competition idea, which leads inevitably to a point at which the last two people on the planet are both working toward eliminating the last competitor.

2. The make crime pay less idea.

3. Any other suggestions that are not merely copies of the first two listed above.

I call this that we humans do a power struggle. We are in a power struggle. I have a one sentence explanation of Political Economy that I can place next to any book written by any author concerning the principle of Political Economy, and my sentence so far holds up against all competitors.

Are many words better?

Are fewer words more economical?

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Principally speaking the most competitive ideas are those ideas that start out in the day with a measure of power and at the end of the day there is more power. The better ideas, and the most competitive ideas, are the ideas that end up with an abundance of power.

Crime destroys.

The Monopoly idea is the reverse of political economy, the Monopoly idea does the opposite of the most competitive ideas. The crime idea takes power from wherever power can be found and then the criminal consumes that power toward reaching the goal of taking more power from wherever power can be found, it is the destroy everything everywhere idea, again, it is the non-competition idea.

You know the word entropy. That is a way of looking at the crime idea.

Did you know that there is a word called ectropy? That is the competition idea.

"Can you be more specific about the "competitive idea"? That sounds like the solution to the problem, right? But like what? I'm looking for something that's actually doable, by us."

Your idea is not new, and it has been tried, and it works. The idea may not be completely understood by enough people.

Here is a version of the idea:



Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

Legal Money Power works the same way, and so half measures won't work, since a Constitutionally Limited Republic, like Texas, and like Utah, have to be independent of the ONE MONEY POWER, or there is no actual independence. If the ONE MONEY POWER remains in force, easy to find it, it is where that money is produced, wherever that is, that is where the Central Power of any consequence will be, those people at that Central Location, that is where the POWER will be, not at the State Capital. So how does the quality of MONEY get pushed higher? So how does the quality of government get pushed higher?

So how does the cost of money get pushed lower?

How does the cost of government get pushed lower?

Both have to be voluntary associations.

Both have to be demanded by the buyers and supplied by the sellers in a Free Market.

The quote above shows how the Free Market of Government Power can work, as far as experiments in voluntary agreements, including the voluntary agreements agreed upon by the volunteers who volunteer to stop the flow of power flowing to the criminals, so that crime does not pay.

Trial by Jury worked, and that was understood by the true Founders, the True Framers, the one's that ended up with the false name of Anti-Federalist, like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Martin Luther, and Robert Yates, many more, the real deal, and they knew about Trial by Jury, and why it works.

Do you know the word sortition?

I recent picked up that word from someone on this forum. That is how, by random selection, a Jury is supposed to represent the whole body of people, as in We the People, as in a Jury of your Peers, which would be better, not practical, but better to ask everyone and if everyone says, hey, well, you know, torture is not right, and eating babies is not right, so ahhhhh, don't do it, and don't pay people really huge rewards for eating babies, there will be no end of the supply of baby eaters for profit if the rewards for eating babies is really high.

So do you have to ask everyone? If you find someone that says, hey, I like eating babies, he goes on to say, yea, I ate two babies for lunch, then is that a peer? Is that a person who aught to judge anything? So sortition worked as a mathematical, or statistical function of human morality, in Trial by Jury, not perfect, but better than ONE POWER DICTATING everything.

Everyone who will be on a Jury aught to read this:


So one competitive idea was to limit the governors with a Constitution, some States had the competitive idea of adding a Bill of Rights. States were independent Republics, and when they were all in competition for getting more of the good people to do productive work in their State, not the other State, then those governors had to supply what the productive people demanded, a good place to go, a place to go where a productive person could run away from slave masters. That is how it was working, and I read your earlier claim here:

"We'd get smoked by the rest of the world, right? Who could blame them?"

That is completely backwards. It was under The Articles of Confederation with an all Volunteer Army (despite the Dictators efforts to screw it up, you know, Generalisimo Washington) that defended the 13 Independent Republics from a military invasion and occupation by the largest criminal military force on the planet at that time. We The People were much more powerful then than now, as the Criminals in Power use the Power they steal to cause wars, Indian Wars, the War of 1812, The Civil War, World War I, World War II, and now they are working on World War III, those are the same people, the same IDEA, the same MONOPOLY POWER, at work, sure they fight among themselves to see who orders who around, that is how that works, but it is the same power at work.

Here, here, and here:

So, no, if the idea is to make crime pay less, then paying the worst criminals to destroy the least worse criminals is patently absurd.

The lesser of two evils is a false choice.

Whose idea is that false choice?

Why parrot it?

"Can you be more specific about the "competitive idea"? That sounds like the solution to the problem, right? But like what? I'm looking for something that's actually doable, by us."

Competition, again, or voluntary association, same process, same result, different words, and it is the opposite of paying criminals for being good criminals, the exact opposite.

1. Crime
2. Not 1

How many things can a person do once a person is no longer investing in crime?

What happens when there are 10, or 100, competitors selling crime prevention and money systems?

If 90% of the suppliers are offering high cost and low quality crime prevention and money that leaves 10% offering low cost and high quality crime prevention and money, so what happens to the victims who no longer want to be victims of crime by violence, or crime by fraud money?

So that is how a competitive, or Free Market of government worked, when it worked, and it can be called a Republic, so long as it remains voluntary.

So you want to keep the involuntary association, I suppose, by your words, whereby the States obey without question, whatever the False Federal Governors force upon their targeted victims.

That solves nothing. The State Powers will, even if you don't like it, finally exert power to end the crime spree currently being perpetrated by the False Federal Dictators, Criminals. Why call them anything other than Criminals? Why give them any credit at all?

That is the point. Your solution is the solution because that is how it will play out, look at what happened in Russia. It will play out that way, the ONE power will fracture, that is how that works, the only question remains has to do with the nature of the individual pieces once the fracture occurs. Will those individual powers be worse than the one power?

We The People have to choose better instead of worse, if we don't, we will certainly get worse.

I think Utah State is working for better, and so are about 11 other States, last time I looked, and they are reaching for the wooden stake that kills the vampire, they are reaching for competitive legal money.

How is legal money competitive?

It is higher in quality and lower in cost.

If it is higher in quality and lower in cost compared to The World Reserve Currency Power, then what happens?

World War III, if The World Reserve Currency Power is allowed to force the issue.

Which issue?

The World Reserve Currency Power.

Why is that not easy to see?

You don't have a working understanding of Political Economy?

You can borrow my power law. I call it Joe's Law.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduced the cost of production.

What do you think will happen if Utah, and 11 other States, such as Texas, California, Alaska, Arizona, Virginia, Vermont, and soon to be other voluntary associates in the fight against Monopoly Legal and Monopoly Money Power, in the fight against The World Reserve Currency Power, what do you think happens if those States all have their own, independent, forms of sound, accurate, high quality, and low cost money systems working, and improving, each State working to set the bar higher than each other State?

What happens to The International Monetary Fund?

Who do you think is pulling the strings on The Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and Washington D.C.?


