8 votes

Liberty Day Challenge 2012

Hi,

I am not new to forums, and I will play nice, but the things I publish on forums are routinely censored, and therefore I routinely back up my work on my own forum, so as to keep the record straight on exactly what is being censored.

This Liberty Day Challenge 2012 is a simple idea along the lines of helping further the cause of Liberty, and since Liberty is the same cause championed by Ron Paul, it logically follows that this is a good place to combine such forces.

Before explaining what exactly is the Liberty Day Challenge 2012 I see an opportunity to lend support to Ron Paul by way of communicating my own experiences – briefly.

Very briefly

I ran for congress in 1996.

In the context of my experiences involving Ron Paul I can say with confidence that his example was part of my inspiration to run for Congress in 1996. Without Ron Paul's example in congress that thing called congress is almost a total loss, and worse, it is legalized crime. That is literally written in Common Sense. I can quote the relevant words if challenged.

Previous to my own bid for congress I was active in learning about Liberty, and communicating the things I have learned concerning the cause of Liberty, and my first contact with Ron Paul was through message boards on the internet in the 1980s. At that time I had been gaining a reputation as a “conspiracy theorist” and it was startling to me to read one of the messages on the message board authored by this person named Ron Paul. Ron Paul was saying much of the things I was saying, and I can confirm that Ron Paul is still saying the same things, no flip, no flop, same messages which were and are examples, or evidences, of someone who supports the cause of Liberty.

Liberty for all: not just a few gaining “Liberty” at the expense of the many.

It was startling at that time since Ron Paul, as it turned out, was, and is, a member of congress.

That was absurd to me at that time: 1980s.

Since those early days on my road to Liberty, which is merely life for anyone who does not become a criminal, with or without the sanctions offered by criminals running government, since those early days I joined, or in some way tried to connect to: The John Birch Society, The Libertarian Party, United We Stand (Ross Perot), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Mises Institute, The National Rifle Association, Lew Rockwell, The Liberty Project, Prison Planet (Alex Jones), and The Real News Network.

I have starting petitions, delivered petitions, and ran myself into bad heath working to support a family.

Now I have this Liberty Day Challenge 2012 idea, and coincidentally or not, there is a similar effort being championed by Ron Paul, if I understand his intentions.

Currently there is much power flowing to Ron Paul, call it political capital, or whatever works for you. I see life as a power struggle, and for whatever reason anyone connects to Ron Paul, in any way, money, support, whatever, power flows from the individual to Ron Paul, that is happening, measurably, and the measure can be accurate. Some connect and intend to take power from Ron Paul, that is not me. The net result, it seems, is a measurably more powerful Ron Paul - so far.

Few people I know can come close to offering a challenge to any of the ideas I have so far understood to be Ron Paul’s ideas on Liberty. I can. But that may or may not get in the way of people, or The People, moving closer to Liberty, and moving further away from what I call Legal Crime. I don't argue, facts speak if people listen.

A more powerful Ron Paul moving toward Liberty is a very good thing for anyone currently suffering from the powers that destroy Liberty - not so good for those criminals running what may have once been a Republic.

Onto: The Liberty Day Challenge 2012

I tried to be brief with my introduction, and I will try to be brief with an explanation of The Liberty Day Challenge 2012, much will be missing when messages are pared down to sound bites.

One of the things Ron Paul supports, to my understanding at least, is competition in money markets, and that is the basis, or foundation, or principle behind The Liberty Day Challenge 2012.

The idea is to begin inventing, constructing, producing, and maintaining competitive legal money and have those competitive legal money ideas, and those competitive legal money products ready by July 4th 2012, to compete with The Federal Reserve Currency Issue, the dollar, which is a Legal Monopoly Money, and is therefore not subject to the forces supplied by people who compete.

The Liberty Day Challenge 2012 idea, is an idea that understands and intends to address the power of numbers. It will take a powerful number of people making competitive choices to overpower the number of people choosing the monopoly power. That does need to be understood - fully.

Absent is the force of competition that forces quality up, and costs down, as is the case if any market even remotely resembles a Free Market.

A Free Market is defined by the fact that there are choices, and therefore people choose higher quality over lower quality, and people choose lower cost over higher cost, in a Free Market, and that is what defines a Free Market: choices.

An enforced monopoly, enforced by criminals with badges, or enforced by criminals without badges, the same thing is defined, in real time, in a monopoly, legal or otherwise: no choices.

No choices = no force that forces quality up and cost down.

How can you tell if it is a monopoly, with no choices?

Quality goes down. Costs go up. Inexplicably?

What is the relative quality of the dollar compared to the quality of the dollar in, say, 1860? And it does not make any sense, to me, to compare the dollar to worse fraudulent and despotic monopoly money issues, the idea is to race to the top, not the bottom.

What is the relative cost of the dollar today, compared to yesterday? Some people can argue over what is or is not the true measure of cost – I won’t argue. What would be the point?

The Liberty Day Challenge 2012 idea is to get competition on the calendar, and make it happen by such and such a date, and the July 4th 2012 day was the July 4th 2011 date that past on by, without a choice in legal money being a choice; and therefore the obvious result: lower quality and higher cost (by accurate measure).

What has to happen between today and the day when the force of competition forces the quality of legal money up, and the cost of legal money down, in America?

Why wait for someone else to do it? If the question isn’t a vital question, then what is a vital question?

If the answer isn’t an accurate answer, the answer isn’t true.

Why settle for false, or fraudulent, stuff, when there can be an alternative?

That is sufficient, I think, to introduce the Topic, and see what happens.

My experience is such that, at least, some people will be inspired to use their brains, instead of merely being conduits for other people.

Note: In concert with this Challenge to the Legal Money Monopoly are examples such as The Liberty Dollar, PayPal (at the beginning), A Gold money issue in Utah, Labor Dollars here and there, and in history there were 2 cases of Whiskey used by The People as money, in direct competition with the legal crime money issue in those examples. More competition means more force applied in the effort to bring quality up, and cost down.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not a bother

There is a Russian government whistle blower, which I may be able to re-find and relink who claims that both the Towers in New York and the Towers in Chicago where built by licenses or permits in those Cities only after they provide detailed demolition plans for those buildings before they are constructed so as to prove that they can be deconstructed in a safe manner.

The Russian government whistle blower was a high ranking Russian Nuclear Weapons officer and his claim continues with a claim that says those demolition plans for those buildings in New York and Chicago employ underground nuclear devices that are used for making large holes in the ground.

I suppose those same devices can be used to make underground tunnels and underground cities.

I just did a quick search and the name of the Russian is now very easy to find as: Dimitri Khalezov.

He explains the differences between above and below ground nuclear explosions.

As to the electric car and the use of Direct Current instead of Alternating Current there is much along those paths of study indicating some serious abuses of government power.

The Electric Car competition with the Petroleum burning Car is similar to the Petroleum burning Car competition with the Alcohol made from private farms competition that was won by the Petroleum burning competitors with their Prohibition Legislation.

Look up and find Who Killed the Electric Car, if you care to know better about current battles for market share in the "Free Market" (free from moral conscience).

Joe

Deceit

“My political economy understanding (philosophy?) is written as a Power Equation. The path traveled to get to that power equation and understanding political economy was a perception of a need to know better so as to be in a position to make better choices.
Do the right thing and be in a position to do the right thing.”

Philosophy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

I think philosophy was a good word choice. Was it a poor word choice? Did I ere in my choice of words? Why did you put a question mark after my word philosophy? I was not trying to miscommunicate or say anything hidden by invoking the power in that word.
___________________
“…but I am not writing another word about another subject until my perception is clarified if you think it worth the time.”

Which is why "I haven't looked into anything about Islamic Finance. My only concern has been to establish what exactly is your political philosophy."

Which I still do not perceive as clarified other than a limited understanding of Joe’s Law, but it seems I am writing much more other words.

In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?

In your competitive estimation what economic system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?
___________________________
From: Miscommunication can be a goal - “Instead of focusing attention at someone like Ben Bernanke, if the idea is to exert precious defensive power efficiently, "we the people" are inspired to kill rag heads, and torture them before throwing them on the pile.”

I haven’t said this before: “rag heads;” I don’t even like to think or read those words. I suppose that is what people are calling them, like names other “ethnic enemies” have been called, derogatory terms, I suppose to dehumanize them such as to kill those individuals to whom those terms are implied so that without conscience of actually killing human flesh and blood, a soul, a life. I am pretty sure you were using the term for affect, but I just want to say here and now, I do not think of the Middle East people in those terms. When I see someone of another race, I do not think of a derogatory term. I may see them as a different color on the outside (only because it is obvious), but they are flesh and blood like me and I am no better or no worse than they just because my skin happens to be a color called “white” which is not white at all. Just saying these things to give insight into how I think.
__________________________
“Islamic Finance is competitive as is confirmed by a search on Google for growth rate reports…”
Interesting article
http://www.islamic-finance.com/item154_f.htm “There is a general perception that the interest-based financial system wouldn't have survived so long if its harms outweighed its benefits, hence my data is often greeted with silence or a doubting smile. …Professional spoiling tactics don't make the vital task of education any easier. Some years ago, in response to a frank but technical discussion that I had written on the subject of home finance, a leading bank cancelled its entire advertising budget with the publisher of my article. If this is what can happen to a small and relatively unknown finance magazine, one wonders what tactics are being applied to more widely circulated publications…Muslims did very well for several centuries without an Islamic bank…Among these practitioners, some have resigned their positions on principle and have thereby set a powerful example for those who are at the outset of their careers. Others have decided to remain on the inside, on the grounds that Islamic banking and finance cannot be left to the mercy of the global banking brands. For those with a sufficiently strong constitution, this is perhaps a valid strategy…Ours is not a political campaign, where slogans become worn out and allegiances change every few years. It is a matter of black and white, a choice between justice and grotesque injustice, and those who recognise this fact once never need re-convincing of it.

I had someone mention to me on the DP that Islam forbids charging interest to one another. I find it interesting that the Jews were not to charge usury either. However, the Jews were allowed to charge other nations usury. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2604368 . The links to Biblical Usury are in the comment link if you are interested. I don’t know what Judaism advocates today. It seems there are a lot of extra law books to interpret the law as laid out in the Mosaic Law contained in the Bible.

“How can anyone know if the right thing is the right thing to do, to think, or to know?”

The Bible tells us that God is the source for knowing right and wrong. Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Psalm 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

That is the very reason I must study God’s Word and hide God’s Word in my heart. The verses I quote for you I already halfway or mostly know in my mind. Then I go to the online concordance to find them in the Bible and get the exact quotation. If I didn’t already know them, it sure would be hard to find them. If I were a better student, I would be able to quote them verbatim and know exactly where they are found in the Bible. I am thankful for an online Bible search though. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine hearth that I might not sin against thee. Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

“The right thing will be obvious compared to an obvious thing that is less right?”

I suppose with the word obvious it would be obvious, but sometimes it may not be obvious. Sometimes it is very hard to determine which path to take. I can always know what is right if there is direct scripture or a scriptural principle, but sometimes we make life choices that change the whole direction of our lives and there is not a Scripture saying take this path, or take that path. Just like when the individuals in the church here asked Jeff to pastor them. This place would never have been our first choice. However, it was God’s choice and we know it good and well though there was nothing to constrain us to make this choice. God speaks in a still small voice http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-kings/passage.aspx?q=1-... Another thing that has been helpful to me is to know that God wants the best for me. He is not trying to trick me. Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. In context http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/jeremiah/passage.aspx?q=j...

“If everyone chooses the wrong thing how can that fact be known?”

The Bible also says there is safety in an abundance of counselors: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/proverbs/passage.aspx?q=p...

“No one finds a way to stop the end of life on Earth?”

God is going to take care of that. The heavens and earth are going to pass away. There is nothing you can do about it. Did you hear that the HEAVENS & the earth. Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered . Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. Full context: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+... Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved : but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen , he hath shortened the days. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat , the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. In context http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-... Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered , nor come into mind. Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And yet, people will still reject God and hate him for the calamity around them instead of turning to him as that theif on the cross did. Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fallon us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come ; and who shall be able to stand ? Full context http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/revelation/passage.aspx?q...

Thinking of Jesus and that thief on the cross, I am also reminded that in the midst of his crucifixion Jesus called out to God on behalf of those doing that deed: Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

“Here is where I found Howard Bloom to be wrong from my viewpoint.”

Please, I beg you, consider looking into Ralph O. Muncaster http://www.bibleone.net/print_SF1.html . Perhaps the truth will resound for you there.

…the Bible does tell us not to accept anything on “blind faith.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says “Prove [or test] all things; hold fast that which is good.”

If Howard Bloom has proven to be a deceiver, will you not spend some time with someone who claims to have found the true God scientifically?

From Miscommunication can be a Goal: “… such as my leaving the group gathered by Howard Bloom, it is due to diametric opposites identified by me, as in that case Howard Bloom had a viewpoint about Muslim religion taking over the human species and therefore Christians had to fight a war to stop it, or some such ideas that defy accurate reporting in a few sentences here and now.”

Is Howard Bloom advocating another “Holy War?” Or is he just using his pen to do the talking about it? Is he trying to get people to take some type of action? Does he advocate using deceit? Who would want another “Holy War?” The same people that want WWIII? How do you know that he is not being used to pull strings on behalf of some other entity?

“…asking for an explanation concerning the evolutionary advantage of deceit employed by a species upon members of the same species…It appears to me as a species killer, and therefore counter evolutionary, and perhaps there is a scripture version of this line of thinking along the lines of original sin.”

Psalm 101:7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
More verses on deceit: http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=deceit&c=&t=kjv&ps=... It appears to me that God does not take to kindly to its use. Satan is the deceiver: “Hath God said…?” Original sin: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned :
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
___________________________________
“If error was made in this human experiment (you might call it God's will, not an experiment, but for mere God's creation like me, it looks a lot like an experiment)…”

Here is why I call it God’s will. Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist

Note the words: “created by him” ,” and for him” “and by him all things consist” God is sovereign over all. You know about sovereignty. What do you think it means for God to be sovereign?

“There is a way of looking, perhaps not Howard Bloom's specific viewpoint, concerning the adaptive advantage of deceit being tied with creativity, whereby a failure to be unsatisfied with "the way things are" leads to the invention, production, and maintenance of viewpoints that imagine how things may be, a fantasy, a self-deception, an escape from reality, a dream world, a thing called imagination, in invention of something not yet known.”

In my competitive view the word “deceit” invokes the idea of negative power. I am not necessarily seeing the power of adaptation as deceit, but as ingenuity, as talent given by God. I am more of the mind that nothing would be discovered if God did not permit it and give light and skill for it to be seen or known.
Exodus 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See , I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship

In that scripture passage above I see God filling a person with wisdom and understanding and knowledge and workmanship.

“1. Destructive power, deceit, threats of violence, and aggressive violence.
2. Productive power used to produce more productive power.”

A competitive view of destructive and productive power as told by Jesus:

Matthew 13: 24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying , The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up , and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall bewailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

“Fertility rates falling below a certain number, 1.7…
Is there falsehood in that too?”

I have heard talks on the falling Caucasian birth rates. It seems that id did have to do with a talk on Sharia Law in the United States and other European countries. I think there is a planned depopulation. RE Georgia Guidestones? We have been fooled into not reproducing and we took the bait. I think it was on purpose. Sort of like Pavlov’s explanation you explained about women’s rights and smoking. “The world is a terrible place, I don’t want to have children. What will they have to go thru?” “The earth is overpopulated. I must do my part and not reproduce too many. “ “Children are an inconvenience.” “It cost too much to raise children.” All lies and here we are facing a lack of power to maintain our population. I speak as we in general terms of the Caucasian race.

“If you didn't need anyone else to give you permission to loan yourself money, at your own cost, and thereby earn a measure of good faith and credit, accurately measured, because you pay yourself back every penny you borrow from yourself, plus interest, then would you make that choice any time that you knew how to use your power to make more power which is then more power to work with in the work of making even more power, or would you instead choose to keep your level of power at the current level, or would you choose to consume your current power, and consume more of your current power, and consume all of your power, again having no connection to anyone else, no need for any other person to give you permission, and also no means by which you can then, once powerless, connect to other people and suck the life out of them too?”

I don’t know how to loan myself money other than by the sweat of my brow without an available money source. I think the example of your mother’s house is an ability to loan oneself money because there is a gift of a money source from which to loan.

“Any patterns visible to you, or might I be deceiving myself, or is it possible that an external power is deceiving me despite my use of my will power to know better and do the right thing?”

I don’t know what you are meaning for me to answer. I am confused.

"I am only interested now because I sense something is wrong here in the USA. It seems the country I live in is becoming unrecognizable."

Rewritten:
I am only interested in politics, economics and political economy now because I have sensed something is wrong here in the USA [the land between sea to shining sea]. It seems this land that I live in is becoming unrecognizable because Criminal individuals have written laws to make their Crimes Legal and Legal Crime has become so abundant that it is no longer hidden below the surface of my conscience level such that the prolific Criminal activity committed by Legal Criminal Individuals has risen above the surface of my subconscious and has now become recognizable to me which has caused me much alarm and duress so much so that I have begun a quest to find out what is going on and have found a competitive point of view herein and I am now also trying to alert other individuals to the recognizable and perceived danger that may lie ahead if Friends of Liberty are unable to overcome the depravity levied against each and every innocent individual.

Do you still think I am suffering from a fundamental lie if I am able to rephrase my communication to be more accurate?

“I think the lie is misplaced accountability that is accurately attributable to individual people making individual decisions and instead the accountability being done is falsely targeting a fictitious thing.

I think that you have made me aware of the individuality of the problem; however, I still fail to communicate accurately. I would not be aware of the individuality of the responsibility of each and every Legal Criminal if you had not drilled that into my head repeatedly, which is a fact that I do appreciate as I had never heard the term Legal Criminal before dialoging with you. I still have not mastered communicating accurately though. Perhaps it is laziness; perhaps it is habit? Perhaps you will have to continue to be patient. I will try harder to communicate accurately so that you will know which problems still need addressed. Or if this problem still needs to be addressed, please tell me so I will know where I need to work.

"Well I can understand it, it is just a complete 180 from the way I am used to thinking. So I feel I am going in circles."

I see patterns, and I see circles of thinking where an observation begins and after much inspection the original thought returns too, but that is no longer confusing to me, since I have grown to be able to retrace my thinking through the same circle, over and over again, and then step back and look as the same repetitive circle being that which it is, and how that circle of thinking compares with other thoughts that can't be contained in a sound bite.

“Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production and the result is less power being used to make even more power further increasing the supply of power and further reducing the price of power and further increasing the power to purchase because the cost of producing power reduces further.”

Now that is really not fair…I have finally gotten the first part of Joe’s Law and now I have to figure out how less power will be used to make even more power. But I thought power had to be produced into oversupply so how can less power make more power? Will there soon be so little power that everything will be free, or will there be so l little power that there will not be enough power for production?

“Is that a pattern or a circle?”

I do not know. I think it is a spiral.

There is a counterfeit version that goes like this:
It takes money to make money.

So is the truth that labor makes money, but then money can be used to make money which can reduce the labor necessary to make money because money is then doing the work; i.e., stock investment in a profitable venture?

"I never even knew there were so many political philosophies in my life."
“I think that there are as many political philosophies as there are grains of sand…where the common denominators reduce down to one or two.”

So am I thinking correctly if I think along the lines of sifting those grains of sand into these 2 categories:

1) Destructive Criminal Monopoly Power
Vs
2) Productive Competitive Liberating Power

Is it possible to sort political philosophies into those groups? Or is it actually the Individual who holds the philosophy that must be sifted into one of those 2 groups? ie. Any political philosophy is ok to live under, even a monarchy, if the monarch is benevolent? Because if the monarch is benevolent then the monarch will allow productive competition such that one will not even know there is a monarch except that the monarch ensures that no harm is done.
____________________________
On Pollyanna: I suppose it is someone who sees the world thru rose-colored classes. An eternal optimist probably with some naivety mixed in. Probably also has to do with you telling me I am a fountain of hope and thinking it somewhat funny that I had lost sight of it because it is out of character for the Pollyanna to become disillusioned because of fixation on the illusion of everything being wonderful all the time for everyone.

“I still try to read Noam Chomsky's book titled On Language. It is written in English, yet I can't seem to comprehend a paragraph despite being able to understand some of the sentences.”

I think I will take a look at that book when I take my Gulag book back to the library. I have had it for 3 weeks and have only managed to read a few pages. There are 2 more volumes of 600 pages each. I guess I am not in the mood for reading. Maybe winter will be a better reading time for me.

Thank you for explaining the censoring at your expense. I think I would have given up long ago. I would have found the rejection and erasing too crushing. Why do you keep trying? Are you driven? Is it because of the danger that lies ahead?

“…but once here no one has taken up my challenges, so there is no one being threatened, so there is nothing to hide, apparently."

Have you tried repeating that 9/11 sentence RE: the Austrian Economics forum “actually ordering me to not repeat a specific sentence in English.”

Why do you think that no one has taken up your challenges on this site?
_________________________
“Where was I mad?”

This caused me to think you were mad or angry with me:

“despite convicting me without trial, and despite your execution of the public damnation sentence upon me.
The stone was thrown, nice shot, right in target.”

Or was that a Parthian arrow targeted at me to avoid the subject that I was bringing up?
________________________
“Can I copy and paste your work and use it on pamphlets in case I am trying to sell something some day, run for office, recruit members of Liberty Day 2013 where we all promise to stop using the one Fraud Money and start using a competitive version or two instead?”

Do you mean any of the things I have written in our communication or just that descriptive paragraph about you?
______________________________
I would like to know more about:

“If the bad guys call themselves "The Inquisition" you get it, but if the bad guys call what they are doing "Fighting Communism" you don't get it?

If the heretics are being tortured for confessions you get it, but if the "workers" are screaming bloody murder, looking for a way out, you don't get it?”

…because I don’t get it. I thought we were fighting communism. I thought we were trying to help the people in Vietnam and Korea. What were we doing? Was there an ulterior effort to split countries in half ? Was it an effort to divide the power of the country so that Communism could succeed in the country? Or was it ok, you want the country, we will take half too?

“I heard the song, and there is a false version and a true version of the song called "communism".

What is the true song and the false song?

Why do communists cleanse the population of intellectuals? Why do they use rabble to achieve those purposes?

That is of very much interest to me because my husband is a Pastor. My family will be targeted. My closest friends will be targeted I think Legal Criminals are continuing to reduce our liberties for an end goal and I don’t know if that is communism or not, but when an economy collapses distant songs are sung and those unwary hear those songs and begin to sing those songs such that instead of disconnecting from Legal Crime those said Criminals become a dictating stifling monopoly power resulting in a worse situation for many or perhaps most individuals than was the environment before the song took hold.

How do you know that true song is not a pied piper playing a siren’s song: Deceit?

I still have many more questions. Thank you for your time. Is the power drain too much?

If you so choose you can move your reply up for a wider writing area as it appears that the bottom of this page has been reached.

.

Not being coy or tricky

Shooting for accuracy.

"I was not trying to miscommunicate or say anything hidden by invoking the power in that word."

Philosophy can be confused with "Utopian Fantasy".

Being practical can be confused with being impractical.

English has be used for a long time by a lot of people seeking to deceive people, and there are obvious measures of that fact.

What can be done in the effort to know better?

"Which I still do not perceive as clarified other than a limited understanding of Joe’s Law, but it seems I am writing much more other words."

You may be looking for a replacement for your capacity to be born again, which appears to be escaping me, so you may be wondering what I have in place of that which you have, and that may be impossible to find if it does not exist.

If I don't have a "political philosophy", such as you expect me to have, then you are looking for something that does not exist, and therefore you will never find it.

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

I can't answer a question that I think is false, so I have to report how I think the question rings false to me first, and then the answer to what might be the question might ring true to you as it does to me.

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

A political system cannot enable anything or inhibit anything since a political system is a thing, or a tool, and every user who picks up the tool is the responsible entity responsible for what is done with the tool in the way that the individual uses the tool to reach the goal desired by the user of the tool.

If the question was: Which system is most effective at utilizing power to make more power and thereby increase power into a state of abundance so as to provide human kind with abundant power so as to make power available for everyone who prefers a higher standard of living at a lower cost of living to get what they prefer before their lives end in their individual power struggles - if that was the question then the answer could be provided in fact.

Suppose anyone, anywhere, asked that same question?

Josiah Warren asked and he came up with Equitable Commerce.

Suppose a lot of people asked a different question and came up with a different answer such as:

Question:

How can I get something for nothing.

Answer:

Resort to deception, resort to threats of violence, and resort to violence as a systematic means by which I get something for nothing (and hand the bills off to other people for other people to pay).

Your question again:

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

Joe's Law has two parts, one is positive, and the other is negative, and there will be flourishing one way or the other.

Positive:
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Negative:
Power constricted down into a state of scarcity increases the price of power while Fraudulent Legal Monopoly Money Purchasing Power decreases because the power to make power scarce causes all power to flow to those who seize that monopoly power - that is why they pick up that deceptive, threatening, and aggressively violent tool.

I have not written the negative version down to a minimum use of words yet, so the sound bite is longer for the negative version, which is appropriate since falsehood involves so much "fine print" - the better to keep the victims guessing (powerless).

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

Leave me out of it, the facts speak for themselves, the employment of equitable commerce used by people to reach the goal of higher standards of living and lower costs of living while willfully avoiding resort to deceit, and avoiding resort to threats of violence, and avoiding willfully any resort to violence as a means of getting something for nothing and passing on cost to targeted victims is what it is, with or without my "competitive estimation" or my "political philosophy" or my existence on the planet at all - ever.

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

You combine my viewpoint with what is, I do not, what is: is, my opinion is something else. You also separate a system into only a political one, I do not, the system used by anyone, anytime, will be both political (psychological) and economic (physical) unless we are switching gears and we are now speaking about Spiritual matters; and at that point I need to know we are switching gears into things that I have not be able to measure accurately at this point in my life.

I am not familiar with how the Spiritual System works, but I have done enough homework on a few Political Economy Systems to be able to provide accurate measures of those systems, how they work, when they did work for the people who employed them to get what they wanted in the way they wanted.

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

Power spent on deception is power employed by someone to gain at the expense of a targeted victim when the victims isn't "clued in" on the deception. Deception can be entertainment, all are entertained because all are "clued in" on the deception. Deception can be Utopian Dreams of what can be if only, IF, IF, IF, if only I put this together with that then I might be able to make electricity light up a dark room.

Power spent on targeting victims for exploitation consumes power, so a system built on deception cannot be a system employed if the goal is more power OVERALL since the power that could be used to make power more abundant is spent on "taking from Peter to pay Paul"; which is relatively (or competitively) measurable as a net loss of productive capacity (the power to produce more out of less) OVERALL.

Paul is "in" on the system; while Peter is outside because Peter is the target and Paul is the Legal Criminal (not Ron Paul, just a figure of speech Paul as in "Robbing Peter to pay Paul").

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

You speak the way you have been taught to speak, I prefer to get past all the bull@#3%.

