• Pot

    The concept of individualism is explained well here:

    http://www.anarchiwum.bzzz.net/yak/equitable%20commerce.pdf

    Here:
    http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

    Here:
    http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD4/Lay-outed%20texts/PDF-vers...

    Confusing individualism, which can be accurately measured as fact, with connectivity among individuals, can happen too.

    I am also not a solute in a pot...

    I am connected to other individuals through mediums of exchange.

    Have you heard of something called The Dictator's Dilemma?

    Here in this link is a useful chart:

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html

    What would be the result of a device offered in a free market area, not an absolute utopian fantasy area, but a more free, competitively free, not the best possible freedom ever, but a free area relatively free compared to other less competitively free places, whereby this device works the following way:

    The user of the device can record their current situation and upload their current situation into a Network of information available to people offering a competitive insurance service called Anti-Despotism Insurance.

    The device offered in this free market zone is part of something like this:

    http://logosradionetwork.com/tao/

    That is a general sketch of what I call Anti-Despotism Insurance.

    But my question to you concerns the device that is not yet described entirely.

    The device offers real time video, audio, connectivity of what is happening in time and place to people who serve the user of the device, when the user of the device wants help.

    The device also offers the user an ability to stun someone, anyone, and make someone immobile for one hour, and this device has been perfected through free market forces, as the highest quality, and lowest cost, to date, device that accomplishes the goal of immobilizing someone for one hour at minimum health risk to the target of this immobilizing device.

    So...my guess is that you are following this scenario well enough to see the implications.

    This device is available in the free market zone.

    Do you move to that free market zone?

    Will criminals allow such a device to exist, or such a service to exist?

    This is similar to the Red Button story here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTm3Jbr6ePQ

    This device and this service is opposite of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGypiDik2E

    I have yet to view that last link. The GAINING CURRENCY effect of Assassination Politics (a.k.a. put options, or selling short) was slow in rate of acceleration since Jim Bell went to prison, but lately, the rate of acceleration is quickening.

    Joe

  • Falsehood from the start?

    The first lie:

    "When the government does not follow law..."

    That is the often repeated lie repeated by all criminals as criminals misdirect accountability away from the criminal and onto things.

    That is easily fixed when the idea is the opposite idea.

    When the idea of misdirection of accountability those who care to know better can avoid misdirection of accountability and those who care to know better can employ the opposite idea of holding PEOPLE accountable for the actions of PEOPLE, not things.

    Criminal (misdirection) claims include:

    1.
    The gun did it.

    2.
    Society made me do it.

    3.
    My dog Sam told me to murder those people and eat them.

    4.
    "When the government does not follow law..."

    When criminals are exposed as criminals the criminals, as a criminal rule, will reach for misdirection away from accurate accountability focused upon that criminal and the crimes perpetrated upon the victims.

    Why are these people paraded around as Constitutional Scholars, or Professors?

    Before Magna Carta (a so called Charter, or "constitution") there was this:

    http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_...

    Quote____________________________
    The Saxons, who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their own country, obstinately retained that invaluable possession in their new settlement; and they imported into this island the same principles of independence, which they had inherited from their ancestors. The chieftains, ( for such they were, more than kings or princes,) who commanded them in those military expeditions, still possessed a very limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated, rather than subdued the ancient inhabitants, they were, indeed, transplanted into a new territory, but preserved unaltered all their civil and military insfitutions. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places, which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same picture of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by the masterly pen of Tacitus, will suit those founders of the English government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l.
    _____________________________________

    From that context (trial by jury before, during, and some time after Magna Carta) is this:

    "The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community."

    In context to the idea of government, lawfulness, the people commanded nullification, or veto, on any laws proposed by any current King.

    "...that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer..."

    What do you think the following current news means?

    http://rt.com/news/bitcoin-assassination-market-anarchist-983/

    "The highest bounty is currently on the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. 124 bitcoins translates to nearly $90,000. Bounties can come entirely from one person or be crowdfunded."

    From the days well before Magna Carta up to today, and on into the future, people write things down, for many reasons.

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

    Summary: It is the duty of free people to resist criminals who claim to be the government.

    From such ideas, as Liberty, or such ideas, as Independence FROM criminals who claim to be the government, are such ideas as 13, or so, competitive constitutions working within a free market government VOLUNTARY Union, between 1776 and 1787.

