-41 votes

Are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Barry Goldwater, and Justin Amash all duping you?

EDIT AND DISCLAIMER: The title of this thread is a rhetorical question. It is designed to stimulate discussion. I am a big fan of each of the persons mentioned and am in no way implying they've 'duped' anyone. I thought that would be obvious from this post.

_____________________________________________

That would seem like quite a stretch. This post is aimed at those who believe in "secret legal system" type theories, such as the whole sovereign citizen mythology, strawman stuff, redemption/ UCC protocols, etc.

All of these ethical, brilliant men, who are or were the leaders of the libertarian movement, have one thing in common: they never say anything about this stuff. Ever. None has ever said there is a straw man. None has ever said there is an secret legal system, or that we operate under "admiralty law" (rofl) or that one can file a UCC-1 and somehow take a security interest in one's self, magic word defenses, or any of the other (frankly) gibberish that get floated around this site regularly by a few posters.

Why is that? I'd like to know the explanation for this, from those few. Do you believe they are "in on it?" Are they "secret double agents" or is there some other supernatural explanation you have? If so, please do tell! I'm trying to understand your participation in a movement that doesn't really have anything to do with your ideas. Respond, and flame, away.

The poultry abides.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Let's repeat history a while longer ...

since unconstitutional arguments have been extremely effective!

I see

Since arguments grounded in the plain text of the universally recognized supreme law of the land and in the commentaries written by the universally beloved founders of the country have been unsuccessful in many cases in resisting the expansion of state power, you want to switch strategies and base your arguments on purely fictional and barely comprehensible legal theories stitched together in a half-assed manner by some random guys on the internet and which have never been successful in any court of law?

Yea, good plan. /sarc

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No, you don't see yet.

nt.

I don't see what?

...the point you've failed to make?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

no of course not

but those aren't the subjects of this thread. And Ron Paul isn't full of crap in any respect as far as I am concerned. The point is that he doesn't support your gibberish legal theory. Since you say anyone who doesn't agree with you is a dupe/sheeple/governemnt worker, I asked, are you going to say that about him? Or will you admit you got nothin'? The choice is yours, join the human race or keep on hoaxin'

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Do you pay income tax

since you agree there is no law that can be cited which requires one to file and the 16th Amendment is not legit?

do you bathe regularly?

do you floss your teeth?

Wipe your butt?

Come on now, tell us all!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Do you pay income tax

since you agree there is no law that can be cited which requires one to file and the 16th Amendment is not legit?

well of course

and I never said I agree with that.

I believe there are arguments to the effect taht it may or may not have been properly ratified, but you can say that about many of hte amendments which the legal system takes as having been properly passed. I know this gets confusing for you, but there is a thing called respect for the rule of law. I recognize the courts have the ability to define the law, and I respect laws even when I don't think they are super duper awesome for me personally. There is a method to change that. That method doesn't involve pretending that we are under admiralty jurisdiction. Sorry. And, I'm pretty sure Ron pays his taxes, too!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

If there is no law which can be cited

that requires one to file and the 16th Amendment is not legit then what is there to argue?

I don't really have an

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other but you are asking for someone to prove something, which if it is true, has been deliberately hidden from them. You are not providing any evidence that it isn't true, besides stating that certain people have never mentioned it in the way you would expect them to, if it was true. And then you mock them because they can't produce irrefutable evidence of that which either doesn't exist or has been hidden. I keep an open mind. It might be true. It might not be true. You are not going to prove or disprove anything with your confrontational tactics of trying to prove that which cannot be proven. Does the Lieber Code exist and was it ever repealed? Did the Union's victory in the civil war put the original republic back together? If so, how did a military conquest recreate a voluntary compact? I think these are more important and relevant questions.

eh

not going to prove a negative to you.

I don't need to prove the obvious and generally accepted exists. We all know that already.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Good question, phrased poorly

Because the UCC, soverign man stuff if posted regularly on this site, it would be good to try and nail down where some stand on the issue.

I would love to hear Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Mike Scheur, Will Grigg, etc, al least give their insights on the topic. Now that Woods has his radio show, maybe he would be willing to devote 10 minutes to it?