The tools used by people who share the goal of reaching a higher standard of living and a lower cost of living while avoiding the torture and mass murder of victims along the way won't be the tools known as Deception, Threats of Violence, and Aggressive Wars for Profit or Despotism, or Statism, or anything under the heading of CRIME including crimes done by people with badges that say their crimes are legal.

The tools used by people who want something for nothing are those tools known by those symbols and known intimately by the criminals and the victims while they are being used by the Legal Criminals upon their victims.

Legal Criminals just so happen to be smiling during the process of reaching their goals with those tools; while the victims, for some strange reason, scream bloody murder on their way along their trails of tears onto their mass graves.

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

Leave me out, please.

If you have a goal in mind, there are tools that move closer to the goal if the tools are used as designed when the design is to move closer to the same goal. Which goal do you have in mind? Which tools do you have to choose from in your progress toward your goal?

If your goal is politics for the sake of politics and you pick up the tool called deception, then you can reach your goal, all on your own, deceiving yourself.

If your goal is politics and your goal involves some measure of power transferred from victims you target to you then there is an economy to that goal, like it or not, accounted accurately by you or not, but seriously, if that is your goal, then how do you know if you are moving closer to your goal: score board?

"In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?"

There is no such thing as a political system if by separating politics from economics you intend to suggest that such a separation exists in anything other than someone's active imagination, and even then there are chemicals involved so there is an economy to that too.

"The links to Biblical Usury are in the comment link if you are interested."

As with many things there are positive versions and negative versions and interest is one of those things. Equitable interest can be a combination of two words in an attempt to convey a practice of avoiding unearned income flowing to those who don't earn it and flowing from those who did earn the income that now flows to those who don't earn it.

Interest is easily an earning of income for the people who are hired to keep the books accurate, such as all those people employed in all those banks, as those banks try to compete to keep the customers happy. If those bankers are paid well, because they provide the most accurate accounting, bar none: then they earn it, that way, baring none, and they do not steal it: unearned.

How much easier is it to make one legal money, baring every competitor, and then be able to write yourself a check for as much legal money as everyone else combined?

I write checks at work, it is easy, type, type, type, press send, and the check magically appears out of the printer, so as to pay for the bill for the paper, or the electricity, or the Internet Connection. Why can't I just add 13 zeros when I feel like it?

"He is not trying to trick me."

It is obvious to me that God makes all the right choices in reaching the goal of making life, including making life better, and including making life perpetuate through life time, since it is obvious to me that that is God's will (I call it work, but you don't).

As to who or what I have before me at any moment telling me which way to go next I'm going to have to rely upon me, each time, or flip a coin, when it isn't obvious if the speaker is willed by God to me.

1.
Me, as poor as is my Spiritual Connection (capacity to accurately know the difference between better life choices and poor life choices)

2.
Not 1

Connecting me to other things involves a connection of some kind. Air, for example, connects me to other things, like plants, or other people. If there is true air, then we all live, if there is counterfeit air, like acetylene gas pretending to be air connecting all living things on earth, then we "air breathers" all die, and perhaps God will create acetylene gas breathers to take our place.

The one Legal Money connects everyone too, and it appears to be keep the frauds entertained well enough, while the accurate money breathers work harder and longer to keep pay the mounting bills.

There is a score board. There are at least two, in fact, the one for "public consumption", and then the accurate one.

"The heavens and earth are going to pass away. There is nothing you can do about it."

The timing of that event, if I am left out of it, is significant to human beings as a whole, in my opinion. In other words: I may live through a normal life span, and I may not have done enough to get our species moved to another planet before this planet runs out of power, certainly I have not done enough, so for me it is insignificant, I die anyway, but the human species will, or will not, exist after earth runs out of power. As to what happens in Heaven, passing away, whatever happens in or to Heaven, that is, apparently, none of my business.

"There is nothing you can do about it."

I still try.

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Apparently, again, none of my business.

"If Howard Bloom has proven to be a deceiver, will you not spend some time with someone who claims to have found the true God scientifically?"

Time and word count is the specific measure of expense (spending)?

Actually I do not think that Howard Bloom is a deceiver if by the use of the word "deceiver" the meaning is such that Howard is intentionally inventing, producing, and then employing deceptive words. I think that Howard Bloom genuinely believes the words he publishes.

People, me included, make errors of judgement, which is a knowable fact, so a judgment can be made, such as to strive toward knowing better. I don't trust the viewpoint offered by Howard Bloom concerning the battle going on between force A and force B as explained earlier and with specific reservations concerning my own capacity (power) to understand exactly what is Howard Blooms viewpoint.

I have a chore to do at this time.

Back.

"Chapter seven (Dice or God?)"

Here is where the judgment provides proof of the judgment POWER. I can choose to continue conversation with you. I can choose to read more from the link that you beg me to read. I can choose to get other things done. I can choose the final to choices from the many choices, and then I can actually type the next symbol on the key board which is a period.

.

If I run into a situation where I fail to choose, for lack of good judgment power, I can flip a coin, I can roll the dice, or I can choose to look for more accurate information, pick up the Bible, or pick some other source of information. My choice now is easy, no need for dice, no coin, no Bible, no link to information published on the internet, I choose to keep this conversation going, by reading your authorized words of authority over what you think, and then responding to that connection through this connection.

The link looks valuable to me, worth study, when I find the time and energy (power) to study. I have other books to read too, in particular, for example, and inspired by our conversation, I've picked up one of the books I have on the subject of The Other Founders, those supposed Anti-Federalists, where I had previously discarded the book for reasons that are now less important, and I am finding some very important words (to me) written in that book, on this subject which is:

Liberty Day Challenge 2012

I see a need to make a new topic.

Liberty Day Challenge 2013

July 4th 2012 is now in the past.

"Is Howard Bloom advocating another “Holy War?” Or is he just using his pen to do the talking about it? Is he trying to get people to take some type of action? Does he advocate using deceit? Who would want another “Holy War?” The same people that want WWIII? How do you know that he is not being used to pull strings on behalf of some other entity?"

Howard Bloom is an insider if by that word the meaning is such where the measure of being "inside" includes the POWER to publish books that become National Best Sellers. To do so, it seems to me, there are hurdles that have to be overcome, decisions made by people in high places, to allow, or not to allow, that form of "currency" to flow. In that sense, to me, Howard Bloom is "controlled" by other people, but the measure of that control, in my opinion, is small, since Howard Bloom's perceptions are unique, and uniquely written, and therefore creative, or a form of art, and therefore there must be something to the message worth knowing, despite whatever parts of the message are inaccurate, or deceptive. Howard Bloom is scientist first, it seems to me, he is taken out of the equation as far as the information offered goes, as exemplified by your questions, such as:

"Is Howard Bloom advocating another “Holy War?” Or is he just using his pen to do the talking about it?"

I think that Howard Bloom is advocating the life process as he understands it, whereby living things adapt and find ways to stay alive, despite the forces that cause the destruction of life. His viewpoint may be, if I have it right, that Christian Capitalism, for lack of a full and accurate account of exactly what is meant by those terms, is the form of adaptation that leads to better life and longer life for human beings, compared to the competition which is, presumably, Muslim Socialism, for lack of clarity on my part to know exactly what Howard Bloom thinks. I have not finished Howard Bloom's last book, and his next one is not yet available titled as:

Lucifer Principle
Global Brain
The Genius of The Beast
The God Problem

I've read the first two and half of the third one. I was invited to the Howard Bloom ongoing discussion group, and our viewpoints reached a demarcation point on the meaning of current reality. I think there is a need to know better concerning who exactly is responsible for causing wars while Howard Bloom appears to chalk it up to "human nature".

I can certainly be wrong, but here is where your viewpoint appears to be a third contender and I represent the minority viewpoint concerning precise accountability for exactly who is responsible for what.

"It appears to me that God does not take to kindly to its use."

So is original sin a sin of knowing anything or is original sin the sin of knowing things and then keeping that knowledge away from people who would be too powerful to be victims if they knew better?

Original sin is either:

1. Everyone is competitively stupid
Knowing anything at all.

2. Monopoly of Knowledge
Keeping knowledge a secret ("intellectual" property rights for example), so as to use that powerful advantage as leverage over targeted victims who don't know any better.

I prefer to be competitively knowing better - compared to the alternatives.

"Here is why I call it God’s will."

And on those particular questions your advice is consistent: I have to turn to Jesus or God for the right answers, since that is the coin you flip, and that is the dice you roll, so I get it, but to me there are still other competitive options. You can respond with a claim that you did not such thing as flip a coin or roll the dice, but that is your view, not mine, you are born again, I am not, if by chance, or by God's will, or by my own will (which would require a door to open, and I see no door yet), for me to be born again, and then I would not be flipping a coin, or rolling the dice, I too would just be born again, as it happens that way, if that was your viewpoint, which is not mine, and we have been here before, or close to this line already.

Jesus dies for my sins, and I see no such thing, that is not by business, and I've been here before, at a young age, no thanks, I'll pay my own bills, because that to me is how things work, I pay my own bills, such as:

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing as responsibility.

If I see no such thing that does not mean that I think that no such thing can exist, I'm not that stupid, in my own mind, I see that my perception proves to be very limited.

You are born again. I am not. You are one of God's children. I am one of God's creation. You are connected to the event of Jesus dying for your sins, according to your belief and according to the words published in the Bible. I, as far as I know, have to account for my own sins in my own time, and Jesus had to account for his account, again as far as I know so far. You say that God is the all mighty accountant, and there is where I can cross over into agreement if you can agree with those words I just published, which is a stretch as far as I can tell so far.

1. You agree with my words published just now where I say that God is the all mighty accountant.

2. Not 1

I don't need to roll the dice or flip a coin concerning what you will agree to or not agree to, it will be what it is, and it really isn't any of my business. I'm discussing for reasons stated over and over again.

My perception is limited and discussion is a means by which my perception can be compared competitively with perceptions that are not within that limitation.

Chess can be played alone, but that may not be a good way to learn how to be the best chess player possible in the limited time I have, if that were my goal.

Speaking of goals, what is the best way to improve life fastest while minimizing costs paid by anyone for the longest amount of time within the limits God provides?

If that is the goal, why waste time on false things that move further away from the goal?

If that is not the goal then what is the goal, or is the real goal a secret in any case whatsoever (not in your case specifically)?

What is my goal, specifically? I wrote things out in English in the first offering of this Topic.

"What do you think it means for God to be sovereign?"

The life force is exactly what it is, it is not what it is not, and that which creates and maintains life is God. Sovereignty of any other power, such as a sovereign power of will commanded by an individual living being, a wild turkey in the woods, a human being, is what it is too, within the power or capacity of the individual to reach whatever goal judged to be worth reaching, by whatever means existing, such as, for example, the means known as instinct, or the means known as intelligence, or the means known as willpower, or the means known as moral judgment, it being what it is, as sovereign as it is, as powerful at it is, when it does what it does, in time and space.

In other words: if there is a power to create life and that power is the origin of that power the first of it's kind whereas there was no power before, whereas there was no life before this first power was employed in creating the first form of life, even if that first form of life was energy itself then that to me is God or The Life Force, and it did what it did, and does what it does, even if I don't see it, and even if my perception of it is severely limited, and from that origin that power was singularly sovereign and as that power creates more life then there are, logically, division of power into competitive powers that can be seen as sovereign powers that are division of the ultimate, or original power, such as the power that created energy.

Sovereign = God

Sovereign God = The power to create energy

Energy is a division of the Sovereign God POWER or Life Force...

Math is a more accurate, more powerful, language - perhaps - as I employ English.

I like the question.

"I am not necessarily seeing the power of adaptation as deceit, but as ingenuity, as talent given by God."

We appear to share that viewpoint, but it may not be a popular or fashionable way to see things.

"but the tares are the children of the wicked one"

Tares for fire sounds good to me, but those words may have been spoken figuratively, and in a time when fire was a source of fear for fear mongering. I'm not saying that Scripture interpreted as God intended is fear mongering, I'm only reacting honestly to the words offered.

Don't do as I say God says and you will go to hell where you will burn in a fire forever; while burning heretics at the stake.

"RE Georgia Guidestones?"

That is a point to ponder whenever anyone projectile vomits the "Conspiracy Theorist" conditioned response. Sure, sure, I am a "Conspiracy Theorist", but ahhhh, what the hell is that all about?

Leave me out of it.

"I speak as we in general terms of the Caucasian race."

Whenever the conditioned response is to destroy then I think it is a simple matter of logic to figure out the source of that "inspiration". Following the money (Legal Monopoly Fraud Money) may end up at that same origin.

"I don’t know how to loan myself money other than by the sweat of my brow without an available money source. I think the example of your mother’s house is an ability to loan oneself money because there is a gift of a money source from which to loan."

You are (and probably have been for some time) questioning the supposed facts, and in this particular direction, if you stay on it long enough, you may stumble over an elephant that has been in the room, and it has been running amok, stomping over people, and crapping everywhere, and eating up everything worth eating, and no one can see it, for some strange reason.

Only One Money Supply?

Really?

The intended design of a Democratic Federated Republic is such that there can be 50 different money supplies, all legal, and all competition to get more people to use their currency instead of the other 49 legal versions. Once the best money reaches the point of being the best, then competition may get tougher, but the only way that quality can go down, and costs go up, logically, is when the ONE supplier uses power to destroy competition.

Once competition is against the law there is an obvious and accurate measure of that condition of fact as quality goes down and costs go up.

In cases of hyperinflation the one money supplier has made money worthless and the costs of having no legal money in circulation is called names such as The Great Depression, and those things, by some magic of some kind, always precede things that go by the names of War or now World War, since everyone is now so well connected to everyone else by that one Legal Money.

How nice.

"We" need another depression like "we" need another World War, yet, apparently someone needs both, and they damn well are going to get it.

It just so happens that Counterfeit Boom or Bust, War or momentary counterfeit peace, power keeps on flowing to the same few people.

How nice can it get?

There are at least 2 score boards.

"I don’t know what you are meaning for me to answer. I am confused."

I see the patterns, you don't, so the answer is no.

"Do you still think I am suffering from a fundamental lie if I am able to rephrase my communication to be more accurate?"

I may be looking for more specifics concerning specific things such as when you appear to be not seeing the patterns that I see and you appear to be using words that appear to be cases where you are "blaming" a thing for the things done by actual people with actual names.

If English is a tool then the user can use it to accomplish a goal. English may not be a very good tool if the goal is to convey accurate meaning efficiently.

"Or if this problem still needs to be addressed, please tell me so I will know where I need to work."

Discussion works, so why is it out of fashion? I keep learning about Spiritual Connections and my latest lesson concerns original sin again:

1.
Knowing anything is wrong as in eating the Apple is wrong.

2.
Knowing how to deceive and then employing the knowledge of deception so as to gain at the expense of victims is wrong and that is the nature of original sin.

Help in that specific area is much appreciated.

"But I thought power had to be produced into oversupply so how can less power make more power?"

If you are born alone in the world then you had better learn quickly how to use the power you are born with to make the power you need to survive, failing that absolute need to use less power to make more power means death.

It is that simple. The living being must use the power it has to gain more power or the living being no longer lives.

What is reproduction?

You have only as much power to survive as you have no more, no less, it is only as much power as you have and if that were the case then you would be the total history of human beings. You have the power to reproduce. One power one individual.

There are 6 billion human beings now.

If human beings (if it is God's will) manage to figure out how to survive on other planets, then that is another power, the power of multi-planet human life, and then 6 billion happy examples of life (more or less happy) may be a small fraction of the whole instead of the current full power measure of the whole.

"Will there soon be so little power that everything will be free, or will there be so l little power that there will not be enough power for production?"

This question can be answered in many ways and I choose 2 competitive ways.

1. A power source is invented, clean power, only sun power is needed, and the user of the device can have enough electric power to make 2 more devices before the one device wears out and enough electric power for your normal usage.

You buy one device and now on your own you can make 2 of them extra.

Do you see yet?

You buy one power producer and it makes enough powre for your normal use of power and before the device wears out the device makes enough power for you to make, on your own, two extra devices.

Buy one get two free.

You buy one and it produces cheaper electric power than the power you currently buy and it produces enough extra power for you to sell that extra power and pay for 2 more devices before that 1 first device stops producing power.

What do you have in that case?

You by one. You make two. You now have two and they make two more each. Now you have four and they make four each. Now you have sixteen and they make sixteen more each.

Sunlight is turned into electric power at less cost per watt than the current prices and the devices pay for themselves and the devices produce 3 times the power required to buy them in the first place.

It is a matter of time before electricity prices are driven down to nothing. Zero cost, and sunlight supplies the power, and a lot of people are employed in making these devices and maintaining these devices all are paid in power flowing to us from the Sun.

A whole industry of workers working, and being paid well, in Sunlight converted to electricity and then converted into legal money units.

You can't see it, sure, but that does not mean that it isn't happening right now. It is happening right now and this is only the beginning, or this has been happening all along, just not this specific "market". Not this specific free market, this specific free market is just beginning.

The numbers are what they are in reality, in physical terms, actual physical reality, happening right now, but who can see it?

I think that Elon Musk can see it, the guy who was involved in Pay Pay, who is now producing the first American made production Electric Cars, installing Solar Panels, and supplying rockets for Space Travel so as to move the human species into a new age of mult-planet existence.

Just because you don't see it, does not mean that it does not exist.

"Will there soon be so little power that everything will be free, or will there be so l little power that there will not be enough power for production?"

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

When electric power flows like water the price of electric power will be little or nothing and the effect of that increase in priceless electricity will be an increase in Legal Purchasing Power because power reduces the cost of production.

How much does it currently cost to produce any individual home electric power production device of any level of efficiency by which the power required is less and the power output is more?

How much will it cost to produce anything if the cost of electricity is almost nothing?

How much is your current electric bill?

How much will further will your monthly income go if you no longer have an electric bill?

How much further will your monthly income go if you no longer pay for gasoline because you now have an electric car run by electricity that no longer costs you anything (or very little)?

You don't know, and you won't find out in time, but what about your children? What about their children?

Will your grandchildren know better than to provide the means by which they and their grandchildren suffer when that power could have been used to make more power at home?

"I do not know. I think it is a spiral."

Math can be more instructive, and the numbers are proving out to be true, so what it looks like through filters may be irrelevant in time. Perhaps your grandchildren will know better, perhaps not.

"So is the truth that labor makes money, but then money can be used to make money which can reduce the labor necessary to make money because money is then doing the work; i.e., stock investment in a profitable venture?"

I don't know how to use English so math may work better, and if you agree we can start with one Solar Panel and walk through the theory if not the actual current prices compared to the actual current output.

Power (not "money") is used to make more power.

What is the unit of power?

How about kilowatt/hours?

If you want to convert power to money (which is purchasing power or it isn't money) then do so later.

How about sticking with kilowatt/hours for as long as it takes for the math to sink in, and then convert to money later?

1 Kilowatt/hour required to make 1 Solar Panel.

1 Solar Panel makes 3 Kilowatt/hours.

If you have a current electric bill that is 1 Kilowatt/hour per year then what do you have going on if 1 Solar Panel keeps on producing electricity for 3 years?

You do nothing but your neighbor buys 1 Solar Panel.

You keep working and producing an income so as to pay the Monopoly Electric Company 1 kilowatt/hour each year.

Your neighbor borrows the money, or cashes in a savings account, or steals one Solar Panel.

In the first year you pay for the whole year of Power.

Your neighbor produced that first year of power for nothing but the entire cost of the Solar Panel is produced in that first year, so he can pay back the principle on the loan or refill his savings account or he grows a conscience and gives back the money he stole.

Next year, or year two, and you still work to pay for your electricity as you convert your power to work into money and that money flows to the Monopoly Power Company for 2 years now.

Your neighbor already paid for the first Solar Panel and he still has power running his home for 2 years and he saves the years worth of money he would have spent on electricity and he buys another Solar Panel so he is now starting year 3 with 2 Solar Panels and you have none.

Year three is over and you have now paid 3 years of your earnings to the Monopoly Power Company (limited liability) and compare your work to your neighbor who is working a Power Independence plan.

He produced enough power to run his house and with the savings he pays off his first Solar Panel, and in year 2 he still runs his house with power, saving the money he would have spent on power, and in the second year he produces enough savings to buy another Solar Panel, and so year three he produces twice as much power as he can use, and what happens if he offers you power at half price for that third year?

Confused?

It is simple math.

You do nothing the first year.

Your neighbor buys something that converts money into a device that converts sunlight into electric power and the cost of the device is 1 years worth of electric power.

Add up the whole year of electric power bills and what do you get?

100 dollars a month?

Why does anyone feel the need to convert to the ONE LEGAL MONEY UNIT of POWER?

How much actual POWER, real power, honest power, physical power, is required to make one Solar Panel?

how much actual POWER, real power, honest power, physical power, is produced by one Solar Panel in between the first day it begins to convert sunlight power into electric power and the last day it produces any more electric power?

You will have a total amount of POWER for the Solar Panel in between day one and the last day that the device converts sunlight into electric power.

What is the total?

How much of that total is the total required to make the one Solar Panel?

You, and I, and everyone else, because we are living in a Fraudulent Social Structure, are apt to resort to converting the POWER measure into MONEY POWER measures.

Fair enough?

How much total electric power, converted to dollars, will one Solar Panel produce for the 25 years of production guaranteed by the seller, and the idea isn't to argue over liabilities concerning legal contracts of guarantees, the idea is to get a handle on POWER equations.

Suppose the number is 3000.

3000 dollars of money is the measure of the total output of the Solar Panel in 25 years.

The solar panel costs 1000 dollars.

You put money in the bank expecting a 3% return on investment?

Inflation is 6% so your return on investment is NEGATIVE 3%?

You can make electricity at home and the investment pays you back the cost of the investment and then the cost of the investment again and then the cost of the investment a third time?

Is that 200% return on investment?

It takes 25 years to get back the investment?

What happens if the technology advances to where the total cost of investment is paid back in one year but the device wears out in 3 years? The same 200% return on investment occurs is a shorter period of time?

You buy a second bank account after the second year. You buy a second Solar Panel with the savings earned during the second year of producing your home grown power.

Now you have 2 Solar Panel Electric Power Factories running during the 3rd year.

At the end of the third year you are producing so much extra power that you can't use it all during that year, so you sell half of your production to your neighbor.

What price do you set for the sale of your extra power to your neighbor as your neighbor uses Monopoly Power Company Power Prices at "that which the market will bear".

You can sell it at half price no?

Now your neighbor can start saving half of their electric bill and in 2 years your neighbor can buy one Solar Panel with that savings.

You don't want your neighbor to compete in the Power business so you sell at 10% discount instead of 50% discount? You want to corner the market and sell to your other neighbor so you want to be able to buy another Solar Panel sooner than your neighbor?

Where does the power come from?

You want to buy enough Solar Panels to supply the whole neighborhood at 2% discount compared to the Monopoly Power Company Price and retire on the income, and pay employees to keep the power flowing, while you vacation in the Bahamas, assuming that you can hire an honest worker or two, one that won't skip off top when you aren't looking?

How is Solar Panel or Electricity Farming any different from growing tomatoes for nourishment and profit?

Electricity can be used to grow tomatoes in a Modular Vertical Farming Unit. Tomatoes are less fungible.

Money is fungible - easily converted - even the Fraudulent stuff.

"So is the truth that labor makes money, but then money can be used to make money which can reduce the labor necessary to make money because money is then doing the work; i.e., stock investment in a profitable venture?"

Did I go off track?

Stocks are forms of money, I.O.U.s. Some are all nice and legal, some are all nice and Legal Frauds, some are just plain old out law fraud. Paper and ink.

Money isn't money if it has no power to purchase, what is the source of that power?

Fraud money is powered by the deceivers who pick up and use the power to deceive and then there must be a lot of stupid people who buy into the fraud or fraud money has no power to purchase and then it isn't money, and even so, stupid people still pile it up in wheel borrows and pay taxes with it.

Amazing?

_________________________________
1) Destructive Criminal Monopoly Power
Vs
2) Productive Competitive Liberating Power

Is it possible to sort political philosophies into those groups?
_________________________________

Consider three examples:

1) Legal Dollars

2) Electricity

3) Sunlight

Even the electric weapons are nothing compared to the weapons purchased with Fraud Money if the idea is to measure destructive power. Electricity is in the middle, it can be harmful, it can be used by human beings to harm other human beings. Sunlight can be focused through a magnifying glass to burn up ants, a weapon of mass destruction, and therefore sunlight is a destructive power. Sunlight can be so abundant as to cause sunburn, or drought, but if Solar Panels are used to make electricity and then used to pump water into tanks and then the water is directed through channels out onto farms then where is that destructive drought now?

Add 2 more competitors to the power competition:

1. Falsehood/Aggressive violence (one goes hand in hand with the other)
2. Legal Money
3. Electricity
4. Sunlight
5. Accurate Open Source Honest Knowledge

One is as productive as a living being can make it while the other end of the scale provides a defining source of man-made destructive power, and in between are examples of competitive sources of power that can be used by people to produce or destroy at will.

God may turn off the sun.

Man can't, unless man turns it off at this destination of that power source, by causing nuclear winter.

God may turn of the sun with other means, I don't know.

Man can't.

Sunlight is, for the most part, a productive power, while hydrogen is being destroyed at that source of productive power, as far as I know.

Gravity is another power produced by mass and that power destroys too, destroying all things in the center under immense pressure, if the mass of the thing is large and therefore if the force of gravity is powerful enough.

_____________________
1) Destructive Criminal Monopoly Power
Vs
2) Productive Competitive Liberating Power

Is it possible to sort political philosophies into those groups?
_____________________

I don't separate politics from economics no more than I can see any sense in separating violence from deception unless the idea is to understand parts of the whole. The whole remains to be what it is, in other words, and my dividing it is merely academic, a way of seeing a part of it, while the thing remains one thing as such:

Political Economy

Deceptive Aggressive Violence

or even

Adaptive Competitive Liberty Knowledge Productive Power

I don't see the point in this:

_______________________________
1) Destructive Criminal Monopoly Power
Vs
2) Productive Competitive Liberating Power

Is it possible to sort political philosophies into those groups?
_______________________________

"Political philosophies" looks too much like a False Front hiding a half truth lurking in the shadows, and that half truth is the physical existence of what is actually happening economically.

The Politician speaks of political "philosophies" after receiving a campaign "contribution" and before handing out a bonus subsidy bailout. Why not just report who told the politician to make those false promises and then report exactly what will be done with all the stolen loot?

Why not just leave us alone, in Liberty, and if we need insurance against criminals, with or without badges, we will shop around?

A Democratic Federated Republic, such as the example provided by The Articles of Confederation, complete with a working system of Trial by Jury, where each juror judges each law according to his power to do so (a check on lawyers and legislators who may wish to produce "job security" by writing in a whole lot of fine print), is where I would shop, within my power to do so, were competition made legal as it was then, in that way, to that level or degree.

All nice and legal.

"Any political philosophy is ok to live under, even a monarchy, if the monarch is benevolent? Because if the monarch is benevolent then the monarch will allow productive competition such that one will not even know there is a monarch except that the monarch ensures that no harm is done."