Ben Bernanke?

"You talked about the country's debts that were created by criminals and that the thing to do was to tell them to "buzz off"."

That is backwards again. This false Federation is a corporation that is currently being raided, do you know how that works? The criminals doing the raiding take over all policy decisions and they simultaneously consume everything that can be consumed while advertizing great future benefits, so that they take out all the value, and then sell the title of the thing to some sap who buys the false story of the future benefits. All the value is being moved to Asia, to pump that place up, win World War III, and then all those worries about all those restless natives are history, and they get to write history. The criminals are dumping out all the value of this "Nation" on purpose, it is the same old routine, and so who cares, the criminals don't care, if the victims like it or not, or if the victims figure out what is going on, it is too late.

The victims say "buzz off" to the debt that is already impossible to pay off? No one in their right mind expects the victims to pay off the entire debt, what they are banking on is that the victims will be powerless to do anything other than paying debt for EVER.

What is National Debt?

Hamilton said it was a great thing.

It is a great thing, for the criminals, they perpetuate their exclusive power to rule everyone, every criminal, and every victim, how great can it get?

Do you think that the Chinese Criminals (not the actual working people in China), do you think that they will just forgive all the War Debt when World War III is over and we lost?

We, as in we the people who are too powerless, including the power of knowledge, to avoid World War III.

They, the criminals are investing your money, stolen from you, in making World War III happen, so they, in their insane minds, love war, it pays so well.

"I think that's exactly what we should do - tell them to buzz off."

Again that is the thinking that remains in the box, the box handed to the victims by the criminals, where the criminals dictate the boundaries, and you had better stay in that box, or else, and if you wander out, there will be much to do effectively to get you back in the box, and when you are back in the box, you get the bill to pay all the expenses consumed in placing you back in the box.

It says so right here:


That is the official Web Page so look here:

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

So ignore them, completely, they will just go away, so long as there are enough of us who are working outside the box. What is outside that box? Power used to make more power out of less power.

Who will have time to worry about stupid criminals making false claims about someone owing someone Federal Reserve Notes?

I don't see any need to give those criminals any credit at all, who says anyone has to go see them for credit?

That is all completely backwards.

Hamilton and the gang of thieves were claiming that the Nation needs Debt so as to earn Credit. That is a big lie. The productive power of Liberty was so obviously credit worthy, the French offered enough credit to the defenders to help defeat the criminal British, that was proof of Credit accredited to a Confederation of Independent Constitutionally Limited Republics. Hamilton turned the credit already earned into a concept of DEBT. Nice trick?

How well has it worked?

Look at the National Debt Clock. People falsely claim that Hamilton would be turning over in his grave if he saw America today, by what twist of reasoning is that done? Hamilton would be smiling, he would be the first one to invest in China winning World War III, hedge baby hedge.

"I don't think we should have to pay back a cent that has been spent in our names since 9/11"

This has been going on since 1788.

What happened to the concept of credit?

Of course you don't owe anything of value to anyone, not unless a criminal is demanding payment. Why is that not easy to see?

How is any supposed contract supposed to become something involuntary at any time? If you no longer agree to pay anything, at any time, then your credit suffers, but where does that turn into someone knocking at the door with a pointed stick to poke you in the eye if you don't pay up, and then you are charged for the goons pay, and you have to pay for the manufacture of the pointed stick, on and on.

You have to pay the cleaners to clean off the boots of the goon where your blood soiled those boots. Lick those boots.

Who turned the world from Liberty to Crime made Legal?

Hamilton was a key player, and the date was 1788. That is the American version, but the routine was not new.

" increasing the size and power of government is on the government and not us"

Backwards again. That is not the "government," that is Crime made Legal. That is nothing more, and nothing less, than a gang of criminals who somehow manage to keep from cutting each others throats long enough to divide and conquer the targeted victims, and they just so happen to have figured out how to convince the victims that they, the criminals, are the best that money can buy at fighting crime.

Call it government and you lose in two ways.

You help hide the criminals

You help hide any power that might be used to defend against the criminals

You reach for defense against the criminals and all you find are the criminals ready to help you do what?

"When all the states have the same currency, there's nowhere to go to get away from it."

When you look deeper into this process you will find the need, the criminal need, to have both the Fraud and the Extortion powers, which are actually three powers.

Falsehood (The Federal Reserve System of Legal Fraud)
Threats of Violence (The Internal Revenue System of Legal Extortion)
Aggressive Violence upon the innocent (without which the threats are meaningless, and then the lies are powerless)

Having only the One money power, The Federal Reserve, does not work, there has to be The Internal Revenue Service to create the exclusive need for the ONE MONEY.

Does the IRS accept frequent flyer miles, coupons from Wall Mart, cell phone minutes, bushels of pork bellies, stocks in a business, or anything other than the ONE MONEY?

Is that oddly convenient for someone?

"I think that if we work together, we can make at least Congress stop acting so crazy."

I ran for congress in 1996, was on the ballot in my district. I ran on the "it is not nice to torture and murder babies in Waco for fun and profit" ticket.

Recently I was part of the effort to hand deliver Legal Notices of Redress to each Congressman in each District in each State, it was a well done effort, and what was done?

Nothing other than more proof that the criminals are criminals, so why give them any credit for being anything other than criminals, they don't even follow their own laws. The system was built to be self policing, they police themselves, which means that they are untouchable, according to their own system, with few exceptions, when The People follow the rules that are the legal exceptions, then they don't follow their own rules.

What does that mean?

I went to the Reno Nevada Liberty Conference just recently. I personally asked the Speaker who spoke authoritatively about the move by Utah to go into the Independent Banking and Sound Money business. I asked him if they knew that it would then be Game Over for The FED, and The FED would probably not like it. He agreed, and he warned the people in Utah, so things are, of course, a struggle, a power struggle, and it will take a lot of people waking up real fast, or it will be very bad, very, very, bad.

"If the states imposed term limits on them, we'd have a whole bunch of freshmen in 2014."

Yes and the point there is that The States impose term limits, not the False Federal government. The States say hey, you, you are representing this State, so if you don't resign when your term limit is up, you are guilty of a crime in this State, get it?

Are you listening?

If the congressman does not abide by the States voluntary laws, then that congressman is at least no longer a representative of that State, and that can be known publicly, and there does not have to be a goon hired to poke that outlaw with a pointed stick, but We The People, in this State, pay outlaws a good wage, with retirement benefits, and a medical plan?

That is the point. When the federal employees got out of line the States were no longer interested in paying those employees. That is how Voluntary Associations work, and they constitute a Free Market, so that the people paying the bills get to choose which people get paid, and which people don't get paid.

You stop supplying the highest quality around, and your prices are higher than any other supplier, and you had better shape up, or find a job you can do competitively.

Why is that any different than shopping for an insurance policy when you have 10 choices, which was before "insurance" became an order you could not refuse?

What do extortionists do?