    Not one MONOPOLY "Constitution," but 13, or so, Free Market Competitive (non-aggression competition) Constitutions joined into a Voluntary Association, for mutual defense, then known as a Continental Congress (representatives) under Articles of Confederation (Voluntary Union).

    Then the criminals took over in 1787.

    And these "scholars" profess to know something worth knowing?

    If a King was murdered, then that is lawlessness done by the murderer. Why would someone murder a King? What was the penalty according to any known, enforceable, law?

    How can the King be the thing that is the law, if there was, then, a law that accounted for a fine to be paid by the murderer of the King?

    A King decrees the amount of the bounty on his own head?

    When no one ever has any more power over anyone else, according to law, the obvious result is law-full-ness. No more criminals volunteering any more victims in fact.

    Then a criminal volunteers a victim to be a victim.

    Then what?

    Ask the professor who professes to know how lawful those criminals in 1787 were in volunteering everyone to pay the extortion fee with the fraud money they alone create out of paper?

    Joe

  • Excellent

    "In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision."

    The concept of ownership can be seen in two obvious ways:

    1.
    Stewardship (along the lines of highest and best use)

    2.
    Exclusive dominion enforced criminally

    Another way to see this is by looking at the two concepts of Credit and Debt.

    1. Credit and Debt are:
    "In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision."

    2. Credit and Debt are:
    Yes to the following questions.

    However, what if you establish a contract (verbal or otherwise) with another party, for example a loan contract, and the other party doesn't live up to their end? Can you drive over to their house and beat them or kill them? Does that fall within the NAP?"

    Obviously, when free market forces work, the best at conflict resolution, at the lowest price, wins, and as those winners gain market share those conflicts that can be resolved are resolved as best as is possible among people who include criminals who will perpetrate crimes if the pay is good.

    "What are your thoughts?"

    I think you may find anarchism (as you define it) in that time period between 1776 and 1787, in a Federal form (including trial by jury), and the following words (which are not mine) help, some, along that way:

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

    Quote_____________________
    Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

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

    Same book, more words quoted_________________
    But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

    To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
    __________________________________________

    From the following source are words from the original American Anarchists who began thinking in free market terms starting with Josiah Warren and then with Benjamin Tucker who began printing a magazine called Liberty:

    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    Quote_______________________________
    First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
    ____________________________________________

    The Declaration of Independence was, is, and can be the document that establishes Non-Aggression as a Principle in time and place.

    From that time and place there were 13 mutual defense associations formed by people forming competitive (free market: meaning Non-Aggression or NOT ANTAGONISTIC COMPETITION)defense associations, all of which included trial by jury as a method of conflict resolution.

    Those 13 mutual defense associations (some were more despotic than others: meaning some where lower in quality and higher in cost as people supplied free market government to fill the demand for free market government) formed a Federal contract (debt and credit) for their mutual defense.

    In other words: the criminal army of The British Central Banking Monopoly Power had to attack, occupy, plunder, and mass murder the people in one Defense Association at a time, because it was not economically feasible to attack all 13 defense associations at once.

    While one defense association was brutally subdued by the invading criminals, while free minded people were rounded up and murdered in torture chambers and death camps, the other people in the other defense associations were still viable as working defense associations, able to fight defensively with a form of fighting that is now understood as maneuver warfare.

    The criminal British Monopolists sent in agents to infiltrate the rank and file defender population as a covert means of subduing the defensive, free market, people.

    Those who were on the side of the British criminals covertly hidden behind a false front of being on the side of the "rebels," "insurgents," and "levelers," were George Washington:

    A
    http://mises.org/daily/2885
    B
    http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep...

    Alexander Hamilton (Central Banker explained above)

    John Adams of the Alien and Sedition Act infamy.

    And the red coat, blue coat, red coat chameleon James Madison who was in power when the false Federal Capital was burned, and the Second (Central Fraud) Bank of The (so called) United States was reestablished.

    Why did those Red Coats torture and mass murder so many people in America?

    http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html

    If those people were allowed to live and let live, in a free market government experiment, the obvious result would have been the abolition of Slavery, Piracy, Fraudulent Banking, Conscription, and false government; World Wide.

    It was a close race; but those who race to the bottom won in 1787.

    The Rat RACE.

    Extra Credit:
    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html

    Quote_______________________
    WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

    In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

    One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

    Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

    There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

    There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.
    __________________________________________

    Caveat Emptor

    Joe

  • Please

    We two do not see eye to eye on many specific things, but my guess is that there is plenty of information that rings true from both of our viewpoints in those papers.

