The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Rougher for some

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rough Seas Ahead? (see in situ)

Rougher for some

DISCLAIMER: Responses are balanced in the effort to be authoritative enough to be a competitive viewpoint while remaining open to challenge by leaving follow up questions.

"but above all, we must have Godspeed, Divine Favor, or very little can hoped to be accomplished."

Here to me is the brilliance of knowing, or believing very strongly, in a power that works both internally and externally guiding life toward higher quality and lower cost for as long as that power remains powerful enough to accomplish that goal against any competitive power.

If that knowing or that strong belief is absent then why would anyone do anything with any conviction, desire, drive, force, or power, such as the example of inventing, producing, and then employing government power?

If that knowing or that strong belief is present, driving, and working to cause someone to do things, but the person is unaware of it, or not in some way willfully in control of it, then what exactly is that power by that very definition in English which merely intends to ask the question defined in real time by real people who really are driven to do very bad things by some very bad forces, habits, thoughts, or powers?

What is that power if it is not good by definition?

I like your rewrite because your willful employment of your power is focused on removing all external power that may have you under external control, by some unseen method, whereby you are willfully taking complete control over your own power to use English in such a way as to convey exactly what you ALONE want to say as much as possible with the obvious single exception of you welcoming the external control of God, a power of good, which is definable and therefore not false, not mysterious, not unwelcome, not secret, not hidden, not covered up, not deceptive, not covert, not evil, not tricky, not anything but a force for absolute good, and therefore worthy of acceptance as a guiding force.

No hidden meanings lurking between the lines if humanly possible?

What is the goal, other than to help other people find a guiding power for good, when anyone on a path of good, is endeavoring to accumulate power so as to employ that accumulated power for good in this specific plan of defense known by many names such as GOP?

Why not speak accurately instead of ambiguously or falsely?

"...or very little can hoped to be accomplished."

Given the fact that power is needed because the fact is that power is being used to do very bad things to very many people, so given the fact that power is needed, for defense, and therefore the first accomplishment is to gain power of a sufficient quality (not aggressive, not causing "collateral damage"), and quality (power of numbers), so as to deal with that destructive power, what is the goal once that power is commanded for that specific purpose of dealing with all that very destructive power that is now destroying so much life?

To become better at being evil, or one step higher?

Obviously there is a need to not become that which we supposedly abhor since power can be destructive or productive and once power is collected in massive amounts for ONE goal it is vitally important to make sure that the ONE goal is not a destructive goal or it would have been much better to avoid collecting all that power into one thing in the first place.

Providing the means by which we suffer may be a bad idea.

It is perhaps important to learn from the past, such as the case of being surrounded by alligators, when the goal was to drain the swamp.

"But it was so much easier and faster and shorter to just say “"Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?" LOL"

There is no AB problem if everyone is working under the same guiding principle of doing unto others before others have enough power to defend against being done upon.

What problem, I see no problem, did you get caught, that may be your problem, so don't get caught: what problem?

There is no AB problem when everyone is well trained, like Pavlov's Dogs, to stab the person in front in the back with a corporate knife, having a blade in front, a handle in the middle of the knife, and a blade behind the handle facing backwards, for the back swing, to stab the person behind who is stabbing the same way, and everyone is in a circle, like a demented musical chairs game, or like Civilized Cannibalism, and the AB problem is fervently employed by everyone, every waking moment, to fix the problems they see every waking moment, every day, all the time, wake up, kill or be killed, until the hacking work of each day leaves each morbid individual powerless, and dying a terrified life, tortured, horrified, more so each day, until the final solution, where the same attempt to solve the problem by adding to the problem, consumes everyone, as if that was the original design of life itself.

If there is no better solution to the AB problem other than becoming it, then what is the problem?; that is the solution, not the problem.

What AB problem? I see no problem. Did you get caught? That is your problem.

Might makes right = kill or be killed = power designed as destruction on purpose for fun and profit.

Take over the GOP, stab all those people in the back, stab the new people after us taking over the GOP too (before they can stab us in the back), so as to accomplish the goal of some undefinable ambiguity, or can someone, anyone really, offer a more specific, reasonable, identifiable, accurately measurable, goal to be reaching by a certain time and day?

"Do they make these baseless claims because “they” do not want to give up power?"

"They" are us in many ways and if there is a slight difference, almost immeasurable, almost imperceptible, but none-the-less different, undoubtedly different, what is that difference between "them" and "us"?

How about useful terms in English?

Us = Friends of Liberty driven to reach a specific goal by a specific date and do so without resorting to deception (of ourselves or other people), without resort to threats of violence (to ourselves or innocent people, but it must be understood, seriously, that our enemies will be threatened by anyone who endeavors effectively to disconnect from being victims) and without resort to violence upon the innocent in an aggressive manner (while defensive violence may be forced upon us by our enemies where our enemies may remove all competitive options except the final solution, the final choice of either killing our enemies who will kill us, or being killed by our enemies who are determined to kill us at that moment when there are no other options left by our lack of knowing better sooner).

Them = Friends of Legal Crime driven by a force or power that drives them internally and externally, by their own power of will, or by whatever power has their will taken over, to exist at the expense of their targeted victims that they have on their lists, in their sights, to be deceived, threatened, and destroyed for fun and profit.

Civilized cannibalism or equitable commerce?

Peace or War?

Liberty or Death?

Liberty or the animated contest of competitive living: reaching for the stars, higher quality life, and lower cost life better sooner rather than choosing a path of certain destruction?

If ambiguity concerning who we are and who they are exists then two things are likely to happen:

Friends of Liberty grow less powerful as we convict each other of being the enemy although we are innocent. Talk about being stupid.

Friends of Legal Crime grow stronger as more and more people are convicting more and more people, punishing each other, and consuming each other without an accurate due process by which such convictions are rendered = as in "extraordinary rendition".