They say pay me. You say for what? They say insurance. You say for what. They say insurance for broken knee caps. You say I don't see any risks for broken knee caps. They brake one of your knee caps.

"If we can first put the emergency brake on Congress, then while we have their attention, give them our marching orders, might they execute those orders out of fear? Maybe?"

At this point the most powerful people have enough power that their fears are real, but they fear each other, not the victims, so don't make me laugh. What they fear is a failure to get World War III done on schedule and I think there is ample evidence suggesting that there are delays in the schedule, due to infighting.

That is a golden opportunity for Utah, many other States, to get their Competitive Sound Money Businesses going, and that won't cause fear, it will cause action, as the Criminals will all polarize (stop fighting each other) to take care in destroying any viable Legal Money Competitor. However, and this is big, there are BIG competitors working in other Countries, like Iceland, Venezuela, and others, so now is the time to push these limits, and keep in mind how Legal Criminals work, they will feed on each other for more leverage over each other, so this may be much more of the time to act in defense than I can ever know from where I sit.

I can't describe in words the look on the face of the speaker who spoke with me about Utah and what it means to The FED to have actual competition in Legal Money Markets. It is literally Game Over for Legal Criminals if they lose their World Reserve Currency Power.

Game OVER.

If those Legal Criminals find a viable threat to their World Reserve Currency Power, they will do everything to destroy it, but now there may be many competitors, many threats, and again, this is not new, this is why they put everything into World War. But this time may be our time, this time may be the time to reinstate Liberty here in a few States at first, moving back to Constitutionally Limited Republics, joined voluntarily in mutual defense AGAINST the criminals, including the criminals working for The World Reserve Currency Power, which is, again, The International Monetary Fund, which is currently denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, but that money is on the way out, and the new money will take over after World War III.

If they are delayed with their World War, that means something, that means that they are not as powerful as required to stay on schedule. What happens if their efforts to take complete control of China falter? What happens if instead of rushing into an all-out War with Iran is delayed because Troops are needed to Crush a Money Competitor in Utah? You don't think that the governors in Utah thought about this?

I talked to the guy advising the governors in Utah, the guy who spoke at the Reno Nevada Liberty Conference. I think they know.

Timing may be everything. If the Legal Criminals don't get their World War, it may be, once and for all, Game over. They may hide in their bunkers, and consume whatever they have stored, but they won't be getting another dime from honest productive people.

I am saying that you are on the right track with reaching for State Power, but I'm saying you have to get up to speed on Legal Money Power. If you don't stop the flow of power flowing out of the State into the Legal Crime Power, your opposition grows more powerful, and those on your side grow weaker. That is the Legal Money Power at work.

"I know I say "rep" and you think "criminal", but I'd rather have criminals running scared than running loose. If we can fix Congress, we are one step closer to restoring honest money, aren't we? If so, then yes, I'm definitely trying to move in that direction."

I don't think "criminal," I know, they define the meaning of crime upon their innocent victims. Who do they represent?


"I am monopolized to the point that the buck stops with the Constitution because it's what we have to work with right now and I think it's way better than what we're having to live with."

No, that is not what I read into your proposals, if you have a State, then that State has a competitive Constitution, and it is most likely more of a limitation upon those who would be, or are, criminals in office compared to the Monopoly Constitution (false federal) Power, because it is Local, because it is easier access for the victims, so that is the POWER that defeats the Monopoly Power, that is where there is enough Power, but not too much Power, to compete with the False Federal Power, again, send actual Representatives from the State, limited by the State Constitution, and it is great when the State Constitution agrees with agreeable things in the Monopoly Constitution at the False Federal Level, so agree with all that good stuff, like the Bill of Rights, your State may even have a Bill of Rights too, what is to disagree with in that way?

Who ever disagrees with The Bill of Rights?


Is that not a confession?

"I hope you write again, Joe. You are really making me think about what I really think."

I offer a lot of source information, but the best thing I've seen in a long time are the proposals here:


None of that goes against any agreeable parts to any competitive Constitutions with Bills of Rights, so what is to disagree with there, and do you see the value in those types of voluntary associations whereby people help each other defend against criminals who happen to be claiming authority falsely?

A few more links to work on if you see the value in this investment path:

Equitable Commerce

Mutual Banking

A New System of Paper Currency

Austrian Stamp Script


Money Masters

Math Based Economy

Guernsey Notes

Arbuck Plan

North Fork Shares

Las Vegas


Depression Script

Time Banks

Icelandic Revolution

The Biggest Game in Town

Imagine, if you can, each one of those Competitive versions of money working by Law in any number of Law Powers (Constitutionally Limited Republics) around the Globe.

Why is there one dominant money Power?

You can't say there isn't one, it is currently called The Dollar Hegemony, or the World Reserve Currency, or even The New World Order, or The International Monetary Fund, and it is very easy to find the criminals behind it, all that has to be done is to follow the Federal Reserve Notes back to the actual people writing the Fraudulent Checks, and then find the people who hired those paper pushers.

If someone bemoans any competitive form of money, resorting to name calling, resorting to arguments of fictional fabrications of dummies, called a Man of Straw argument, then that person doing that routine version of argumentation for-the-sake-of argument confesses either ignorance or willful falsifications.

Look here:


Bills of exchange, bank checks, and negotiable paper of all sorts add just so much to the body of the currency; and this issue is unlimited by law, and unlimited in fact, except by the exigencies of trade. They are just as really currency as the specie dollar, the greenback, or the bank bill. A field which has no fence up one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So, the volume of currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well entrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent—by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means.

Simple concepts like a 3 sided fence tell you, me, anyone caring to know, tell us how competition actually works.

Look here:


"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

Look here:


Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.

It is very easy to tell friend from foe, if the person in question works to create an involuntary association they will inevitably reach for lies, threats, and if those don't work, they will reach for aggressive violence. A liar, for example, will reach for character assassination when their lies are exposed, and they cannot resolve an obvious contradiction, so they shoot the messenger.

I read that all the time on this forum. They call their competitors names such as "green backers" or "monetary cranks" or whatever lie works to focus attention away from the actual contradictions that spew out of their mouths, dumping out of their mouths like a monopoly issue of fraudulent currency.

Don't get me wrong, concerning Gold as money paid by State Governments paying for, and voluntarily investing into, a Federated Union of Constitutionally Limited Republics, which is fine, so long as that is the Rules agreed upon by those people hired to run those legitimate forms of Voluntary Government.

Gold would chain down expenditures made by stupid, or criminal, employees who are hired to run Voluntary Governments, so in that way it is a good idea to use a commodity money in legal matters at that level of collective power.

But seriously, if Alaska offered oil as Union Dues, who would turn it down? How much is a barrel of oil worth in gold these days?



You talked about WWIII some. Did I understand you correctly about China winning WWIII being objective of the criminals? Why do "our" criminals want China to win WWIII? I have always assumed that our criminals rule the West, and that China has its own criminals.

