The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Bait and Switch

(See in situ)

Bait and Switch

The lie told today is that the National Government, so called, is the thing used to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War.

That is false.

The timeline starts with events that lead to The Declaration of Independence.

Then 13 State government representatives decide to create a voluntary government under The Articles of Confederation.

That is the "Union" that defeated The British.

There were 13 competitive (or "free market") constitutionally limited governments to choose from in those days.

Then Massachusetts and some other States began to be taken over by really bad people in really high places in finance and government.

There was then what is called the last battle of the Revolutionary War called Shays's Rebellion.

Here is a reference:

The Revolutionary Forces lost the battle in Massachusetts and the "elite" (so called) won, and the defeated Revolutionary War Veterans fled Massachusetts and they fled to Vermont.

Since the "Union" so called was still working under The Articles of Confederation and so there was not yet a "National Government" (monopoly) and therefore the Slave Traders in Massachusetts (depots) had to ask the Statesmen in Vermont (not despots) to return the runaway slaves (Revolutionary War Veterans) and Vermont Statesmen ignored the request.

Then Hamilton and the other "elite" (Central Bankers) got George Washington to lie, or be an "Indian giver", or go back on his word to retire, and Washington conspired with the other "Federalists" (who were actually Nationalists/Monarchs/Central Bankers/"Elite"/Despots) to pretend to "improve" The Articles of Confederation, when their real aim was to make slavery legal (slavery by fraud and extortion made legal).

So they made The Constitution.

You can't even say that I'm making this up.

Look here:


"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?"

Patrick Henry wasn't the lone conspiracy theorist who "smelled a rat" then either.

Some people do know more than they are told because we question authority.

Like this:

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Lies are lies, they prove themselves to be lies in due time.

Sheep people, like everyone else, get what they pay for.