Why mince words? Why does anyone, anywhere, spend an ounce of their power on helping the Legal Criminals cover up their crimes?

If you can't find the answer in the mirror, may God have mercy on our souls.

"I do not know how to amass enough Liberty Minded people by next month to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Celente’s new forum would be a good start?"

Celente, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jesse Ventura, you, me, are obviously inventing, producing, and offering competitive forms of media, and our goals are obviously, measurably, common in design features. What are those common design features, or what is the common goal of anyone who avoids resort to deceit, avoids resort to threats of aggressive violence, and avoids resort to aggressive violence targeting innocent people such as babies, toddlers, children, and any other innocent human being, avoiding that, what is our common message, our common goal, arrived at voluntarily?

If we are all on the same page, all working for Liberty, then what explains the screams of torture in all those torture chambers we pay for with our dimes and we build in our names and what explains all those piles of dead bodies piling up all around the Globe?


Gerald Celente is evil, so he did it, not me.

How about a better, more accurate, effort to discriminate between the absolute worst and the absolute best, and forget about the absolute best, since the screams of torture are rising fast, and the bodies are piling up fast, so how about focusing on the absolute worst first, know them, known that they lie, know that they threaten, know that they are causing massive torture and massive mass murder, and stop sending any more material support and stop sending any more political/physiological support to the worst of the worst for a few seconds, then a few minutes, and make a habit of not sending the worst of the worst any more power at all, maybe, just maybe, the worst of the worst won't be so bad after their steady supply of ready innocent victims dries up.

Take any two people, compare them side by side, which one deserves your material and moral support and which one does not deserve your material and moral support?

Gerald Celente versus Barry Soetero (a.k.a. Barack Husein Obama)

OK, so neither are deserving, compared to your kids, or your husband.

How much power in material or moral support are you currently, as in right now, sending Gerald Celente?


How much power are you sending in material or moral support (aiding and abetting) Barack Husein Obama?

No tax return? No use of any Dollars today? No material support? No moral support to The Nation State chief employee today?

How about a reality check?

Official National Debt Clock Real Time

The Geral Celente, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Bill Still, Walter Burien, Joe Kelley, examples, point out things, whereby there are accurate measures of actual material and moral support flowing from the victims to the criminals. Ron Paul is doing the same thing; has been for as long as I've read anything, or personally heard anything, he says.

If it is bad to credit me, or Celente, or Ventura, with any credit, sure, it is bad, you have only so much credit to give, only so much room for charity, then why give so much moral and material support to Legal Criminals who have been known to kidnap and torture children, such as in that infamous Franklin case?

Oh, but it wasn't on National State Television, so I didn't know?

Reality Check two:

Top Down Cover Up

"Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System?"

I keep repeating my Power Law as such:

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

From that perspective I can answer your question as:

Too many people are still lending moral and material support to Legal Crime because they are no longer functioning human beings, they are victims captured into that meat grinder of Legal Crime.

Your question again:

"Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System?"

The brightest and bravest among us are being consumed in Perpetual Aggressive Wars for the Profit of a few at the expense of everyone else, and they have families, and they can be accurately counted as victims. How many are now working in the arms industry, making Drones, volunteering as soldiers, investing in and capitalizing on military industry stock shares, securities or bonds, or working on dollar denominated finance industry, or prison industry, or National subsidized food industry, or petroleum fueled transportation industry, or any Nationally subsidized or monopolized industry?

How many are vested into Legal Crime and therefore being paid dividends, or getting more now, cashing in, compared to their initial investments?

Who knows who butters their bread, how many are their number?

Add all that moral and material support up to get a grand total, and what do you see?

How about a little help in reaching a accurate quantity of all that Power of our best and brightest being consumed in Aggressive Wars for the Profit of a few at the expense of everyone else?

Official record of Power Flowing

You, yes you, just may, tragically, miss an item of income reported on your tax return, but the IRS PEOPLE don't, so you are processed by law for your law breaking, and if anyone else does it, you want them punished too, tax evaders, those bad guys, those free loaders, those evil people.

How much tax evasion is too much, according to you, and according to the IRS on your side?

Who is lending moral and material support to whom, exactly?

How about a Trillion dollars worth of missing income? Did you miss a Trillion dollars, and now the IRS is on you like white on rice?

Who are the bad guys? Why does anyone need a road map, and instructions?

How much moral and material support is anyone sending any of the bad guys today?

Know better? What if you depend upon that steady income from Uncle Sam, you know, the pedophile pointing at your children, that Uncle Sam in the Franklin case for one example, the one Uncle Sam who will have your children as soon as you no longer have control over your children: Uncle Sam loves children. But you don't know better than to send moral and material support to Uncle Sam the Pedophile? What would The Franklin case have uncovered if due process of law meant anything to anyone anywhere?

Uncle Sam is a Pedophile.

You send Uncle Sam moral and material support.

What does that make you?

No, you say, just like the people in Nazi German said, no, no, I was just following orders.

How uncomfortable can the truth be at times?

Your question again:

"Some people want to follow a leader while other people want to lead. It is another one of those natural laws like the conscience."

Get anyone, anywhere, down to:

Brass Tacks

Where there is a will there is a way.

A follower is merely someone who decided to follow and as soon as that someone decides not to follow anymore then that someone works in that direction according to that will, following someone else, or not following someone else: down to brass tax the individual is responsible.

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing; how convenient is that?

My wife had a very astute saying when she was struggling through her worst depression.

"No matter where I go, I'm still there."

I may not have conveyed the meaning precisely, but I think you can see the accurate meaning.

"I believe one could perhaps look at the Political/Economic Entropy of the United States and find that we started as a Republic and somewhere along the way the word Democracy started to be used and somewhere along the New Deal Socialism came into play…and now here we are today much further down the road of socialism with many of the communist planks already in place."