Another thing - if we could replace most of Congress in 2014, those new members most likely would not know the things that you know and would only learn them "as needed" once they got to Congress, right? It seems like it would be very hard to "turn" that many new reps all at once. It might be more symbolic than real, but wouldn't that be like stepping in the ant hill, making the ants scurry and slowing their progress toward WWIII dramatically?

I didn't miss all that you wrote about the importance of competitive money...I just don't have any questions about it right now. It makes sense.

Thanks, Joe. :-)

Please consider

40to65 wrote:

"You talked about WWIII some. Did I understand you correctly about China winning WWIII being objective of the criminals? Why do "our" criminals want China to win WWIII? I have always assumed that our criminals rule the West, and that China has its own criminals."

If it can be understood that there must be a form of bond, or trust, among the criminals, then you can begin to see how there can only be one dominant group on our planet.

Even as the one Dominant Group of Criminals change over time, the fact remains that the one Dominant Group of Criminals are, in fact, the one Dominant Group of Criminals.

This is so easy to accurately measure at any time by anyone, criminal, or victim, any person, anywhere, anytime, can realize this fact.

Follow the one Dominant Legal Money to the Source of it, and there will be the most powerful Legal Criminals.

So try this out for yourself, find the most powerful Legal Money and follow it to the person, or the group of a few people, who have the power to increase that supply of money at will, and get away with it.

I am not sending you on a witch hunt. I am not asking you to do some wild goose chase. I am answering your question in a way that answers the question factually.

There is a phrase used by many people in our time, in English, and that phrase is World Reserve Currency.

The World Reserve Currency POWER is factually The New World Order.

That is factually the One Monopoly Criminal Power, or the Dominant Group of inhuman beings, and I use the word inhuman because that group of people must be lacking human brain function associated with productive, creative, adaptive, mutually beneficial, human, moral conscience.

Currently the World Reserve Currency is produced by the few people who have control over the Legal Unit of Fraud/Extortion Money known as Federal Reserve Notes.

If you take the time to trace that power to create, at will, that Legal Money Unit, there is where you will find the actual people who sign the orders to "double the money supply" on their orders alone, no?

You may follow that money trail to The Federal Reserve Board, but you may also find out that the "buck does not stop" there as the lawful orders, or licenses, or false authority, to control that money supply is actually based in a place, a legal fiction, called The International Monetary FUND, or just "The FUND."

So those few people who control the POWER to increase or decrease the number of Federal Reserve Notes have demonstrated their POWER to buy things.

They write themselves checks for as much money as everyone else combined. This is according to their own published, official, accounting, and this does not include any hidden accounting. So what are they going to buy with as much POWER to purchase as everyone else combined?

At this point you are supposed to think that it is too complicated for anyone other than a Political Economy Doctor of some official capacity and authority to understand.

It is not at all difficult to understand.

The Criminals are predictable. They lie. They threaten. They steal, and then they use the POWER they steal to steal more, since the criminals are more POWERFUL than the targeted victims who are made less powerful because the criminals took their power from them.

What does a Legal Money Monopoly Power do?

It moves POWER from those who produce POWER to those who steal that POWER so as to then over-POWER the victims.

Why is there only one Legal Monopoly Power?

You can't say that there are more than one, at least you can't prove it.

What is The World Reserve Currency?

If there is a World Reserve Currency, then there cannot be two World Reserve Currencies.

There is one.


That is the most POWERFUL gang of criminals at work, and they work to destroy all competition.

Who is on the list of people who have this World Reserve Currency Power?

It is not the 12 members of The Federal Reserve Bank in The United States. It is off-shore, it is hidden, it is always well hidden behind legal fictions, and the layers of legal fictions include at least two that are knowable.

The layer you know about is The Federal Reserve.

The layer overpowering that layer is The International Monetary FUND.

The denomination used by the Current World Reserve Currency Power is The U.S. Dollar, or The Federal Reserve Note.

That color of lawful money is on the way out, on purpose, as a routine, to Raid the Corporation known as The United States of America, based in Washington D.C., based on paper, based as a Legal Fiction, based as a False Front, whereby the criminals are now at work removing all the value out of that business, moving all the value out of that corporation, and what are they doing with all that value, what are they going to buy, and where are they going to store all that Power to Purchase once all that POWER is moved out of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)?

They are criminals, they act like criminals, and what do criminals always do, they abandon the old Name, the old False Front, as soon as the victims figure out that the wolf is hidden behind that sheep costume, and the criminals move to another False Front, another costume, and the criminals return to business as usual from the new False Front.

What will replace the Federal Reserve Note?

Here is where I can go two directions, first to the past, and then to the obvious future.

In the past was World War I and II which were purchases made by those who invested in those expenditures so as to profit from those investments, and one of the profits, one of the advantages, was the tearing down of the False Front of the English Money Monopoly Power and the building up of the False Front of The Federal Reserve Monopoly Power.


What does that information prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

To me it is obvious that the criminals are way ahead of the victims in the movement of their base of operations. The World Reserve Currency Power was already moved from England to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) before World War I. That is perfectly reasonable since The Federal Reserve was created along side of the Internal Revenue Service in 1913. In order to weaken the victims, and in order to Consolidate Power into the one Dominant Power, the investors agree to purchase World Wars, and they then hide their POWER behind a disguise of inevitable conflict, which is not inevitable, it is willful.

The routine was done in that time period of The Civil War too, but we can move ahead to the present and the probable future as the future is, in fact, investments made by the most powerful criminal group now in POWER on this planet.

Much like the example of Trade Wars, Currency Wars, and World Wars exemplified by World War I and World War II, with the moving of The World Reserve Currency Power from England to America, out with the old False Front, in with the new False Front, the current situation is a near carbon copy.

China is gaining by leaps and bounds in all forms of POWER, financial, political, and economic, and an obvious result will be a change from The International Monetary FUND, with a U.S. Federal Reserve Note, which is now being Collapsed, now having all the value stolen out of the Corporation, now, as we discuss this topic, U.S.A. is being Raided, and where is that POWER flowing?

Who is OWED the Lions Share of The National Debt?


That is the actual, official, record?

That does not include any hidden accounts?

The investors in War for Profit, as had already been done in The Civil War example, and had already been done in the World War I and World War II example, have already moved their POWER to the new location even before they spring the NEWS on their victims.

The Criminals running U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) have already moved, they are already operating out of The International Monetary FUND, but their False Front is already being exposed as a False Front, so what happens next?

World War.

After the extreme violence and destruction is over, with the investors who invest in all that violence and destruction profiting from it, after all the destruction, the investors will then give themselves no-bid contracts to rebuild anything worth rebuilding, so they profit on the BUST and the BOOM parts of The Business Cycle.

The Chinese may not be completely taken over, and they may actually USURP the POWER from those who currently OWN everything in the WEST, but the same thing happens in any case. Chinese, or Asian, POWER will be collecting WAR DEBT, as the New (same old routine) DEBT COLLECTORS on the Planet. Do you really think that there won't be any of the old Guard in the new location?