It took a long series of events whereby almost everyone has had enough of the Dictator's excesses of "benevolence" to inspire a duty to resist tyranny, cases such as Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence, along with The Articles of Confederation, to exemplify how to make competition legal, to make Liberty, and to maintain it.

The power struggle involves a very persistent criminal power, working to make crime legal, as shown by that False Event known as The Constitutional Convention, with the product known as The Constitution, despite the efforts to blow the whistle on it, and despite the legal effort to contain it with The Bill of Rights, criminal power persists.

Criminal power is what it is, and it isn't benevolent, a benevolent dictator, such as examples may exist, are criminal powers picked up and used by a non-criminal, like a nuclear bomb not used.

A nuclear bomb is a criminal device, invented by criminals, used by criminals, or not used by anyone, including benevolent dictators who manage to keep their fingers off the button.

What is a biological weapon?

Defense against the destruction of mankind by destroying mankind?

Monarchy or Dictatorship is deception. I'm not deceived, but it is much better for all the victims when the dictator is benevolent for that time, like a lunch break, before the inevitable overthrow when the victims have had enough, which is then typically channeled by the sociopaths into a whole lot of needles suffering and death.

Why not just opt out this time, instead of buying the ticket to war called civil or any other false word creating a false front, why not refuse to buy the ticket, and refuse to attend the party?

Why not stop providing the means by which we suffer before it is too late to opt out?

"Why do you keep trying? Are you driven? Is it because of the danger that lies ahead?"

I think we are winning, call me Pollyanna.

"Why do you think that no one has taken up your challenges on this site?"

There are as many reasons as there are people. I was at first hesitant to speak out, for fear of being placed on some list, which is one possible reason. Most people, or all people including me, are apt to work within their limits, and some people, not just me, are beyond those limits. Different limits.

The fix will be what it is, but I can't see the fix being anything other than Knowledge Competitive Liberty Power for lack of a better word, we will invent, produce, and maintain competitive forms of productive power, be it legal money, or anything else, and we will do that all at once, on one day, or that day will come and go and later on we will look back and say "wow" we did it, and this was the turning point, or that was the turning point, or these were the turning points.

Ross Perot earmarked a turning point.

Ron Paul is earmarking a turning point.

I think that Elon Musk is earmarking a turning point.

Jesus will show up, sure, why not, and that will be a turning point too, that will be the ultimate turning point, sure, why not?

If no one else has an interest in putting a turning point on "our" own schedule, fine with me, and fine with them too. It isn't a good idea if no one agrees with it. I think it is a good idea, I'm strange.

My wife never has to go looking for a stranger, she already has one.

"“despite convicting me without trial, and despite your execution of the public damnation sentence upon me.
The stone was thrown, nice shot, right in target.”

You are, if you can please get past the insult, pathetic, as a stone thrower.

OHHHHHH now I'm a communist! (that may not be in contest)

I'm not mad. If the shoe fit I might get mad - I suppose.

If the situation where such that the stone thrown was powerful and carried a lot of "currency", such as my opponent could do in an election scenario, I'd be mad, but that would have been the reason for throwing the stone, to make me mad, and to cause me to loose my temper, and I know better, I may get mad anyway, in that situation, but I'd know better.

"Or was that a Parthian arrow targeted at me to avoid the subject that I was bringing up?"

A Parthian Shot or Arrow is thrown by someone leaving, to never return, so no that was not a Parthian arrow, but I think it is important to throw that out in a discussion, if someone uses it, so that if the user returns after using a Parthian Shot, he or she will walk back into a situation even less credible than the sinking ship just abandoned.

If I miss something important according to you then you have to reinforce the importance through repetition, again, I see the value of this with my learning in music. The teacher knows something the student does not so repetition returns until the teacher knows that the student learns.

You know of something that I have missed, avoided, or did not address, teach me this thing, I don't see it.

I know that much of the water just goes under the bridge, so to speak.

"Do you mean any of the things I have written in our communication or just that descriptive paragraph about you?"

I could have let that pass under the bridge. It appears to be going no where, I may be wrong. I can't use your viewpoint to express my viewpoint, and I am not selling anything, so my last offering on that path was somewhat sarcastic, somewhat meaningless. If I were to run for congress again, selling my power to represent other people, then I may need a writer, your ability in that is competitive.

I'm not even selling Liberty Day 2013, it is an idea, take it or leave it.

"I thought we were fighting communism."

The power to be productive at no one's expense but our own is fighting against the power to enslave those people.

When it is the power of true Christians being tortured by The Inquisition you get it, but when it is the victims of colonialism who are misdirected by a false communism you don't get it.

American tax payer money went to Pol Pot to "fight communism", how is that any different than true Christians paying the church tax to have their fellow true Christians tortured for confessions?

The victims have been labeled "communists" so as to crush them. The victims have been labeled "heretics" so as to crush them. The power to crush them keeps on coming from the victims.

Those that do the labeling and the crushing don't know how to make an honest living, where do they get their power?

"What is the true song and the false song?"

Communes in the 60s may have included version of Free Love that you may find appalling, but that does not mean that there are no communes that work within your sense of goodness.

What is an Amish Community?

The false song is written well enough by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn in that book you will return to the Library some day.

Time to get moving.

Joe

Motives

"My wife never has to go looking for a stranger, she already has one."

I am taking this statement very personally and I am going to defend myself in public since a stone seems to have been cast publicly in my direction.

1) I contacted you to see what you thought about the Tom Woods Liberty Classroom http://www.dailypaul.com/225942/liberty-practice-challenge#c... because I wanted your opinion because I had run into you after striking a friendship with ATruepatriot and saw where that ID was corresponding with you. I found your writings interesting and informative. The first introduction to your viewpoint was at http://www.dailypaul.com/224429/liberty-versus-legal-crime#c... .

2) My goal is to try to learn and understand History in relation to what I see as shrinking liberty in the United States which I am not going to define any further because I understand that there are individuals with names who are accomplishing a goal even if I do not understand the history of that Crime in Action.

3) I became interested in sharing Christ with you.

4) You did not resist that interest, but seemed to be open.

5) I tried to have Jeff meet that interest of mine in your spiritual well-being but Jeff is extremely busy. Because I quit my eBay business with his encouragement, Jeff now barely has a free moment of time. He is extremely exhausted and also has 2 sons that need his attention. I share him with a church full of people which I see as part of my service to God. I was also willing to share his time with you, but it seems he doesn't have any.

6) I have asked Jeff if I can take the Liberty Classroom courses. I will probably do that once the boys go back to school in the fall.

7) I also try to have Jeff answer my political and historical questions. I can barely finish a sentence without being interrupted by a phone call, door bell, or a son. And if you can’t hear the sadness in that statement you also can’t see the tears rolling down my cheeks either.

8) After writing number 7, I can no longer defend myself as I suppose once again you are right. I don’t have a stranger. Everyone else has him. But I do have a husband who loves me unconditionally and stands by me thru thick and thin and someday, God willing, our lives will not be nearly as busy as they are now and I look forward to that day. Right now the boys need whatever extra time there is to spare and I want them to have it because I love them and their father and our God to whom all 4 my life is pledged.

9) I have willfully avoided allowing you to be the last one to reply because I did not want to be seen as one of those on that list of rejection or censorship.

I am sorry I made public my concerns regarding you. I have had a hard time placing the works of Warren and Andrews into my limited, preconceived and wary framework of reference. I appreciate the expenditure of power you have directed in my behalf. I have enjoyed writing once again. Jeff suggested this weekend that I start a blog. I don't know that I will be inspired not having a correspondent.

Perhaps this should be that parting arrow. I think I have a better understanding and perhaps now it is up to me to finish learning on my own. You have supplied me with a wealth of resources and I cannot expect to be spoon feed, nor take the time of someone else's stranger.

Error between the lines?

"I am taking this statement very personally and I am going to defend myself in public since a stone seems to have been cast publicly in my direction."

That was meant to be humorous, and therefore I have no idea what the offense was, certainly not intended.

"Perhaps this should be that parting arrow?'

I can see that happening when we both agree that there is nothing left to exchange equitably, if there is error causing sadness, then that is not cause for disconnection, it seems to me.

Context:

I am strange.

How strange are you Joe?

I am so strange that my wife doesn't have to look for anyone stranger.

Ohhhhhhh, I think I see the offense, and please accept my apology. This just confirms just how strange I am, even to me.

Joe

Supposing

I suppose it is difficult to interpret ones meaning when there is no voice inflection. I suppose I am insecure so I hear what is not said. I suppose I am sensitive to the fact that my stranger doesn’t have time and you are someone else’s stranger. I suppose I am sensitive to the amount of time this requires. I suppose I am strange too since I rather correspond with a stranger about things that I cannot possibly change or do anything about than call a friend on the phone and talk about something insignificant.

Thank you for the apology even though it was me misinterpreting your humor. That was funny! I wish I had caught it instead of shedding tears. Then I could have laughed. But what did make me laugh was when you said” unless we are switching gears and we are now speaking about Spiritual matters; and at that point I need to know we are switching gears” and when you said I was schooling you about not being God, not exact quote. Those things were funny to me.

There is a lot of pressure at our house, but I suppose you have been there done that because your children are nearly grown. Jeff has always been my best friend. The boys took 20 years to arrive. I suppose I have been best friend deprived since, but treasure their arrival all the same.

Am I a pathetic stone thrower or is my stone throwing so off target that it is pathetic?

I will try tomorrow to make a more civilized reply to your Not being coy or tricky post (the title which I also took personally because I thought you were saying that is what I was doing…reading between too many lines.)

Liabilities

"Am I a pathetic stone thrower or is my stone throwing so off target that it is pathetic?"

My apology goes out for the libels and liabilities involved in not being careful when typing. This is tricky business because writing flows or it does not flow and the rate at which it flows changes if the intent is to be careful instead of an intent that is open and honest.

I can be brutal but only in comparison with my self when I am not brutal. If I am compared to someone who is raising the bar of brutality then I am a pathetic example of someone brutal on my worst day.

I'm not dead yet so I can raise my own bar in that direction, less likely it seems as I grow older and more able to avoid situations that my experience tells me lead that way.

I was not careful when using the word pathetic, I could have chosen a more appropriate word such as miserable and I remember that was a word my father used often in his colorful and accurate speech - his way of speaking.

You are a miserable or poor stone thrower, you may not have your heart in it.

Someone with a black heart, it seems to me, is really able to do the job justice and get his heart into throwing stones at any weak victim anywhere, just for fun, or a bag of coins. Innocent or not, it doesn't matter, so long as I don't get in trouble for throwing stones at people.

You are not pathetic as far as I can tell, but I am biased toward people who don't settle for falsehood as an operating principle.

I think that Religion can be dangerous in the hands of strong personalities when there is no one like you around testing their faith from unique and challenging angles. That is, to me, the opposite of pathology, the polar opposite, and that incapacity to settle for less than the truth is the essence of what I think is life, and therefore the essence of what I think is Religion. Life and Religion is all about being open, being honest, and welcoming any challenge from any angle, even eagerness for competition, very healthy, very strong, very brave, and refusing to settle for less than knowing better.

I am biased, so my angle of view is only worth a trifling measure of value.

It is what it is.

"I will try tomorrow to make a more civilized reply to your Not being coy or tricky post (the title which I also took personally because I thought you were saying that is what I was doing…reading between too many lines.)"

I should have figured my error out earlier as I thought of the word coy and looked it up, and thought better of using that word after looking it up in the dictionary, so I added the word tricky, but I failed to take out the word coy, so I may have set the stage for the mistake, but this was not intentional, at all, no "subconscious" crap, I know what I was thinking at the time, and as far as I am concerned we see each other as people, just people, a competitive source for comparing viewpoints.

I do want another angle of view concerning original sin as explained earlier and I don't need to look it up since it is now part of my operating system. I think now that original sin makes the most sense to me when it is the sin of employing deceit (information kept secret) by one person upon (targeting) another person for nefarious reasons (to get something for nothing).

Your angle of view on that is expected to be challenging and it is more than welcome, it is appreciated, if you can stand the pressure, from any angle.

Joe

Original Sin

“Philosophy can be confused with "Utopian Fantasy". “

I suppose we both have history or current events thru which words are filtered and the intended meaning by the author may be misunderstood. If I remember correctly Warren addressed this effort in communication in Equitable Commerce and I have taken the time to reread it and quote it here:

“We have no power to interpret language alike, but we have agreed to agree. New circumstances now occur, different from those contemplated in the compact. New expedients are to be resorted to—language is the only medium of communication, and this is variously interpreted—two or more interpretations of the same language neutralize each other—an opinion expressed, is misunderstood, and requires correction—the correction contains words subject to a greater or less extent of meaning than the speaker intended—these require qualification. The qualification is variously understood, and requires explanation—the explanations require qualifications to infinity.”

Or in the words of God: 1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject ; 11Knowingthat he that is such is subverted , and sinneth , being condemned of himself.

“What can be done in the effort to know better?”

I am deficient in that I tend to hear things as filtered thru potential rejection, based upon past history. I don’t know how to shed that. I hear rejection in the words of my best friends and family when it is not intended. I either react to what I think I hear, or just burry it; adding what I perceived to that filter clogging more holes and making more barriers such that I will not let many very far into my realm. I suppose I place that same filter upon your words. It is a lie that I have not been able to shake, but perhaps because I am more and more aware of it I can work to remove that filter from my mind. Perhaps it is somewhat the same as site moderators not just stating in plain English, please leave, but instead just shutting the door without words. I am always waiting for the words…please leave, you are not welcome as those words and actions have seemed to plague me most of my life instead of me seeing welcoming and kindness that are more often than not directed at me by most all people, I resort to that old mindsets and remember perpetrations that only rarely occurred. I would imagine it is that Deceiver at work in my life who would limit my ability and power for good. This forum has felt somewhat safe because, like my eBay business, there is an air of anonymity kept at arms-length. I can write and re-write until I think I have said the right thing instead of feeling on the spot to make those right words come out of my mouth the first time.
___________________________________
Your whole discourse on my question: "In your competitive estimation what political system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?" felt like rejection. You referred to it as bull and you said I was trying to separate political from economic. However, I am seeing that you never answer the second question which was “In your competitive estimation what ECONOMIC system would best enable Joe’s Law to flourish?”

I failed to number my questions so the 2nd question got lost. It really doesn’t matter to me at this point. I don’t even really care. What difference does it even make or would it make. I suppose I can answer the question myself: It does not matter which political or economic system were in place as long as free competition as opposed to criminal monopoly were allowed to exist.

You must understand though that some political and economic systems have been “taboo” nearly all of my cognizance and that was the reason for my questions. If the goal is to disconnect from the Criminal System all at the same time, I want to know to what system I will be connecting. I perceive unrest from sea to shining sea so much so that people may grasp at any system which holds some hope thereby allowing an even greater despot rule: evidenced by sociopaths always clawing their way to the top and making the best of any crisis at hand or perhaps causing the crisis so as to eat the other rats and innocents thus granting their rathood preeminence.

That above is what I want to talk about.

I also want to know in your real estate expertise (no strings attached, no liability attached, you know the small print that says you are not liable for any advice offered):

We are looking at purchasing acreage outside of the city limits and I have some dumb questions:
Do people ever try to sell property they really don’t own? i.e., Can a person who doesn’t own property sign a real estate contract with a realtor? I don’t like the signature on the Property Data Form “Edward Jones” The first name and the last name do not flow as a signature would. Edward is smaller straight up and down and Jones is bigger and slanted to the right. Would you buy property that had a child molester attached to it? (Jeff found the location was attached to a website listing sex offenders.) I know…my filter is at work. But how can I know for sure someone has the right to sell property, especially if I were to pay cash, then the seller is long gone and so is my money and so is what I think is my property.

Here is what I was talking about when I mentioned 9%
To cooperating Broker:
Listing Broker offers to compensate cooperating broker:
a) Subagency 3% of sales price
b) Buyer’s agency 3% of sales price
c) Transaction brokerage 3% of sales price

I was not saying anyone did not deserve the percentages, just that we were used to seeing 6%.

Any thoughts appreciated.
_____________________
I also want to know. Was the “Dirty Compromise” done on purpose in order to create upheaval at a later date?

I think it was in a Tom Woods video on DP I watched yesterday regarding Hamilton who wanted life-long president, congress and also that the president should appoint life-long governors.

Did you already know that?

I still have more questions about the spread of Russian communism after reading the 1952 republican platform yesterday. In that 1952 Republican platform a Federal Reserve, arms build up, and the United Nations seemed to be held in high regard while the 20 year Democratic administration was accused of allowing the spread of Russian communism. I read the first Democratic platform as well; 1840 I believe it was, and it sounded pretty much right on the target for what should be. I suppose it would be an interesting study to compare platforms thru time. I suppose the bait and switch has been going on for a long time…before I was born even as sociopaths have clawed their way to the top of resident power. By that I mean there is resident power in numbers of individuals bound together by ideology or understandings and the sociopaths (I know they are individuals, I don’t know all their names) highjack that power for their own use, thus switching red and blue overnight. Truly perhaps the color is now purple.

“I think that Religion can be dangerous in the hands of strong personalities…”

You are correct. It has been so since the beginning and also since the first century AD. Paul, Peter & Jude speak of this and there are more references which I will not give. Yes, you must be wary. Sociopaths want to twist the truth for their own advantage and make profit of those that would want to follow God. As in many things, there is a true version and a counterfeit or false version.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

2 Peter 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting them selves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;14Havingeyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray , following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome , of the same is he brought in bondage .

Please know though that these warnings have nothing to do with having monopoly control. Paul also said (in my words) some people plant, some water, but it is the Lord that gives the increase. It seems there were unnecessary turf wars and Paul was of such a mind that he would have rather not have baptized any if people were going to fight over it. http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/1-corinthians/passage.asp... (In JK words :Leave me out of it.) It also seems the disciples were having a hard time with someone doing miracles else while Jesus was preaching. The words of Jesus: Luke 9:49 And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

OK I know you didn’t ask about all that, but you are correct about being wary of great personalities as it is possible that they may be seeking their own personal advantage. That being said, we (not you and me, but we in a general inoffensive term instead of saying you and point at you, but we in humanity) need not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even though there are charlatans we must seek the truth and those who speak the truth from the Word of God, which is the only reliable source according to that Word of God.
____________________
ON TO ORIGINAL SIN:

I am seeing 3 categories at this point.

1) When Satan lifted himself up to be God:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

At some point pre-creation of man Satan, a created being, the most beautiful and preeminent angel, deceived himself such that he would lift himself up against and rival God. I suppose Satan was created with the knowledge of good and evil and had the capacity to choose evil. I don’t know other scripture passages right now. I tried looking but do not know key words. They are too vague in my memory. I will have to ask Jeff for some ideas if you want to know more about category 1.

2) Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They were created innocent. In my opinion, not only did Satan decide to steal God’s creation, he decided that man should be made in his own image instead of Gods. The direct command was not to eat of the tree of good and evil. Satan beguiled Eve and she took of that fruit.

Then they played the blame game: Genesis 3:11 And he [God] said , Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat ? 12 And the man said , The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat . 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done ? And the woman said , The serpent beguiled me , and I did eat .

3) Sin was passed to all of mankind thru the Seed of man. Romans 5: 12 Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned : 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come . 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead , much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.16And not as it was by one that sinned , so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be maderighteous.20Moreover the law entered , that the offence might abound . But where sin abounded , grace did much more abound : 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

So with the above verses from Romans 5 we see that Adams sin was passed down to all men However, Jesus was not born of Adam. Jesus was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit so the seed of Adam did not create Jesus, bur rather the Seed of God. And that sounds ridiculous, but God alone is Sovereign. Luke was a medical doctor so I am giving his quote here. Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It is important to note that God did not send Jesus to condemn us, but we are in a state of condemnation. God offers a free gift. Something for nothing. Like the power resident in the sun and the sun panels you explained to me. However, those sun panels don’t just pop up on a roof all by themselves. One must exercise faith that it would be profitable to make an investment to purchase those panels. God’s purchase price for redemptions free gift is simple trust. Trust that God has done what he says he has done. John 3: 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved .18He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

So as far as the original sin being deceit I can answer yes. Satan was the original sinner, but it was not his Seed that entered man. It was Adams Seed that was passed onto each and every birth in the human race. I would also add that it is this same 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Satan is still about the work of deception. The Bible says he was a liar from the beginning. I would couple lying and deceiving together because the absence of truth is used to deceive. Hath God said…

Now as far as a monopoly on knowledge. God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening in the garden. God is Truth (and much more). Adam and Eve had full access to truth but were in the state of innocence.

Now that we have the knowledge of good and evil I would surmise that perhaps now we must deal with wondering what is the truth and what is a lie and who are stands for what.

Jesus speaking of the Holy Spirit:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come , he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear , that shall he speak : and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

When one is born again, the Holy Spirit comes into abide. The Bible says the Holy Spirit is like earnest money until the final day of redemption. Ephesians 1:13 In whom [Jesus] ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed , ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

“I think now that original sin makes the most sense to me when it is the sin of employing deceit (information kept secret) by one person upon (targeting) another person for (to get something for nothing).”

Yes, I think I could agree with that statement. I could say that Satan, wanted to be God and wanted God’s creation for nefarious (very wicked; villainous; iniquitous) reasons. Look what he did to Adam and Eve. He stole their innocence and then he stole their children. How would you like one of your children to murder the other child? How would you like to have a child wicked enough to murder a sibling? How much would that hurt? I would hurt both for the wicked child and for the innocent victim. Why would Satan want to be the perpetrator of such evil? I suppose that is why Jesus said John 8:44 … He [Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I suppose that if no truth is in him what is in him are lies and deception.

“Your angle of view on that is expected to be challenging and it is more than welcome, it is appreciated, if you can stand the pressure, from any angle.”

I hope that I have somewhat met the challenge, however, I feel my answer to be very simplistic and perhaps there are more questions that need answered? I am stopping before I get to the bottom of page 5. That is going to be my new rule that I am going to place upon myself so as to try to not continue into infinity as Warren put it. I have read your full replies and if there are other things you want addressed, please bring them back to my attention.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Powerful Ideas

Anyone,

A few things to consider, please.

1.
Ron Paul taking a dive.
2.
Alex Jones proving a point
3.
Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way
4
Few Legal Criminals resorting to lies, threats, and violence to maintain their power over everyone else

Notable concepts:

A.
http://phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html
B.
http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/
C.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html

Most people have no time or energy (power) left after an honest days work to do the work required to figure out how to get back to Liberty on a reasonable schedule.

I have.

So why does Alex Jones and the Austrian Economists censor me?

Is this too much for you too?

Joe

Please Read First

Before you expend effort again toward "Fine Art of Communication" on Liberty or Death, could you please look at my post ^ ABOVE ^ entitled "Liberty Challenge." I would like to discuss it if it be permissible at this time. I am sorry for switching gears on you, but I would like your well reasoned thoughts as I find your Political Economic viewpoint to excel far beyond mine. I want to know why the SSN is not the key.

Critical Mass

Last paragraph of http://phys.org/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html :

“The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.”

Was what I was thinking as I read the whole article…my critical eye. What if there is 10% critical mass directly opposing the other 10%, which I think there perhaps is. However, I would say Liberty is gaining ground. But I am interested to see that other study referred to in the last paragraph.

What does it mean when someone takes a dive?

Learning well:
http://www.dailypaul.com/239787/religious-freedomgoodbye#com...

Pugilist Diving

Taking a Dive in Boxing is like someone placing put options on American Airlines a week before 911.

Taking a Dive in Boxing is like Corporate Raiding or a Pump and Dump.

Taking a Dive in Boxing is like a one time Business Cycle done by one Federal Reserve Chairman who then has to step down and let the next Champion take a Dive.

The concept in Boxing is to have a very high profile, very popular, very competitive, winning, boxer set-up a fight with an obvious weaker opponent, where the odds are very long on the weaker fighter winning, but the insiders know that the very high profile, popular, competitive, winning, boxer will Take a Dive and lose the fight on purpose. Those "in the know" know they will win the bet when they alone bet on the weaker boxer since only they know that the weaker boxer is going to win the fight, and pay off on those long betting odds, because the popular boxer will lose the fight on purpose.

A Put Option, and now Derivatives, are Financial Products, Sold as Dollar Denominated Trades, where a buyer of a Put Option, or Derivative, is "insuring" the loss of value in a specific thing, such as American Airlines Stock, or Triple A Rated Home Mortgage Bundles, whereby the "pay-off" or "benefit" of "insuring" with a Put Option, or Derivative, only happens as a "pay-off" if the Stock or Mortgage Bundle Value plummets from a very high value to a very low value.

That is like, in a way, like Larry Silverstein insuring the damaged, asbestos filled, Trade Center buildings against loss by terrorist attack and then paying people to "pull it" on cue, so as to collect more than the value of the buildings when considering the true value of the buildings compared, repair costs added, to the insurance "benefits".

Corporate raiding is a method of "taking a dive" whereby a company is bought out by corporate raiders and the company is consumed in the process of removing all the value out of it, while at the same time, a false advertizement campaign is launched to fool dupes into buying the rising stock prices, as the "leadership" of the company fires all the experienced workers who are paid well, hires inexperienced workers who will work for almost nothing, policies are changed to stop reinvesting profits toward upkeep, research, and adaptations, storage of "rainy day" savings are consumed or shipped "off shore" or "off the books", extra cash is laundered, the business is gutted, and when the False Advertizement Campaign works to peak the fraudulent price spike up to the top, the Corporate Raiders sell out and leave the new "owners" with an empty shell, or empty bag.

The Boxer has one chance at diving out of a fight since the second attempt would be too soon for the dupes to fall into such a fraud as their memories would still be fresh with the sting of the first Dive.

The Roaring Twenties were caused by The Federal Reserve Criminals as they Pumped up the "liquidity" of the Money Supply by roughly double.

The Great Depression was caused by The Federal Reserve Criminals as they Dumped or "Pulled" roughly half the "liquidity" of the Dollar Money Supply, and in concert with this BUST part of The Business Cycle, they financed Roosevelt, Hitler, and Stalin with "liquidity", causing World War II.

Right now there is a little Dive done by Ron Paul, a small Pump and Dump, not so small for the people having their fingers broken or their hips dislocated, or their bank accounts drained, in support of Ron Paul for President, but small in the sense that this miniature Business Cycle pales in comparison to the steady movement of value out of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) flowing into a new World War being financed on our dimes, and in our names, so as to Pump and then Dump The Dollar Hegemony one last time.

They aren't honest but they are predictable.

Ron Paul, as far as I know, was not a "sleeper cell" hiding for 30 years or so, ready to strike; that makes no sense, since he, the person, remains almost 100 percent honest as he communicates with everyone else or "The Public", through public mediums of exchange, but like a Boxer, there may be an offer made where the Boxer has few options left: lose everything or lose almost everything, an offer he "can't refuse" without dear consequences.