I can repeat until I am blue in the face, and I can beat a dead horse until there isn't any horse left, but my point concerning such self generating contradictions as the quote above is the same point over and over and over again:

You have not expressed any meaning when you employ duplicitous terms such as "Republic" "Democracy" and "Socialism".

Your efforts to communicate say the same thing if I use a BLANK in place of those duplicitous terms.

You wrote:

"a Republic government can degrade to a Democracy which can then degrade to a Socialist economy, which can degrade into Communism"

That says the same things as:

A blank government can degrade to a blank which can then degrade to a blank economy, which can degrade into blank.

How about knowing something and then communicate something known by using accurate terms?

A voluntary government can degrade into an involuntary government when the volunteers send moral and material support to criminals who take over the voluntary government and the economic relationship would then degrade from a powerful economic advantage of many individuals having the power to produce higher and higher standards of living and lower and lower costs of living into, degrading into, a steady flow of moral and material support flowing from those powerfully economic people to those criminals, reaching a point at which the criminals who made their crimes legal, are so powerful, and so numerous, that anyone found guilty of actually producing anything of value is immediately crucified by everyone else, and any power left is consumed by each rat consuming each other rat, in a glorified hell on earth.

I smell a rat.

The rat took the word socialism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word democracy and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word government and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word federalism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word communism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word good and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the words bad and made it into a good word.

I see a pattern.

I took a look at your link and I won't spend another minute on it, other than a few comments concerning the following quote:

"#1 -isms : The only 1% of difference between Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism. is how many CORPORATIONS are either *OWNED* or *CONTROLLED* (directly or indirectly) by government. In a truly *FREE* MARKET the answer is e) none of the above. People are *FREE* to enjoy the occupation of their OWN choice in a FREE-ENTERPRISE economic system."

A rat took the word capitalism and made it into a bad word.

I found that rat, his name is Karl Menger. I would like to explain further, but there isn't much time or room. A corporation is socialism. The military is socialism. A church is socialism. A family is socialism. Capitalism is a method of pricing.

Why confuse English?

I smell a rat. Some people are merely parroting dogma. The rats know better.

On to your definition of terms (which are vital if the goal is accurate communication, and if that is not the goal, then the obvious question to answer is: what is the goal?)

"REPUB'LIC: A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics."

That is a load of crap. Sovereign power must be understood before that load of crap can mean anything to anyone other than the one person who claims authority over the meaning contained in those words. If you claim to know the meaning of those words then you will have to explain what you mean by "sovereign power".

If the Democratic Federated Republic (Confederation) under the Articles of Confederation is an example of what you mean, when you use the word Republic then The People were sovereign beings as proven by Daniel Shays within that voluntary form of government example. On the other hand, if you claim that the U.S.A. under The Constitution of 1788 is an example of a Republic then the sovereign was The President as proven when that first President King George conscripted an all involuntary army to crush a money competitor in Pennsylvania.

A. Sovereign legal power is held by The People (Republic)
B. Sovereign legal power is held by ONE person (Republic)

Which Republic?

Many other examples proving who was sovereign and who was not sovereign could include any cases of Trial by Jury in any supposed Republic offered as an example of any supposed Republic, according to the authorized definition of a Republic where the word sovereign is used as a useful term when defining a Republic in English.

"DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."

That is nothing more, or less, than pure fiction. How can "the people collectively" have only two hands? It is not possible, that term you employ is pure fiction. Why would you ever see any reason to use such a false word defined in such a false manner as the definition you authorize here in this communication effort? I see only two possible reasons:

You have been duped by that false definition.
Your intention is to deceive me.
A more competitive viewpoint

"Such was the government of Athens."

If there is an actual case of people suddenly producing two hands that all the people collectively use in unison, instead of their own hands used by each person, then I'd like to see how that works. Consider linking such things.

Where is there an example of a "democracy" where so many people magically create two huge "collective" hands?

"SOCIALISM: a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—the tragic failure of the twentieth century."

How deep does the web of deceit get? When did a being known as "government" suddenly appear in reality, and once appearing in reality this thing now has the power to control "all means of production" etc.?

"the tragic failure of the twentieth century"

Now I know what to blame, and now I know what to hold to account for all those millions of tortured bodies piled so high in the twentieth century? How convenient that is for those actual people who actually provided the moral and material support required in actually breaking all those arms, to see how may times those arms would heal, etc.

Socialism did it. Communism did it.

The Communism you link is second hand. How about quoting straight from the horses mouths?

The Communist Manifesto

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

There is a link confessed between "Utopian" something and something, or blank and blank, which may be worth checking out. The 19th century was a curious turning point for the worse.

"I haven’t check the accuracy, but I appears that we were verbally threatened at the UN."

There will always be a most powerful person. What are the sources of power flowing into the most powerful person? Is that a reasonable question on topic?

"Has Marx’s Theory ever been manifested in a Free Society?"

Marx was what Marx was, and Stalin was was Stalin was, and getting from Marx to Stalin is a very big leap of faith. Stalin was very good at making everyone pay for whatever Stalin wanted to do, in a big way, so he was more of an action guy, not so much of a speaker, but I've read that people knew better than to stop clapping first after one of Stalin's speeches, and don't fall asleep during the speech.

In a book worth reading, which I can link, Marx is credited with a few words, which I will quote, and you can take those words to the State Bank, but they won't give you, or Marx, any credit for it.

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)"

Marx was a writer, and his writing changed over time, or was corrupted by his own faults or by external influences - I suppose.

"Was there a time prior to the Stalin regime when true communism was the economic system? As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?"

I prefer to get rid of all the dogma and get straight to the point.

Liberty (competition)
Legal Crime (competition is against the law)

If the sign on the door is accurate, then that sign is used to accurately identify the people who invent, produce, and maintain the sign, as those people honestly do what they do, defining what they do when they do it.

If the sign on the door is false, then not just any false sign will do, the sign has to have the power to deceive someone, or the false sign is powerless by that exact measure.

