"I will try, try, try to remember: Cui bono when I look at things. But also, one has to remember sometimes those beneficiaries are determined by the benefactor. Not all benefactors are evil."
Jesus could have refused? It was his choice to act or not act? He decided on the path he thought was best?
The fight is not over Jesus the Capitalist/Fascist/Dictator or the Socialist/Communist/Collectivist is it?
Jesus, or anyone, can decide to obey God's Law, Moral Law, Common Law, or Natural Law, and decide to give all those COSTS to whomever will welcome those gifts, or sell those things, whatever they are, at a profit, and so long as deceit is not resorted to, upon the innocent, and so long as threats of violence is not resorted to, upon the innocent, and so long as violence is not resorted to upon the innocent, on purpose, for fun and profit, then it isn't CRIME, so we won't be talking about CRIME.
If we are talking about CRIME, then why not call it CRIME since that is what it is, and if we call it something that it is not, then again:
If we call it something that it is not, then who benefits by our resort to deception?
Who are we deceiving if we call it Socialism when it is clearly CRIME?
Who are we deceiving if we call it Capitalism when it is clearly CRIME?
Who is the victim we are targeting with our resort to deception when we cover up CRIME with our man-made false flags?
What constitutes our pay-off for resorting to deceit when we cover up CRIME with these False Flags of ours?
"What I am struggling with today is the difference between States Rights and Natural Rights. Does the state have the right to squelch a Natural Right? What if the Book of Romans is true?"
Before looking into the references I can say that a Federation/Republic/Confederation/Legal Competition is a design by which the States are experiments in solving the problem of CRIME at a Military Level, and the Counties and Cities are experiments in solving the problem of CRIME at more local levels, and the concept of the Confederation (using Patrick Henry's word choice) is to organize the State Defensive Military POWER, of one State, with another State Defensive Military POWER, so that the combination of State Defensive Military POWER is greater than both States acting separately, and exponentially greater, not just a sum of the two parts.
All that is LIMITED to only that, and if one State becomes despotic, the FORCE OF COMPETITION works to make that State weaker as the victims find sanctuary in other States less despotic.
I will take the time, again, to find supporting documentation of this very thing, in my copy of the following book:
Note the title:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy [NOT MOB RULE so don't see RED/SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM/LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS/PLEASE]-to experiment with various policies and programs. For Example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens [with involuntary taxes = Legal Crime = Despotism, and not being strictly limited to defense of liberty which is defense against crime?], the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care [The Force of voluntary choices being the force that forces quality up and cost down = Free Market in the genuine sense not the Fraud, or CRIME, sense where Free means Free from moral conscience and free from accountability]. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention [why not call it CRIME?], the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector [why are people pigeon holed into either public or private divisions/sectors/categories/or prejudices?]. With national plans and programs, the national officials [Legal Criminals] simply roll the dice for all 284 million people in the United States and hope they get things right."
Now, the author is assuming that the "authorities" at the National Level are actually working (but failing) to get things right, which is patently absurd, since they confess, often enough, as to their actual goal which is the enslavement of mankind to their exclusive power: where "they" are criminals who make their crimes legal.
Federal Reserve Fraud made legal.
Federal Income Tax Extortion made legal.
Employment of the Military Power (the actual reason for a State) in Aggressive Wars for Profit, of which there is a precedent concerning that Crime, as being the worst evil of mankind, where a trial was already done, in Nuremberg, where some of the perpetrators (but not the Wall Street Bankers financing Hitler) were sentenced to death, and then put to death for those crimes - supposedly.
They (legal criminals) do confess on a regular basis, such as that Nuremberg confession, in FACT.
Aggressive Wars for Profit are not nice, but "we do it anyway".
Who and what army are going to stop us?
If The Articles of Confederation worked to defend Liberty against the largest Invading Aggressive War POWER for Profit on the planet, during the Revolutionary War, why were the supposed Federalists so keen on getting rid of that experiment in Confederation?
Hamilton confessed, and I showed you that too, he wanted National Debt, so as to pretend to be the benevolent supplier of good faith and credit of the combined total sum of individual people in America.
I can look at the links offered.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, ap