At about the same time Rand Paul made the announcement to back Mittens, the snake, Romney there was an Internet report, unconfirmed, whereby Iranian Military Forces were attacking a U.S.S. Military Ship near the Gulf of Hormuz.

I don't know how many people caught that unconfirmed report but that report did not make it to "prime time" as did, for one example, the "Gulf of Tonkin" "NEWS" report some time ago: during the Johnson administration; you know, one of the guys in on the Kennedy Assassinations, perhaps you don't know.

Taking a dive means something similar to an essay written by a guy named Jim Bell who was hunted down and framed with tax evasion, for the crime if having written that essay titled: Assassination Politics.

People aught to grow up, or wake up, it seems to me, before that window of opportunity closes.

Joe

Surface for Liberty

Thank you for the expense of energy on my behalf. Everytime I think I have woken up I find out just how half awake I am. As I have said many times before...I know nothing...of course that is a whatever you called it (I can't remember now), but that is how I feel in relation to all there is to know. I am still waiting to see what comes out of Tampa. Perhaps the Ron Paul delegates will Surface for Liberty. Perhaps the hope of a naive 2 year old...

Hedging

When the animated contest of Liberty becomes a habit or routine in place of following external behavioral modification routines then the concept of hedging becomes readily apparent - it seems to me.

So the mass of wandering souls who are half awake are looking for something to replace what they are learning to leave behind, which is a false path. What is being left behind is left behind, no longer followed, and therefore the authority to pick a new path is owned or controlled instead of abdicated, lost, or stolen.

Of all the possible paths to take there are immediate concerns narrowing down to the last two choices and then an actual path taken, in the very short term, or the here and now.

Looking ahead, individually, steering the course alone, or in some cases with the help of God, an individual has time to evaluate many possible choices, then narrowing down many possible choices to a few very competitive choices, and a choice to leave a few options open, so as to have a Plan A, a Plan B, and a choice not to "bet the farm" on only ONE Plan.

This is the essence of the difference between Legal Crime (Monopoly) and Liberty (Competition).

The Legal Criminals enforce ONE path, which is the path that causes all the victims to work themselves to death so as to make the few Legal Criminals as powerful as is humanly possible - beyond the capacity of a normal human being to even imagine.

Legal Crime is the path to extinction, the path where there are two people left, the last winner eats the second place winner, and then there is the last Cult of Personality alone.

Liberty is the path of adaptation, continuously expanding options, and the highest possible quality of life, for the lowest possible cost of living, on into as far as God will allow this life form to exist, which can be unlimited by such things as the available power of this one Sun in this one Solar System.

Ron Paul being President in 2012 was an option, still is one, depending upon which individual is questioned, polled, or asked to vote, and some of us have been hedging our bets because that is a habit now.

It has not been a surprise to see Ross Perot back down, nor Ron Paul take a Dive, since knowing better is a competitive option compared to not knowing better about such things.

The fact that Ron Paul hit all the bases, the practical solutions to the most serious problems, with Ending the FED, ending the National Income Tax, and ending the Wars of Aggression for Profit of a few at the expense of all the dimes collected and the in the names of all the honest productive people in America, is not a bad mark on those solutions, just because Ron Paul fumbled the ball, or punted, or took a dive.

The solutions remain as valid, if not more valid, even as another Champion of Liberty is taken out by whatever power was consumed in reaching that goal.

Like a canary in a coal mine the idea is not to suffer the same fate, the idea is to know better than to suffer the same fate.

Joe

Henry's Hedge

Patrick Henry:

“I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor.”

"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."

Against Legal Crime

Patrick Henry

"The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."

Out with a Democratic Federated Republic (animated competitive condition of voluntary Liberty) and in with a Nation State (Monopoly Involuntary Crime in Progress)

Joe

The Cage

9.6 “Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of.”

Henry made many very fine points which I wish I could copy all that struck me but have only included the one in which I think lies the ultimate problem at this given time.

I have read every word. I believe I understand that the American Union was dissolved and the United States of America created with the ratification of the Federal Constitution.

Part of me cries out, “Perhaps it is better to know not that there is a cage and just enjoy the trinkets therein?” ...Part of me knows better.

Whose side was Henry Ford on?

I am wondering...perhaps a daily paragraph added to a continuing Post from Patrick Henry's speech might be enlightening to the Friends of Liberty?

Civil War

"Henry made many very fine points which I wish I could copy all that struck me but have only included the one in which I think lies the ultimate problem at this given time."

Henry knew as well as anyone in The Club at the time that The Constitution with The Dirty Compromise (3/5ths clause) was a prelude to Civil War.

Civil War is inevitable, therefore it is either a mistake done by stupid people, or it is a design feature designed into the Law to be used when needed by very smart, if immoral, people.

A.
Unintended Consequences that just happen by accident

B.
Willful employment of power in the work required to amass power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many (who create that power)

It is not a coincidence that people like me are routinely shot down for delivering the B message, since the A message is a Patented Absurdity: the collective employment of power stolen in the work required to modify behavior, condition response, brainwash, propagandize, false advertize, mind control, and manufacture consent, is measurably effective each time a modern day Paul Revere or modern day Patrick Henry is killed off figuratively or literally.

Civil War can be as peaceful as our power in numbers commands effective deterrence.

"I have read every word. I believe I understand that the American Union was dissolved and the United States of America created with the ratification of the Federal Constitution."

You fail to use the accurate terminology, despite the lessons offered by Patrick Henry. The Constitution is a counterfeit Federal Constitution. The Constitution is an instruction book for creating a Nation State, or Consolidated Government, or Monopoly Power.

A Democratic Federated Republic, which was the design used to defend against Monopoly Power or Legal Crime, had the design feature of Separate Sovereign State Legal Fictions which volunteer to join a Voluntary Union, or un-volunteer at will, at the discretion of the representatives in each State, as those representatives work to accomplish the will of The People in those States.

There was no Direct Taxation between the Employees running the true Federal Government and The People, when a Federal Government was working in the case of The Articles of Confederation, which was the legal precedent of how a Democratic Federated Republic did work, in fact, as an example of that design working the way it was designed to work.

The President was an employee, not a Dictator, in a working Democratic Federated Republic even while that employee was overstepping his power within the Military at the time as the all volunteer Military of the time was powerful enough to get rid of the largest aggressive occupying army of war for profit at the time - with the help of the French.

"Part of me cries out, “Perhaps it is better to know not that there is a cage and just enjoy the trinkets therein?” ...Part of me knows better."

Fewer goodies in the cage for your children, and fewer still for their children, or no children for them, on this path, may inspire the ostrich in us to get our head out of the dark place it has been stuffed.

"Whose side was Henry Ford on?"

Ford is a very good study concerning the fine line between Friends of Liberty and Legal Criminals, as would be Patrick Henry, or Thomas Jefferson. If a score card is based on what the person says then Henry Ford is on our side, and if the score card is based upon how much productive power the person has produced in his life time, then Ford is probably on our side, but some of his POWER is traced as a flow of Power to finance the Nazi regime, and other nebulous investments. He was in The Club.

Another modern day example of appearing to be on the fence between Friends of Liberty and Legal Crime is Peter Thiel of PayPal fame who is now a Bilderberg member. Peter Thiel is in the Club, and he can be competitively compared to Elon Musk another member of the PayPal Start-up. Elon Musk is making Electric Cars, installing Solar Panels, and helping to make Space Travel real.

"I am wondering...perhaps a daily paragraph added to a continuing Post from Patrick Henry's speech might be enlightening to the Friends of Liberty?"

Many of those Friends of Liberty are mislead in very serious ways, not limited to confusion over terminology.

Here is a quote that illustrated the point:

"The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely."

Note the use of the term democracy. A modern day supporter of Ron Paul is brainwashed into the belief that "democracy" is a thing done by people who are on the "left" and those "democrats" want "mob rule" which is "democracy" so: if anyone says "democracy" they mean "mob rule" and they are "socialists" and therefore they are our enemies, as we must gain our power of numbers, we "republicans", and with out power of numbers we must overpower those "socialists" who have the audacity to claim to support "mob rule" and "democracy".

It is a self-evident merry-go-round, or hamster wheel.

Once you get on it: it is nearly impossible to get off it, or so it seems.

Joe

A's & B's

Oh Gee….

A & B, a long term plan…I cannot figure out how to disassociate. Early on I heard on the DP that the Liberty Movement wsa long term and not just about this election. We are making in roads. Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?

Yes, I read the quote that ended with democracy. I wondered about that when I read it.

My understanding of political entropy: A Republic goes to A Democracy turns to Socialism then to Communism…

I used the terms American Union and Federal Constitution because:
23.11 “The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege. Show me the reason why the American Union is to be dissolved. Who are those eight adopting states? Are they averse to give us a little time to consider, before we conclude? Would such a disposition render a junction with them eligible; or is it the genius of that kind of government to precipitate people hastily into measures of the utmost importance, and grant no indulgence? If it be, sir, is it for us to accede to such a government?”

And the title of the document:
Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution

Can Rand join the Club and remain a Friend of Liberty?

Another question that has come to my mind in reading all of this is why even have states? Was that another power grab? Or is a state necessary?

I am going to read the Finkelman article at my leisure. I’ve pulled it up and it looks very interesting. Perhaps I will finish it tomorrow while I am running the Amish and a 90 year old to town on 2 different trips… I think I need to figure out how to take part in that Product 2 taxi business!

Negative Waves

"Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?"

I hear negative waves every time I read "an entity unto itself" in the terms used in the context exemplified above, so I point that out again: the GOP is "ideology" based upon a belief in a God of sorts, an entity unto itself, like a Corporation being a Person, etc.

If you don't mind I will rewrite the sentence so as to remove the negative waves from the sentence for my own sanity, if for no other reason.

Here is your version again:
Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?

Here is a rewrite (for my sanity):
Perhaps enough Friends of Liberty (Non-Legal Criminals) can compete with the Legal Criminals controlling the Legal Fiction known as the GOP and those Friends of Liberty having taken control over that Legal Fiction can use that Legal Fiction to limit the National Government in such a way as to return the Nation Government into a Democratic Federated Republic with or without the help of the counterfeit opposition Legal Fiction known as The Democratic Party.

Were enough Friends of Liberty joining in that peaceful battle to regain control over a runaway National Government Power there could be enough power exerted to accomplish very specific goals on a very specific time table such as:

End the FED by July 4th 2012
End the National Income Tax by July 4th 2012
Have all the Troops home by July 4th 2012 (every last one of them, and leave none behind)

How many days are left on that schedule?

Who claims that it is not possible?

Why do "they" make such baseless claims, what is their interest in making sure that no such thing ever does happen?

"My understanding of political entropy: A Republic goes to A Democracy turns to Socialism then to Communism…"

That is an argument happening right in that sentence, it is a self-evident contradiction. The only way that your sentence can work is by convenient redefining of those specific terms to suit exactly what you intend to say, as if you and President Clinton have the semantics arguments in common; both you and him know that it depends upon what is is.

There is no way that a Republic can go anywhere or do anything. If it is a Republic then it is one, what do you mean by a Republic?

In the context of the times when Patrick Henry spoke his speech in opposition to Ratification of the Constitution, in his own words, the example of what was desired was a Confederacy such as the one working in Holland. I've read of examples of a Republic such as the one that was (and may still be) working in Switzerland.

That same time period (Patrick Henry's day) offers an example closer to home in the form of The Articles of Confederation. What is meant, exactly, by the use of the word Republic?

You used the word. I use the word because I've read the word used many times in many of the books concerning that time period that I have read. I think "confederacy" and "republic" are the same thing, so why two words for the same thing? I smell a rat.

Then you use the word: Socialism

Do you actually mean a specific thing from a specific time such as the Communism enforced by the Bolsheviks? If that is what you actually mean then you may want to know that The Communist Manifesto specifically rejects socialism, so you really can't mean socialism if you mean communism because communists, the official officials themselves divorce themselves from socialism in their own recipe book.

Socialism has one very illustrative example if you care to know and that is a corporation. A corporation is an illustrative example of socialism, as is The Military. The Military and a Corporation are very good illustrations of what happens when many people combine or collect their individual powers into one collective of power that is collected specifically for the greater good of each individual involved in the collective unification of all that collected power.

So what do you mean when you use the word socialism?

Then you say that something turns to something and then that something turns to communism and here is where I can point out that the Stalin Regime, if that is what you think is an example of communism, is, in fact, if English conveys accurate meaning: Crime made Legal or Legal Crime.

Why would anyone ever want to call it anything else when it is in fact crime made legal, is the point of covering it up with a false name the same thing as covering up any other Fraud with nicer sounding verbiage, to confuse the victims, to divide them, and to render them defenseless, and incapable of communicating precisely among their own poor, weak, and powerless number?

"My understanding of political entropy: A Republic goes to A Democracy turns to Socialism then to Communism…"

A Republic or Confederation, such as the process of law prescribed and limited by The Articles of Confederation were what they were until they were no more, and when the Regime Change occurred the former Confederation (or Republic) became a Nation State or Consolidated Government as told by Patrick Henry in great detail for anyone who cared to listen then or now.

"Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution"

Who employed that Label? I'm curious. Who said "I am against the Federal Constitution?" Was it Patrick Henry who went along with the charade of calling a Consolidated Government a Republic or was that someone else who placed that False Front on that Speech?

At the time the Nationalists (Hamilton in particular) hid behind a False Front of Federalism; saying one thing and doing the opposite. At the time there were many diverse groups who spoke out against those Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism, and the most powerful among those who were against the Nation State were labelled "Anti-Federalists" and among them there were those who did not miss the significance of that attempt to miss-label their numbers as they knew that they were for a Federation or Confederation not against a Federation or Confederation (or Republic), so the miss-label or false label of Anti-Federalist was known to be a false label and a dirty trick employed by those same Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism.

New day, same crap. A Liberal now means a Legal Criminal. A socialist now means a Legal Criminal. A capitalist now means a fascist which is a Legal Criminal. No matter what name is used by any power that competes with Legal Criminals the employment of False Fronts and False Labels is used to Turn Coat or Spin or Divide and Conquer with Deception.

Friends of Liberty were once called insurgents, rebels, rabble, democrats, liberals, etc.

Someone for a Republic might be, reasonably, called a Republican, but someone seeking absolute power of a Legal Money Monopoly may want to hide their motives behind the false label of a Republican, and over time what do people associate with that Label?

Why did the Red Democrats become the Blue Democrats at the same time that the Blue Republicans became the Red Republicans - musical chairs for entertainment?

"Can Rand join the Club and remain a Friend of Liberty?"

Suppose Rand thought that he was doing the right thing by "saving" all those who supported him, "saving" all those supporters from themselves. Suppose that Rand was doing right by all his supporters despite their wishes as to what should be done in their name, with the power sent to Rand by them, each one of them, individually sending to that one Representative all that collective power?

You can't please all the people all the time but advertizing one thing so as to get a lot of people to buy into that one thing advertized and then once all that power is commanded by that one person the power collected is spent on doing the opposite of what was advertized is misunderstanding at best.

Suppose Rand Paul said in the beginning, in all that e-mail, and all those letters through the U.S. Postal "Service" Inc. (LLC), that he, as a representative will, if needed, support Mitt Romney, so send me money, and that is what you will get, you will get, if needed, your power used to support Mitt Romney?

"Can Rand join the Club and remain a Friend of Liberty?"

I don't think so, seriously, because too much power that could have been used in the necessary work required to sever the connection between Victims and Legal Criminals is used to accomplish the exact opposite: to make certain that Legal Crime accelerates at a faster rate of acceleration.

I don't have the "inside" information so I'm just guessing.

My answer is no, it is as impossible as fornicating your way back to virginity.

Double secret agent provocateurs claiming to be on one side while actually being on the other side working for the first side but double crossing the first side to help the second side by torturing and mass murdering a few million so as to save a few billion is the stuff called FALSEHOOD.

Falsehood is the stuff needed to cover Violence.

Truth is the stuff needed to move from lower quality and higher cost life to higher quality and lower cost life.

"Another question that has come to my mind in reading all of this is why even have states? Was that another power grab? Or is a state necessary?"

That is why you are so valuable an asset to the fight for higher quality life and lower cost life, because your questions are highly competitive and vital questions - in my opinion.

An involuntary state is Legal Crime by definition, but there are problems associated in the process of defining meaning into words and actions so a process by which to find agreement is needed.

A. Do you agree that a process is needed to find agreement?

B. What form will that process take, assuming that you agree with the need to agree to a process used in finding agreement - even if the process discovers the need to agree to disagree?

C. Might makes right, so sure, go ahead and chain yourself down with such nonsense while I steal you blind, kidnap your children, abuse them, and turn them against you, while you busy yourself with such nonsense as "finding agreement".

There are those, really, just look around, who choose C, or who are merely born as C, sociopaths, narcissists, psychopaths, and their sycophant minions.

We The Friends of Liberty may want to agree to agree to find a process by which we combine our individual power in the work required to defend against those criminals who will, in fact, band together, find their own agreements, honor among thieves, and use their destructive power to connect to those who earn an honest living, so as to steal that power and use that power to steal more power.

1.
Voluntary association (State) which is an agreeable process to find a way to defend against knowable powers that will destroy the volunteers if nothing is done to defend against such destruction.

2.
Involuntary association (State) which is a False Front of a Voluntary Association used to hide organized crime or Legal Crime which is the destructive power that will cause our species to race toward early extinction.

Why confuse one with the other?

Who benefits from such confusion?

Is it true that "all men are bad" and that the only way to check that evil nature of the human species is for one or a few exceptional human beings gaining absolute power over the evil horde to force them to behave?

We went over this earlier.

The answer is no, that is a trick, and the fact that human beings breed is proof enough that we are not all bad since many of us are charitable enough to actually raise children.

The answer is no, we are not all as bad as the torturing mass murderer class, that is a trick, the people who invent that lie, that Might Making Right Fraud, are the one's that should never get fed with power because the obvious happens when they get fed power, they begin to use that power they are fed to fed themselves more and more power, so sure, sure, sure, some men are very, very, very bad, and they should definitely inspire the rest of us to take a little bit of our power and use some of our power agreeably in defense against those very, very, very bad people, to make sure that those very, very, very, very, bad people do not get fed power, by victims, including all the good people, and including any one of their number, since they are all victims, because that is what they do, they are criminals, we are not.

We, most of us, don't torture.

We, most of us, don't mass murder.

We, most of us, don't have the only Legal Checking account where we can write ourselves a check for as much purchasing power as everyone else combined anytime we want to buy another World War, because we, most of us, see no point in having that much power - that would be wrong, not right, not in our National Interest, at all, for most of us, at least those of us who still have command of our own brains.

A State Constitution, such as Pennsylvania's, during the time when The Articles of Confederation was the Law of the Land can be compared to The Constitution of Virginia, or we can look at the Constitution written by Ben Franklin as Ben Franklin offered a Constitution to be used instead of The Articles of Confederation, if the idea was to understand better, in a comparative, competitive, adaptive way, which Constitution Limited more, or allowed more, one way or the other way, keeping in mind that either agreement is sought after or a Dictatorial Monopoly Power is sought after in any case whatsoever.

"Another question that has come to my mind in reading all of this is why even have states? Was that another power grab? Or is a state necessary?"

A Family has a Constitution of sorts, many may use The Bible as their form of agreeable process of finding agreement.

A City has a Constitution of sorts.

A business has a Constitution.

An insurance policy has a Constitution or State or Legal Fiction or written record of which agreements are agreed upon in case someone were to forget by accident or "forget" by choice.

A contract is a constitution used to help all the evil people remain honest, or for any good people, with bad memories, to help remember what was agreed upon at one time in case of any disputes that may arise in time.

We are not perfect, but why would our imperfections be confused to such an extent that everyone is supposedly as evil as the average torturing mass murderer running a Nation State such as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) or Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?

Who benefits most from such confusions?

"I think I need to figure out how to take part in that Product 2 taxi business!"

It was no surprise to me to read that the Chevy Volt will be made in China. While Tesla Motors (Elon Musk) was gearing up to mass produce Electric Luxury Sedans in California the BUST of 2008 hit, as the Legal Criminals were making Capital Flight real flowing to China, for some strange and mysterious reason, and Elon Musk, according the information I managed to find, had to go to Germany and then to Japan to get money to expand his Electric Sports Car Production into the next phase of greater production.

So your tax money is used to subsidize the pollution of China, and the slave labor in China, and the powering up of the Chinese Communist Regime while, at the same time, The Chinese Communist Regime uses the tax dollars they manage to squeeze out of their enslaved masses in financing Aggressive Wars for Profit committed by U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

You pay taxes to make China more powerful, so you will have to buy Electric cars from China, while Communists in China funnel money to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) to conduct wars on Iraq, Afghanistan (to keep the drug profits flowing), Syria, Libya, and possibly Iran where China, Russian, Europe, and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) have drawn the World War III line in the sand.

If you think it is bad to have your earnings used to make you have to pay for a new car made in China, while people around you are unemployed because good, high quality, efficient, and cost effective electric cars made in American can't get the financing here in America to expand their business, then imagine a family in China, if they get access to a computer hooked up to the Internet, working harder to die faster, as their Government continues to loan more money to the Legal Criminals threatening to surround China and start World War III.

How about those Modular Vertical Green House Farming Units along with that Taxi Business run on Solar Power?

Joe

Rough Seas Ahead?

DISCLAIMER: Questions are asked because I am trying to understand, not because I am trying to prove a point.

My rewrite: Perhaps Liberty minded people can out maneuver the anti-liberty minded or deceived individuals who currently have the dominate power in the organization known as the Grand Old Party, and after those Friends of Liberty have finished cleaning house there in that Grand Old Party, perhaps liberty minded individuals will also gain currency such that the organization known as the Democratic Party will have a power shift in the same manner because an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped since it only take an irate minority (of individuals) to facilitate change; however, such change will take, time, wisdom, patience, and diligence to achieve, but above all, we must have Godspeed, Divine Favor, or very little can hoped to be accomplished.

But it was so much easier and faster and shorter to just say “"Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?" LOL
___________________________________
QUOTE: “End the FED by July 4th 2012; End the National Income Tax by July 4th 2012; Have all the Troops home by July 4th 2012 (every last one of them, and leave none behind); How many days are left on that schedule? Who claims that it is not possible? Why do "they" make such baseless claims, what is their interest in making sure that no such thing ever does happen?”

Do they make these baseless claims because “they” do not want to give up power? I do not know how to amass enough Liberty Minded people by next month to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Celente’s new forum would be a good start? You stated in a post earlier “Powerful Ideas: 3.Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System? There are Leaders because they have followers. Some people want to follow a leader while other people want to lead. It is another one of those natural laws like the conscience.
_____________________________
"It's a REPUBLIC, ma'am - IF you can keep it."— Benjamin Franklin (after signing the U.S. Constitution)

ME: "My understanding of political entropy: A Republic goes to A Democracy turns to Socialism then to Communism…"

YOU: That is an argument happening right in that sentence, it is a self-evident contradiction…”

I am sorry I was so lazy in the writing of my last post. I guess that is the kind of stuff you will get from me when I do not put forth a concerted effort to do better. I was writing off the cuff and I should have used better words and checked them accordingly, but was hurried so I didn’t.
What I understand as political entropy is that: a Republic government can degrade to a Democracy which can then degrade to a Socialist economy, which can degrade into Communism…" I believe I learned this during my Christian School Education somewhere between 10-12th Grade. It was just a paragraph I read. I believe one could perhaps look at the Political/Economic Entropy of the United States and find that we started as a Republic and somewhere along the way the word Democracy started to be used and somewhere along the New Deal Socialism came into play…and now here we are today much further down the road of socialism with many of the communist planks already in place.

It seems now though now that we have fascism to deal with and I do not remember learning anything about fascism entering into the degenerative cycle. And really, I don’t know what I am talking about so should probably shut up. But perhaps if I continue I will learn something. This site http://americanbuilt.us/economics/ says

-isms : The only 1% of difference between Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism. is how many CORPORATIONS are either *OWNED* or *CONTROLLED* (directly or indirectly) by government. In a truly *FREE* MARKET the answer is e) none of the above. People are *FREE* to enjoy the occupation of their OWN choice in a FREE-ENTERPRISE economic system.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men FREE to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall NOT take from the mouth of labor and bread it has EARNED. This is the sum of good government." — Thomas Jefferson

To the best of my knowledge, when I used the terms you questioned I was using them as such:

REPUB'LIC: A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

SOCIALISM: a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—the tragic failure of the twentieth century.

COMMUNISM: a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

http://americanbuilt.us/economics/#communism :
The Communist Manifesto
Manifesto |ˌmanəˈfestō| noun ( pl. -tos): a public declaration of policy and aims,
esp. one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.

1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy progressive income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Central Bank (Federal Reserve Act, World Bank)
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation
7. Government ownership of factories & agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education

Or what about this site that I found when verifying the above? http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm . I haven’t check the accuracy, but I appears that we were verbally threatened at the UN.

Would you use different definitions than those above? Do you know how P Henry, Marx & Solzhenitsyn defined some of those terms? I have several quotes below from those 3 and the interpretation would depend upon the meanings as they meant them.

QUOTE: “Do you actually mean a specific thing from a specific time such as the Communism enforced by the Bolsheviks? If that is what you actually mean then you may want to know that The Communist Manifesto specifically rejects socialism, so you really can't mean socialism if you mean communism because communists, the official officials themselves divorce themselves from socialism in their own recipe book.”

It is my understanding that according to Marxist theory, Socialism is a TRANSITIONAL social state between the overthrow of capitalism - and the realization of communism, and that according to Marx, “democracy is the road to socialism.” So though the Manifesto may reject socialism is it then used as a tool to achieve communism: “The ends justifies the means?” Has Marx’s Theory ever been manifested in a Free Society?

QUOTE: “Socialism has one very illustrative example if you care to know and that is a corporation. A corporation is an illustrative example of socialism, as is The Military. The Military and a Corporation are very good illustrations of what happens when many people combine or collect their individual powers into one collective of power that is collected specifically for the greater good of each individual involved in the collective unification of all that collected power.”

I have never considered those entities as socialist examples, but should that be the case, then those large organizations, like a government, can become entrenched in red tape; thus, a bleeding of power, or on the other hand that collective power of the individuals can be usurped by a certain individual(s) for ill use. When those collections of power fail many individuals are left in the wake. As can be seen per your quote below. (I don’t know US history, much less Soviet History, but principles are at work.).

QUOTE: “Then you say that something turns to something and then that something turns to communism and here is where I can point out that the Stalin Regime, if that is what you think is an example of communism, is, in fact, if English conveys accurate meaning: Crime made Legal or Legal Crime.”

Was there a time prior to the Stalin regime when true communism was the economic system? As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?

Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation we were a Republic, then with the Constitution we became a Democratic Republic which has continued the entropic cycle from a Free Market to Economic Entropy into Socialism and Fascism and it also seems that quite a few tenants of the Manifesto have been accomplished right here in the US of A.