Are you deceived by any false signs?

I prefer to minimized my vulnerability to false signs. You can do as you please.

"As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?"

Who invented the "communist theory", and are you referring to a false sign that hid Legal Crime, or are you referring to something totally different than a false sign hiding the crimes committed by people who made their crimes legal, people who made anyone else who may compete outside of their false law or anyone caught doing what they do is punished as an illegal person-hood?

If you are referring to something such as a commune started by Amish people, or a commune started by hippies in the 1960s, then that is entirely different compared to Stalin's reign of Legal Crime, if a body count can be of any help in that relative comparison.

Stalin did what Stalin did, and everyone following those orders did, and Charles Manson did what Charles Manson die, and everyone following those orders, and the Amish do what they do, and anyone else following those orders, so why call all that by the same false word communism? Why confuse one with the other, and who benefits from such confusion?

Who benefits from a confusion of a hippie commune (or an Amish one) and Stalin's type of Legal Crime?

Stalin is dead, so he may not care much, but there are a certain number of Stalin types lurking about these days, so they may benefit from such confusion. Perhaps the Amish are not inclined to be known as communists - for some strange reason.

"Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation we were a Republic, then with the Constitution we became a Democratic Republic which has continued the entropic cycle from a Free Market to Economic Entropy into Socialism and Fascism and it also seems that quite a few tenants of the Manifesto have been accomplished right here in the US of A."

The common term for a working Liberty at around the time of The Articles of Confederation was a Democratic Federated Republic - according to some of the books I've read.

"We" cannot become a Democratic Republic with The Constitution. Legal criminals took over Liberty and those Legal Criminals, with their Constitution, began a crime spree made legal in 1788, and successive Legal Criminals have kept the ball rolling since.

Why look at the actual facts through false lenses?

If the word Democracy means two opposite things at the same time then the user of the word is duplicitous.

Democracy does not mean "majority rule" when it means "individual rule" at the same time, that is as impossible as turning to the left and walking west at the same time you turn to the right and start walking to the east. Does your being cut in half and go left and right at the same time?

Friends of Liberty used the term Democracy (see Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry for examples) when speaking about Liberty, or "individual rule" or "individual sovereignty", or the opposite of the use of a nebulous "State" commanded by a nebulous "Majority" who set about committing unspeakable, and unaccountable, crimes upon many innocent victims.

A few sociopaths manipulating the minds of many people so as to get away with torture and murder can be called "majority rule" or it can be called "friend chicken", for whatever reason the inventor of the sign, or the label, or the name used wishes.

If the word Democracy is as corrupted as the word Liberal then why use it? If the goal is to communicate accurately: does it make any sense to use duplicitous words that can mean anything one second and the opposite thing the next second? If the goal is to deceive then it makes all the sense in the world, to me, to use duplicitous, and ambiguous, words.

I have to stop here, get some other things done, and I want to return to your reply, especially since your reply moves into specific meanings considered by Patrick Henry during that Ratification period.

"Patrick Henry may have been somewhat concerned about “MOB minority rule”:"

Before I dive into Patrick Henry text I think it may be important to point out that a time exists whereby a commonly used meaningful word becomes a duplicitous word and during that time the color change is not recognized and called out by those who are being deceived during that process of deception.

For example: Do you remember a time when Blue was Republican and Red was Democrat? What happened?

For another example: Proponents of Federalism were called Anti-Federalists by Nationalists who hid behind a false front of Federalism. Why were the Federalists called Anti-Federalists, and did those Anti-Federalists smell a rat at that time?

Patrick Henry:

"This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!"

You see that as Patrick Henry lending moral or even material support to YOUR concept of democracy.

What is your concept of democracy?

You offer:

"DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."

Apples are being compared to cardboard cutouts of apples?

The People command, by their own power to command, in numbers sufficient to provide an effective deterrence, or defense if needed, the essential DUTY of abolishing a criminal government.

I think my competitive understanding of the genius of democracy spoken of by Patrick Henry is more in line with reality than your stated definition of democracy as far as you understand the meaning of the word.

I can certainly be proven wrong.

"So, can you explain to me why Patrick Henry advocated democracy when the other things I have quoted indicate it is a vehicle for socialism? Has the word been redefined?"

Am I beating a dead horse? Do you remember when Blue was Republican and Red was Democrat? What happened? Why did that happen? Who made that happen? Did that just happen by coincidence, a random accident?

The Gun did it?

The pointed stick made me poke someone in the eye?

"I am not asking you to figure out what I think I learned in high school... It is just something that stuck, but I may not be applying it correctly. Perhaps I should gracefully bow out of that thought pattern if it is incorrect?"

My advice is to use your own power of accurate discernment concerning what someone means when they use a word. If they mean: crime made legal, then socialism is crime made legal, so why use the word socialism?

The important thing is to know if they mean crime is being made legal by a few criminals who gain the power of government.

If they mean it is OK to make crime legal, so long as "we" are the criminals, then know that too.

My advice is to realize that socialism is just a word and the people who originally used the word are dead and their advice concerning socialism is censored for good reason, so long as Legal Criminals dictated what is or is not good.

Socialism was invented by people and then socialism was reinvented by other people so which "socialism" is the invention you see when anyone uses the word "socialism"?

If you have never heard of anyone ever using the word socialism to mean "individual sovereignty" then that means you have never heard such a thing; but that does not mean that no one ever said it.

If the label is False it is powerful enough to deceive some of the people some of the time.

If the label is merely inaccurate then who would ever use that label?

If you are selling apples would you take the time and effort to make a sign that said cardboard for sale?

What do you think about this site? ? Do you think it to be a valid political/economic reference?

I do not see that as anything other than FALSE PROPAGANDA. Perhaps the people inventing it and producing it are dupes, merely parroting the dogma they publish, or perhaps they know better that to believe their own dogma. Democracy according to them is a dictatorial version of the word, according to them, and I suppose that anyone offering a productive version of the word Democracy, a competitive version of the same word, would be punished in some way by those Dictators who dictate the meaning of that word.

