Comment: Accurate communication?

(See in situ)


Accurate communication?

"Law enforcement officers across the country are experiencing a growing number of contacts with Sovereign Citizens — individuals and groups who possess a strong anti-government ideology."

I once knew a person named Billy Foust, he was my friend.

Here can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfk3At0nZY

Some people can claim that there are 2 sides to every story.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/092091-2011-06-20-wil...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/sovereign_...

There are people, on the other hand, who understand the concept of due process, and so that may be worth the effort to understand too.

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ

There are those who claim (falsely) that people who support the rule of law, due process, and due process that is due everyone except those who except themselves as those exceptions volunteer to be criminals (with or without false authority and false badges), are anti-government.

Think about that please.

Who falsely claims that a person who supports the rule of law, and due process, is anti-government?

Why would someone falsely claim such a false claim?

There is a very good historical precedent for such false claims made by such good liars.

Alexander Hamilton, for example, was a closet Monarchist, which is a closet Dictator, and that liar claimed to be a Federalist, in support of Federalism, and that liar claimed that those who did not support his form of false Federalism was an Anti-Federalist.

Here is an example of an supposed Anti-Federalist, who by the same false reasoning may be called someone who is anti-government.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

____________________________________________
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? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted.
_______________________________________________

Beware of well paid liars, they are targeting you because you have something worth stealing.

Joe