Regarding your earlier post “Civil War: Note the use of the term democracy. A modern day supporter of Ron Paul is brainwashed into the belief that "democracy" is a thing done by people who are on the "left" and those "democrats" want "mob rule" which is "democracy" so: if anyone says "democracy" they mean "mob rule" and they are "socialists" and therefore they are our enemies, as we must gain our power of numbers, we "republicans", and with out power of numbers we must overpower those "socialists" who have the audacity to claim to support "mob rule" and "democracy".

Patrick Henry may have been somewhat concerned about “MOB minority rule”:
4.4 Let us suppose—for the case is supposable, possible, and probable—that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two thirds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed!( This thought is continued in 4.6 at http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html )

P Henry seems to advocate “democracy here:
4.11 A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?
5.1 What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:—that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

6.1 This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!

So, can you explain to me why Patrick Henry advocated democracy when the other things I have quoted indicate it is a vehicle for socialism? Has the word been redefined?

Solzhenitsyn calls Socialism “a false and dangerous current” (perhaps like a rip tide or undertow?)/Harvard 1978 on Socialism:
“It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich's book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.” (complete speech: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harva... )

Perhaps what I learned back in high school has something to do with Solzhenitsyn/Harvard 1978:
“The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism.”

I am not asking you to figure out what I think I learned in high school... It is just something that stuck, but I may not be applying it correctly. Perhaps I should gracefully bow out of that thought pattern if it is incorrect?

What do you think about this site? http://americanbuilt.us/governments/democracy.shtml ? Do you think it to be a valid political/economic reference?
_______________________________________
I am having a difficult time figuring out your political/economic ideology. Do you care to state it in specific terms? It seems sometimes I hear you speak of no involuntary relationships, but at the same time as being collective, but at the same time as being independent with electricity and those vertical modular farms. I completely understand that you want to break with the Legal Criminals, but to what?
____________________________________-
QUOTE: “A Republic or Confederation, such as the process of law prescribed and limited by The Articles of Confederation were what they were until they were no more, and when the Regime Change occurred the former Confederation (or Republic) became a Nation State or Consolidated Government as told by Patrick Henry in great detail for anyone who cared to listen then or now.”

"Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution"
QUOTE: “Who employed that Label? I'm curious. Who said "I am against the Federal Constitution?" Was it Patrick Henry who went along with the charade of calling a Consolidated Government a Republic or was that someone else who placed that False Front on that Speech?”

The link you gave me: http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html used it, so that is what I believed to be true. The contact email is zulick@wfu.edu . Perhaps you would like to straighten them out on their terminology because they are leading dupes astray. I do not feel that I should straighten their language out because I really know nothing as you can plainly see,

When reading Henry’s speech, I understand Federal to be synonymous as a nation state/consolidated government. What I am understanding is that the “Federal” Constitution removed the people FROM the representative protection of each respective state wherein the individual resided over TO the jurisdiction of the federal/consolidated government, or at the very least placed individuals under a shared state/federal jurisdiction where the federal jurisdiction has the primary jurisdiction.

I have questions followed by their applicable quotes below if you can help me understand.

A) I am wondering, did P Henry say that the people do not have the right to enter into a league because that would usurp the authority of the states and give it to the consolidated government. The consolidated government bypassed the states and made a contract with the people themselves?

10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?

10.5 The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations; they are not the proper agents for this purpose. States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government.

B) It seems the term federal is used for both good and bad forces of centralized government?

14.3“… —even that they should strike us out of the Union, and take away from us all federal privileges, till we comply with federal requisitions: but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people.”

C. Federal (consolidated) as opposed to State?:
15.1 In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers—the state and the federal sheriffs.

D. Federal vs. confederate: I want see them as somewhat opposites because of the prefix “con” (contra) (pro = for; con = against). Or in other words, Confederate = against federal. But I do not think that to be the correct interpretation of the prefix “con” in this case. I believe perhaps it to mean: “union.” Does federal = consolidated states while confederate meant an agreement between a union of states?

1.3 “…Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.”

E. Could the title be true “Patrick Henry Against the Federal Constitution” because Patrick Henry seemed to be an Advocate for the Articles of Confederation between the states which individually represented the people within the state and vs. a Contract between the People and a Federal Nation State.?

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,federate (1828 meanings)

NATIONALIST: Not found in the 1824 or 1913 dictionary.

FEDERALIST:. an appellation in America, given to the friends of the constitution of the United States, at its formation and adoption, and to the political party which favored the administration of President Washington.

FEDERAL: . Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

FEDERATE: Leagued; united by compact, as sovereignties, states or nations; joined in confederacy; as federate nations or powers.

CONFEDERATE, United in a league; allied by treaty; engaged in a confederacy.

CONFEDERATION: 2. The United States of America are sometimes called the confederation.

The main difference that I can see is that Federal is a contract between parties/nations/states…Federate is a compact between sovereignties, states or nations. It is all Greek to me…
.
QUOTE: “At the time the Nationalists (Hamilton in particular) hid behind a False Front of Federalism; saying one thing and doing the opposite. At the time there were many diverse groups who spoke out against those Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism, and the most powerful among those who were against the Nation State were labelled "Anti-Federalists" and among them there were those who did not miss the significance of that attempt to miss-label their numbers as they knew that they were for a Federation or Confederation not against a Federation or Confederation (or Republic), so the miss-label or false label of Anti-Federalist was known to be a false label and a dirty trick employed by those same Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism.”

Nationalist wasn’t even in the 1824 or 1913 dictionaries so I am not sure you can call Hamilton a Nationalist unless you are using todays terminology. I wonder what he was called back then? Perhaps a Federalist?

QUOTE: “New day, same crap. A Liberal now means a Legal Criminal. A socialist now means a Legal Criminal. A capitalist now means a fascist which is a Legal Criminal. No matter what name is used by any power that competes with Legal Criminals the employment of False Fronts and False Labels is used to Turn Coat or Spin or Divide and Conquer with Deception.”

http://americanbuilt.us/economics/#capitalism : economic scales involve CAPITAL (the means of production) - so the term "Capitalism" is again very deliberately confusing. It is WHO CONTROLS the capital that defines the difference between each different economic system.

QUOTE: “Friends of Liberty were once called insurgents, rebels, rabble, democrats, liberals, etc. Someone for a Republic might be, reasonably, called a Republican, but someone seeking absolute power of a Legal Money Monopoly may want to hide their motives behind the false label of a Republican, and over time what do people associate with that Label?”

When where Friends of Liberty called those names? And that is why Friends of Liberty must “hijack the GOP & DP [organizations] to fix that AB problem?" (or you may refer to my first paragraph rewrite at the top of this post for a more full description of what I mean.

QUOTE: “Why did the Red Democrats become the Blue Democrats at the same time that the Blue Republicans became the Red Republicans - musical chairs for entertainment?”

Eyes Wide Open? Perhaps it was to say…we have now conquered the Republican Party and it is now a democratic socialist fascist communist party. Truly, the C word is what I associate with the color red when used in the political spectrum. I can still hear Reagan telling Gorbachev (at least I think that was who he was talking to) to “Tear down this wall” and wonder what that exactly meant with Eyes Wide Open? http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm ? I think it was code. But then again I am the too logical paranoid type and probably misconstrue facts to mean more than they are.

QUOTE: "Can Rand join the Club and remain a Friend of Liberty?"

Thank you for spelling this out for me. I failed to see the supporter betrayal aspect of the endorsement. I was more focused on the fact that he had endorsed a man that stands against Liberty. I do not know what to do now. I suppose I will wait for Tampa and see what happens.

I don’t know whether to write Ron’s name in or abstain in November or vote Constitution Party. I am not sure that I can go Libertarian with Gary Johnson, I will have to study him more. I will have to educate myself. I told myself earlier this year I would no longer compromise my vote by voting Republican if the nominee does not stand for what I believe. It is harder now though, it seems the current president is rouge, but out in the open. Perhaps the last republicans have been rouge behind closed doors, while moral minded folks thought everything to be OK because after all, the republican leaders do not endorse abortion. Really? Then why didn’t they pass a bill in congress like Ron Paul wanted them to when they had the majority? Why didn’t I know then what I am coming to know now?

Liberty resurfacing? DP Post http://www.dailypaul.com/240415/breaking-lawyers-for-ron-pau...

Direct Link to Radio Show
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=...

There seems to be controversy on the DP regarding those lawyers and their actual intent. I don’t know what to think.

QUOTE: I don't think so [Rand remain a friend of liberty], seriously, because too much power that could have been used in the necessary work required to sever the connection between Victims and Legal Criminals is used to accomplish the exact opposite: to make certain that Legal Crime accelerates at a faster rate of acceleration.

What about what he continues to do to fight for Liberty in the Senate: TSA, Audit Fed; NDAA…? But, I dare say, I do not think that Ron Paul would have gained so much currency with Friends of Liberty had he been a compromiser. But what is the difference between Ron Paul endorsing Republican incumbents that perhaps are not Friends of Liberty? I am asking you these questions because I am trying to understand, not because I am trying to prove a point.

QUOTE: “I don't have the "inside" information so I'm just guessing.”

I know, but I appreciate your perspective. It is nice to have a competitive viewpoint to consider. Thank you for taking time to share your guess with me. I realize this is becoming very time consuming and if it is a noncompetitive use of your time, please just say so and we will leave it be.

QUOTE: “Double secret agent provocateurs claiming to be on one side [LIBERTY] while actually being on the other side [CRIMINAL] working for the first side [LIBERTY] but double crossing the first side [LIBERTY] to help the second side [CRIMINAL] by torturing and mass murdering a few million so as to save a few billion is the stuff called FALSEHOOD.”.

I had to add the titles in because my brain can barely think about 2 things at one time since I had chemo. I used to be able to process several things at a time. Now I forget the last thing as soon as I move on to the next thing. It is very frustrating that I could not carry the thought pattern in your quote in my mind alone.

QUOTE: “An involuntary state is Legal Crime by definition, but there are problems associated in the process of defining meaning into words and actions so a process by which to find agreement is needed.”

So, the constitution caused involuntary associations. But did not the Articles of Confederation do the same? Was everyone happy to be part of the state (as opposed to the consolidated) system?

QUOTE: A. Do you agree that a process is needed to find agreement?

Probably

QUOTE: 1. Voluntary association (State) which is an agreeable process to find a way to defend against knowable powers that will destroy the volunteers if nothing is done to defend against such destruction.
2. Involuntary association (State) which is a False Front of a Voluntary Association used to hide organized crime or Legal Crime which is the destructive power that will cause our species to race toward early extinction.
Why confuse one with the other? Who benefits from such confusion?”

According to P Henry, There was already tension at the state level trying to protect the rights of the people

15.5 Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people

Is there any way to get everyone to agree? It seems there will always be involuntary associations? I don’t like to go 25 miles an hour. But I volunteer to do so because I do not want to get a ticket. How about when the speed limit was 55. Who volunteered for that? But we did it kind of for the most part. How can anyone make rules for anyone else without it being an involuntary association for someone somewhere to comply? So is that what Anarchism is? No rules because someone somewhere won’t agree?

Is there not a fine line spoken about by Solzhenitsyn/Harvard 1978: “I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.

And P Henry:
3.19 I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny

You mentioned that Ben Franklin also wrote a constitution to replace the articles of confederation. I also read some, not most of the 3/5ths document link you gave me (I think that is why I didn’t like history. I found that link to be very boring and could not endure to the end.). Was there any legitimate reason that the articles of confederation needed to be added to or replaced other than a power grab? I noticed in Patrick Henry’s writings that there were already problems with lasciviousness as well as protecting the rights of the people.
_____________________________________
QUOTE: “We are not perfect, but why would our imperfections be confused to such an extent that everyone is supposedly as evil as the average torturing mass murderer running a Nation State such as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) or Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?

I think perhaps we (you and I) need to differentiate between temporal and eternal; between human thinking and God’s Perspective. What I have offered on being judicially guilty is from an eternal/Biblical perspective. What you are comparing it to is from a human/temporal perspective perhaps from a political economic ideology? You already know what I think so I am going to give some quotes where I understand Solzhenitsyn to speak on the subject. (I am not saying that I agree with Solzhenitsyn as I do not know his complete theological ideology.)

Solzhenitsyn Part II of The Gulag Archipelago:
"It has granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of my youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first strivings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and then all human hearts… And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an unuprooted small corner of evil."

Solzhenitsyn Harvard/1978: “http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework)...To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.”… Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.”

QUOTE: “Is it true that "all men are bad" and that the only way to check that evil nature of the human species is for one or a few exceptional human beings gaining absolute power over the evil horde to force them to behave?
We went over this earlier.The answer is no, that is a trick, and the fact that human beings breed is proof enough that we are not all bad since many of us are charitable enough to actually raise children.”

“As far as “managing to raise children” as being a moral endeavor, even crocodiles, lions, and other species manage to raise children, as well as eat them. The black widow feasts on her “husband.” I believe raising children to be somewhat like the conscience: a function of natural order. Some do so more humanely and with better outcomes, but raising children is part of the instinctive drive of being alive and procreating in order to continue the species

QUOTE: “Who benefits most from such confusions?”

I suppose the Thief, the Great Deceiver, the Author of Lies, the Murderer from the Beginning stands to benefit because it would cause someone to think they are OK when it comes to standing before a Holy God in hope that their good will outweigh their bad. The problem is the bad contaminates the good thus rendering the good spoiled. The good does not purify the bad. Adding more water to dirty water only dilutes the dirty water. Adding dirty water to pure water ruins the pure water. The concept is the same with man’s good and evil works. Some water is dirtier than other water, but it is all dirty. God cannot let any dirty water, no matter how diluted it is, into eternal heaven. That is why we must be washed clean thru the shedding of the blood where sin is remitted. That is why we must be regenerated, born again, given a new nature. It is that new nature that will live eternally free of corruption.

I ran across this passage Sunday and it made me think of our conversations on the subject of good and evil man and their access to heaven. It seems the topic was going on approximately 2700 years ago!

Ezekiel 18: 25 Yet ye say , The way of the Lord is not equal . Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal ? are not your ways unequal ? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die . 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed , and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive . 28 Because he considereth , and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed , he shall surely live , he shall not die . 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal . O house of Israel, are not my ways equal ? are not your ways unequal ? 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent , and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die , O house of Israel?32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth , saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
_____________________________________
Yes, I think it terrible that Elon Musk was unable to access that doubling of the $ so that he could actually invent something competitive on American soil and create American Jobs. Perhaps removing competition and American Jobs is somewhat like blowing up bridges? Too much power in the sovereign individual’s hands?

You also compared what happened to Musk/America with QUOTE: “a family in China, if they get access to a computer hooked up to the Internet, working harder to die faster, as their Government continues to loan more money to the Legal Criminals”

I didn’t understand. Can you clarify the above so I can understand?

QUOTE: “So your tax money is used to subsidize the pollution of China, and the slave labor in China, and the powering up of the Chinese Communist Regime while, at the same time, The Chinese Communist Regime uses the tax dollars they manage to squeeze out of their enslaved masses in financing Aggressive Wars for Profit committed by U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). You pay taxes to make China more powerful, so you will have to buy Electric cars from China, while Communists in China funnel money to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) to conduct wars on Iraq, Afghanistan (to keep the drug profits flowing), Syria, Libya, and possibly Iran where China, Russian, Europe, and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) have drawn the World War III line in the sand.”

What a tangled web… Solzhenitsyn Harvard/1978: “At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.”

It seems Solzhenitsyn has China attacking us. Is that the End Game after we do China’s bidding with our tax and export $’s go to “launder money in China” (is that a correct terminology?), which is then loaned back to us so we can conduct wars?: I fear we may be in much graver danger than realized if this is true. Are our liberties being absconded in preparation for an invasion? Does China call the shots in congress because they are our money masters? Is our congress trying to appease China to prevent an invasion on our soil? See how my mind works? I am probably drawing false conclusions.

http://www.dailypaul.com/240824/no-more-gm-for-me-if-this-is... I’m scared almost like after watching the Economic Hit Man link. Do you think this video to be accurate?

_____________________________
Also written 2700 years ago with a complete copy found in the dead sea scrolls dating 100BC: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
________________________________
How many passengers can I fit into my electric car? I took 6 to town Friday in my Mini Van.

I love digging in the dirt. Perhaps I could use both the vertical farming units as well as have a small horizontal garden plot? Even though my garden was planted a month late we are already enjoying fresh squash and the green beans are budding! The Amish have given me cucumbers and freshly dug potatoes because I won’t take money, but then again, I guess potatoes, like corn, are money!

Rougher for some

DISCLAIMER: Responses are balanced in the effort to be authoritative enough to be a competitive viewpoint while remaining open to challenge by leaving follow up questions.

"but above all, we must have Godspeed, Divine Favor, or very little can hoped to be accomplished."

Here to me is the brilliance of knowing, or believing very strongly, in a power that works both internally and externally guiding life toward higher quality and lower cost for as long as that power remains powerful enough to accomplish that goal against any competitive power.

If that knowing or that strong belief is absent then why would anyone do anything with any conviction, desire, drive, force, or power, such as the example of inventing, producing, and then employing government power?

If that knowing or that strong belief is present, driving, and working to cause someone to do things, but the person is unaware of it, or not in some way willfully in control of it, then what exactly is that power by that very definition in English which merely intends to ask the question defined in real time by real people who really are driven to do very bad things by some very bad forces, habits, thoughts, or powers?

What is that power if it is not good by definition?

I like your rewrite because your willful employment of your power is focused on removing all external power that may have you under external control, by some unseen method, whereby you are willfully taking complete control over your own power to use English in such a way as to convey exactly what you ALONE want to say as much as possible with the obvious single exception of you welcoming the external control of God, a power of good, which is definable and therefore not false, not mysterious, not unwelcome, not secret, not hidden, not covered up, not deceptive, not covert, not evil, not tricky, not anything but a force for absolute good, and therefore worthy of acceptance as a guiding force.

No hidden meanings lurking between the lines if humanly possible?

What is the goal, other than to help other people find a guiding power for good, when anyone on a path of good, is endeavoring to accumulate power so as to employ that accumulated power for good in this specific plan of defense known by many names such as GOP?

Why not speak accurately instead of ambiguously or falsely?

"...or very little can hoped to be accomplished."

Given the fact that power is needed because the fact is that power is being used to do very bad things to very many people, so given the fact that power is needed, for defense, and therefore the first accomplishment is to gain power of a sufficient quality (not aggressive, not causing "collateral damage"), and quality (power of numbers), so as to deal with that destructive power, what is the goal once that power is commanded for that specific purpose of dealing with all that very destructive power that is now destroying so much life?

To become better at being evil, or one step higher?

Obviously there is a need to not become that which we supposedly abhor since power can be destructive or productive and once power is collected in massive amounts for ONE goal it is vitally important to make sure that the ONE goal is not a destructive goal or it would have been much better to avoid collecting all that power into one thing in the first place.

Providing the means by which we suffer may be a bad idea.

It is perhaps important to learn from the past, such as the case of being surrounded by alligators, when the goal was to drain the swamp.

"But it was so much easier and faster and shorter to just say “"Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?" LOL"

There is no AB problem if everyone is working under the same guiding principle of doing unto others before others have enough power to defend against being done upon.

What problem, I see no problem, did you get caught, that may be your problem, so don't get caught: what problem?

There is no AB problem when everyone is well trained, like Pavlov's Dogs, to stab the person in front in the back with a corporate knife, having a blade in front, a handle in the middle of the knife, and a blade behind the handle facing backwards, for the back swing, to stab the person behind who is stabbing the same way, and everyone is in a circle, like a demented musical chairs game, or like Civilized Cannibalism, and the AB problem is fervently employed by everyone, every waking moment, to fix the problems they see every waking moment, every day, all the time, wake up, kill or be killed, until the hacking work of each day leaves each morbid individual powerless, and dying a terrified life, tortured, horrified, more so each day, until the final solution, where the same attempt to solve the problem by adding to the problem, consumes everyone, as if that was the original design of life itself.

If there is no better solution to the AB problem other than becoming it, then what is the problem?; that is the solution, not the problem.

What AB problem? I see no problem. Did you get caught? That is your problem.

Might makes right = kill or be killed = power designed as destruction on purpose for fun and profit.

Take over the GOP, stab all those people in the back, stab the new people after us taking over the GOP too (before they can stab us in the back), so as to accomplish the goal of some undefinable ambiguity, or can someone, anyone really, offer a more specific, reasonable, identifiable, accurately measurable, goal to be reaching by a certain time and day?

"Do they make these baseless claims because “they” do not want to give up power?"

"They" are us in many ways and if there is a slight difference, almost immeasurable, almost imperceptible, but none-the-less different, undoubtedly different, what is that difference between "them" and "us"?

How about useful terms in English?

Us = Friends of Liberty driven to reach a specific goal by a specific date and do so without resorting to deception (of ourselves or other people), without resort to threats of violence (to ourselves or innocent people, but it must be understood, seriously, that our enemies will be threatened by anyone who endeavors effectively to disconnect from being victims) and without resort to violence upon the innocent in an aggressive manner (while defensive violence may be forced upon us by our enemies where our enemies may remove all competitive options except the final solution, the final choice of either killing our enemies who will kill us, or being killed by our enemies who are determined to kill us at that moment when there are no other options left by our lack of knowing better sooner).

Them = Friends of Legal Crime driven by a force or power that drives them internally and externally, by their own power of will, or by whatever power has their will taken over, to exist at the expense of their targeted victims that they have on their lists, in their sights, to be deceived, threatened, and destroyed for fun and profit.

Civilized cannibalism or equitable commerce?

Peace or War?

Liberty or Death?

Liberty or the animated contest of competitive living: reaching for the stars, higher quality life, and lower cost life better sooner rather than choosing a path of certain destruction?

If ambiguity concerning who we are and who they are exists then two things are likely to happen:

1.
Friends of Liberty grow less powerful as we convict each other of being the enemy although we are innocent. Talk about being stupid.

2.
Friends of Legal Crime grow stronger as more and more people are convicting more and more people, punishing each other, and consuming each other without an accurate due process by which such convictions are rendered = as in "extraordinary rendition".

Why mince words? Why does anyone, anywhere, spend an ounce of their power on helping the Legal Criminals cover up their crimes?

If you can't find the answer in the mirror, may God have mercy on our souls.

"I do not know how to amass enough Liberty Minded people by next month to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Celente’s new forum would be a good start?"

Celente, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jesse Ventura, you, me, are obviously inventing, producing, and offering competitive forms of media, and our goals are obviously, measurably, common in design features. What are those common design features, or what is the common goal of anyone who avoids resort to deceit, avoids resort to threats of aggressive violence, and avoids resort to aggressive violence targeting innocent people such as babies, toddlers, children, and any other innocent human being, avoiding that, what is our common message, our common goal, arrived at voluntarily?

If we are all on the same page, all working for Liberty, then what explains the screams of torture in all those torture chambers we pay for with our dimes and we build in our names and what explains all those piles of dead bodies piling up all around the Globe?

911

Gerald Celente is evil, so he did it, not me.

How about a better, more accurate, effort to discriminate between the absolute worst and the absolute best, and forget about the absolute best, since the screams of torture are rising fast, and the bodies are piling up fast, so how about focusing on the absolute worst first, know them, known that they lie, know that they threaten, know that they are causing massive torture and massive mass murder, and stop sending any more material support and stop sending any more political/physiological support to the worst of the worst for a few seconds, then a few minutes, and make a habit of not sending the worst of the worst any more power at all, maybe, just maybe, the worst of the worst won't be so bad after their steady supply of ready innocent victims dries up.

Take any two people, compare them side by side, which one deserves your material and moral support and which one does not deserve your material and moral support?

Gerald Celente versus Barry Soetero (a.k.a. Barack Husein Obama)

OK, so neither are deserving, compared to your kids, or your husband.

How much power in material or moral support are you currently, as in right now, sending Gerald Celente?

None?

How much power are you sending in material or moral support (aiding and abetting) Barack Husein Obama?

No tax return? No use of any Dollars today? No material support? No moral support to The Nation State chief employee today?

How about a reality check?

Official National Debt Clock Real Time

The Geral Celente, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Bill Still, Walter Burien, Joe Kelley, examples, point out things, whereby there are accurate measures of actual material and moral support flowing from the victims to the criminals. Ron Paul is doing the same thing; has been for as long as I've read anything, or personally heard anything, he says.

If it is bad to credit me, or Celente, or Ventura, with any credit, sure, it is bad, you have only so much credit to give, only so much room for charity, then why give so much moral and material support to Legal Criminals who have been known to kidnap and torture children, such as in that infamous Franklin case?

Oh, but it wasn't on National State Television, so I didn't know?

Reality Check two:

Top Down Cover Up

"Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System?"

I keep repeating my Power Law as such:

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

From that perspective I can answer your question as:

Too many people are still lending moral and material support to Legal Crime because they are no longer functioning human beings, they are victims captured into that meat grinder of Legal Crime.

Your question again:

"Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System?"

The brightest and bravest among us are being consumed in Perpetual Aggressive Wars for the Profit of a few at the expense of everyone else, and they have families, and they can be accurately counted as victims. How many are now working in the arms industry, making Drones, volunteering as soldiers, investing in and capitalizing on military industry stock shares, securities or bonds, or working on dollar denominated finance industry, or prison industry, or National subsidized food industry, or petroleum fueled transportation industry, or any Nationally subsidized or monopolized industry?

How many are vested into Legal Crime and therefore being paid dividends, or getting more now, cashing in, compared to their initial investments?

Who knows who butters their bread, how many are their number?

Add all that moral and material support up to get a grand total, and what do you see?

How about a little help in reaching a accurate quantity of all that Power of our best and brightest being consumed in Aggressive Wars for the Profit of a few at the expense of everyone else?

Official record of Power Flowing

You, yes you, just may, tragically, miss an item of income reported on your tax return, but the IRS PEOPLE don't, so you are processed by law for your law breaking, and if anyone else does it, you want them punished too, tax evaders, those bad guys, those free loaders, those evil people.

How much tax evasion is too much, according to you, and according to the IRS on your side?

Who is lending moral and material support to whom, exactly?

How about a Trillion dollars worth of missing income? Did you miss a Trillion dollars, and now the IRS is on you like white on rice?

Who are the bad guys? Why does anyone need a road map, and instructions?

How much moral and material support is anyone sending any of the bad guys today?

Know better? What if you depend upon that steady income from Uncle Sam, you know, the pedophile pointing at your children, that Uncle Sam in the Franklin case for one example, the one Uncle Sam who will have your children as soon as you no longer have control over your children: Uncle Sam loves children. But you don't know better than to send moral and material support to Uncle Sam the Pedophile? What would The Franklin case have uncovered if due process of law meant anything to anyone anywhere?

Uncle Sam is a Pedophile.

You send Uncle Sam moral and material support.

What does that make you?

No, you say, just like the people in Nazi German said, no, no, I was just following orders.

How uncomfortable can the truth be at times?

Your question again:

"Some people want to follow a leader while other people want to lead. It is another one of those natural laws like the conscience."

Get anyone, anywhere, down to:

Brass Tacks

Where there is a will there is a way.