To them, supposedly, Democracy means "Mob Rule" and that is it, no questions, no revisions, no competitive viewpoints at all: Democracy means "Mob Rule" because we (our numbers) say so.

It is a self contained contradiction.

Not my opinion.

Leave me out of it.

It is what it is: a self contained contradiction.


If it is merely STUPID then those people are stupid people.

If it is false on purpose, then why is it false on purpose, and good luck trying to get a confession as to why it is false on purpose.

The person known as Stephen Pearl Andrews, who you did not like much, apparently, I may have that misunderstood, but that person Andrews wrote a book titled The History of Socialism, and I can't find a copy.

Here is Andrews version of the words Democracy and Socialism, and note that Andrews was alive during the time that Socialism and Capitalism were being MADE INTO diametric opposites or Blue and Red colors - much has happened since Andrews made his public access publications concerning his viewpoints on Democracy and Socialism at that time:

The Science of Society

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

When a dictator tells the flock that the God he knows will be the God everyone else knows, without question, then there is a State such as exemplified in The Inquisition. You may be familiar with such things. Andrews knew better too.

I confess, yes, just don't take any more finger nails off, please.

So Andrews knew that responsibility is individual or there is no such thing as accountability and the moves away from absolute despotism, or Legal Crime, were moved away by actual people in actual ways such as were ways that were being called by such names as socialism, democracy, and protestantism, in those days.

Now is not then. Blue is now Red. Red is now Blue.

"The consolidated government bypassed the states and made a contract with the people themselves?"

No such thing. I think that Patrick Henry know the difference between an Idea, or a Legal Fiction, or a Contract, and the actual people who would be responsible, or accountable, in any case whatsoever; therefore "the consolidated government" could not "bypass" anything.

When Patrick Henry smelled a rat he knew that there were actual people, such as Alexander Hamilton, involved in working to make crime legal, in a very specific way, a known method, by which many people were fooled by a specific process, and once fooled those people, so fooled, would accept crime made legal.

That is what I see. Patrick Henry knew that the people who went to Philadelphia on the pretense of adjusting The Articles of Confederation so as to appease the Bankers and the Merchants who wanted to be paid their profits for the war "effort" on par, or in gold, rather than being paid a depreciated paper money issue, did no such thing.

In other words: Patrick Henry knew that the Philadelphia meetings, which were secret closed door meetings with Gag orders placed on the attendees, was USURPATION.

Those liars and crooks at Philadelphia made Dirty Compromises and sold out every one else as slaves, they took over The Articles of Confederation and they made a working Dictatorship in place, so as to not only be paid, on par, for their war "effort", they actually made War very Profitable in any future Wars conducted by any new King being crowned as President of the new Nation State.

Patrick Henry knew that The People were being sold out, NO MORE TRIAL BY JURY, and no more Duty by The People to throw out criminal governments because even that was now going to be against the law.

Night and Day.

Articles of Confederation = working Confederation (voluntary government)

That was Day, in that Day.


The Constitution = no more Duty commanded by The People to overthrow a criminal government = War Pays very good now = Dictatorship = Legal Crime

Read it and weep?

Misunderstand it?

Patrick Henry was no prophet, he merely smelled the rat for what it was and it is now exactly as Patrick Henry warned it would be, as criminals made their crimes legal - obey - without question.

Too bad for the posterity Patrick Henry knew would be born into this rat, and too bad for us the one's born into this rat race.

Too bad for us. Very good, still, for the Bankers and Merchants of death for profit, and those few are moving off shore, as their capital flight is flying to China. Greener pastures.

Soon to be blackened. Detroit in Shanghai - rinse and repeat - The Business Psycho.

Have a nice day.

I want to return here, but I have other things pressing now.

Back to Patrick Henry:

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

If I am not mistaken that is a reference to the design of a Confederation called by some and a Democratic Federated Republic called by others, of that time period, and the reference has to do with Separate Legally Sovereign State Legal Fictions like New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, having no subordinate legal connection to a Federal Government in a Confederation or Republic, whereby the opposite is true.

Not A:

Legal Sovereign is The President Presiding over a Consolidated Nation State with subordinate State Governments and subordinate people.

But instead of A the idea (genius) was B:

Each individual is sovereign and as sovereigns each individual (Free Men at that time = not women = not slaves as legally bound according to law at the time), each sovereign man owning his own castle, each kept, or retained, the power to nullify any edict, or any command, by anyone holding any lawful office, as a member of a jury, and each sovereign individual is known, by personal experience at the time, to have a duty to rebel against, or abolish, or overthrow through insurgency, any criminals who may take over government so as to make their crimes legal, and as members of States, where States are formed for mutual defense, each person, actual people not "corporate people", each person prefers to join or un-join any State, as they may see fit, running away from slavery in one State, if one set of representatives endeavor to enslave free men, and it is OK, according to those people, at that time, for their State to join, or un-join, a Confederation of States, or a Democratic Federated Republic, whereby each person elects a representative who may, or may not, represent The People by joining, or un-joining, said Confederation of States, or Democratic Federated Republic such as the one used when The British were thrown out of that Republic or that Confederation i.e. The Articles of Confederation which were formed after The Declaration of Independence, for the purpose of voluntary mutual defense against a criminal, but LEGAL, Army of Aggression for Profit, seeking to enslave all The People in America for the crime of having run away from slavery in England, and to enforce a Legal Money Monopoly complete with The Business Psycho.

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

Patrick Henry is calling the Nationalists out on their lie. Those delegates where not sent by anyone, not The People, and not even the delegates themselves (those who smelled rats and those who were not "in" on the Secret Purpose of the Secret Meetings complete with the Gag orders) to Usurp the working Confederation by creating a Nation State. That was not the advertized purpose of the meeting in Philadelphia. The false advertized purpose of the meeting in Philadelphia was to pay off war debts in either paper money or specie (Gold or Silver).

