How much of what is mine do you think is yours?

You're familiar with the phrase: "What's yours is mine and what's mine is yours"?

Will this was my exes skit on that saying. My property was effectively hers. But her property was most definitely not mine. She was quite explicit about that.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Yes of course our early American government was certainly designed as an instrument of 'force'. But, keep in mind, it was intended to bring force on the side of PROTECTING individual sovereignty and rights from tyranny!

Not just the majority's rights, but being a Republic, it included the rights of the minority as well. That is the RULE OF LAW! Its 'objective' was based on personal sovereignty and property rights, period!

But there was a little problem. Not ALL the founders favored 'liberty' and protection of common people's property. To these particular aristocrats in the group, it meant they could NOT lay claim to another's labors or wealth, where in England, they were 'privileged' by the King to do just that, so it threatened their 'divine privilege of stealing' from another.

The other group who favored individual property rights and sovereignty, were outraged by this old, stinky, familiar attempt to install the same old same old, 'divine rights of Aristocrats', and they protested vehemently to the point of calling it 'treasonous' to the new American Declaration.

So, we can trace a pattern from the intricate process of developing the Constitution in 1787 when the two groups formed; Alexander Hamiltons' public relations coup, calling themselves falsely, the Federalists, (even though they leaned way more toward 'centralized form of government' similar to a monarchy, even suggesting that G.Washington ought to be the first American 'King').

This stance forced the 'limited form of government' folks, to call themselves, falsely, The Anti-Federalists, even though they favored the most forceful government protections OF sovereignty and property rights of the American individual.

Alexander Hamilton was the British bankers' plant, just like Wilson was the banker's plant for their charter to print the money in 1913. And it continued until they finally manuevered their ducks in a row when they staged a coup of the private racket called, the Federal Reserve, 126 years later.

We need to point out however, all those in Congress WHO DID NOT SPEAK OUT when they had the chance. It made Congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. seem like Dr. Ron Paul today, the way he ranted at the bankers. There was just silence from those who ought to have championed this as an attack of our property rights.

Had there been more noise and uproar from Congress at that timing, it would have been declared 'Un-Constitutional' and simply not allowed. But the bankers secretly bought off so many of those in the House, it guaranteed their final success. They were confident in their scheme this time.

It is precisely what Edmund Burke meant when he said, "All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I point this out, none, because to this very day, the 'central government' types always stand to gain the most by stealing from all of us.

It certainly was NOT the fault of our Constitution.

It is self evident if you study the Federalist Papers. This led to the intense, 60 balloting of wording and designing of the Bill of Rights by the limited government folks like Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington.

Keep in mind while they struggled with these intense forces of domination from 'within' this newly forming nation, the outer forces of domination, Britain, France and Spain, were waiting to strike a coup at the slightest weakness, because America owed lots of money to France and Spain.

We can safely say this liberty movement today, is the revival of the 'anti-Federalist Federalists' of 1787!