The investors are investing in China winning, and the actual list of people who will emerge as the most POWERFUL list of people will then have that World Reserve Currency POWER.

Same thing, new name.

That is a long answer to a short question.


"You talked about WWIII some. Did I understand you correctly about China winning WWIII being objective of the criminals? Why do "our" criminals want China to win WWIII? I have always assumed that our criminals rule the West, and that China has its own criminals."

Now, you do know, I trust, how proof in such things as math works, so you can reverse the equation, by solving the equation in reverse order, which is a competitive way of looking at something, measuring something observable, and by looking at something from other angles of view, you can gain a more complete picture, a more accurate viewpoint of the thing being viewed; many dimensions not just one.

So with that in mind consider the possibility of there being an actual Competition in Legal Money working on this planet Earth.

It was offered in the very long, wordy, description of how The World Reserve Currency Monopoly Power works, the way it works, it works as a tool used by investors as investors buy Wars and then those investors have all the power, and they can BOOM economies, as they are BOOMING China, and then they can BUST economies, as they are BUSING America, and they can buy those wars, and they can profit during the build-up for war, and they can profit during the clean up after war, and they can profit during the Wars, and they somehow gain more power all the time, and it works wonderfully for that small number of people who manage to somehow keep that Monopoly Legal Money Power working that way.

It has been working that way for centuries, with few exceptions.

So the idea is to view the exceptions, and from those exceptions there can be a check upon the viewpoint that a Legal Money Monopoly Power does exist.

There does not have to be One Legal Money Power ruling the world, not in our future.

The Exceptions to the Monopoly are Competitors that are isolated from, and not in competition with, the Monopoly Power.

What does that mean?

A Monopoly Power does not exist when there are competitors.

No one will willfully choose worse for better.

No one shopping freely for a better money will willfully choose a worse money.

So a Monopoly Money Power, where the victims have a choice, cannot exist.

So, therefore, what happens if Utah, and 11 other Sovereign Republics in America begin a new age of Wildcat Banking, as was the case before The Civil War in America?

What happens if any person on this planet Earth can Bank their earnings in Utah Gold Backed Dollars, redeemable in Gold, and at the same time, the same earner can hedge that savings with another account in Alaskan Petroleum Dollars, and hedge even more competitively in an Arizona Rare Earth mineral Dollar, on and on, and

In Wyoming may be a huge store of value in Lithium.


Gold dollars
Silver dollars
Petroleum dollars
Lithium dollars
World Reserve Currency Fraud and Extortion Dollars

If there is a choice, and people realize it, and then choices are made, and many people are making those choices, what happens to the NON-COMPETITION?

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

The Monopoly Power does exist, it is in your face, it is in my face.




There is no competition.

Competition forces (by the sum total of individual free market choices) quality up, and cost down.

Why is "our" money so expensive and worthless?

"Our" money is the best in the world?

Yes, but only because the criminals have taken over the world, and the criminals crush any viable competitor with few exceptions.

What happened in Iceland?

What happened here:




What was Wildcat Banking before The Civil War (so called, but it was anything but Civil)?

"Another thing - if we could replace most of Congress in 2014, those new members most likely would not know the things that you know and would only learn them "as needed" once they got to Congress, right?"

Please consider the price on your head. What is your price? If someone has POWER over you, someone has the power to write a check for as much money as every other person combined into one check that is more money, more power in LEGAL money, than the amount of every other person writing checks, and that person, with as much POWER in Legal Money as everyone else combined, finds you, and offers you a deal.

What is your price?

What is your price when someone finds you and makes an offer that they say you can't refuse?

I knew about this stuff when I ran for congress, not as much as I know now, but I did all that I had to do to get on the ballot, and I did all that I had to do to get on the ballot while I was working 70, or more, hours of hard labor a week, while I was raising 2 kids, while my wife was battling severe depression, and I had a few friends, at their own cost, helping me secure the required signatures to offset the filing fee.

Those criminals had just finished destroying all the evidence of their crimes in Waco Texas, so I knew what was on that road.

I now know even more about what is on that road.

What is your price?

What is the price of people who are not as strong as you?

What is your price?

"It seems like it would be very hard to "turn" that many new reps all at once. It might be more symbolic than real, but wouldn't that be like stepping in the ant hill, making the ants scurry and slowing their progress toward WWIII dramatically?"

At the level of a Constitutionally Limited Republic, the size of Texas, or Montana, or New Jersey, or Arizona, with 50 such Constitutionally Limited Republics to choose from, as in CHOICE, there is the solution to the Monopoly Problem, and it worked well enough when there were only 13 Choices from which to choose, so why would it not work even better with 50 competitive choices?

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

Free Money Markets, is Free Government Markets, one governs the other POWER.

The cart does not drive the horse.

"I didn't miss all that you wrote about the importance of competitive money...I just don't have any questions about it right now. It makes sense."

What is money?

It is powerful information, no?


So it could work?

So let's say that I go out today and find a location in my town to hold a town hall meeting for the purpose of symbolically voting Senator McCaskill out of office because she supports the Senate's version of immigration reform, for instance. A bunch of people from town show up to vote because that's what they consider a civilized, non-committal way of voicing their disdain. I box up the votes and send them to my state senator, with a letter asking him to relieve Senator McCaskill and to pass the legislation proposed by the Annette Spencer Project.

For the sake of optimism, let's say that some other people in Missouri do the same thing, and several Missouri senators get boxes of votes and letters in their mail. The senators notice that their constituents are activating in the only way they are comfortable with - by voting, and they are asking the state of Missouri to also activate. The senators introduce the legislation, which is really good for them and the state of Missouri unless they are "on the take" so badly that the idea is a joke to them or there is some other reason that passing the legislation would damage Missouri more than it has already been damaged.

But let's say that's not the case. The senators introduce the legislation and it passes with a veto-proof majority. One piece of legislation is a resolution that states the intention of the state of Missouri to mind its own business, protect its U.S. representatives from outside influences, insist on a federal budget, and declare its right to determine the constitutionality of all federal activities on behalf of the citizens of Missouri. So now the federal government and every state in the Union know what the Missouri government stands for and what its people are willing to do to have it that way.

Oh yeah, the Missouri legislature also recalls Senator McCaskill, relieves her based on some cool new state laws, and we elect her replacement.

Other people in other states follow suit, and their states follow suit. Plenty of states have asserted their right to interpose themselves between federal overreach and their people, as we've seen with medical marijuana, real ID, gun control, NDAA, and other issues (I spend a lot of time on the Tenth Amendment Center website, www.tenthamendmentcenter.com). Their action on these issues shows that they are aware that it is acceptable, although controversial, practice.

Next thing you know, people all over the country are inviting their towns to town hall meetings to vote. People in this country seem to like to vote. I think that the sleeping portion of Americans see protesting as an extreme, fringe activity that can turn unsafe at the drop of a hat. But they're ok with voting.

