The Daily Paul has been archived.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: If you can keep it.

(See in situ)

In post: Gotta Rant?
In reply to comment: If you might be so kind sir... (see in situ)

If you can keep it.

"But Joe, I thought we were supposed to be a Republic."

As with a whole lot of information there are counterfeit versions and true versions, and knowing the difference is something the liars have, as a power, over their victims, such is the nature of The Deceiver.

The Deceiver is not the one who believes the lies told.

Talk about weapons of mass delusion, leading to destruction, the person Benjamin Franklin was on in years at the time but he wasn't stupid so I can't imagine his word choices being flippant.

"A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

The fatal error is exposed in the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli.

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the on element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

And what if a man is one of God's Children, does that man have to have a dictator forming a republic to keep him in line too?

As Born again Christians, and other sensible people, look for authority where authority earns that power, they are accosted by robbers with badges claiming to be more Godlike than their flock of sheep?

Are you owned by the likes of Franklin, or Nicoli Machiavelli, or Hamilton or Bush or the new guy with an honest name and a false name to cover up the honest one?

Where is the demarcation line between something worth keeping, Madam, and something only worth lying, cheating, and stealing to keep?

What is meant by a Republic?

How about asking Daniel Shays?

How about asking Patrick Henry if Daniel Shays was too quick (or not quick enough) to jump to the gun for help?

What is meant by a Republic?

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."

What is meant by a Republic?

If the promise of a Republic was goodness, if you could keep it, and Debt is good, then we not only kept it, the measure of just exactly how good it is could cause Franklin and Hamilton to rise from the dead, in spirit if not in actual fact.

Just how good can a Republic get fearless leader?

Confused about a Republic? I think that was the point, to cause confusion while National Debt (fraud and extortion made legal) was sold to the ignorant and the stupid, and don't blame me, I smelled the rat as well as Patrick Henry, as far back as high school, once I read that book about The Lusitania, which lead to that War Horse crime called World War I.

That is the book that has the hit piece in it, where Rothbard publishes libel against Spooner, Tucker, and others including W.B. Greene.

I've explained some of that story here:

"Could the trojan have been a KING in the form of 3 checks & balanced powers stated as the executive/legislative/judicial branches? After all, thou shalt not question..."

The key point has to do with POWER and in the case of a Consolidated Government which can be compared to a Confederation, to use Patrick Henry's terminology, it can be understood that the Power to Confederate is voluntary, or limited by choice, a confederation so confederated, by choice, is a limited government with an actual power to limit it, as in a Mutual Agreement to combine POWER for the LIMITED purpose of defending Liberty against a very POWERFUL invasion by Soldiers in Red Coats whereby those Solders are working to reclaim ownership of the Defenders of Liberty: as opposed to a Consolidated Government where the only limit is the pleasures of the single power, or King, or the King and all the minions.

How fast can the rats race to the bottom of despotism?

If there is no longer a reason to Consolidate, according to anyone, then that someone decides to opt out in a voluntary confederation.

Look at the words written by Thomas Paine concerning False Checks and False Balances, and then compare those false ones to actual voluntary limits:

"HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST, AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist."

Suffice to say that a good person may someday want to opt out, and if that is against the law then that is a false law, and how is that not as plain as the nose on your face?

Patrick Henry may have chosen the word Confederation so as to avoid the current confusion concerning the word Republic - who knows?

The fact is that in the time when The Articles of Confederation were working as The Law of the Land, it was a time when Daniel Shays could fight against slavery in his own State, and when that battle was lost he could run away like any other slave to another, less despotic, State, in that case the slave ran out of Massachusetts, Daniel Shays, and that slave ran to Vermont and found sanctuary in Vermont, and there was no National Government needing to be Checked, and there was no National enforcement of Slavery Nation WIDE, not under The Articles of Confederation, and not in that specific case.

Then, under The Constitution the newly crowned King George ordered conscripted soldiers, slaves, to assemble and conduct a War of Aggression into Pennsylvania, a National Army and why didn't they put on Red Coats? Red was out of fashion?

Not having those books at hand, to look and find information contained within, the actual authors words, is leaving me unable to offer an opinion. I have picked up many books and in a few pages I start writing all over the pages in the book, offering my opinion as to why I think the author is wrong, or contradictory, or deceptive, and soon I find in that book no reason to pick the book back up.

Other books I find are captivating and very instructive, such as this one:

There isn't anything on that web page where a shopper of good books can know how valuable the information in the book can be to someone looking for that type of information.

I can offer a quote from that book, and you can make a judgment based upon the actual content of the book:

Rebel's Fate

Page 137

"Whole books have been written to the effect that art, creativity, and talent are neurotic. It is widely bruited that only the neurotic can be an artist in any field, and that the products of all artists are the flowerings of sickness. I know of nothing more false; nor do I believe that evidence for this point of view meets any sensible criterion of science."

I found that book in my mother's thrift store.

I was wasting time, waiting for my mother to finish up some work, it seemed to call out to me, I picked it up, opened it, read a few sentences, and I had to read it.

I read it cover to cover. It is an old book, used, it has someone's scribbling in it, but I added no scribbling of my own to that book.

Some books I bend pages and fold them down to the text I want to return to, or I fill them up with post-it notes.

If you can't decide to buy or drop a book in the first few minutes of scanning the words written in the book, then my suggestion is to drop it.

1) Yes, they are great books
Did you read any text in those books?

2) No, they are a waste of time
Books can be worse than a waste of time if the intent in writing them was to spread falsehood and the reader is victimized in that way.

3) How should I know, why are you wasting my time with such trivia?
Gary North publishes a lot of information on how corrupt the publishing industry is here in America and I have to agree, there are a lot of books published where the intention is to render the targeted victims powerless, and those fruits of that labor can be measured in various direct and indirect ways.

How about voting records?

Who want's to be a victim of despotism?

Who want's the lesser of two evils?

Pull the lever, check the box, use a pen.