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

I would too!

This post was a little over the top, I admit that. But if there is something to it, let's see it!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Admiralty Laws...

I have never found enough supporting information to believe. That is the kind of thing Jordan Maxwell talks about. What is your thought on Agenda 21, when it comes to population and transitioning society to a feudal state? Do you believe the CFR is a propaganda arm of the UN to manipulate nations to join the collective world government? Do you believe one man killed Kennedy? I just want to know what you think about these subjects, feel free to make a character analysis on me if you want.

Agenda 21, PNAC, CODEX ALIMENTARIUS and UN biodiversity study. Help me understand why I shouldn't think there is a big agenda against the wishes of the masses.

I take it you were asking the OP...

...but I'll respond as well.

1. The existence of the several agreements, treaties, policy proposals, etc collectively labelled "agenda 21" is documented fact. Anyone can go to the relevant government websites and view the documents. That agenda 21 is basically a proposal for world socialist government is also documented fact: again, just consult the official documents. The only debatable issue is whether this is good or bad. Obviously it's horrible from a libertarian perspective.

2. I wouldn't characterize the CFR as a propaganda wing of the UN. The CFR precedes the UN by several decades. I'd say rather that the CFR and the UN are both arms of the same special interest group. But anyway, yes, the purpose of both organizations is to promote world government (among other nefarious things). That both organizations were created by the same group is documented historical fact, and there's plenty of evidence to infer their motives.

3. I don't think Kennedy was killed by a "lone nut," contrary to the official story. Who did kill him and why is an open question. I suspect the mafia and CIA had him killed for a variety of reasons, ranging from his investigation of the mafia to his clashes with the foreign policy establishment over certain issues. That said, I'm not one to make a martyr of Kennedy. From a libertarian perspective, he was really no better than Eisenhower, Nixon, or Johnson.

...so, I guess the point of your question was to find out whether critics of 'freemanism' reject all fringe views out of hand. And, for my part anyway, the answer is no, I only reject the stupid ones, like freemanism.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

character analysis?

why would I make a character analysis on you?

You start off demonstrating some amount of reasoning when you say you have never found enough supporting information to believe. So that is good. Not sure if that is "character" but it certainly isn't "bad character".

Agenda 21 is something that I really haven't bought into. To me it seems like an attempt to connect too many dots to draw too large a conspiracy, and very Alex Jones-ish.

Your question about the CFR - I'll say it doesn't matter whether CFR is a propoganda arm of the UN if it is the UN's BFF and they stand for the same things (virtually) now does it? But I am not a fan of either, in terms of their effect on US sovereignty and our political representatives' participation in the CFR.

I haven't studied the Kennedy thing in detail. I've seen the movies, I've talked to people, and probably have as much info as many people who are super-opinionated about it. But it's just not my nature to be super opinionated about a subject unless I really know it. So, I'll just say there is a lot that raises curiousity and questions, and not any really credible voices I've heard that are fomenting a sound conspiracy theory.

That doesn't mean that someone like Oliver Stone can't have all the answers, it's just hard for me to buy into them with that as a source. But I don't discount the idea of there being a conspiracy and there are plenty of actors that would have had the motivation to do it...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You ought to look into Agenda 21 chicken...

...it's not fictional.

Primary documents can be found here

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yeah, can you imagine what this superchicken could accomplish

if he just focused on something important?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Take note dear reader

As of this posting, none of the freemen/sovereign-citizen types have yet answered the OP's question. Could it be because they know full well that neither Ron Paul, nor Tom Woods, nor any other leading lights of the liberty movement share their beliefs?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

the world needs pizza!

the demand for delivery guys is at an all time high!

All is not lost! Just because, after this post, no one will buy your fake legal scams anymore, doesn't mean you can't earn a nice living providing roundish doughey food with processed cheese and sausage! Come on now! Think of the opportunities! Rejoice in the free market!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The bottom line

Anyone who takes an oath to be bounded to the duties and prohibitions of the US Constitutional capacity AND accepts Federal Reserve Notes as tender for that claimed capacity IS IN BREACH OF DUTY TO THAT OATH!