A follower is merely someone who decided to follow and as soon as that someone decides not to follow anymore then that someone works in that direction according to that will, following someone else, or not following someone else: down to brass tax the individual is responsible.

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing; how convenient is that?

My wife had a very astute saying when she was struggling through her worst depression.

"No matter where I go, I'm still there."

I may not have conveyed the meaning precisely, but I think you can see the accurate meaning.

"I believe one could perhaps look at the Political/Economic Entropy of the United States and find that we started as a Republic and somewhere along the way the word Democracy started to be used and somewhere along the New Deal Socialism came into play…and now here we are today much further down the road of socialism with many of the communist planks already in place."

I can repeat until I am blue in the face, and I can beat a dead horse until there isn't any horse left, but my point concerning such self generating contradictions as the quote above is the same point over and over and over again:

You have not expressed any meaning when you employ duplicitous terms such as "Republic" "Democracy" and "Socialism".

Your efforts to communicate say the same thing if I use a BLANK in place of those duplicitous terms.

You wrote:

"a Republic government can degrade to a Democracy which can then degrade to a Socialist economy, which can degrade into Communism"

That says the same things as:

A blank government can degrade to a blank which can then degrade to a blank economy, which can degrade into blank.

How about knowing something and then communicate something known by using accurate terms?

A voluntary government can degrade into an involuntary government when the volunteers send moral and material support to criminals who take over the voluntary government and the economic relationship would then degrade from a powerful economic advantage of many individuals having the power to produce higher and higher standards of living and lower and lower costs of living into, degrading into, a steady flow of moral and material support flowing from those powerfully economic people to those criminals, reaching a point at which the criminals who made their crimes legal, are so powerful, and so numerous, that anyone found guilty of actually producing anything of value is immediately crucified by everyone else, and any power left is consumed by each rat consuming each other rat, in a glorified hell on earth.

I smell a rat.

The rat took the word socialism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word democracy and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word government and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word federalism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word communism and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the word good and made it into a bad word.

The rat took the words bad and made it into a good word.

I see a pattern.

I took a look at your link and I won't spend another minute on it, other than a few comments concerning the following quote:

"#1 -isms : The only 1% of difference between Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism. is how many CORPORATIONS are either *OWNED* or *CONTROLLED* (directly or indirectly) by government. In a truly *FREE* MARKET the answer is e) none of the above. People are *FREE* to enjoy the occupation of their OWN choice in a FREE-ENTERPRISE economic system."

A rat took the word capitalism and made it into a bad word.

I found that rat, his name is Karl Menger. I would like to explain further, but there isn't much time or room. A corporation is socialism. The military is socialism. A church is socialism. A family is socialism. Capitalism is a method of pricing.

Why confuse English?

I smell a rat. Some people are merely parroting dogma. The rats know better.

On to your definition of terms (which are vital if the goal is accurate communication, and if that is not the goal, then the obvious question to answer is: what is the goal?)

"REPUB'LIC: A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics."

That is a load of crap. Sovereign power must be understood before that load of crap can mean anything to anyone other than the one person who claims authority over the meaning contained in those words. If you claim to know the meaning of those words then you will have to explain what you mean by "sovereign power".

If the Democratic Federated Republic (Confederation) under the Articles of Confederation is an example of what you mean, when you use the word Republic then The People were sovereign beings as proven by Daniel Shays within that voluntary form of government example. On the other hand, if you claim that the U.S.A. under The Constitution of 1788 is an example of a Republic then the sovereign was The President as proven when that first President King George conscripted an all involuntary army to crush a money competitor in Pennsylvania.

A. Sovereign legal power is held by The People (Republic)
B. Sovereign legal power is held by ONE person (Republic)

Which Republic?

Many other examples proving who was sovereign and who was not sovereign could include any cases of Trial by Jury in any supposed Republic offered as an example of any supposed Republic, according to the authorized definition of a Republic where the word sovereign is used as a useful term when defining a Republic in English.

"DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."

That is nothing more, or less, than pure fiction. How can "the people collectively" have only two hands? It is not possible, that term you employ is pure fiction. Why would you ever see any reason to use such a false word defined in such a false manner as the definition you authorize here in this communication effort? I see only two possible reasons:

1.
You have been duped by that false definition.
2.
Your intention is to deceive me.
3.
A more competitive viewpoint

"Such was the government of Athens."

If there is an actual case of people suddenly producing two hands that all the people collectively use in unison, instead of their own hands used by each person, then I'd like to see how that works. Consider linking such things.

Where is there an example of a "democracy" where so many people magically create two huge "collective" hands?

"SOCIALISM: a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—the tragic failure of the twentieth century."

How deep does the web of deceit get? When did a being known as "government" suddenly appear in reality, and once appearing in reality this thing now has the power to control "all means of production" etc.?

"the tragic failure of the twentieth century"

Now I know what to blame, and now I know what to hold to account for all those millions of tortured bodies piled so high in the twentieth century? How convenient that is for those actual people who actually provided the moral and material support required in actually breaking all those arms, to see how may times those arms would heal, etc.

Socialism did it. Communism did it.

The Communism you link is second hand. How about quoting straight from the horses mouths?

The Communist Manifesto

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

There is a link confessed between "Utopian" something and something, or blank and blank, which may be worth checking out. The 19th century was a curious turning point for the worse.

"I haven’t check the accuracy, but I appears that we were verbally threatened at the UN."

There will always be a most powerful person. What are the sources of power flowing into the most powerful person? Is that a reasonable question on topic?

"Has Marx’s Theory ever been manifested in a Free Society?"

Marx was what Marx was, and Stalin was was Stalin was, and getting from Marx to Stalin is a very big leap of faith. Stalin was very good at making everyone pay for whatever Stalin wanted to do, in a big way, so he was more of an action guy, not so much of a speaker, but I've read that people knew better than to stop clapping first after one of Stalin's speeches, and don't fall asleep during the speech.

In a book worth reading, which I can link, Marx is credited with a few words, which I will quote, and you can take those words to the State Bank, but they won't give you, or Marx, any credit for it.

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)"

Marx was a writer, and his writing changed over time, or was corrupted by his own faults or by external influences - I suppose.

"Was there a time prior to the Stalin regime when true communism was the economic system? As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?"

I prefer to get rid of all the dogma and get straight to the point.

1.
Liberty (competition)
2.
Legal Crime (competition is against the law)

If the sign on the door is accurate, then that sign is used to accurately identify the people who invent, produce, and maintain the sign, as those people honestly do what they do, defining what they do when they do it.

If the sign on the door is false, then not just any false sign will do, the sign has to have the power to deceive someone, or the false sign is powerless by that exact measure.

Are you deceived by any false signs?

I prefer to minimized my vulnerability to false signs. You can do as you please.

"As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?"

Who invented the "communist theory", and are you referring to a false sign that hid Legal Crime, or are you referring to something totally different than a false sign hiding the crimes committed by people who made their crimes legal, people who made anyone else who may compete outside of their false law or anyone caught doing what they do is punished as an illegal person-hood?

If you are referring to something such as a commune started by Amish people, or a commune started by hippies in the 1960s, then that is entirely different compared to Stalin's reign of Legal Crime, if a body count can be of any help in that relative comparison.

Stalin did what Stalin did, and everyone following those orders did, and Charles Manson did what Charles Manson die, and everyone following those orders, and the Amish do what they do, and anyone else following those orders, so why call all that by the same false word communism? Why confuse one with the other, and who benefits from such confusion?

Who benefits from a confusion of a hippie commune (or an Amish one) and Stalin's type of Legal Crime?

Stalin is dead, so he may not care much, but there are a certain number of Stalin types lurking about these days, so they may benefit from such confusion. Perhaps the Amish are not inclined to be known as communists - for some strange reason.

"Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation we were a Republic, then with the Constitution we became a Democratic Republic which has continued the entropic cycle from a Free Market to Economic Entropy into Socialism and Fascism and it also seems that quite a few tenants of the Manifesto have been accomplished right here in the US of A."

The common term for a working Liberty at around the time of The Articles of Confederation was a Democratic Federated Republic - according to some of the books I've read.

"We" cannot become a Democratic Republic with The Constitution. Legal criminals took over Liberty and those Legal Criminals, with their Constitution, began a crime spree made legal in 1788, and successive Legal Criminals have kept the ball rolling since.

Why look at the actual facts through false lenses?

If the word Democracy means two opposite things at the same time then the user of the word is duplicitous.

Democracy does not mean "majority rule" when it means "individual rule" at the same time, that is as impossible as turning to the left and walking west at the same time you turn to the right and start walking to the east. Does your being cut in half and go left and right at the same time?

Friends of Liberty used the term Democracy (see Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry for examples) when speaking about Liberty, or "individual rule" or "individual sovereignty", or the opposite of the use of a nebulous "State" commanded by a nebulous "Majority" who set about committing unspeakable, and unaccountable, crimes upon many innocent victims.

A few sociopaths manipulating the minds of many people so as to get away with torture and murder can be called "majority rule" or it can be called "friend chicken", for whatever reason the inventor of the sign, or the label, or the name used wishes.

If the word Democracy is as corrupted as the word Liberal then why use it? If the goal is to communicate accurately: does it make any sense to use duplicitous words that can mean anything one second and the opposite thing the next second? If the goal is to deceive then it makes all the sense in the world, to me, to use duplicitous, and ambiguous, words.

I have to stop here, get some other things done, and I want to return to your reply, especially since your reply moves into specific meanings considered by Patrick Henry during that Ratification period.

"Patrick Henry may have been somewhat concerned about “MOB minority rule”:"

Before I dive into Patrick Henry text I think it may be important to point out that a time exists whereby a commonly used meaningful word becomes a duplicitous word and during that time the color change is not recognized and called out by those who are being deceived during that process of deception.

For example: Do you remember a time when Blue was Republican and Red was Democrat? What happened?

For another example: Proponents of Federalism were called Anti-Federalists by Nationalists who hid behind a false front of Federalism. Why were the Federalists called Anti-Federalists, and did those Anti-Federalists smell a rat at that time?

Patrick Henry:

"This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!"

You see that as Patrick Henry lending moral or even material support to YOUR concept of democracy.

What is your concept of democracy?

You offer:

"DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens."

Apples are being compared to cardboard cutouts of apples?

The People command, by their own power to command, in numbers sufficient to provide an effective deterrence, or defense if needed, the essential DUTY of abolishing a criminal government.

I think my competitive understanding of the genius of democracy spoken of by Patrick Henry is more in line with reality than your stated definition of democracy as far as you understand the meaning of the word.

I can certainly be proven wrong.

"So, can you explain to me why Patrick Henry advocated democracy when the other things I have quoted indicate it is a vehicle for socialism? Has the word been redefined?"

Am I beating a dead horse? Do you remember when Blue was Republican and Red was Democrat? What happened? Why did that happen? Who made that happen? Did that just happen by coincidence, a random accident?

The Gun did it?

The pointed stick made me poke someone in the eye?

"I am not asking you to figure out what I think I learned in high school... It is just something that stuck, but I may not be applying it correctly. Perhaps I should gracefully bow out of that thought pattern if it is incorrect?"

My advice is to use your own power of accurate discernment concerning what someone means when they use a word. If they mean: crime made legal, then socialism is crime made legal, so why use the word socialism?

The important thing is to know if they mean crime is being made legal by a few criminals who gain the power of government.

If they mean it is OK to make crime legal, so long as "we" are the criminals, then know that too.

My advice is to realize that socialism is just a word and the people who originally used the word are dead and their advice concerning socialism is censored for good reason, so long as Legal Criminals dictated what is or is not good.

Socialism was invented by people and then socialism was reinvented by other people so which "socialism" is the invention you see when anyone uses the word "socialism"?

If you have never heard of anyone ever using the word socialism to mean "individual sovereignty" then that means you have never heard such a thing; but that does not mean that no one ever said it.

If the label is False it is powerful enough to deceive some of the people some of the time.

If the label is merely inaccurate then who would ever use that label?

If you are selling apples would you take the time and effort to make a sign that said cardboard for sale?

What do you think about this site? http://americanbuilt.us/governments/democracy.shtml ? Do you think it to be a valid political/economic reference?

I do not see that as anything other than FALSE PROPAGANDA. Perhaps the people inventing it and producing it are dupes, merely parroting the dogma they publish, or perhaps they know better that to believe their own dogma. Democracy according to them is a dictatorial version of the word, according to them, and I suppose that anyone offering a productive version of the word Democracy, a competitive version of the same word, would be punished in some way by those Dictators who dictate the meaning of that word.

To them, supposedly, Democracy means "Mob Rule" and that is it, no questions, no revisions, no competitive viewpoints at all: Democracy means "Mob Rule" because we (our numbers) say so.

It is a self contained contradiction.

Not my opinion.

Leave me out of it.

It is what it is: a self contained contradiction.

It is either STUPID or FALSE ON PURPOSE.

If it is merely STUPID then those people are stupid people.

If it is false on purpose, then why is it false on purpose, and good luck trying to get a confession as to why it is false on purpose.

The person known as Stephen Pearl Andrews, who you did not like much, apparently, I may have that misunderstood, but that person Andrews wrote a book titled The History of Socialism, and I can't find a copy.

Here is Andrews version of the words Democracy and Socialism, and note that Andrews was alive during the time that Socialism and Capitalism were being MADE INTO diametric opposites or Blue and Red colors - much has happened since Andrews made his public access publications concerning his viewpoints on Democracy and Socialism at that time:

The Science of Society

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

When a dictator tells the flock that the God he knows will be the God everyone else knows, without question, then there is a State such as exemplified in The Inquisition. You may be familiar with such things. Andrews knew better too.

I confess, yes, just don't take any more finger nails off, please.

So Andrews knew that responsibility is individual or there is no such thing as accountability and the moves away from absolute despotism, or Legal Crime, were moved away by actual people in actual ways such as were ways that were being called by such names as socialism, democracy, and protestantism, in those days.

Now is not then. Blue is now Red. Red is now Blue.

"The consolidated government bypassed the states and made a contract with the people themselves?"

No such thing. I think that Patrick Henry know the difference between an Idea, or a Legal Fiction, or a Contract, and the actual people who would be responsible, or accountable, in any case whatsoever; therefore "the consolidated government" could not "bypass" anything.

When Patrick Henry smelled a rat he knew that there were actual people, such as Alexander Hamilton, involved in working to make crime legal, in a very specific way, a known method, by which many people were fooled by a specific process, and once fooled those people, so fooled, would accept crime made legal.

That is what I see. Patrick Henry knew that the people who went to Philadelphia on the pretense of adjusting The Articles of Confederation so as to appease the Bankers and the Merchants who wanted to be paid their profits for the war "effort" on par, or in gold, rather than being paid a depreciated paper money issue, did no such thing.

In other words: Patrick Henry knew that the Philadelphia meetings, which were secret closed door meetings with Gag orders placed on the attendees, was USURPATION.

Those liars and crooks at Philadelphia made Dirty Compromises and sold out every one else as slaves, they took over The Articles of Confederation and they made a working Dictatorship in place, so as to not only be paid, on par, for their war "effort", they actually made War very Profitable in any future Wars conducted by any new King being crowned as President of the new Nation State.

Patrick Henry knew that The People were being sold out, NO MORE TRIAL BY JURY, and no more Duty by The People to throw out criminal governments because even that was now going to be against the law.

Night and Day.

Articles of Confederation = working Confederation (voluntary government)

That was Day, in that Day.

Then NIGHT

The Constitution = no more Duty commanded by The People to overthrow a criminal government = War Pays very good now = Dictatorship = Legal Crime

Read it and weep?

Misunderstand it?

Patrick Henry was no prophet, he merely smelled the rat for what it was and it is now exactly as Patrick Henry warned it would be, as criminals made their crimes legal - obey - without question.

Too bad for the posterity Patrick Henry knew would be born into this rat, and too bad for us the one's born into this rat race.

Too bad for us. Very good, still, for the Bankers and Merchants of death for profit, and those few are moving off shore, as their capital flight is flying to China. Greener pastures.

Soon to be blackened. Detroit in Shanghai - rinse and repeat - The Business Psycho.

Have a nice day.

I want to return here, but I have other things pressing now.

Back to Patrick Henry:

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

If I am not mistaken that is a reference to the design of a Confederation called by some and a Democratic Federated Republic called by others, of that time period, and the reference has to do with Separate Legally Sovereign State Legal Fictions like New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, having no subordinate legal connection to a Federal Government in a Confederation or Republic, whereby the opposite is true.

Not A:

Legal Sovereign is The President Presiding over a Consolidated Nation State with subordinate State Governments and subordinate people.

But instead of A the idea (genius) was B:

Each individual is sovereign and as sovereigns each individual (Free Men at that time = not women = not slaves as legally bound according to law at the time), each sovereign man owning his own castle, each kept, or retained, the power to nullify any edict, or any command, by anyone holding any lawful office, as a member of a jury, and each sovereign individual is known, by personal experience at the time, to have a duty to rebel against, or abolish, or overthrow through insurgency, any criminals who may take over government so as to make their crimes legal, and as members of States, where States are formed for mutual defense, each person, actual people not "corporate people", each person prefers to join or un-join any State, as they may see fit, running away from slavery in one State, if one set of representatives endeavor to enslave free men, and it is OK, according to those people, at that time, for their State to join, or un-join, a Confederation of States, or a Democratic Federated Republic, whereby each person elects a representative who may, or may not, represent The People by joining, or un-joining, said Confederation of States, or Democratic Federated Republic such as the one used when The British were thrown out of that Republic or that Confederation i.e. The Articles of Confederation which were formed after The Declaration of Independence, for the purpose of voluntary mutual defense against a criminal, but LEGAL, Army of Aggression for Profit, seeking to enslave all The People in America for the crime of having run away from slavery in England, and to enforce a Legal Money Monopoly complete with The Business Psycho.

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

Patrick Henry is calling the Nationalists out on their lie. Those delegates where not sent by anyone, not The People, and not even the delegates themselves (those who smelled rats and those who were not "in" on the Secret Purpose of the Secret Meetings complete with the Gag orders) to Usurp the working Confederation by creating a Nation State. That was not the advertized purpose of the meeting in Philadelphia. The false advertized purpose of the meeting in Philadelphia was to pay off war debts in either paper money or specie (Gold or Silver).

The war profiteers, naturally, wanted their debts paid "on par" and so did The French, whose help was vital in throwing out the British. It was not secret that Alexander Hamilton favored England over France either. Alexander Hamilton being one of the chief liars in that club of Legal Criminals known as Nationalists hiding behind a thin veil of false Federalists Papers: say one thing and do the opposite thing.

Say, federation this, and federation that, and then enact The Alien and Sedition Acts, and crush a currency protest (tax protest) with a conscripted National Army invading the formerly sovereign State of Pennsylvania (where the rebels were weakest, so as to make an example of "so fatal a spirit" as that same Spirit of Liberty documented in The Declaration of Independence.

"10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

Not having the "mandate" to throw out "so fatal a spirit" the delegates could not have had the power to do so, without trickery.

What proof?

Patrick Henry point out that, in fact, the delegates disputed the Usurpation, despite the Gag order placed on those who attended but left the secret proceeding in protest, being bound by the Gag order, their "dispute" was to leave it. Those not attending the secret meetings and proceeding in Philadelphia, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, both in France at the time if my homework serves me well, and Patrick Henry, disputed in their own special way, Patrick Henry disputed, as a representative, in a working Confederation, with the speech in question, during Ratification.

"Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?"

They were disputed by states, those attending left the crime in progress, and those not attending spoke out, very astutely, and prophetically, against it. While "the people" were not invited, hence the closed door, secret meetings, in Philadelphia, and the Gag order, to keep The People in the dark, until the Usurpation was complete, despite The States objecting.

Those same Nationalists claim on the one hand to be against Mob Rule, against The Rabble, and against the Insurgents, and against the Rebels, and on the other hand they went past The States, going directly to the Brain Washing Manufactured Consent, to ram their Usurpation through, with their Federalist Papers printed through the Mass Media that they controlled (mostly) in their day.

Their Federalists Papers were the political promises (lies) of the day, the same ideas, and promises, that were discarded as soon as power was secured with the deception, then the treats of violence, and then conscripted armies invading sovereign States.

I did my homework, where were you?

I had my days of reckless abandon in my youth too, but I did my homework none-the-less, and therefore I could be a competitive representative in a Democratic Federated Republic, if one existed, and if The People demanded one - but that is demonstrably not the case.

I did not rely upon my homework to form my opinion either.

I was on the ballot in 1996 right here:

Joseph Kelley no thanks

Your kind is not really in demand, thanks, but no thanks.

I not only talk the talk I walk the walk.

I put my very meager "money" where my mouth is, more than once.

Tooting my own horn, so to speak.

Falsehood is in demand, I didn't get the memo.

"10.5 The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations; they are not the proper agents for this purpose. States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government."

Patrick Henry was in The Club, but it was not the same Club as the Nationalist Club where Alexander Hamilton and his Banker buddies hid.

None-the-less, Patrick Henry was in the club.

"B) It seems the term federal is used for both good and bad forces of centralized government? "

A Federal Government as designed to be one is proven to be good enough to throw out (out law) Aggressive Wars for Profit.

A counterfeit Federal Government as designed to be one is proven to be good enough to pay very well for those who will conduct Aggressive Wars for Profit.

A. The Articles of Confederation (actual Republic that works as one)
B. The Constitution 1788 (counterfeit Republic which is in reality a Consolidated Nation State NOT a Republic)

Why be fooled?

I don't get it.

Why be fooled?

I'm not fooled; what is the use in being fooled this way?

Consider, if you will, not be fooled this way.

"Does federal = consolidated states while confederate meant an agreement between a union of states?"

It depends upon what is is.

A serious criticism of The Constitution concerned the "plausible dependability" of the ambiguous language which was written in the document on purpose = it depends upon what is is.

If you ask me about a Federation then I will say that it is the same thing as a Confederation, no difference, one is the same as the other, and the name doesn't matter, since the thing is what it is no matter what name is on it.

The Articles of Confederation exemplify what a Federation is as representatives of States confederated their power into a voluntary union of mutual defense - so as to compete against Aggressive Wars for Profit - not be one.

A. It is lawful to rebel against Aggressive Wars for Profit (Legal Crime)

B. It is lawful to be an Aggressive War for Profit (therefore it must be against the law to rebel against what is)

The Articles of Confederation exemplify A.

The Constitution of 1788 exemplifies B.

The actual facts are indisputable, merely facts, so you can use whatever words you wish to know and then communicate those facts, as you see fit.

Ambiguous and misleading language allows the criminals to hide behind the color of law. Why is that not easy to see?

"E. Could the title be true “Patrick Henry Against the Federal Constitution” because Patrick Henry seemed to be an Advocate for the Articles of Confederation between the states which individually represented the people within the state and vs. a Contract between the People and a Federal Nation State.?"

How about: "Patrick Henry Against the False Federal Constitution"?

"The main difference that I can see is that Federal is a contract between parties/nations/states…Federate is a compact between sovereignties, states or nations. It is all Greek to me…"

What is a Liberal?

What is a snake oil salesman?

How do you know when a politician is lying?

"Nationalist wasn’t even in the 1824 or 1913 dictionaries so I am not sure you can call Hamilton a Nationalist unless you are using todays terminology. I wonder what he was called back then? Perhaps a Federalist?"

One source:

Notes Taken during the Philadelphia Club Meeting

From:
THE GENUINE INFORMATION, DELIVERED TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, RELATIVE TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION, HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, IN 1787, BY LUTHER MARTIN, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF MARYLAND, and one of the DELEGATES in the said CONVENTION

"1. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that a national government aught to be established..."

Luther Martin left the General Convention in protest: blowing the whistle on the Gag order in particular. There are other sources I can site, if you question the terminology further.

"It is WHO CONTROLS the capital that defines the difference between each different economic system."

Capitalism is a method of pricing in a free market, or, false capitalism is Legal Crime with a different false front.

"When where Friends of Liberty called those names?"

Look at the names who signed The Declaration of Independence. Each one was a Rebel (Rabble was another name for the same thing).

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were considered by themselves and others as democrats and liberals, and I can site sources if questions persist concerning terminology (but I'm beginning to feel as if I'm pissing in the wind).

"And that is why Friends of Liberty must “hijack the GOP & DP [organizations] to fix that AB problem?" (or you may refer to my first paragraph rewrite at the top of this post for a more full description of what I mean."

A. Compete in an animated contest of Liberty (by turning the GOP into one)

B. Become the new Benevolent Dictators by taking that sword from those Legal Criminals who call themselves the GOP

If you can call it what it is then I can agree to one or the other, while an ambiguous name for something to be done, or undone, depends upon what is is.

Constructive interpretation can mean that anything means anything one second and then the opposite thing the next second.

"But then again I am the too logical paranoid type and probably misconstrue facts to mean more than they are."

My beating the dead horse continues: if the goal is to transfer meaning accurately it may be a good idea to use accurate currency.

If the goal is to deceive, yourself, or someone else, then false currency, ambiguity, duplicity, and misrepresentation is the rule, not the exception.

"I don’t know whether to write Ron’s name in or abstain in November or vote Constitution Party. I am not sure that I can go Libertarian with Gary Johnson, I will have to study him more."

I sent letters to both "parties" and neither had any interest in allowing me to run for office for them. If they don't want me, I sure as hell am in no way inspired to lend them any moral or material support.

"There seems to be controversy on the DP regarding those lawyers and their actual intent. I don’t know what to think."

Having been at this "Liberty Movement" for decades I can tell you that there appears to be a lid about to blow off the pot. The first time I read anything by Ron Paul was early 1980s on a newsgroup which was one of the very first mediums of exchange adaptation from e-mail on the new "internet", and back then there was no "Liberty Movement" other than a few, very few, people screaming bloody murder under some rock, or off in the dark wilderness of silence. Like the song Sounds of Silence.

There is a measurable quickening going on right now and I don't know what to think either.

"What about what he continues to do to fight for Liberty in the Senate: TSA, Audit Fed; NDAA…?"

Using the same analogy of "fornicating your way back to virginity": there is one thing and then there is another thing, two separate things, and it may be a good idea not to confuse the two.

I can certainly appreciate every good thing done by every person.

Why not?

I think it is important to, at the very least, recognized and hold accountable all the bad things done by every person, within the boundaries of individual power to do so, since we are not even close to being anything like God, but the principle does appear to be sound and worth emulating.

"I know, but I appreciate your perspective. It is nice to have a competitive viewpoint to consider. Thank you for taking time to share your guess with me. I realize this is becoming very time consuming and if it is a noncompetitive use of your time, please just say so and we will leave it be."

Agreed.

"I had to add the titles in because my brain can barely think about 2 things at one time since I had chemo. I used to be able to process several things at a time. Now I forget the last thing as soon as I move on to the next thing. It is very frustrating that I could not carry the thought pattern in your quote in my mind alone."

Please consider taking piano (or guitar) lessons. The brain can relearn, remake new connections, be resharpened, or so it seems to me. I can refer to my brother Jack if needed.