The war profiteers, naturally, wanted their debts paid "on par" and so did The French, whose help was vital in throwing out the British. It was not secret that Alexander Hamilton favored England over France either. Alexander Hamilton being one of the chief liars in that club of Legal Criminals known as Nationalists hiding behind a thin veil of false Federalists Papers: say one thing and do the opposite thing.

Say, federation this, and federation that, and then enact The Alien and Sedition Acts, and crush a currency protest (tax protest) with a conscripted National Army invading the formerly sovereign State of Pennsylvania (where the rebels were weakest, so as to make an example of "so fatal a spirit" as that same Spirit of Liberty documented in The Declaration of Independence.

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

Not having the "mandate" to throw out "so fatal a spirit" the delegates could not have had the power to do so, without trickery.

What proof?

Patrick Henry point out that, in fact, the delegates disputed the Usurpation, despite the Gag order placed on those who attended but left the secret proceeding in protest, being bound by the Gag order, their "dispute" was to leave it. Those not attending the secret meetings and proceeding in Philadelphia, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, both in France at the time if my homework serves me well, and Patrick Henry, disputed in their own special way, Patrick Henry disputed, as a representative, in a working Confederation, with the speech in question, during Ratification.

"Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

They were disputed by states, those attending left the crime in progress, and those not attending spoke out, very astutely, and prophetically, against it. While "the people" were not invited, hence the closed door, secret meetings, in Philadelphia, and the Gag order, to keep The People in the dark, until the Usurpation was complete, despite The States objecting.

Those same Nationalists claim on the one hand to be against Mob Rule, against The Rabble, and against the Insurgents, and against the Rebels, and on the other hand they went past The States, going directly to the Brain Washing Manufactured Consent, to ram their Usurpation through, with their Federalist Papers printed through the Mass Media that they controlled (mostly) in their day.

Their Federalists Papers were the political promises (lies) of the day, the same ideas, and promises, that were discarded as soon as power was secured with the deception, then the treats of violence, and then conscripted armies invading sovereign States.

I did my homework, where were you?

I had my days of reckless abandon in my youth too, but I did my homework none-the-less, and therefore I could be a competitive representative in a Democratic Federated Republic, if one existed, and if The People demanded one - but that is demonstrably not the case.

I did not rely upon my homework to form my opinion either.

I was on the ballot in 1996 right here:

Joseph Kelley no thanks

Your kind is not really in demand, thanks, but no thanks.

I not only talk the talk I walk the walk.

I put my very meager "money" where my mouth is, more than once.

Tooting my own horn, so to speak.

Falsehood is in demand, I didn't get the memo.

"10.5 The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations; they are not the proper agents for this purpose. States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government."

Patrick Henry was in The Club, but it was not the same Club as the Nationalist Club where Alexander Hamilton and his Banker buddies hid.

None-the-less, Patrick Henry was in the club.

"B) It seems the term federal is used for both good and bad forces of centralized government? "

A Federal Government as designed to be one is proven to be good enough to throw out (out law) Aggressive Wars for Profit.

A counterfeit Federal Government as designed to be one is proven to be good enough to pay very well for those who will conduct Aggressive Wars for Profit.

A. The Articles of Confederation (actual Republic that works as one)
B. The Constitution 1788 (counterfeit Republic which is in reality a Consolidated Nation State NOT a Republic)

Why be fooled?

I don't get it.

Why be fooled?

I'm not fooled; what is the use in being fooled this way?

Consider, if you will, not be fooled this way.

"Does federal = consolidated states while confederate meant an agreement between a union of states?"

It depends upon what is is.

A serious criticism of The Constitution concerned the "plausible dependability" of the ambiguous language which was written in the document on purpose = it depends upon what is is.

If you ask me about a Federation then I will say that it is the same thing as a Confederation, no difference, one is the same as the other, and the name doesn't matter, since the thing is what it is no matter what name is on it.

The Articles of Confederation exemplify what a Federation is as representatives of States confederated their power into a voluntary union of mutual defense - so as to compete against Aggressive Wars for Profit - not be one.

A. It is lawful to rebel against Aggressive Wars for Profit (Legal Crime)

B. It is lawful to be an Aggressive War for Profit (therefore it must be against the law to rebel against what is)

The Articles of Confederation exemplify A.

The Constitution of 1788 exemplifies B.

The actual facts are indisputable, merely facts, so you can use whatever words you wish to know and then communicate those facts, as you see fit.

Ambiguous and misleading language allows the criminals to hide behind the color of law. Why is that not easy to see?

"E. Could the title be true “Patrick Henry Against the Federal Constitution” because Patrick Henry seemed to be an Advocate for the Articles of Confederation between the states which individually represented the people within the state and vs. a Contract between the People and a Federal Nation State.?"

How about: "Patrick Henry Against the False Federal Constitution"?

"The main difference that I can see is that Federal is a contract between parties/nations/states…Federate is a compact between sovereignties, states or nations. It is all Greek to me…"

What is a Liberal?

What is a snake oil salesman?

How do you know when a politician is lying?

"Nationalist wasn’t even in the 1824 or 1913 dictionaries so I am not sure you can call Hamilton a Nationalist unless you are using todays terminology. I wonder what he was called back then? Perhaps a Federalist?"

One source:

Notes Taken during the Philadelphia Club Meeting


"1. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that a national government aught to be established..."

Luther Martin left the General Convention in protest: blowing the whistle on the Gag order in particular. There are other sources I can site, if you question the terminology further.

"It is WHO CONTROLS the capital that defines the difference between each different economic system."

Capitalism is a method of pricing in a free market, or, false capitalism is Legal Crime with a different false front.

"When where Friends of Liberty called those names?"