    I think a discussion on those specific things may be a good thing to work at gaining currency.

    Joe

  • I'm allowed to...

    Be stupid?

    Why would someone claim that all "Federal" bla, bla, and bla is this or that with a straight face if they knew the facts?

    References to the so called Constitution of 1787 are not references to a Federal compact among people living in Republics, or States, or Mutual Defense Associations, or Free Market Governments.

    In 1787 a bunch of criminals got together and perpetrated an obvious fraud. The criminals fooled enough people into believing that the working, existing, operating, useful, defensive Federal compact among people living in Republics was improved by their generous offers of campaign promises.

    It was the crime of the millennium.

    A simple fraud.

    So these people who appear to offer wisdom as they speak of a Federation or a Government are themselves misinformed.

    If these people look into the events between 1776 and 1787 a little closer they might find something like this:

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

    Quote________________________
    Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

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

    That is a description of open source, or free market, government and it worked.

    The criminals running the Bank of England and the Union of Merchants, which included the corporate people running drugs, slaves, and military weapons with their East India Company (see their flag) could not allow the number of people in America to prove to the world of people how free market government works for people as people then prosper by their Liberty.

    So the criminals running the Bank of England invested in a two front war.

    Front 1:
    Overt War
    Rob, Rape, Plunder, and Mass Murder as many of those people as possible within a limited budget.

    Front 2:
    Covert War
    Fraud and Extortion used to incorporate a number of the people in America to work on the side of the criminals.

    Those American criminals working for, or along side, the Bank of England criminals called themselves the Federalists.

    They could not call themselves the Spies, or the Agents, working for the British because that would be part of the Overt War.

    Covert means cover-up.

    False Fronts cover-up.

    Federalist Papers were the campaign promises employed to fool the survivors of the Revolutionary War (those not mass murdered) to give up their Federal Government (free market government design) for a pack of lies that cover-up Consolidation, Slavery, Piracy, Fraud, Extortion, Counterfeiting, Money Laundering, and other crimes that the criminals gave themselves the authority to perpetrate upon their victims.

    Quote____________________________
    But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

    To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
    ____________________________________

    If these people who call themselves anarchists continue to call crime by the name of government, despite the obvious examples of existing forms of free market government that is easy to accurately measure, then they are either ignorant, or so called willfully ignorant, whereby the later is just one more lie.

    No one can be willfully ignorant in fact. One must know what one decides not to know.

    One might stumble upon something worth knowing eventually; one who chooses not to know something is one who knows what they will not learn.

    Joe

  • Thanks

    If the subject matter is useful, and you care to know more about it, then it may be a good idea to soldier through this:

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo...

    I have been reading those papers and commenting on them one at a time. I am half way through at the moment.

    There are gems in there.

    For example: I did not know that Rhode Island had already acknowledge the fact that slavery was against the true laws of people (free market government in my view, or non-aggression, or anarchism according to some version of the definition of the word), but that is not all about those papers.

    1. They are written by proponents of a free market (federal) arrangement, so why are the papers called "anti"?

    2. The people writing the papers include someone with a pen name of BRUTUS, and the actual person is said to be Robert Yates (the one who wrote the Secret Proceedings report, who was one of the delegates sent to Philadelphia to discuss amendments to the existing Federal contract/government which was The Articles of Confederation), and those people knew a thing or two about economics, along the lines of Austrian school (Mises not Rothbard) teaching.

    3. The type of government (free market) working between 1776 and 1787 was ending criminal governments world wide, so the criminals had to either destroy it or incorporate it.

    The criminals destroyed many people knowing it (free market government) but they could not kill the idea with mercenary (criminal) armies. The British, so called, lost the military battle, but they did destroy many lives of people who shared the idea. So the criminals sent in the conspirators who incorporated, cartelized, monopolized, or consolidated, the free market government into one satellite arm of the world wide criminal banking and extortion scam; which was the product of that Dirty Compromise in Philadelphia.

    Those conspirators called themselves (falsely)The Federalists.

    Those conspirators called the actual Federalists Anti-Federalists and the false name is repeated to this day.

    The lie still works.

    Joe

  • Thanks

    I think that people ought to help each other as best as they can; so thanks for your kind words, and encouragement.

    There is a problem I see in your words, perhaps it is just me.