"So, the constitution caused involuntary associations. But did not the Articles of Confederation do the same? Was everyone happy to be part of the state (as opposed to the consolidated) system?"

The concept of "if it becomes criminal we have a duty to abolish it" was the thinking behind The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation and all those State Constitutions in each of those States when the representatives of those States decided to Confederate so as to combine defensive power sufficient to get rid of the invading army of aggression currently raping and pillaging here and there in America.

The concept of no longer a duty and in fact now a crime to question the debt built up during legal wars of aggression for profit is the opposite concept.

It would have been much better had The British not been so terrible as to force slaves to flee Britain on boats crossing an ocean where white people then had to find a way to share the land with the natives.

The runaway slaves ran to an occupied territory. Some of the runaway slaves had enough with slavery and did some good things. Some runaway slaves took up the whole concept of slavery and did some very bad things.

The Declaration of Independence can be used by Indians, Black Slaves, then, and now, as a concept, but it aught to be understood by those color of people as well as any other color of people, that there are, now, people Red ones, and Blue ones, who enforce the opposite concept upon the rest of us slaves.

The duty of abolishing Legal Crime is no longer a duty for many, in fact, for many, it is against the law to abolish Legal Crime.

A. Good = day = 1+1 = Compete = Liberty = duty to abolish criminal government
B. Bad = night = 1 = OBEY = Legal Crime = do not question anything done by the people who gave themselves badges

I see it as plainly as day and night.

"According to P Henry, There was already tension at the state level trying to protect the rights of the people"

What became known as Shays's Rebellion is a legal precedent as to the effectiveness of a Democratic Federated Republic as a means of abolishing Legal Crime or slavery or taxation without representation, etc.

"Is there any way to get everyone to agree?"

There are two obvious competitors:

A.
The Articles of Confederation (actually working example)
B.
The Constitution (counterfeit version or color of law hiding enforced obedience without question)

There is definitely a way to make sure that agreement is unprofitable = B.

"How can anyone make rules for anyone else without it being an involuntary association for someone somewhere to comply? So is that what Anarchism is? No rules because someone somewhere won’t agree?"

1. Anarchism
2. Counterfeit Anarchism

Why is that any different than God?

1. God
2. Counterfeit God

Why is that any different than truth?

1. Truth (accurate perception and communication of accurate perception)
2. Falsehood (accurate perception and communicate of counterfeit versions)

Note: I do not know Truth in an absolute sense, such as God does, but my perception are relatively accurate compared to most of the competition I've seen so far.

"I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."

Anarchism (not the counterfeit version) goes back to Zeno and the Stoics where the concept is to recognize reality as it is, not as we may wish it to be, and not as we may falsify it for profit at the expense of weaker minded people.

Anarchism has always been based upon Liberty as the rule that rules like no other rule can; without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of terrible violence upon the innocent.

I've done my homework, so I am less ready to fall into falsehood on these word games found so common in our time.

"Was there any legitimate reason that the articles of confederation needed to be added to or replaced other than a power grab? I noticed in Patrick Henry’s writings that there were already problems with lasciviousness as well as protecting the rights of the people."

During the Revolutionary War there was an expedient usage of paper money or I.O.U.s and then there was a power grab as to who would be paid back with more paper and who would be paid back with Gold or Silver, and that was the bait used to get the delegates to go to a meeting in Philadelphia in the NORTH, in the south the bait was to lure people in on the slavery issue, to get them in on a promise to return runaway Black Slaves. The bait was effective and the switch was to turn to a National or Consolidated Government where rebellion or insurrection was no longer a duty, now it is a crime.

The long, long, history link was not fully read by me either, as I skipped past a lot of stuff in search of specific things, and I think the writer of the text in the link misses a few key points concerning such things as Shays's Rebellion before The Dirty Compromise and The Whiskey Rebellion after The Dirty Compromise (a.k.a. The Constitution of the United States of Nationalism)

In fact the person Daniel Shays, whose duty it was to rebel against a criminal government, became a runaway slave, a white person, an ex-Revolutionary War veteran, running away from the Massachusetts Legal Crime gang, slave traders up North, and Daniel Shays, and the other survivors of the last battle (lost) of The Revolution, fled, up to Vermont.

What was the law of the land at the time concerning runaway white slaves?

The Federal part of the Confederation could not force Vermont, a Sovereign State, to return the runaway white slaves, to Massachusetts. Insurrection was still legal, so long as the rebels were white - at least.

That duty was no longer a duty under the newly formed Nation State.

Case in point.

Precedent

Legal Precedent

"I believe raising children to be somewhat like the conscience: a function of natural order. Some do so more humanely and with better outcomes, but raising children is part of the instinctive drive of being alive and procreating in order to continue the species"

I do no such thing. To me the human being version of God's creation is given a choice. I choose to be a part of a process by which my hard earned need for power is shared, charitably, without any strings attached, in the effort to reproduce. To call that instinct, to me, is insulting my intelligence. But I'm not so keen on me being all that, so I may be wrong on this point.

I can certainly agree to disagree on this point for now.

"Too much power in the sovereign individual’s hands?"

In context with your viewpoint on being born again, something that escapes me, the Devil can't allow too many people to be born again, if the Devil fails to cut those bridges, what happens to the power level of the Devil?

On China loaning money to U.S.A.:

"I didn’t understand. Can you clarify the above so I can understand?"

Put yourself in the shoes of a person in China working. A child. You are a child working in China, to make ends meet, a paltry pay for 12 hours work 7 days a week, or less, or something more humane, perhaps, and there you are in those shoes.

You find a computer on a day off, supposing you have a day off, and then you find two forms of "NEWS" as such:

1.
Chinese government loans lots of money to U.S.A. and U.S.A. is surrounding China ready to start World War III and China is beefing up Military Expenses to fight against U.S.A. aggression financed by Chinese loans almost reaching a trillion dollars or 1 and 13 zeros.

2.
Workers have to work more to make more so that more can be sent to the Chinese Government

OK, so, here I am a Chinese kid, not having made my way into the new upper class of Chinese society, working my butt off, for almost nothing, and I'm either going to grow up to fight Americans or die working to finance American aggression.

How nice is that to a kid in China?

We have it rough, relatively speaking.

"Does China call the shots in congress because they are our money masters? Is our congress trying to appease China to prevent an invasion on our soil? See how my mind works? I am probably drawing false conclusions."

In the world of Legal Crime back stabbing is the rule not the exception, it seems to me, so the actual winners and losers after World War III is subject to those forces that caused World War III, which isn't you and me. We do not cause World War III. It is not on our schedule. We, you and me, have Liberty minded things on our schedules, that is out world view.

The error is in thinking that World War III is an inevitable consequence of the evil of mankind, and accident, and therefore unavoidable.

Go back to sleep.

Obey when told, and do not question the orders.

How many will do so, how many will not do so, and is the current lid on the kettle going to blow up on our schedule and thereby upset the whole World War III plan?

Is there hope?

On the subject of Genetically Modified Foods.

Unfortunately that appears to be very true, and worse, as there may be a whole lot more evidence that the evidence already shown to be the tip of the iceberg on what is happening with cloning or genetically modified mammalian life forms.

Read it and weep?

How about working toward a Liberty Day in the not too distant future where honest productive people merely stop, in unison, providing the means by which we are suffering? It isn't that tough to figure out, really.

"How many passengers can I fit into my electric car? I took 6 to town Friday in my Mini Van."

The made in U.S.A. electric car holds 7 according to the advertizement from Telsa Motors. The price tag on that car is for those who don't ask the price, it is a luxury car, where the marketing plan, by Elon Musk, is to move from Sports Car (developing the art of production), to a Luxury Car, and then on to higher output and lower costs after the concepts prove themselves out - or so it seems.

A Nissan Leaf, made in Japan (production interrupted by the recent terrors of nature and man made tsunami), and soon to be made in Tennessee, can hold 5 (hatchback).

As with the cost of a computer at the start, the cost is high, and as with competition, with computers again, quality goes up while costs go down, so it may be only for the few that Electric is viable today.

If World War III as side stepped, who knows, but right now the difference in electricity per mile and gasoline per mile is significant and going opposite directions.

Electricity prices are being forced down be competition. Gasoline prices are being forced up by Monopoly power or Legal Crime.

One is more in line with aiding and abetting, giving moral and material support to torturing mass murderers, and the other is measurably less when following the money.

"Even though my garden was planted a month late we are already enjoying fresh squash and the green beans are budding!"

Opting out of GM foods, competitively, sounds a whole lot like the animated contest of Liberty to me.

Done without final edit.

Joe

Blank

QUOTE: “...then what exactly is that power by that very definition in English which merely intends to ask the question defined in real time by real people who really are driven to do very bad things by some very bad forces, habits, thoughts, or powers? What is that power if it is not good by definition?”

Why do you ask? In my understanding, that power if not good by definition (in English) is Evil or bad. However, you will also see that Evil can come clothed in good. Satan is a counterfeit half truth and can have a cloak of good. Evil with a D, S, or L:

D=Devil: John 8:44 Jesus speaks to the scribes and Pharisees:
Ye are of your father the DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

S=SATAN: 2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for SATAN himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Isaiah 14:12
L=LUCIFER: How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Evil is on the Prowl: 1 Peter 5:8
Be sober , be vigilant ; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about , seeking whom he may devour

QUOTE: “Why not speak accurately instead of ambiguously or falsely?”

That is a good question, and my answer is that if I thought I were speaking ambiguously or falsely I would not speak such things. However, perhaps it takes error being pointed out for the realization to come to fruition to speak only the truth without ambiguity. And even with that realization bearing fruit, some of it may still be rotten apples or even oranges in the ears of the hearer.

QUOTE: “It is perhaps important to learn from the past, such as the case of being surrounded by alligators, when the goal was to drain the swamp.”

What does that mean? You have said it before and I never asked, because I thought myself to look stupid if I were to ask. But I will ask now, because it has become apparent that I am stupid: When in the past have people been surrounded by alligators when the goal was to drain the swamp? What specifically are you referring to? Are you speaking of the Revolutionary War and the subsequent 1788 Constitution? Are you speaking of those Friends of Liberty who defeated one Kings Army only to succumb to another Criminal Cabal? Or are you speaking of something different? Or is it just a figure of speech?

QUOTE: “Providing the means by which we suffer may be a bad idea…Why mince words? Why does anyone, anywhere, spend an ounce of their power on helping the Legal Criminals cover up their crimes? If you can't find the answer in the mirror, may God have mercy on our souls.”

I agree completely. I still do not know how to undo what I was born into. I don’t know how to go to Walmart and spend anything but Federal Reserve Dollars. I do not know how to pay my electric, water and gas bills without using Federal Reserve Dollars. I do not know how not to file a tax return. I have done all those things all my life and I do not know how not to become an Illegal Criminal while trying to, by default of non-participation, eliminate the Legal Criminals. At this point in time, I am not willing to become a tax evading, Illegal Criminal, so I guess we will have to call me one and the same with the Legal Criminals.

QUOTE: “If we are all on the same page, all working for Liberty, then what explains the screams of torture in all those torture chambers we pay for with our dimes and we build in our names and what explains all those piles of dead bodies piling up all around the Globe?”

We are ineffective? We have less power than the Legal Criminals? We support the means by which we suffer? We are not irate enough yet? We are hoping Ron Paul will fix it? When I say We, I am speaking in general of Friends of Liberty in various subsets. Hopefully that is not too ambiguous?

QUOTE: “Gerald Celente is evil, so he did it, not me.”

Why do you say this? Do you think I think Celente is evil? I don’t think I ever said such a thing, and if I alluded to it, I did it unintentionally. I don’t even know Mr. Celente. I do not know his heart or his works. I have only heard of him recently. I was saying perhaps the forum he wants to start will gain currency for Liberty. Maybe he will allow freedom of speech.

QUOTE: "Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System?" I keep repeating my Power Law as such: Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. From that perspective I can answer your question as Too many people are still lending moral and material support to Legal Crime because they are no longer functioning human beings, they are victims captured into that meat grinder of Legal Crime.

My thoughts were, it is great to have so many ships, but at some point, those ships need to become a fleet and to head in the same direction. Legal Crime has amassed power because of persistent coordination of pernicious evil. Ron Paul has managed to gather Friends of Liberty towards a working goal. Many others seem to employ incipient talk without workable plans.

I think your goal to create competitive forms of currency is a great idea. I have said over and over, like beating a dead horse, I do not know how. I knew how to drive to the poll and cast my vote. I knew how to talk up Ron Paul and bare his bumper stickers. I do not know how to create a competitive currency. I am not that smart. So far it is only you and your brother and a few interested parties. Does your goal have a plan of action? I know you are working towards that or else you would not have the Liberty Challenge Post. From what I can tell, there are philosophers, leaders, followers and we should probably add doers. Does it take all of those individuals with single or multiple qualities to create a workable plan of action? Right now it seems to me that there is an idea with a plan of action of sorts. But the nuts and bolts that I, a mere pee-on, depend upon are not there for accessible use. Warren documented the process by which his mechanism would work. He drew out examples of labor dollars. Told how labor dollars were to be calculated and compared with the cost of corn. Those are the bolts. Then, if I remember correctly Warren provided a store from which to exchange labor dollars for goods. That store he had was like adding a nut to the bolt: action to the idea. Finally each individual who took part in the plan of action made up the mechanism. I am not sure how he interested the individuals at that time to move to his community, but somehow that had to happen too. Perhaps it was by writing his book and by speaking? Perhaps Andrews played a publicity part. I am just saying most people are not creative enough to come up with an idea, much less, make it happen. Warren had the idea and made it happen. I think you have an idea and now you have to figure out how to make it happen. You have figured out how to enlist people, but the plan of action would be adding a competitive currency. Do you have one? Maybe I can use your idea or build on it or learn from it. Then I would actually know how to take part in the action. Or, perhaps your plan of action does not include the simple minded.

QUOTE: “You send Uncle Sam moral and material support. What does that make you? No, you say, just like the people in Nazi German said, no, no, I was just following orders. How uncomfortable can the truth be at times?”

Yes, I see that I am guilty. I am individually responsible: Me and me alone.

QUOTE: “My wife had a very astute saying when she was struggling through her worst depression.
"No matter where I go, I'm still there."

I understand…My words, not as graceful as Vicki’s, were: “I cannot get away from myself.” (And then it feels even worse because you can’t even stand to be around yourself: you can't get away from yourself and you can't stand yourself.)

And now we can add duplicitous to my false and ambiguous words regarding the use of political and economic terms. I am as stupid as the dictionary. I don’t know what I mean, so I mean nothing, and thus I will retreat and wave my “white” flag, unless of course that is the wrong color now as well. You might consider, however, when terms have been changed that a person might be speaking of the current definition for their current time. Words do change: Some perhaps by evil intent; some perhaps by time. I admit, I am ignorant as well as stupid as well as guilty. Perhaps Andrews would like to send me straight to hell:

LMD-19.35 So, on the other hand, the divorce or sundering of this substance and this form (it is a little queer to call that idea an “emancipation,” but no matter so long as we can guess at what is meant) may, with the same appropriateness, extending the symbol, be denominated hell. I contended at once, in my previous answer, that what Mr. James understood us to propound as doctrine would be a doctrine of devils; and I suppose that sort of things is rightly characterized as hell. But I have now to show that, as I think, Mr. James does not quite understand himself on this subject; and I take the liberty to correct, as, if he is going to conduct us to the sulphurous abyss, I want he should go straight to hell, and not deviate a hair’s breadth to the right nor the left.

LMD-19.39 We are all aware that love, as mere unsatisfied desire, is hell, or misery; and satisfied upon a low plane it is still hell to one who has conflicting superior desires unsatisfied; and when the satisfaction is complete in kind, if the adjustments are imperfect, conflicting, or disharmonious, in whatsoever sense, the result is still hell; and this authorizes Mr. James to call free love hell, he having taken the word free to mean divorced or sundered from true or harmonic adjustment; but how he could ever have thought any set of people to be the partisans of this particular kind of hell is still very surprising. On the other hand, he might just as rightly, and is even required by consistency, to say free marriage, in the sense of mere formal adjustment divorced from love as its appropriate infilling substance, and then to denounce it as hell of another kind; which we all know it to be. It is this latter hell which free lovers are especially engaged in combatting; and it is that hell of devils and this hell of Satans (Swedenborgian) between which I insist that Mr. James should hold even balance; in other words, that he shall go straight to hell.

Was he being serious about wanting Mr. James to go straight to hell? Was he talking about the literal after death hell?

I smell a rat that says love is reduced to mere satisfied desire and equitable adjustment. I am glad Jeff has loved me enough in a different way to love me beyond his need and allow me to be sick months on end without looking to meet an ungratified desire during my time of dire need of his unconditional love. I am glad it was not Mr. Andrews or someone of his ilk I was depending upon. I perhaps would have found myself on a street corner during pregnancy, multiple surgeries & chemo if I had been unable to please him…Hoping that someone somewhere would have me and my diseased body. I am glad that I married someone who was willing to make and keep a vow to me that says “until death do we part.” I have made that same vow to him. There is nothing wrong with that in my eyes. So if Andrews wants to be gratified, so be it, let him. But let him leave me and my husband out of it as well as every other individual who would like to stand before their community and say: This is my husband and I am keeping him and he is keeping me. We are individually responsible to one another and have vowed such as Sovereign Individuals in front of other Sovereign Individuals as well as before the One and Only Sovereign God.

I am in the middle of reading Science of Society. I have seen competitive political and economic definitions as compared to the poor ones I used from the dictionary. So far the only thing I am going to say is that God is Sovereign and every Sovereign Individual will bow their knee to God Almighty someday. Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return , That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Full context: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/isaiah/passage.aspx?q=isa...

Additionally in Romans 14: 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth , eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks . 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live , we live unto the Lord; and whether we die , we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die , we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died , and rose , and revived , that he might be Lord both of the dead and living . 10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.11For it is written , As I live , saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know , and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably *. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died . 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of.

This passage was written to Believers in Christ so it has more to do with how believers treat each other, but the premise is, that though we may be sovereign, we are still accountable to God and for the good of our brother,

QUOTE: “I did my homework, where were you?”

I didn’t get the homework assignment. I didn’t know there was a homework assignment. I didn’t look for the homework assignment. I didn’t know anything was wrong. As far as my reckless abandon, I was doing drugs nearly every day during and after school. Somewhere along the way, I quit doing my homework. Then after that as I told you, I had a Patriotic Christian School education. I memorized and forgot it and moved on to the next test. In 1996 I was working at NASA and putting my husband thru school to get his Masters. I failed to do my unknown homework. I just woke up last year.

I appreciate your time and effort to run for office. Most American persons are too ignorant to know there is a problem. The persons that controlled the papers in Henry’s time control them now. We failed you and ourselves: Joseph Kelley, Thank You for your effort! So few will give what it takes to make a difference. It cannot and will not be said that you did nothing.

QUOTE: “Why be fooled? I don't get it. Why be fooled? I'm not fooled; what is the use in being fooled this way? Consider, if you will, not be fooled this way.”

I suppose I have been fooled because I am easy to fool or because I am a fool.

QUOTE: “Ambiguous and misleading language allows the criminals to hide behind the color of law. Why is that not easy to see?”

Because I was not looking for it?

QUOTE: “Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were considered by themselves and others as democrats and liberals, and I can site sources if questions persist concerning terminology (but I'm beginning to feel as if I'm pissing in the wind).”

All I can think to say is, most people today use the terms as they are meant today and not as they were meant 250 years ago. If the criminals have changed the terms, then most of the victims believe the new terminology to be what the term refers. (I am sorry I have made you feel that this effort is fruitless. It is not my intent. I feel as though, perhaps it is time to quit before you get too soiled with my ignorance? Although I could say, perhaps since the legal criminals changed the terms, they are also using those terms as stated, and that is what I learned about the entropic cycle which I will not repeat so as not to use duplicitousness. Please do not answer that as I cannot bear to be beaten any more.)

QUOTE: “My beating the dead horse continues: if the goal is to transfer meaning accurately it may be a good idea to use accurate currency.”

I am too tired to try anymore. It is not my goal to deceive myself or anyone else. But if I do not know what I do not know, how am I supposed to know better? I am knowing a little better, but I fear not enough better and there is probably much left below the surface that is in error that I do not even know exists. I can’t even trust the dictionary anymore…what do you think that is like? It makes me want to feel hysterical. It put me in a bad mood all day. The dictionary, a big book of definitions; supposed to be factual. I throw my hands up. Yes, my own two hands and say forget it. The Criminals are in charge, I am paying their way, I don’t know anything and what I think I know is wrong including the dictionary. What hope is there?

QUOTE: “That duty was no longer a duty under the newly formed Nation State.”

The constitution states that “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them…" Article III Section 3. Is that what you are talking about?

Them = the states?

What are the states?

What is treason?

QUOTE: “fornicating your way back to virginity"

Although that is disgustingly insulting to me to even think about, I am going to use it: That is exactly why you and me and every other flesh and blood individual will never be good enough for a Holy God. We cannot be good enough to undo our wrong. We cannot F our way back to V. From the Bible: “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." We can never be virgins again and will go to hell without the work of Christ on our behalf, because with Christ all things are possible. Even becoming a virgin again, so to speak. Please do not be fooled.

QUOTE: “Please consider taking piano (or guitar) lessons. The brain can relearn, remake new connections, be resharpened, or so it seems to me. I can refer to my brother Jack if needed.”

Thank you for the suggestion. I took piano lessons while Jeff was getting his Masters. I can read music, but I cannot feel music. I have no sense of rhythm. I cannot sing and clap at the same time and can barely clap when not singing. I just cannot hear or feel the beat. I cannot dance. Bummer, I really wanted to play the piano. I’d really like to sing and clap and even dance.

QUOTE: “In context with your viewpoint on being born again, something that escapes me, the Devil can't allow too many people to be born again, if the Devil fails to cut those bridges, what happens to the power level of the Devil?

I don’t think the Devil has much say in who will be born again:John 6:37 “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
Full context: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/john/passage.aspx?q=john+...

Thank you for the explanations, history lessons as well as the time you took to provide me with information. It is very much appreciated. As always, I feel I understand more and better. I have tried to keep this post shorter than the last. I feel blank when trying to come up with a title for this post.

Fill the blank with rhythm

"What does that mean? You have said it before and I never asked, because I thought myself to look stupid if I were to ask. But I will ask now, because it has become apparent that I am stupid: When in the past have people been surrounded by alligators when the goal was to drain the swamp? What specifically are you referring to? Are you speaking of the Revolutionary War and the subsequent 1788 Constitution? Are you speaking of those Friends of Liberty who defeated one Kings Army only to succumb to another Criminal Cabal? Or are you speaking of something different? Or is it just a figure of speech?"

The figure of speech about being surrounded by alligators is in line with the concept of inventing, producing, and then trying to maintain voluntary government (good government or "draining the swamp") and in that process of inventing, producing, and trying to maintain good, voluntary, defensive, government, those who endeavor to do so, end up being surrounded by sociopaths (alligators) who eat people who try to drain their swamp which is bad government, involuntary government, or crime made legal.

Which reminds me of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Which came first, good government or legal crime?

"At this point in time, I am not willing to become a tax evading, Illegal Criminal, so I guess we will have to call me one and the same with the Legal Criminals."

My viewpoint on that is two things:

1.
It will take numbers of people agreeing to volunteer to stop Legal Crime, so the idea is to be ready when that time comes, if it comes, and then be on the right side, not the wrong side.

2.
Each person has a responsibility as far as their power to respond makes them able to respond to being victims, and if their power (in numbers) is not realized then that fact does not make them accessories to crime. Knowing that the transfers of power are crimes in progress, examples of extortion, made legal, is entirely different than willfully paying someone to commit crimes, although the same amount of power may be sent by an innocent person as well as a victim, the fact that one does so under duress and another does so voluntarily divides the discriminating distinction by that definition exactly. Those who are paying under duress won't pay any more when the power shifts in their favor, and in fact, those who pay willingly may also stop paying once power shifts out of their favor.

What can make that power shift from Legal Crime back to Liberty?

It must be more than one person waking up tomorrow morning as told by Henry Ford:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

When the people who willfully, voluntarily, and even eagerly pay these taxes so that Rag Heads will be tortured, and Muslim countries will be turned into parking lots, and oil prices will remain low, may think twice when only their kind are paying for those specific investments of their hard earned surplus wealth. Once all the people who know better get a clue, as one, and stop, in unison, paying those extortion payments, the house of cards implodes by controlled demolition on our schedule.

While the criminal regime remains in power there will be suffering, some much more than others, and those people who have a working conscience, or spiritual awareness, will suffer, their conscience will suffer, their power of spiritual awareness will be tested, worn out, made to suffer, along with the tortured, and along with the starving, and along with the kidnapped, the child sex slaves, the cloned beings, the mass murdered, the droned wedding parties, the droned funerals, and all that goes with Legal Crime, but that does not make having a conscience bad, or if that is what people are led to believe, that having a conscience is bad, then that battle, in that mind, is being lost, the suffering takes a toll, like the toll booths on the New Jersey Turnpike. Keep paying. Keep paying. Keep paying. How much have you suffered so far, keep paying. Is there anything left to pay now?

"We are ineffective? We have less power than the Legal Criminals? We support the means by which we suffer? We are not irate enough yet? We are hoping Ron Paul will fix it? When I say We, I am speaking in general of Friends of Liberty in various subsets. Hopefully that is not too ambiguous?"

We are not numerous enough, not focused enough, not powerful enough for two glaringly obvious reasons:

1.
Physiologically powerless (failing to see the actual problem, and being fooled into thinking that the problem itself can be employed to fix the problem as if Legal Crime can be the Final Solution for Crime - as if throwing gasoline on a roaring fire will solve the problem of burning alive inside that fire, or as if cutting off your head will cure a headache)

2.
Physically powerless (failing to see the first problem the second problem is a steady draining of the power of Liberty as the power of Liberty flows into Legal Crime making Legal Crime more and more powerful and making the power of Liberty weaker and weaker both physically and physiologically since much of the Purchasing Power used by the Legal Criminals is unadulterated FRAUD or fake or false or counterfeit fictional imaginary vapor, like the naked emperor, and much of that power to purchase with that false purchasing power is used to buy brain washing, response conditioning, behavioral modification, false advertizements, fraudulent currency, manufactured consent, rigged elections, fictitious legal persons, limited liabilities, and all types of false flags covering up actual criminals committing the most serious of actual crimes, not limited to massive kidnapping (Franklin Case), massive drug abuse (CIA), massive arming of enemies (Fast and Furious), massive torture, massive murder, and who knows what else when speaking about TRILLIONS of missing dollars worth of actual purchasing power (even fraud money remains powerful when there are enough dupes who accept it as money).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUOTE: “Gerald Celente is evil, so he did it, not me.”

