Comment: In my own words?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: How about a few examples (see in situ)

In my own words?

I've sent in an earlier reply the sources whereby quotes from people who were there at the time, such as Robert Yates, or Luther Martin, explained how The Constitution was a Usurpation.

The most obvious usurpation is explained in the words I quoted from the Federalist Papers.

Before the Usurpation there was no such thing as "legal" National Debt Slavery, forced upon Blacks or Whites, since a Free Man, once Free, could vote with their feet from a Slave State to a Non-Slave State (Constitutionally Limited Republic).

They were Constitutionally Limited Republics working within a Free Market of Government, which is the intended design of a Democratic Federated Republic, or Confederation of Republics, so long as the BOND, or the UNION, is not "perfected" with the same old LIE that every extortionist claims to be true.


Pay the protection money, or I will break your legs.

This is not that hard to conceptualize unless you are bogged down with lies to the point where there are no competitive options to anything, including the meaning of words.

Democracy was not MOB RULE.

Democracy was a systematic way to maintain voluntary association, and the idea came from long ago, with other words saying similar things, in Greek, for example, the word sortition (English translation) meant a system by which authority was randomly selected as a method of avoiding MONOPOLY of only one "CLASS" having power over everyone else.

So having brains filled up with mush, also known in modern terms as "garbage in - garbage out" is an investment in something.

Paying National Debt is an investment in having to pay more National Debt, so who are the dupes?

Who are the Usurpers?

Is this really that difficult to know?

The Masters and Slaves look at that official report made by the Masters and they think two types of thoughts:

My investments in National Debt are not paying very well, so I think I should listen to my leadership, as they are demanding that I work harder to throw more money at that investment in the hope that this time we can make that investment pay better for me, I do the work, they get the commission for their good advice, and their good work.

Call that the War is good for the Economy investment group (Slaves).

My investments in National Debt are paying better than ever at the moment, and therefore I had better hedge.

Call that the Business Psycho investment group (Masters).


The Business Psycho 3 Part Plan:

Part I

Part II

Part III

So the example of the Usurpation is made to order, for you, or anyone caring to know better, precisely in the comparison of the same events played out before and after the Usurpation in those specific examples known as Shays's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion.

In my own words, but I can grab quotes as needed, the Central Banker (Monarchist/Consolidators/Nationalist/Monopolist/Money Masters/Slave Traders/Despots) groups, beside Hamilton were notable personalities such as Robert Morris, saw (realized) a very dangerous precedent set with Shays's Rebellion. What had happened in that case was contained within the Massachusetts Republic up until the fugitives escaped into Vermont, and then that threatened the Monopolists Power with the force of competition.

The Massachusetts Republic was run by the typical rats that so offended people like Patrick Henry, as those rats tried the same old Despotic Routine of investing in war for profit and then handing the tax payers the bills when the wars didn't pan out. Massachusetts "governors" purchased contracts to supply an army of aggression into Canada to "annex" lands up north, but the resistance to such usurpation was overpowering and therefore the investment didn't pan out as planned.

The Massachusetts "governors" then increased taxes in two ways, they created false paper called debt, and then they created false taxes to pay for the false debt, and that drove Gold out of circulation through Gresham's Law, as importers would not agree to be paid with the funny money called debt, and so imports were paid with the specie money, good things are imported for good things exported, and bad things stay internally enforced within the Usurped Republic of Massachusetts in the form of Monopoly Debt Money, or worthless, and getting worthless even faster, Paper Money, or edicts.

The people on the farms invented, as they often do, ways to make their own money at home, on the farm, and one way was to make whiskey and use whiskey as money.

So what do the "governors" do in those cases when the slaves don't obey the order to pay the taxes in the gold they don't have?

The idiot "governors" pass a new tax that says that whiskey must be taxed and anyone daring to make their own money (whiskey) must pay the new tax, and they must pay, they must pay, they must pay, in the gold that they don't have.

Well, some of the farmers where decorated veterans of The Revolutionary War so all this taxation without representation routine was a familiar story, so they merely decided to finish the job they started, so they went to the Massachusetts Armory to get enough arms to do what their duty was, according to The Declaration of Independence.

They lost the battle.

The Revolution was over in Massachusetts.

But, and this is where the Usurpation shows up as the actual thing that had to be Usurped, Liberty (Free Markets of government power had to be Usurped), since those Revolutionary War veterans ran from Massachusetts up to Vermont.

What does the "Federal" government do about runaway slaves?

Under The Articles of Confederation the precedent was set.

The "Federal" government does nothing about runaway slaves.

Vermont does nothing about runaway slaves.

That is the force of competition working to CHECK and BALANCE any moves from Liberty to Despotism as the Slaves tend to wander off, to find greener pastures.

There are many more examples, but that National Debt example is the main one.

It goes like this:

June 4th George Mason

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788
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 controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly 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 harrassed? 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.

My own words are powerless compared to whose words?

The Constitution was ratified because the False Federalists like Hamilton had power over Major Media at the time, sufficient power to convince the masses that his lies were promises that his ilk would keep.

Hamilton sent his Goon, this guy named George Washington into Pennsylvania to enforce National Debt by rubbing out The Spirit of Liberty which is the same spirit as competition in free markets.

You don't have to trust me, or anyone, but I offer two more sources.

This comes from someone I have a love/hate relationship with, for his deeds. I love his offerings of accurate facts, I hate the lies he spreads.

I think the following is accurate:

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray N. Rothbard

I won't quote from that source, rather, I can quote straight from the horses mouth here:

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

So the proof is in the pudding. In other words, if the question is to ask if the government was Usurped, and there is skepticism focused on the honorable governors own words, then that is the proof, is it not?

If there is an extremely high demand for liars, so much so that those demanding better and better lies are willing to pay trillions of dollars in Federal Reserve Notes (that they don't have) to those who will lie better, Federal Reserve Notes that are sold by the liars, at interest, sold to those who demand better lies from the liars, then, there is cause for concern, and inculpatory evidence exists, proof exists, in the form of that specific money, as that specific money is a fraud in progress, and merely following it to the source of it uncovers the Usurpers.

Why is that difficult at all to see clearly?