Comment: Repeating error

(See in situ)


Repeating error

Repeating error as if there is no other option has been identified as the definition of insanity.

I read up to the following words from the link offered.

"None of this is Constitutional."

All of that is the insanity of crime made legal which is the fact of the matter concerning the Monopoly Constitution Power, or the USURPATION OF LIBERTY that was clearly an error in 1788.

Where once there were 13 competitive choices for shoppers shopping for Liberty in the form of Constitutionally Limited Democratic Republics, a Free Market of Government, under The Articles of Confederation, from 1776 to 1787, where once Liberty was the Law, where once it was the duty of free people to resist criminal (monopoly) government, a crime was perpetrated, and an error of extreme collective insanity was repeated, when The Constitution, so called, was used by criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, to enforce a Banking Monopoly to fund a Crime Monopoly, both hidden behind a false front of authority.

The article in the link offered starts out well but the author repeats the same error of judgment concerning the actual account on the so called Constitution.

More error:

"The Left never had all the answers, but they were for a long time damned sure the Right were evil. And the Right never had all the answers, but they were damned sure that the Left were stupid. And most people who are interested in politics have for the longest time chosen one of those two teams."

The criminals were called Red Coats, The British, Loyalists, Tories, King's Men, Royalists, Monarchists, and then Federalists.

Those who preferred not to hire criminals to turn voluntary, free market, government into Crime made Legal, or those who, in their own words, resisted governments run by criminals, were called Rebels, Rabble, Insurgents, Revolutionaries, Friends of Liberty, Sons of Liberty, and then, curiously, Anti-Federalists.

Having a desire to work toward maintaining a working Federation of Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republics, curiously enough, earned a person the title of Anti-Federalist.

That is an error in accurate labeling.

"...the most basic of Constitutional rights of this nation..."

There in those words repeat the error. A Nation is not a Federation. A Nation is ONE POWER or Monopoly having no competition forcing improvement for those who pay for it, and no competition forcing lower cost to those who pay for it.

A Nation is just another false front for Crime made Legal, and this was known in our not too distant past in America.

The old "right" never existed. The closest to an old "right" a person can get, now, is to find, and study, the words, and the actions, of people who were falsely called Anti-Federalists in our recent History.

The old "left" never existed. The closest to an old "left" a person can get, now, is to find, and study, the words, and the actions, of people who were falsely called Anti-Federalists in our recent History.

Assuming that the person looking is looking for Free Market Government, or Liberty, when looking for the old right or the old left, then such a person may yet find those people who were falsely called Anti-Federalists.

If a person is looking for the old right or the old left that helps the person maintain crimes made legal, or Nationhood, then a person can find those old left and old right champions in the people who falsely called themselves Federalists.

The Federalists like Hamilton and Washington were busy making their crimes legal for them to perpetrate, pay themselves well for perpetrating, and handing the bill, the costs, of their crime to their targeted victims. The Federalists were the Nationalists and the best word that describes the Federalists who were the Nationalists is the word Criminal. The next best word might be Monarchist or Monopolist or Central Banker or to use a common word today, those Federalists of old could accurately be called Communists today.

So who is repeating the same old lies, the same old errors, of claiming that there ever was, or ever is, a Left and a Right of any consequence whatsoever?

There never was, and never will be, a true, accurate, measure of the so called Left as being in any way opposing a so called Right, since both "sides" are manufactured frauds produced by criminals who take over voluntary governments, turning Liberty into Crime made Legal.

Those who know better know that it is the duty of every free person to resist criminal governments, and as soon as any criminal claims to have the authority to force an innocent person into an involuntary association, obey, obey, obey, and pay, and pay, and pay, and do not question the false authority making this claim, is the moment when that criminal confesses their true color.

How far from voluntary association, how far from Liberty, have our repeated errors moved us, from 1776 to this moment?

"True Constitutionalists conserve liberality. Does that make them conservative or liberal? The Constitution, properly understood, is no more than the Hippocratic Oath for politicians. It requires, "First, Do No Harm." That is an axiom that is exquisitely liberal and conservative at the same time. (Think about it.)"

That is taken from the link offered.

That is founded upon falsehoods.

The Declaration of Independence states, in plain English, the following words:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I am neither left nor right or I am left or right depending upon who is defining the meaning of English words.

The above words, from the official government web page, are words that are unambiguous.

Alter or abolish it, when it becomes destructive.

It became destructive in 1788.

I am neither false right nor false left.

I am true left and I am true right.

I can read plain English.

What was declared in The Declaration of Independence was made a crime with The Constitution.

Here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...

That is the official government, so called government, web page.