The states that have been sitting back on their haunches while this has been happening can't ignore their own people when they are doing the same thing that has prompted the states that have passed the legislation into action. Well, they can, but for how long?

I think we need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, right. I also think that is a realistic achievement. Do you? Or do you think I'm being too optimistic?

So we get the 17th Amendment repealed, and the states get their sovereignty with another amendment. Can't they then do whatever they want or need to do as far as protecting themselves against a single, all-powerful world reserve currency? If they can, and do, then what happens with the U.S. relationship with China where our debt to them is concerned?

I don't want war. I don't want the United States to be damaged any more than it already has, but I know that's not realistic. We're a mess.

But I don't even want protests. Sometimes protests turn into riots, and then people die. I want voting, because I think peaceful people will do that. Sleeping people will, too. So will busy people, and scared people, and people who don't want to do anything that might get them arrested. This kind of vote is a form of protest without the unappealing parts of protesting.

I think that if we don't try this town hall meeting idea combined with the state legislation for state sovereignty idea, we're going to skip right over protesting and go right into riots because when the people finally get hit where it hurts them personally, it's going to really hurt and they are going to be too shocked and angry to protest peacefully. And I also think that's the goal, based on the build up of DHS and the FEMA camps, not to mention the surveillance. The government expects us to riot. That's what they seem to be preparing for.

So while they wait for us to riot, let's vote instead, and activate our states to support us and declare their sovereignty.

We are swimming against a really strong current, don't you think? Is it better to just relax and let the current take us where it will, or to keep swimming as hard as we can toward the shore and hope we get there before we drown, hoping that we don't step on a land mine as soon as we hit the shore?

I don't know. I just know I need to keep swimming.

Can't know without trying

To me the horse drives the cart.

End the FED
Do so at the individual, family, business, Church, City, County, State Levels and the Federal Level withers and dies as it currently exists as a Money Monopoly Fraud Power Off-Shore

End the IRS
Do so at the individual, family, business, Church, City, County, State Levels and the Federal Level withers and dies as it currently exists as a Money Monopoly Fraud Power Off-Shore

Bring the Troops Home
Look in the mirror, there is the troop to be brought home first

Do all those chores by July 4th this year, or next year, start now, finish early.

"I think we need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, right. I also think that is a realistic achievement. Do you? Or do you think I'm being too optimistic?"

The people from the Top down who have the POWER to run this country into DEBT slavery are not chained down by any laws other than the laws they invent as they see fit, to fit the occasion, so change the Constitution all you want, and see how that works for you while the POWER flows out of each productive person, through The FED/IRS Fraud/Extortion Racket, and flows into those having that POWER.

If you offer a competitive alternative to investments into World War III, which is what is being invested into, with that POWER flowing from all the net producers in American, flowing through The FED/IRS Fraud/Extortion Racket, then your competitive offer will add to the many cuts current cutting down The FED/IRS Fraud/Extortion Racket, but the criminals know this, and they are prepared to make World War III go off on schedule, perhaps delayed by all those cuts, but none-the-less going off, on Plan B Schedule, or Plan C Schedule, so the proof of what actually does happen will be in the pudding when it happens.

I think there is hope in your efforts combined with many other individual efforts, all working honestly, all working productively, all working in competition to the ONE POWER.

If you do not try, they win. Optimism is competitive compared to Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.

As your efforts do focus upon a State Power fix, to me that is in the right direction, even though you are not focusing effort on grabbing the actual wooden stake that kills the vampires, meaning that you are not focusing effort on competition in legal money markets, as competition in legal money markets destroys The FED, and The IRS, and takes the FUND from those who control The Military Troops, so that has to be done, and that has to be done before the World Reserve Currency POWER is enforced by Asian Troops, since then it will be too late for us, it will be, at that time, out of our hands, and we will only have, at that time, a position of power-less-ness from which to mount a defense.

The window of opportunity closes once World War III goes off in rapid acceleration, exponential acceleration, such as a confrontation in Iran between all the sides that are currently being built up, just like the World War II scenario reported in the studies done by Anthony Sutton.

"So we get the 17th Amendment repealed, and the states get their sovereignty with another amendment. Can't they then do whatever they want or need to do as far as protecting themselves against a single, all-powerful world reserve currency?"

That to me is the fix that has to be done that way. The paperwork is merely incidental. The actual people, as in The People, in each State have to mount a defense that retakes control of their own State Governments, and then the Offer that can't be Refused, offered by the Criminals running The FED/IRS, off-shore, Fraud/Extortion Racket are told by The State Employees, those Governors, limited by their own Constitutional Republics, tell the criminals at The False Federal Government to pound sand.

The criminals are not going to like such disobedience.

The criminals will work all together at once to then CRUSH that disobedient slave group, at that State Level.

This is what was obvious to me and the person who was hired to consult the governors in the State of Utah, it was obvious to us, because History shows what happens in such cases, where Monopoly Power is faced with a Powerful Competitor, or two, or three, or four.

If Utah is this far along already, you have to know that there is POWER Struggles all along this path, in Utah, now, to subvert that effort, to Annex that effort, to monopolize, to consolidate, to incorporate, to pay off, to buy, to take over, to win over, to threaten, to dirty deal, that effort, which is how the game is played by the rules of criminals defined by criminals, and criminals are, if nothing else, predictable.

Criminals always lie.

Criminals always threaten.

Criminals always resort to violence upon the innocent victims who have anything worth stealing.

"If they can, and do, then what happens with the U.S. relationship with China where our debt to them is concerned?"

No idiot, in even a distorted, mutated, psychotic, mind would ever invade China, Russia, or The United States seeking a Military take over, just look how Hitler managed with his disease ridden mind, financed by Wall Street, the whole time, and see how any human, or inhuman, being can rationalize house to house take over, by foreign troops, in any of those Countries with those people living in those Countries.

If this place here, this Country, returns to a Free Market Government Design, a working Republic, like it worked between 1776 and 1788, there is no POWER on Earth that can compete against it.

The criminals know that, and that is why they had to subvert it in 1787.

I have to go eat.

I want to finish reading and commenting on your reply soon.

"The government expects us to riot. That's what they seem to be preparing for."

Your sentence exemplifies the problem. You say "government" instead of criminals. That means, in real terms, that you are blaming the very thing that is needed to stop the criminals, the very thing that is needed to stop criminals from making crime pay so well, is the very thing you blame when you seek to blame the criminals for the crimes perpetrated by those criminals.

The criminals take away the POWER of money.

That is what they do.

Then the criminals give back the POWER of money.

That is the other thing done.

That creates The Business Cycle.

What did Ron Paul repeat, over, and over, and over again?

Learn how The Business Cycle works.

"The government expects us to riot. That's what they seem to be preparing for."

The criminals do this routinely, in every country, as if on a regular, thoughtful, willful, schedule, and it works the same way, each time, with few exceptions.