Look at the names who signed The Declaration of Independence. Each one was a Rebel (Rabble was another name for the same thing).

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were considered by themselves and others as democrats and liberals, and I can site sources if questions persist concerning terminology (but I'm beginning to feel as if I'm pissing in the wind).

"And that is why Friends of Liberty must “hijack the GOP & DP [organizations] to fix that AB problem?" (or you may refer to my first paragraph rewrite at the top of this post for a more full description of what I mean."

A. Compete in an animated contest of Liberty (by turning the GOP into one)

B. Become the new Benevolent Dictators by taking that sword from those Legal Criminals who call themselves the GOP

If you can call it what it is then I can agree to one or the other, while an ambiguous name for something to be done, or undone, depends upon what is is.

Constructive interpretation can mean that anything means anything one second and then the opposite thing the next second.

"But then again I am the too logical paranoid type and probably misconstrue facts to mean more than they are."

My beating the dead horse continues: if the goal is to transfer meaning accurately it may be a good idea to use accurate currency.

If the goal is to deceive, yourself, or someone else, then false currency, ambiguity, duplicity, and misrepresentation is the rule, not the exception.

"I don’t know whether to write Ron’s name in or abstain in November or vote Constitution Party. I am not sure that I can go Libertarian with Gary Johnson, I will have to study him more."

I sent letters to both "parties" and neither had any interest in allowing me to run for office for them. If they don't want me, I sure as hell am in no way inspired to lend them any moral or material support.

"There seems to be controversy on the DP regarding those lawyers and their actual intent. I don’t know what to think."

Having been at this "Liberty Movement" for decades I can tell you that there appears to be a lid about to blow off the pot. The first time I read anything by Ron Paul was early 1980s on a newsgroup which was one of the very first mediums of exchange adaptation from e-mail on the new "internet", and back then there was no "Liberty Movement" other than a few, very few, people screaming bloody murder under some rock, or off in the dark wilderness of silence. Like the song Sounds of Silence.

There is a measurable quickening going on right now and I don't know what to think either.

"What about what he continues to do to fight for Liberty in the Senate: TSA, Audit Fed; NDAA…?"

Using the same analogy of "fornicating your way back to virginity": there is one thing and then there is another thing, two separate things, and it may be a good idea not to confuse the two.

I can certainly appreciate every good thing done by every person.

Why not?

I think it is important to, at the very least, recognized and hold accountable all the bad things done by every person, within the boundaries of individual power to do so, since we are not even close to being anything like God, but the principle does appear to be sound and worth emulating.

"I know, but I appreciate your perspective. It is nice to have a competitive viewpoint to consider. Thank you for taking time to share your guess with me. I realize this is becoming very time consuming and if it is a noncompetitive use of your time, please just say so and we will leave it be."


"I had to add the titles in because my brain can barely think about 2 things at one time since I had chemo. I used to be able to process several things at a time. Now I forget the last thing as soon as I move on to the next thing. It is very frustrating that I could not carry the thought pattern in your quote in my mind alone."

Please consider taking piano (or guitar) lessons. The brain can relearn, remake new connections, be resharpened, or so it seems to me. I can refer to my brother Jack if needed.

"So, the constitution caused involuntary associations. But did not the Articles of Confederation do the same? Was everyone happy to be part of the state (as opposed to the consolidated) system?"

The concept of "if it becomes criminal we have a duty to abolish it" was the thinking behind The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation and all those State Constitutions in each of those States when the representatives of those States decided to Confederate so as to combine defensive power sufficient to get rid of the invading army of aggression currently raping and pillaging here and there in America.

The concept of no longer a duty and in fact now a crime to question the debt built up during legal wars of aggression for profit is the opposite concept.

It would have been much better had The British not been so terrible as to force slaves to flee Britain on boats crossing an ocean where white people then had to find a way to share the land with the natives.

The runaway slaves ran to an occupied territory. Some of the runaway slaves had enough with slavery and did some good things. Some runaway slaves took up the whole concept of slavery and did some very bad things.

The Declaration of Independence can be used by Indians, Black Slaves, then, and now, as a concept, but it aught to be understood by those color of people as well as any other color of people, that there are, now, people Red ones, and Blue ones, who enforce the opposite concept upon the rest of us slaves.

The duty of abolishing Legal Crime is no longer a duty for many, in fact, for many, it is against the law to abolish Legal Crime.

A. Good = day = 1+1 = Compete = Liberty = duty to abolish criminal government
B. Bad = night = 1 = OBEY = Legal Crime = do not question anything done by the people who gave themselves badges

I see it as plainly as day and night.

"According to P Henry, There was already tension at the state level trying to protect the rights of the people"

What became known as Shays's Rebellion is a legal precedent as to the effectiveness of a Democratic Federated Republic as a means of abolishing Legal Crime or slavery or taxation without representation, etc.

"Is there any way to get everyone to agree?"

There are two obvious competitors:

The Articles of Confederation (actually working example)
The Constitution (counterfeit version or color of law hiding enforced obedience without question)

There is definitely a way to make sure that agreement is unprofitable = B.

"How can anyone make rules for anyone else without it being an involuntary association for someone somewhere to comply? So is that what Anarchism is? No rules because someone somewhere won’t agree?"

1. Anarchism
2. Counterfeit Anarchism

Why is that any different than God?

1. God
2. Counterfeit God

Why is that any different than truth?

1. Truth (accurate perception and communication of accurate perception)
2. Falsehood (accurate perception and communicate of counterfeit versions)

Note: I do not know Truth in an absolute sense, such as God does, but my perception are relatively accurate compared to most of the competition I've seen so far.

"I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."

Anarchism (not the counterfeit version) goes back to Zeno and the Stoics where the concept is to recognize reality as it is, not as we may wish it to be, and not as we may falsify it for profit at the expense of weaker minded people.