Here is where The Declaration of Independence is made into a crime:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Here is a test case:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

Here are the words straight out of the horses mouth:

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;

Here is an accurate assessment and accounting of that horse who spoke in discredit and damnation of the spirit of liberty:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-tro...

"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces."

Washington was a "Federalist"

Hamilton was the "Federalist" who pushed for National Debt, not Federal Debt to be paid to employees hired to run a Federation, and to be paid by 13 Constitutionally Limited Republics voluntarily.

Out was the concept of a voluntary Tax and ushered in by the lying Federalists was the concept of ONE TAX POWER over every subject in the Nation State.

That is not my conspiracy theory.

This is all "public" information available to anyone caring to know better.

Example:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/george-m...

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. 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, shew us, that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic Governments ever so extensive t a [sic] country; but that popular Governments can only exist in small territories —Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support t a contrary opinion?

Those are the words of someone in favor of a Federation of Constitutionally Limited Republics, or voluntary association, or free market government, so how did that group of people who were in favor of a Federation gain, somehow, the label of Anti-Federalist?

The answer is simple. The Federalists were not actually working to preserve Liberty, they were lying, they were Nationalists, or merely Criminals, who were saying one thing, and then once in office they were doing the opposite of what they promised.

Example:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

The Criminals seek POWER over the victims, and it is a routine that can be easily seen. Convince the victims that the criminals are their only hope as a source of security against criminals and the victims will then be inspired to pay the criminals more for each crime perpetrated upon each victim.

Like this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

There is an official score board and the score is denominated in Federal Reserve Notes:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The false "right/left" is merely crime made legal, and that began with Hamilton and his bait and switch routine concerning the earning of credit, already earned by those who were called Rebels, and replacing that credit with National Debt. That was the POWER the criminals lost when an actual Federation was constructed from The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation, and all those Constitutionally Limited Republics that formed that voluntary association, that Free Market of Government, understood in this way:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

_________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, 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. 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, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
__________________________________________

The concepts of free markets, voluntary associations, and liberty are not that difficult to realize, but when liberty, competition, voluntary association, and free markets exist there can be no Monopoly (Crime) Power of any significance.

So the criminals have to act, and they did, when they found out that the Federation was going to work as a Free Market force that drives the quality of government up and the cost of government down.

The criminals were the Federalists.

The criminals created the false Constitution.

It may be a good idea to figure this out, so as to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again as if insanity was the goal.

Back to the Topic Link Offered:

"Progressive liberals on the one hand, and neocons on the other, have between them done plenty of harm to the USA. Most of the lives and treasure that have been lost by America would not have been lost if the Constitution had been followed more closely by both groups."

Lost?

That is absurd.

The POWER has not be lost, and all anyone has to do to find the POWER is to follow the Fraudulent Money to the source of it, and there will be something called The FUND at the end of that rainbow.

Criminals, like Hamilton, created that FUND, by claiming to OWN the credit that was earned by the REBELS among us.

How is that not easy to see? What power is at work that empowers all this smoke and all these mirrors?

"We may now be entering a period in which some of the constraints of that document -- the requirement to declare war in Congress; the need for sound money that cannot be printed at will, impoverishing the working man over time; the prohibition against any lawmaking that favors one class of people over another; the rights of all Americans to privacy in the absence of due process - are being revisited by Left and Right as favorable to the interests of both."

That is false in so many ways.

At the Con Con, or Constitutional Convention, the despots/monarchist/nationalist/communists/dictators/criminals threw out all the forces that actually do force higher quality government and lower cost government and they placed National Debt in force.

Washington assembled a conscripted army in 1794 to crush what was then a competitor to Hamilton's Legal Money Power.

A National Army of Slaves (conscripts) invaded what was once a Constitutionally Limited Republic in 1794.

That was a test case for the crushing of competition, stamping out The Spirit of Liberty, removing the power of The Declaration of Independence, enforcing a Union of Slaves forced into that Union by lies, threats, and an Army of Aggression for Profit of the Few Central Bankers at the expense of anyone who could make anything worth stealing.

Why do lies carry so much weight these days?

"The Constitution is not left or right-wing, and both Left and Right are starting to see that the most egregious acts that have been performed in the interest of the governing and the financial classes have in common that they defy the Constitution, typically by violating the rights of some for the benefit of others."

That is false in so many ways.

There is a bait and switch operation going on here, as those who earn credit for producing more than they consume are now somehow, by some magic, made into targets that have to be robbed at the point of a gun. That is the principle at work. The so called Constitution was in direct opposition to The Declaration of Independence and in direct opposition to The Bill of Rights.

What, in your mind, is the justification for the following:

A.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

B.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

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.

Back to the Topic Link:

"First, Do No Harm," is the Constitution in four words, and should be the rallying cry of conservative liberals everywhere."

That is hogwash.

Joe