What are the exceptions?

The time between 1776 and 1787 in America offer one exception, the most useful exception to We The People in America.

The recent example in Iceland is another exception.

"So while they wait for us to riot, let's vote instead, and activate our states to support us and declare their sovereignty."

Sovereignty from what?

The cart or the horse?

"We are swimming against a really strong current, don't you think?"


The honest productive people are transferring the power they create to criminals because the criminals claim that the only way that the honest productive people can find happiness is to send more, and more, and more, money to those criminals.

Each injury to the honest productive people is falsely seen as a need to send more money to the criminals.

How does that work?

The honest productive people grow weaker by the minute.

The criminals grow stronger by the minute.

Many honest productive people turn to crime themselves.

All that happens for the want of an honest account of who is honest and productive and who is merely criminal.

The key is sound money, or accurate money, or high quality, powerful, money, whereby the money is driven higher in quality, and the money is driven to lower and lower costs, because honest productive people demand it, and many competitors are fighting each other to supply what the honest productive people demand.

Why is there no credit earned by honest productive people?

The ONE MONEY POWER is a DEBT based POWER, it is False, it is Fraud, it is Extortion, it is the ONE MONEY POWER, and it crushes all competition, and when it wants to starve the honest productive people, turning them in to criminals, it does so, and it does so routinely, the same way, each time, by making honest money, or sound money, or accurate money, scarce for the victims, and plentiful for the criminals.

Why is it not painfully obvious that honest people need honest money if honest people are going to be as productive as they can be, when they want to be, productive on their own honest, productive, schedules, instead of having everything ordered to be done, when to be done, how to be done, by the ONE MONEY POWER?

Why is that not painfully obvious to everyone?

What is the spell, the virtual lobotomy, done to everyone, to stupefy everyone, with few exceptions, concerning the POWER of money when it is competitive (free market), compared to the POWER of money when it is Monopolized (criminalized)?

I don't know the answer as to what is the spell that works to stupefy, lobotomized, so many people.

I'm not stupefied.

I'm not lobotomized.

"Is it better to just relax and let the current take us where it will, or to keep swimming as hard as we can toward the shore and hope we get there before we drown, hoping that we don't step on a land mine as soon as we hit the shore?"

When no money is the case, as will be the case if the criminals get their way with you, and your neighbor, not just the weaker people, when the criminals get their way with everyone, there is no longer any money, it is all at that time going to be merely Dictatorial Orders Issued by the criminals. This happens that way every time when the criminals take over, on schedule, and there is no shortage of examples in history proving the fact of the matter.

For want of sound money, what happens to honest productive people?

Once the social blood is drained completely out of the social body, what remains to be the fact of the matter concerning that corpse?

The body feeds upon itself at that point, for want of sound money.

You may not understand how that works, but the criminals do not misunderstand how that works, they make it happen that way, on their exclusive schedule because they take over the POWER of money, and they are the only source of LEGAL money.

The Cart is government, the horse driving the cart is money.

Who has control over the horse?

You want to get control of the cart?

"I don't know. I just know I need to keep swimming."

The analogy there is that the swimmers are lacking oxygen, so they are treading water. The DEBT is the water, the water is not oxygen, oxygen is sound money.

So the social body is downing in DEBT, for lack of oxygen, so why are people asking the criminals who are supplying the abundance of water, for oxygen?

Please sir, can I have some more?

What do you think you are going to get when you pay the criminals more so that the criminals will give you more?

You will never run out of water to then have to swim faster and faster to get free of the water and get some oxygen to breath.

Is that not simple to see?

Did you not look at this:


What is in the way of the social body finding an abundance of oxygen with which to find happiness in the form of abundant supplies of everything needed or wanted?

For want of sound money, or for want of oxygen, life ends on either level.

Millions of lives are destroyed in the social body.

Millions of cells are destroyed in the living body.

For want of the power to survive.

Is that not easy to see?

If not, why not?

What is the POWER at work that keeps the POWER of knowledge away from the victims of ignorance?

You may be fully awake, one individual within a million souls, not at all ignorant in your case, not adding to the collective sum total of ignorance in the face of extreme clear and present danger to humanity, but why does Henry Ford's worries not become real?

"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

Well enough for who?


Thanks for that!

Thanks for that!

It is a great start

Interesting stuff. I'll start with just a couple comments:
1. I don't quite get the main purpose (the first legislation). So you want State Representatives to pass this legislation? Wouldn't they need to then filter the same system down to their counties?Because, if you think a Federal Senator is going to vote to remove their monopoloy on the system, you have too large a mountain to climb.

2. I think the second piece of legislation goes against your main idea. It is written as though you want the state government to pass a law making the counties and municipalities operate a certain way. Doesn't that flow the wrong direction? It is much more grass-roots and liberty-focused to push these ideas in your town and then your county - then they can give the state government the old middle-finger salute. Isn't that much more "community" oriented? Why ask the irresponsible bankster friends in your state capital to make you and your neighbors responsible? I just think that the community needs to take over their community first, reject state statutes, and make themselves free.

All that said, I congratulate you on interesting ideas and doing something. I look forward to discussion and updates.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Thank you :-)

That was very fast. This is awesome.

1. In response to the comment about the first legislation, yes, the states are very important to saving the Constitution right now, because they are only thing with the power to put any cuffs on the federal government at this point. But they are much smaller and much easier to reach out and touch as real people. My state rep lives about 1/2 hour from me.

The top priority is to yank the power out of the hands of the federal government, and the states can do it if we can convince them to. They may end up with too much power, but we can deal with them if we have to, in the same way we deal with the federal government.

The state wouldn't have to filter anything down to the counties. What I have found is that most state legislatures are out of session right now. We could have the whole project up and running by the time the states go back to work. Our part doesn't require any legislation at all. What we do supports the legislation and makes it so that we already control the review process so the states don't have to deal with it. Our part is nothing more and exercising our right to free speech and to petition our grievances.

Our U.S. reps and senators have absolutely no say in what we are doing. It's not illegal, and it's not disruptive. It's a meeting. Until the states get involved, it's just a way to protest.

We schedule town hall meetings, at least one in every county in the U.S. district, or in the state for a senator. More in cities because of the population. We hold them every week night until the whole district or state has had a chance to attend the one in their town or precinct.

When the schedule is set up, we invite the rep to attend and send him the schedule. Of course, he doesn't attend, but we do. During the meetings, we talk about the reason the rep is being reviewed, and at the end of meeting, we vote to retain or relieve him.

Remember, each of us is only responsible for a small number of town hall meetings, possibly only one. So it's easy for us. It just takes a long time, and if the rep wants to keep his job, he'll want to attend at least some of those meetings or send a rep to attend them all. It will be excruciating for a rep, and very excruciating for a senator. But very easy for us. We can do it over and over if we need to. They can't.