Why do you say this? Do you think I think Celente is evil? I don’t think I ever said such a thing, and if I alluded to it, I did it unintentionally. I don’t even know Mr. Celente. I do not know his heart or his works. I have only heard of him recently. I was saying perhaps the forum he wants to start will gain currency for Liberty. Maybe he will allow freedom of speech.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I often get up on my imaginary soap box and speak to anyone, everyone, all at once, not being specifically addressing anyone, and I call this "If the shoe fits, wear the shoe, if the shoe does not fit, you can't wear the shoe."

You can't wear the shoe.

Generally speaking the messengers are shot for the crime of bearing bad news. You don't, so I was speaking to those who do, or I was speaking as if I were someone who does shoot the messengers. Those evil messengers, how dare they bring news of evil things?

"My thoughts were, it is great to have so many ships, but at some point, those ships need to become a fleet and to head in the same direction. Legal Crime has amassed power because of persistent coordination of pernicious evil. Ron Paul has managed to gather Friends of Liberty towards a working goal. Many others seem to employ incipient talk without workable plans."

Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Gerald Celente, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, all, including me, can zero in on The Federal Reserve as a source of great destructive power that needs to be accounted for in some measurable way. Some claim that The Federal Reserve needs to be ended. What I find very important about Ron Paul is the advice of allowing competitive currencies. That is extremely significant and something unique about only Ron Paul, as far as I know, and I agree completely, since that fix for the Legal Crime problem is to make Legal Crime superfluous by making Liberty much more powerful.

Why waste so much time and energy (power) on defeating The FED through legal action when it is legal action that created The FED? Why not simply ignore or stop enforcing Legal Tender Laws and then use the power we have in inventing, producing, and maintaining higher and higher quality money that is lower and lower in cost? If we do that then The FED merely goes out of business or they adapt to our lead, or the lead of whichever money producer is best at the moment, which could be Gold and Silver money out of Utah, or it could be Oil money out of Alaska, or it could be technology money out of California, or Auto money out of Detroit, or whatever, if the leader in money products is the highest quality and the lowest cost today, then The FED either copies that product, makes something better, at a lower cost, or is second best, or third best, or goes out of business.

The power over money passes from ONE Legal Crime Cabal to The People who demand the highest quality at the lowest cost.

How much is the power over money worth to anyone?

Right now it is worth about 13 zeros worth of power to the ONE Legal Crime Cabal so they have a lot of money to spend on destroying any competition including having enough money power to start World War III, so as to keep the competitors fighting each other.

Stopping the enforcement of Legal Tender laws could very conceivably stop World War III as the funds to make World War III happen will stop as soon as a Utah State Bank starts forcing money quality up and money cost down, voluntarily, and as soon as another competitor is allowed to compete then that force will grow to a more powerful force, on and on. Voluntary competition is a force enforced by all the people who merely choose higher quality and lower cost over lower quality and higher cost.

Game over.

So how, then, can Legal Tender law enforcement be stopped?

Utah and 11 other State governments are working on the fix, but what stops or slows down their progress?

Not enough people are now producing so much more surplus wealth than they know what to do with, having so much power that they need a place to invest it, or store it, or save it, or employ it, because we are on the BUST cycle, as dictated by The FED criminals.

If Utah, and 11 other States, and a few large companies like Microsoft, or Ebay, or Skype, or whatever, how about PayPal, or E-Gold, or The Liberty Dollar, if they all supply a demand for an honest place to store a lot of extra production, extra home farms, extra home schools, extra home electric producers, extra home fuel producers, extra home taxi drivers, extra home entertainers, extra home bed and breakfast rooms to rent, extra home tomato jars, extra home family gatherings, who knows what when the boom cycle is allowed to happen honestly, then there is a demand, and then there is a supply for that demand, and who's going to complain?

Who is going to have time to look for terrorists lurking in every shadow?

"I think your goal to create competitive forms of currency is a great idea. I have said over and over, like beating a dead horse, I do not know how."

Many people do know how, and many more people are now figuring it out, as never before in my experience, there is a general awakening happening, and your work is vital, in making sure that more people are seeing the true versions and more people are seeing the counterfeit versions, so that less power is consumed in destruction and more power is employed honestly, productively, equitably, peacefully, and therefore standards of living for everyone goes up while costs of living for everyone goes down sooner, faster, and God smiles triumphantly as the Devil and his minions crawl back under the rocks where they were spawned.

"I do not know how to create a competitive currency."

I take guitar lessons, my teacher deals with me as his dead horse, he persists, over and over again, saying the same things, and finally, 3 years later, I am beginning to see those things myself.

You are creating competitive currency with your tomatoes in jars, and your words to the wise, and your lunches to feed your loved ones, and your trips to take the Amish here and there, and your part in this conversation for anyone else to read, and realize, and either understand or move on.

Legal Money is the problem, not the solution, one step in the right direction is to make Gold and Silver (as one competitor) legalized in competition with the fraudulent legal money, but that is not the fix, that is a first step. The fix is your competitive currency someday being appreciated by your voluntary government (the actual people volunteering to join the government not the THING called "government") as payment of your voluntary contribution to a harmonious peaceful social network or "government".

You are not "taxed" in the Legal Crime Speak of today, you either volunteer to invest in your government or you don't, if you can't afford to, you don't, and that is the way that works. If you can, you do, and you pay in the way you choose, and the other people running the government either appreciate your contributions or they don't, because that is how it works.

Going back to those days when a working Democratic Federated Republic worked the example is provided with Whiskey as money. When the government refuses payment in anything other than Gold, when no one has Gold, because those criminals took over that government, then it may be time to move to Vermont where the bad guys haven't completely taken over the law power. In those days, in that place, the Revolutionary War Veterans were driven by the duty to abolish that criminal government, but they lost that battle, so then voted with their feet to a less oppressive Sovereign State in the Voluntary Union. It was not a perfect union, because criminals will try to make crime pay, not because everyone is as guilty as everyone else.

"Does your goal have a plan of action?"

Every day.

I'm one person.

If elected as President I'd know what to do, who else would know what to do, and if the answer is not many, then the battle remains to be psychological. Not enough people know better than to "provide the means by which we suffer".

My plan includes the Product 1 and Product 2 issue offered earlier in sound bites.

"Does it take all of those individuals with single or multiple qualities to create a workable plan of action?"

If everyone copied your example who would be left torturing and mass murdering?

"I am not sure how he interested the individuals at that time to move to his community, but somehow that had to happen too. Perhaps it was by writing his book and by speaking?"

That is a very good question and there is a modern day parallel.

Warren was censored by the local mass media of the day, so he actually invented his own printing press which may have been before the famous printing press, he never patented the design, but he used his printing press to advertize his Equitable Commerce Time Store ideas and that is how the experiment gained enough currency to prove the point, and there are modern examples of similar examples.

Pay Pal was started by at least 3 guys, where one wrote a book on the subject called Pay Pal Wars, one is the now famous Peter Thiel, and the other is Elon Musk who is now making Electric Cars in California, installing Solar Panels with Solar City, and delivering cargo to The International Space Station. Why is Pay Pal not knowable as a competitive currency? It isn't the one Legal Money.

What power makes the one Legal Money so powerful?

Fraud

Therefore the one Legal Money (13 zeros worth) is powered by stupidity. There are enough stupid people thinking that the one Legal Money is worth anything, but that is changing rapidly, on schedule, not by accident.

Pay Pal was powered by accuracy, honesty, and a capacity to create a demand, and then fill the demand, and then the whole thing was sold for Legal Money, the guys made the thing liquid, they cashed in, and they then had enough of that fraud stuff to start other things.

"I am just saying most people are not creative enough to come up with an idea, much less, make it happen."

I'm just saying that you make sandwiches, tomatoes in jars, trips to here and there for the Amish, keep a family whole, and how is that not much more valuable than paper dollars?

You are not Warren, you are not Elon Musk, you are not anyone but who you are, and they are not you.

You are not torturing, and you are not mass murdering.

What is the actual problem?

Too many stupid people not yet knowing better, like dead men walking, they will soon realize how unaffordable their current actions are, perhaps soon enough, perhaps too late.

"You have figured out how to enlist people, but the plan of action would be adding a competitive currency. Do you have one?"

Product 1 and Product 2. Those products will exist, not exactly as I say they will exist, but they will exist, there is a demand for them. I don't know who will invent them, or get credit for inventing them, and I don't know who will produce them, but they are things needed by honest people who will be part of the Liberty that will be when Legal Crime is overpowered.

What is the competitive alternative?

"Then I would actually know how to take part in the action. Or, perhaps your plan of action does not include the simple minded."

When competitive options are available you will buy them, a lower cost to you loan, you will have the credit you earn, why not?

The problem includes a whole lot of people having no idea as to what will exist once the One Legal Crime Extortion Money is no longer affordable or enforceable, no imagination, no concept, no foresight, completely monopolized in mind and spirit today. What happens when that complete monopolizing of mind and spirit is gone? What happens when enough honest people can no longer afford dishonest money?

"Yes, I see that I am guilty. I am individually responsible: Me and me alone."

Don't wear the wrong shoe, if you know better, and you seek remedy, then how can you be wearing the same shoe as someone who willfully pays tax (while cheating on tax forms) so as to kill Muslims, or torture rag heads, or blow up hospitals in Iraq, or take over the banana Republic in Guatemala?

Guns, Guts, and Glory, as long as it is someone else paying the taxes?

If the power is built on Fraud then which person is the source of that power, you knowing better, or someone else who is fooled into lending moral support?

The Legal Criminals don't actually need your dollars, they can make out a check with 13 zeros on it every day until the end of time and spend it at will.

I speak on my soap box when I ask people to look in the mirror, and I answer my own questions with my own answers, blaming whoever is to blame for doing, or not doing, exactly what they do, or don't do, you, me, and anyone else who may care to ask the same vital questions, looking for and only settling for the accurate answers.

"Perhaps Andrews would like to send me straight to hell:"

I think that Andrews is asking the speaker of duplicity to pay his own costs for his duplicity rather than having the speaker of duplicity pass on those costs to some poor defenseless victim. I also think that Andrews was being humorous.

I think Andrews held back his venom for Greeley who appears to be the Legal Criminal (Machiavellian) among the three.

Free Love to Andrews, in my opinion, is when two people find a spiritual connection compared to two people being lawfully joined according to a nebulous due process of law. Why confuse the two?

Mr. James should go straight to a spiritual connection i.e. hell according to Mr. James. Is that fair?

Is the equitable?

"Was he being serious about wanting Mr. James to go straight to hell? Was he talking about the literal after death hell?"

I do not appreciate any sense of me being smart, I know better, but I do happen to find Warren and Andrews words to resonate very well to me, me being "on the same page" for some reason. I think my answer is fair. Mr. James is confused. Mr. Andrews wishes that Mr. James goes to the place he confuses with hell. Mr. James confuses a harmonious spiritual connection with hell, so Mr. Andrews wishes upon Mr. James a harmonious spiritual connection, that which he deserves, despite Mr. James confusing a good thing as being something bad.

"I smell a rat that says love is reduced to mere satisfied desire and equitable adjustment."

You may be right, and I may be wrong, we can't both be right. Andrews was a abolitionist who didn't see any difference between Black slaves and Women slaves, all slaves, every last one, must be freed, or none are free.

I think there must be a quote in the Bible that says as much, or that book isn't worth much to me.

"I am glad it was not Mr. Andrews or someone of his ilk I was depending upon." If your interpretations of Andrews words are more accurate than mine, then I understand the comment, and I would then agree, as to the fact that our interpretations are roughly opposite, can you see that I can't agree?

I can agree to disagree.

My interpretation of what Andrews has worked on, all his life, is such that if you want to bend your knee to God, then he is all for your decision to do so, so long as you don't send an army to slaughter all those people who don't decide, on their own, to bed their knees to your God.

My interpretation of what Andrews has worked on, all his life, is such that if you want to marry your husband, and he you, then that is exactly what is good about marriage, and all the other stuff is whatever you want to make of it, so long as you don't send an army to make other people do things your way despite their continued resistance against such things.

Somehow, from my view, you get the exact opposite meaning out of Andrews'
+ use of the English language.

I can certainly be one of the ones understanding or failing to understand the intended meanings of any of those words.

"In 1996 I was working at NASA and putting my husband thru school to get his Masters."

You have your homework. I have mine. I did mine. You did yours.

"It cannot and will not be said that you did nothing."

I appreciate the opportunity to work on communicating better, so as to know better, and therefore my thanks to you is how I return thanks offered to me - equitably.

"Because I was not looking for it?"

Wear the right shoe, please. Those who still claim righteous authority to Spread Democracy in Iraq, and Liberate those poor people in Syria, and level Iran with Nuclear bombs, turning it into a parking lot, aught to be the ones wearing the right shoe, right now.

They are fools, because those actual people who do order those torturous and terrifying ends to so many innocent people won't think twice when the debt comes due to pass on that cost to those same trumpeters of Legal Crime.

We aught not be fooled any more, as to who are Friends of Liberty, and who are Friends of Legal Crime, where the demarcation line is becoming less and less clouded by lies and the fools who maintain them.

"All I can think to say is, most people today use the terms as they are meant today and not as they were meant 250 years ago."

I don't agree. Roughly half of the people who use the word democracy use the word to mean something good, not something bad, and that has to be that way so as to divide and conquer the targets.

The word is only good as a lie if those who fall victim to it fail to see the hidden meaning behind the false front; and so there must be a false front, a good version, or the lie won't work on the innocent victims.

"It is not my intent. I feel as though, perhaps it is time to quit before you get too soiled with my ignorance?"

My guitar teacher provides a good example of how persistence pays off in time.

If you continue asking I will continue offering what I think are valid, and accurate, answers, and the same thing goes the other way when I ask for Bible verses, my latest request concerns the need, the vital need, to free all the slaves, since all the slaves have to be free, or none of the slaves are free. Is that in the Bible?

"I can’t even trust the dictionary anymore…what do you think that is like?"

I've been at a time when the darkness of doom appeared to be insurmountable, if that means anything to you, but not trusting the dictionary now, to me, is a Liberating thought, so it is past time for you to start defining words so as to have words mean something to you, and trust is a good start.

Can you trust that a politician may lie?

Can you trust that you may be fooled?

Can you trust that evil things may appear to be good?

Can you trust that you may find value in the dictionary still?

If you find a word in the dictionary where the same word has opposite meanings can you then see potential for confusion for those who are not aware of the opposite meanings?

"The Criminals are in charge, I am paying their way, I don’t know anything and what I think I know is wrong including the dictionary. What hope is there?"

This is so funny to me, since you are a fountain of hope. "See how you are?" is a saying I remember hearing from someone a long time ago, and I keep hearing the meaning behind it, in context, as the person was figuratively placing a mirror in front of someone else. I was just listening.

Compared to someone who may "get out of jail free" by some means of timing, or luck, or divine intervention, there are so many other people who will suffer a very rude awakening, as they continue to cling so desperately to their false fronts, their thin, and thinning, veils that hide the very awful truth concerning these payments of extortion money, and exactly what is being purchased with our dimes, and in our names, very, very, very rude awakenings on the horizon, compared to that, where are you, and hopefully, where are your children going to be, how are they going to be prepared, and more importantly, it seem to me, how are they preparing you, offering you hope, and being, your children are being, hope itself?

What does the Bible say about that too? Children are our teachers no?

"Please do not be fooled."

I sure as hell don't want to be fooled.

As to The Constitution I can quote the relevant section from the official site on outlawing that duty to abolish a criminal government, which was a duty according to The Declaration of Independence, and then it was a legal precedent set during Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation, and then it was against the law here:
----------------------
Section. 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
----------------------
I am not a "Constitutional Scholar" having authority over those words, I merely looked through and found the relevant parts like this:

-----------------------
AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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.
------------------------

Thought crime.

"Bummer, I really wanted to play the piano. I’d really like to sing and clap and even dance."

Your best asset and you turn away from it? Recognizing a lack of rhythm is essential for developing it. You have a heart, it is a metronome, find that frequency and let it keep time. I have to have my feet working while playing the guitar, and when I did play the piano I used a metronome. It still takes special effort to get the rhythm working right, not natural at all for me either, but when it is right it is, and then the sound makes sense. I suggested the piano because it taught me to have a voice going on with my left hand while a voice was spoken with my right hand, and then, but only sometimes, a third voice from those two, somehow, written in the music, and then heard as I produce the sounds independently.

If you have spent any time on the piano then you have already accomplished at least those two independent voices with bass on the left and higher frequencies on the right hand.

If you didn't nail down the rhythm first, which may not be easy, it isn't for me, but essential, why go to any other step, without tackling that first? One very simple voice with the left hand at an average heart beat will become music. I had the most fun making up my own songs on the piano, same with the guitar. You have to cause your brain to heal that way, it won't fall down from heaven on a silver platter. I may be wrong here too, of course.

Joe

Hope

I Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Thank you for your kind reply. You are so much more prompt than I. I appreciate all the explanations and spelling out Andrew’s hell for me. I am taking the boys to Grandma's for the week so I will have to take a short leave of absence.

Did you see my “Lines” comment further down in this string? I had some questions in it, but I may have offended you so I have thought that perhaps you have let that one be. I just wanted to check for my own sanity in case it went unnoticed. No need to answer the questions (and start a 3rd string, I can barely keep up with 2). I am sure if they are that important I will ask them again.

Onesimus was a slave. Paul wrote a letter to Philemon, his master: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/philemon/ http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/philemon/1.html. I will be thinking on our slave subject.

Another word meaning that has changed over time: Charity = Love.

The Christian is to do everything in Love. That does not seem that hard of a concept, but it sure is hard to live out…to love all the time. If everyone acted in love the world would be different. Andrews would not have been dealing with the problem of marital rape or marital slavery.

The Bible to men: Ephesians 5:25,28 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

God’s plan for marriage is not slavery. So, who does that leave as the marriage counterfeiter? Who would want to destroy God’s design?

GM

The link was General Motors, not Genetically Modified Foods. It had something to do with GM moving its facility to China on the US Tax Dollar and I think the GM Chairman (I cant remember now) ensuring the chinese with his english that we have their back so to speak. I am feeling very tired and now cannot even trust the dictionary. I am taking the Amish to town today and tomorrow and I do not know when I can read and digest your kind reply. I feel like a dead horse and wet wind. I cannot help it if my homework included the dictionary. I was told in 3rd grade it was a good resource and I thought it to be impartial. Basically, I do not know what anything means anymore. I have read chapters 1-10 on Andrews Greeley James Marriage exchange. I do not agree with any of them nor disagree with any of them completely. Perhaps by the time I am done reading them I will know something, but I doubt it.

Important knowledge

"The Amish have given me cucumbers and freshly dug potatoes because I won’t take money, but then again, I guess potatoes, like corn, are money!"

Thanks for correcting my error on GM, I just watched the YouTube video instead of just reading the title.

Joe

reedr3v's picture

I can see you've put a lot of energy into this.

Unsolicited critique 1: internet forums, like advertising, are a fast medium of information. Posters vie for scarce resources of people's time and attention. Most of us scan rapidly looking for the rare item of interesting, useful information. Succinct posts that tell the meat of the issue quickly fare better than long, biographical, highly nuanced introductions.

2. Ideas are cheap. How to implement good ideas is the gold we are digging for. Your idea as I scanned it seems to be entirely abstract with no "how to." People are already doing what you suggest, as in the silver trading cards, barter networks, gift networks, Bitcoin, etc. If you want to see one or more of these develop, jump on board. Or start your own tangible, actionable solution and try to sell that.

Good points

Thanks

Joe

Knowing better

Knowing better is a competition.

"I can see I need to grow thicker skin and remove my feelings from the art of discussion, though it may not be nearly as fun."

I can write many symbols arranged in precise order as a response to your experience quoted above: along those same lines.

In many cases the feeling, or sting, or insult or injury to pride, or hurt feelings are goals invented by the person trying to reach those goals of hurting feelings, and in those cases I have developed a thick skin which infects much of the tone of my writhing style - if you can translate my intended meaning from my words.

I may be deceiving myself.

In many cases the hurt feelings are my own false pride being stung and I do not want thick skin covering that up, so I thank the person helping me see through false pride, and that is not an easy goal, and it is not an easy goal on the part of the person who desires to help someone see past their false pride.

We were on the subject of meanings in messages and how some people think that the messages can be misunderstood by the intended recipients of the messages as the messages are transferred from the sender to the receiver.

My opinion is that people will misunderstand the intended messages as messages are intending to be transferred accurately from the sender to the receiver.

Here is where money (purchasing power) rears its ugly head again.

What is the quality of money (purchasing power)?

My claim (which can be proven) is that the quality of money includes at least the quality of having the power to purchase.

But I can't disconnect too far off your subject that made your feelings hurt because I wrote things that may have been my intention to hurt your feelings but only if I am deceiving myself.

If I am deceiving myself then I have built a thick skin between me and the word of God (The Truth) because I don't want to hear it anymore, and I prefer to move along on my path finding this next victim to target, then another, than another, in pursuit of making me happier at the expense of my ready supply of gullible victims, as I attack them with words so as to watch their feelings hurt.

If I am not deceiving myself then I have not built a thick skin between me and the word of God (The Truth) as He, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed the remote, but workable, connection of words between myself and someone who is very much more aware of The Word of God, so that this connection may help me do my part, as I think my part is very specific, as I have been given this unique life, with this unique perspective, concerning how CONNECTIONS work, and I'm supposed to use my pathetic power to CONNECT to other people and offer that unique viewpoint competitively in their minds so that they may gain power by it, and in the increase in power they may also use that power to do good things or at least avoid having bad things continue to be done to them.

This is not a trivial matter, these hurt feelings.

This is not a trivial matter, the nature of the connection between beings whereby an intent may be to injure an innocent person, or an intent may be to offer help to an innocent person, and confusing the two intentions may contribute to all the forces, and all the power, that does contribute to miscommunication and misunderstanding whereby the total measure of cost of said miscommunication and misunderstanding can be enormous when it is all collected together as one total sum of cost.

A.
Intention is to exchange ideas accurately so as to then accomplish the goal of increasing the power of mind employed in the work of knowing better, as both minds are now capable of forcing brain power onto the task of discarding the less productive perceptions and thoughts and keeping the more productive perceptions and thoughts as both minds carefully peruse the data from each perceptive capacity, comparing notes, accurately, competitively, and sharing the same goal of knowing better, with more power than the sum of the individual parts.

B.
Intention is to employ the connection as a device by which a victim is targeted and then a victim is rendered less powerful by any means through the connection, not limited to deceit, not limited to treats of deceit, not limited to accusations of evil intent meant to cause injury, not limited to anything at all, since the idea is to employ the connection as a means of confusing, distorting, falsifying, lying, or otherwise injuring, hurting, and rendering the target less powerful - for fun and profit realized by the person with this intent, that they may recognize in themselves, or not.

A can be knowable as an Equitable Connection.

B can be known as iniquity. In theory there can be as some might want people to believe, everyone guilty, no innocent people, everyone, everywhere, is on the same page, targeting each other, and getting away with anything under the sun, at the expense of each other.

Children are innocent, so B is a though wool to pull over an innocent victims eyes, but not impossible: in theory.

Is there a fence between A and B?

The connection?

Can I refuse to be a part of the continued use of honest productive earnings in the accomplishment of the goal of child slave trade made legal, or lesser, or greater evil accomplishments with that money?

Sitting on the fence watching the money and children go ONE way and the lies going the other way through that connection, is a choice.

The choice is to believe in the lie that there is a fence to sit on.

You may be stung, it was not my intent, the subject matter is very harmful by design, it is not my design.

I do not discredit, arbitrarily, Christians speaking in ways that inspire.

I do not discredit, arbitrarily, a Historian, or person who defies category, speaking in ways that inspire.

You offered an inspirational speaker.

I countered with an inspirational speaker.

I've listened to both, and both explain in words how their competitive viewpoints are compared to other competitive viewpoints, which is a far cry from dictatorial commands sent by dictators to their subjects to be obeyed without question, no or else, obey, without question, and even if the subject fails to obey, the subject will obey, and even if the subject questions, the subject will question no more, in due time as the power stolen by the dictators, through the CONNECTION, gain sufficient power through the CONNECTION to enforce absolutely the power to keep taking power as the subjects work harder and harder and weaker and weaker and less, and less, able to refuse to obey, and less and less able to question the whole dirty business cycle.

I had intended to accomplish too many things, I suppose, one of which was not to injure anyone.

This is funny, a side note, where my son and I had a conversation on this subject, something my son and I rarely ever do, concerning, in particular, if my memory serves, who is injured when The Gravy Train screeches to a halt.

Those who will accomplish the task of Liberty will be working to injure those who depend upon that flow of "something for nothing".

That is a lie. It is not "something for nothing". But that won't stop those who no longer get "something for nothing" from claiming injury.

Actually my conversation with my son was more along the lines of accountability concerning inculpatory information, or blowing the whistle. Who is to blame when the criminals have light shinned upon them: the criminal, or the whistle blower, in the eyes of the criminal?

Obviously it is the whistle blower who is guilty of injuring the criminal as now the criminal is set upon by multitudes of former accomplices now eager to punish one of their own, one that got caught, and therefore a loser in the might makes right game.

Back to specifics:

___________________________________
A. I am using deceit or threats of violence, or acts of violence to win an argument?

Or

B. Are you saying Zacharias is doing that?
___________________________________

This to me is a diversion of focus away from the facts and now the focus of attention is focusing, or targeting, me personally.

Is Zacharias doing something?

Is there any power gained in knowing the accurate answer?

is the idea to expose me as a Friend of Legal Crime?

I am having my power stolen and then my power used to steal more, so, I am guilty of that, and there is no reason to try to find out if I am guilty of that, because that is all well documented on paper, and digits, for anyone to see at will.

Am I bearing false witness against a messenger of God?

All these things divert from the preferred focus as far as I am concerned.

Here is a Bible, it is in physical form, there are symbols on it, and someone, a person, a human being, with all the faults, and with all the power God gave that human being, picks up that book, looks at the symbols, and then that person speaks.

Here is a Quran, another book, symbols on it, another person, more speaking.

Here are symbols on stones, another viewer, more speaking.

People listen.

What do the people do different than what they would have done had they not listened?

Demonize each other?

Now there is me.

I invented symbol arrangement myself, I can claim to be driven by an indefinable force, or God, but that may not be a good idea, since multitudes have been known to descend upon such people seeking a pound, or more, of flesh from blasphemers found guilty of spreading such lies.

Sinful Messiahs, rag heads, etc.

My cross to bear, or my axe to grind, is very specific, and can be summed up on one sentence. I know Political Economy forwards and backwards, so that is what I do, my specialty, unfortunately for my own standard of living, and my own cost of living, this stuff pays a negative income, there is almost no demand for it.

There is a very high demand for lies, look how well the best liars are paid in comparison to my income?

My income is negative, a lowering of my standard of living, and an increasing of my cost of living over time.

Each time I consider making any more productive power is each time the Legal Criminals crack the whip demanding more from me.

I could write a book, perhaps, and then be faced with more income, more dollars, more "liabilities" to use Legal Crime Jargon.

I can borrow their false currency, and pay that price too.

Why not opt out since there is a way to opt out?

Why argue over which way to opt out, when time, and life, is so precious?

Joe