    "The flaw of science is that it assumes that there is nothing which exists outside of that which can be observed, yet despite this assumption it adamantly insists to be true that which no one has ever observed."

    Science is a method of asking and answering questions; if there is a flaw then the scientific method can be used in finding the flaw.

    Science can't be the flaw, as far as I know, as I consider science alone, with no one, no people, to use it, or lose it.

    Someone tries out a method of asking and answering questions, and then someone fails.

    Blame science?

    Joe

  • Good start, in my opinion.

    I stopped reading at the following falsehood:

    "Does the state have a right to follow us with drones?"

    The criminals took over in 1787.

    Before the criminals took over in 1787 there was no monopoly "thing" that hid the criminals.

    The criminals constructed that monopoly "thing" in Philadelphia.

    That is documented here:
    http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

    The criminals who took over in 1787 are not well known.

    That is an obvious problem.

    Joe

  • I think

    If I think then that is something.

    If there was ever nothing, or if there may be nothing after I stop thinking, then there are two things.

    A list of things:

    1. Thinking

    2. Nothing

    Thinking is a thing that is proven by the fact that I am now thinking, or if you are going to argue about my ability to think, then that is what you do when you are thinking, but the word (think) is a third thing, the word is not the thing.

    1. Perception (or thinking)

    2. Words

    3. The absence of all things including the space where things exist

    Your question appears, in my mind, in my thoughts, in my field of view, as a paradox.

    "Do you think nothing is something?"

    What I think is one thing.

    What you claim to be my failures, as to my answers to your paradoxical questions (as I see them) is another thing.

    1. My perception

    2. Words

    3. Your perception of my perception conveyed with words

    4. Apparent paradoxes

    5. My offer as an answer to your question

    6. Your perception of my offer as an answer to your question

    7. Nothing at all, which is a thing, alone, before or after one other thing exists in time and place

    Modern work:
    http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html

    Ancient work:
    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZenosParadoxes.html

    I have spent my life working labor, all I can offer is my very limited experience in a short, but fun, life.

    Joe

  • Obvious falsehoods?

    "The British were a big strong nation badgering a small weak nation. The counter-attack against the British province of Canada was the only feasible option. Self-defense is a moral right."

    People are either acting morally or not in time and place. People are individuals. There is no such thing as a Nation that can be moral, immoral, think, act, do, be responsible, or be accountable.

    Who ordered people to act violently upon people in any case anywhere? Having the accurate answer, because someone cares to know the answer, affords someone the opportunity to find out, from the horses mouth, what reasons the individual had in mind when they issued that order.

    "The US was paying the debt back, but at the same time the British Empire was badgering the US on the high seas, hijacking about 400 US vessels and kidnapping about 8000 seamen. The People of the US finally had enough and fought back."

    Who is this US? Who has cause to make payments to who, and for what reasons?

    The so called US DEBT was a deal made by specific people for specific reasons in time and place from 1776 onward up to 1787. After the Con Con of 1787 the so called National Debt was a deal made between Alexander Hamilton and whoever he was dealing with during those days in those secret proceedings in Philadelphia.

    Who is this thing called the "British Empire"?

    Speaking as if things are responsible and accountable is convenient as best (rather than listing the names of the people involved) and at worst the art form is willfully deceptive.

    Joe

  • To be dishonest,

    Is a crime or sin.

    "If you do not yet know Christ and find contradictions in the Bible all you need to do is tell Him you want to know and understand Him and ask for wisdom, which He freely gives to those with a genuine desire to learn and know Him."

    The viewpoint you have of Him, expressed in words, is to me a foreign viewpoint, as far as I can tell. I don't know that the creator of all is a Him, so that explains, in words, some of the differences in viewpoints.

    "I'm not exactly clear of the meaning of your last statement. Are you saying that you have accepted Him or not?"

    I do not know what you mean by the words "accepted Him," as explained above the concept of me knowing what is, or is not, the creator is foreign to me, so I don't know that the creator is a Him.

    "Knock and He shall answer, seek and you shall find."

    I can write volumes of text in the vain attempt to record every time I have this idea that the creator of all is sending me messages. Just last night, for example, there were these obvious coincidences that cannot be explained rationally, and of what use would it be for me to explain precisely why I see these things the way I see them?

    At no time have I assumed that the creator is a Him because at no time have I understood the coincidences (beyond possible odds of randomness as far as I know) as a message that says to me, "Hi, I am a Him, and I am Him speaking to you with these messages," and so I look for such things, but such things do not reach me.