If the state doesn't notice what its people are doing right away, it will eventually if it sees review after review of its U.S. reps. At some point the state will have to act because of the pressure we apply to them.

The state doesn't have to set up a system for reviewing. We will already have it set up and will be managing it ourselves. What we need are term limits on our U.S. reps, we need them to have to take the state oath which would symbolize that the U.S. reps actually work for us, and we need the state to relieve a rep if we vote to relieve him, and hold an election. That's all we need the states to do, as far as the first piece of legislation goes. We have the review covered ourselves with this project.

2. The intent of the second piece of legislation is to restrict the localities from getting money from outside interests and spending it on things we wouldn't approve of, without our knowledge or permission.

DHS is providing grants to towns and cities to build up their police forces. That is the problem I'm actually trying to solve. The federal government is sneaking into our towns behind our backs and behind our states' backs and building up their ability to oppress us.

You saw what happened in Boston. That was so over the top, and I don't want my town to ever be able to do that. I think it's ok for states to pass laws that restrict towns from being the "extension arm" of the federal government so it can put its hands on us. That's really all that's about.

I imagine that towns already have to publish their budget, but I don't know if they have to report that grant money from DHS. I think we should get to decide for ourselves whether our towns can even apply for that money.

Our towns should answer to us, and our states, and the federal government. They should all answer to us, and they'll never have to if they are allowed to keep secrets and do things while we have no recourse.

I think once we get organized, we can conduct reviews of any politician at any level of government we want. That has to happen first. They have to be operating within the confines of the Constitution, and then we can have the debate about what that means to us individually.

But we can't do anything but watch the Constitution die if we don't organize, and soon.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. I'll keep working on it.

Still a little confused

You say that at this town hall meeting whomever is there will remove the elected representative. I suppose you could interpret that as legal, in the sense that it isn't "illegal". But, if there is no law either way, how do you enforce it? Say you are successful and a bunch of Ron Paul people meet at the town hall in a small town and decide to "remove" their representatives. Then what? You send a letter to the representative telling them to clear their office? I just don't see it working as a matter of practicality.

And, it may be "legal", but is it moral? Is it appropriate for a small group of people within a larger electorate of citizens to negate the last election? I have some issues with that. I would like to get rid of everyone in both the state and federal capitals, believe me. But, the people are dumb enough to vote for them every four years. And, while they may be brain-controlled sheeple, they still have to have the same rights as us.

And, even if it did happen every week in every county, where is this "pressure" coming from? Unless you have 75% of the citizens and 100% of the media helping you, I again don't see it working.

I'll dig in deeper. I think the premise is solid, I just think the implementation is impractical and would take many, many years.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Until it's a law that's passed and enforced...

...by the states, any vote to relieve a U.S. representative or senator would just be a statement by the people. It wouldn't have any force of law as it is, without state legislation.

If everything goes as I'm hoping, it wouldn't just be a town hall meeting of Ron Paul supporters. It would be many, many meetings of local voters all over the district who had been informed of the meetings and came to the their meeting to have a voice, even if that was all it was.

In my state, during the 2012 primaries, my state changed from primary to caucus, but something happened with the scheduling, so the primary was still held, only it was called a "beauty contest". Those of us who voted in that primary knew that our votes at the primary meant nothing, but we went to vote anyway, and the results were announced, even though they meant nothing.

I think people are starving for some way to be heard right now, because our representatives aren't listening to us. You can even watch the MSM and see that. People are not happy at all with what they are learning about their government. I think that even if it is nothing more than a statement of protest of the government's behavior, they will show up at the town hall meetings to cast their votes.

I'm hoping that if enough people show up to vote, the states will take notice and pass the legislation for us. I tried to give the states plenty of incentives to pass it, with taking charge of our U.S. representatives and senators from their election/re-election with the requirement for the state oath and imposing term limits, to resolving their state sovereignty, to ultimately repealing the 17th Amendment and adding an amendment to invoke state sovereignty as a mandate of the Constitution. There are some good things for the states if they support this project.

As far as the legality and morality of it, the Constitution is supposed to restrain the federal government and stay within its defined powers. If it's not in the Constitution, and doesn't violate the Constitution, then it's up to the states and the people. That's our right guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

Morality is a huge deal for this project - Ron Paul has told us that the Constitution won't work without a moral people, and I believe that. There is a moral code for the project, or there wouldn't be a project. I agree with you that it would be immoral to have a very small group to have the power to relieve an elected representative. But that's not what's going on. Every constituent has to be provided the opportunity to vote, and that means lots of prior public notice and lots of town hall meetings.

From the top, it looks big and complicated. It takes weeks for a U.S. representative to be reviewed, and months for a senator. From the ground, it's very simple:

- Make a small group of 7-10 people
- learn your area's voting statistics
- decide how many town hall meetings your group can handle
- make friends with local law enforcement
- find a suitable location
- buy and/or gather your supplies and equipment for the meeting(s)
- spread the word, coordinate with other groups
- build your contact roster
- wait and stay ready
- when the time comes, conduct a town hall meeting, or a few

When you have enough groups in your U.S. district to cover the voting population (I'm estimating 1-5 town hall meetings per county in rural areas, maybe up to 20 meetings or more in a major city so that would take quite a few small groups) then the review process can open up in that district.

The way I have it set up, it doesn't require many people to generate a review of a U.S. representative, but it requires a large majority of counties within a U.S. district in a rural area, or state districts within a U.S. district in a city. The way I have that set up is arbitrary and would be determined by the state legislatures or the project as it operates within each state.

I'm making it so that the project is recognizable across the country for what it is, but the states run their own chapters in their own way, according to what's right for them and what their state legislatures will agree to. All I do is help get the word out and provide the basic principles and procedures of the project, so that "community organization" is easier from the ground up.

As for media, we'll be making a lot of our own, for the most part, and then there's Ben Swann who might like the idea if you guys like it enough to support it. I expect that if we get any MSM attention, it will be controversial at best, but it's still media coverage. And I read about a poll recently that people trust the media about as much as they trust Congress. That gave me some hope.

I don't think people, even sheeple, necessarily vote for Boehner, McCain, or Graham because they want to. I think they vote for them because their party won't give them any other choice and they refuse to vote for a Democrat. Same goes for the people who keep voting for Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein. They're stuck. We can get them unstuck. They might start paying more attention to what's going on if they know their voice means something. I think that might be helpful.

If I read Michael's numbers correctly this morning, I saw that there were 44 online at the time, 990 had been on in the past day, and something like 108k guests. We have the numbers to do the town hall meetings. All we have to do is go to town and do some homework and get ready to host the meetings. The rest is just some prep and coordination and talking about the project.

I named the project after my mother who died last year. I'm not trying to do anything illegal, immoral, or underhanded. I'm actually trying to honor her, and you, and Ron Paul. We are his "tireless, irate minority". We can change this country by the next election.

I'm glad you gave me the chance to go into more detail about the legal and moral aspects of the project. Thanks for your input. :-)