Does this mean I don't appreciate some of their efforts? NO.

It simply means that they are in Breach of Duty to Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution. Anyone under oath can use this as an angle to begin to bring down the Federal Reserve through court action IF they come at this from the proper position.

I really don't care how good they are or how smart they are. The facts are the facts and accepting the private banksters' mathematically guaranteed to fail debt note as tender for that capacity is a breach of their voluntary oath and duty.

If we are going to abide by the Law then all of them should obey their oath because it is a breach to do anything else for that capacity.

Trying to play a code game to tweak things around this or justify a breach is living as nation of men not of laws.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I can always count on phreedom

I may not ever agree with anything he says, but he will at least start out trying to address the topic.

Thank you for that.

of course you're wrong, but thank you for that.

So, anyone who accepts federal reserve notes is a scumbag (I'm paraphrasing here)? Really? What kind of a standard is that? What does that make you? Do you live on handouts and dumpster diving? notthatthere'sanythignwrongwiththat..

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I said exactly what I mean

Article 1 Section 10 applies to all under the capacity of the oath. It has no application to the people not under that capacity whatsoever.

You wish to double speak. Essentially you are saying the Constitution is Law yet the law does not apply and does not need to be obeyed by those who bound themselves to the law.

Double speak all wrapped up as "you're wrong". What's the matter, can't uphold the law? Maybe that is because you live outside the law aka you are an outlaw.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

at least your gibberish more concise now

but I still have no idea what you mean by "the law does not appy and does not need to be obeyed by those who bound themselves to the law." I also find it humorous that you follow that sentence immediately with an accusation that I am engaging in "double speak." Funny guys, you sovereigns.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You don't know what it means

to claim the Constitution is Law and then state that someone who takes an oath to it doesn't have to abide that law?

Let me make it simpler for you

Constitution = Law for those under its capacity
Article 1 Section 10 Lawful Tender = Gold and Silver Coin
Federal Reserve Note = Private Bank's Debt Note (unlawful tender)
Lawful Tender ≠ Unlawful Tender

Man claiming to be in Constitutional Capacity Not obeying the Constitution = Breach of Duty

Got that?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

your analysis is quite poor

Federal reserve notes at present are legal tender. Using them doesn't mean that one is not governed by the Constitution, or whatever the cluck you are trying in vain to express. It doesn't really matter, because it is almost certainly just more gibberish.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Doesn't Article 1 Section 10

Doesn't Article 1 Section 10 refer to specifically the states? Not that I like the Fed's dissonant reserve notes, but Can't the federal government, constitutionality speaking, make up whatever money or processed money-like substance they like, including for payment of U.S. citizens, while the States (not even the people within those states) cannot use it?

**disclaimer - This post is not intended to imply any endorsement of Uncle Ben's funny money**

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

It applies to the States and Federal Government

The Federal Government is suppose to be enforcing the contractual bounds of the States in the US Constitution. Even the courts themselves admit that the Constitutional ratifiers intent was to have a single tender across the United States.

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/31-3/...

Notice how the ratifiers made comments like printing paper money would be essentially the "mark of the beast" and yet the "courts" turn everything around from all the intent of the ratifiers to come to exactly the opposite conclusion of all their reasoning.

Question is where is the Jury's case law ruling on this. All judges have a conflict of interest on ruling whether or not they can be paid in tender that is not Constitutionally authorized.

If they want to make FRNs or "any thing" else tender they can use Article 5 Amendment process. Until an proper lawful Amendment is issued any code to accepting "any thing" else is in violation of Article 1 Section 10. Even if a new tender is lawfully defined that does not make it ex-post facto for immunity of those who are now in Breach of Duty.

A nation of laws will actually obey the law. A nation of men will listen to and allow other men to corrupt those laws into something allowing that which the law was intended and designed to stop. This should be common sense but it shows how far down the hole of insanity and confusion we have gone.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Are you too time poor to do your research?

Ron Paul has spoken out about corruption on many levels in many areas of Washington and it's politics.
He may not use the words you do, but the message is clear.
Please keep in mind that it is dangerous to piss off "The Beast".
I'm not going to hand fed you, if you are really interested, you will find it.