Anarchism has always been based upon Liberty as the rule that rules like no other rule can; without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of terrible violence upon the innocent.

I've done my homework, so I am less ready to fall into falsehood on these word games found so common in our time.

"Was there any legitimate reason that the articles of confederation needed to be added to or replaced other than a power grab? I noticed in Patrick Henry’s writings that there were already problems with lasciviousness as well as protecting the rights of the people."

During the Revolutionary War there was an expedient usage of paper money or I.O.U.s and then there was a power grab as to who would be paid back with more paper and who would be paid back with Gold or Silver, and that was the bait used to get the delegates to go to a meeting in Philadelphia in the NORTH, in the south the bait was to lure people in on the slavery issue, to get them in on a promise to return runaway Black Slaves. The bait was effective and the switch was to turn to a National or Consolidated Government where rebellion or insurrection was no longer a duty, now it is a crime.

The long, long, history link was not fully read by me either, as I skipped past a lot of stuff in search of specific things, and I think the writer of the text in the link misses a few key points concerning such things as Shays's Rebellion before The Dirty Compromise and The Whiskey Rebellion after The Dirty Compromise (a.k.a. The Constitution of the United States of Nationalism)

In fact the person Daniel Shays, whose duty it was to rebel against a criminal government, became a runaway slave, a white person, an ex-Revolutionary War veteran, running away from the Massachusetts Legal Crime gang, slave traders up North, and Daniel Shays, and the other survivors of the last battle (lost) of The Revolution, fled, up to Vermont.

What was the law of the land at the time concerning runaway white slaves?

The Federal part of the Confederation could not force Vermont, a Sovereign State, to return the runaway white slaves, to Massachusetts. Insurrection was still legal, so long as the rebels were white - at least.

That duty was no longer a duty under the newly formed Nation State.

Case in point.


Legal Precedent

"I believe raising children to be somewhat like the conscience: a function of natural order. Some do so more humanely and with better outcomes, but raising children is part of the instinctive drive of being alive and procreating in order to continue the species"

I do no such thing. To me the human being version of God's creation is given a choice. I choose to be a part of a process by which my hard earned need for power is shared, charitably, without any strings attached, in the effort to reproduce. To call that instinct, to me, is insulting my intelligence. But I'm not so keen on me being all that, so I may be wrong on this point.

I can certainly agree to disagree on this point for now.

"Too much power in the sovereign individual’s hands?"

In context with your viewpoint on being born again, something that escapes me, the Devil can't allow too many people to be born again, if the Devil fails to cut those bridges, what happens to the power level of the Devil?

On China loaning money to U.S.A.:

"I didn’t understand. Can you clarify the above so I can understand?"

Put yourself in the shoes of a person in China working. A child. You are a child working in China, to make ends meet, a paltry pay for 12 hours work 7 days a week, or less, or something more humane, perhaps, and there you are in those shoes.

You find a computer on a day off, supposing you have a day off, and then you find two forms of "NEWS" as such:

Chinese government loans lots of money to U.S.A. and U.S.A. is surrounding China ready to start World War III and China is beefing up Military Expenses to fight against U.S.A. aggression financed by Chinese loans almost reaching a trillion dollars or 1 and 13 zeros.

Workers have to work more to make more so that more can be sent to the Chinese Government

OK, so, here I am a Chinese kid, not having made my way into the new upper class of Chinese society, working my butt off, for almost nothing, and I'm either going to grow up to fight Americans or die working to finance American aggression.

How nice is that to a kid in China?

We have it rough, relatively speaking.

"Does China call the shots in congress because they are our money masters? Is our congress trying to appease China to prevent an invasion on our soil? See how my mind works? I am probably drawing false conclusions."

In the world of Legal Crime back stabbing is the rule not the exception, it seems to me, so the actual winners and losers after World War III is subject to those forces that caused World War III, which isn't you and me. We do not cause World War III. It is not on our schedule. We, you and me, have Liberty minded things on our schedules, that is out world view.

The error is in thinking that World War III is an inevitable consequence of the evil of mankind, and accident, and therefore unavoidable.

Go back to sleep.

Obey when told, and do not question the orders.

How many will do so, how many will not do so, and is the current lid on the kettle going to blow up on our schedule and thereby upset the whole World War III plan?

Is there hope?

On the subject of Genetically Modified Foods.

Unfortunately that appears to be very true, and worse, as there may be a whole lot more evidence that the evidence already shown to be the tip of the iceberg on what is happening with cloning or genetically modified mammalian life forms.

Read it and weep?

How about working toward a Liberty Day in the not too distant future where honest productive people merely stop, in unison, providing the means by which we are suffering? It isn't that tough to figure out, really.

"How many passengers can I fit into my electric car? I took 6 to town Friday in my Mini Van."

The made in U.S.A. electric car holds 7 according to the advertizement from Telsa Motors. The price tag on that car is for those who don't ask the price, it is a luxury car, where the marketing plan, by Elon Musk, is to move from Sports Car (developing the art of production), to a Luxury Car, and then on to higher output and lower costs after the concepts prove themselves out - or so it seems.

A Nissan Leaf, made in Japan (production interrupted by the recent terrors of nature and man made tsunami), and soon to be made in Tennessee, can hold 5 (hatchback).

As with the cost of a computer at the start, the cost is high, and as with competition, with computers again, quality goes up while costs go down, so it may be only for the few that Electric is viable today.

If World War III as side stepped, who knows, but right now the difference in electricity per mile and gasoline per mile is significant and going opposite directions.

Electricity prices are being forced down be competition. Gasoline prices are being forced up by Monopoly power or Legal Crime.

One is more in line with aiding and abetting, giving moral and material support to torturing mass murderers, and the other is measurably less when following the money.

"Even though my garden was planted a month late we are already enjoying fresh squash and the green beans are budding!"

Opting out of GM foods, competitively, sounds a whole lot like the animated contest of Liberty to me.

Done without final edit.