    Should I stop looking?

    Should I stop asking?

    If you say all I have to do is ask, and then I do not get an answer, then there is an accurately measurable problem.

    It is possible that I am not honest with myself, as I know, once someone is successful in lying to themselves, there is no turning back, success is what it is, success is not failure.

    I don't, as a rule, work at lying to myself, as far as I know, so a measure of trying can be understood as self deception when I see myself "rationalizing" things that I do that are destructive. I think I can still see when I am "rationalizing" wrong actions that I want to do, even though I know that my actions are measurably destructive. Part of this process is in some way explained with this concept of "Jesus dying for our sins," if I can be so bold as to begin to understand that message in some Bibles, and that message offered by some people who speak of the messages in some Bibles.

    Does that make sense?

    "As a side note, I do not think that because one believes in God that one should then stop fighting against evil, in fact I think the opposite is true, but I also believe without God's intervention there is little hope in stemming the tide of evil as well as comfort in knowing that no matter which way it goes, you will have the certainty of one day living in a world where evil will no longer be allowed, and that brings true Peace."

    I think long sentences are good, when they are well constructed. Thanks, I see so much to agree with, and little to disagree with in your welcome words.

    Count me as someone who would like to believe all the words in The Bible are words from the creator, and none of the creations have dishonestly altered the message.

    Please try to consider the possibility that I am not claiming that your beliefs are wrong. Please try to consider the possibility that I am not claiming that the words in the Bible are lies.

    Which Bible?

    Which words?

    Who put the words in print?

    Is it possible that someone, a creation of the creator, misread and then mistranslated the intended message?

    Those are not statements of facts, those are questions that have not yet been answered as far as my ability to know, and understand, the messages that I receive as answers to those questions.

    I do not claim that Jesus is not the son of God.

    How could I make such a claim?

    There is no evidence I can find that confirms, to me, in my ability to know, one way or the other as to what Jesus was, is, or will be, in time and place; therefore it is accurate, and honest, for me to deny anyone who claims that I claim that Jesus is not the son of God.

    I cannot make such a claim without lying. If I make such a claim, then I am lying. If someone claims that I make such a claim, then what does that mean as far as they are concerned?

    Joe

  • Thank you

    Thank you for the offer of your viewpoint and the opportunity to challenge a viewpoint with another competitive viewpoint or two.

    "When has humanity ever achieved any level of real freedom for more than a fleeting moment before the chains are then reattached and the misery resumed?"

    I've read this:
    http://one-heaven.org/sacred_texts/book/Lebor_Clann_Glas/

    That is a viewpoint.

    Now there are 3 viewpoints looking at people as a whole.

    Which parts of each viewpoint are worthy of the label truth and which parts of each viewpoint are less, by some accurate measure, worthy of the label of truth?

    Many people throughout time have existed from birth to death in relative paradise.

    There will be one such example that is among the top 1000, 100, and the top 10 for the all time best (for now) example of relative paradise on earth in all of the time of people on earth.

    It is my considered opinion that none of the people in the top 1000, top 100, or to 10 people who have lived in relative paradise are people who gained anything at the expense of anyone through crime of any kind.

    In other words; it is most likely that the top 1000, top 100, or top 10, elite people, those who exemplify the best, the brightest, the shinning examples of people on earth, were relatively poor in the measure of monetary units of wealth.

    I will add, on this idea, the concept of separating people into two obvious groups.

    1.
    Those who exist by criminals means.

    2.
    Those who gain nothing from anyone through criminal means.

    Now among those two groups are again top 1000, top 100, and top 10 examples of the best, brightest, shining examples of people on earth; however in that case those in group 1 are all in relative misery compared to those in group 2.

    In other words the top 10, and the top 1 in group 1 is relatively miserable compared to the bottom of the barrel in group 2.

    That is a simplistic way to answer your question here:

    "When has humanity ever achieved any level of real freedom for more than a fleeting moment before the chains are then reattached and the misery resumed?"

    Life is more complicated than my view alone can accurately measure.

    Shinning examples in time and place include, in my opinion, the time period before the Revolutionary War (before the criminals really started working on those people) and the time in America before The Civil War, and then before World War I/II, then before Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/etc.

    When the criminals get going they leave no doubt as to their handy work, just count the bodies in the pile.

    In each case of the people gaining power to live well the power exerted by the so called "elite" criminal "class" is relatively absent. I think that type of viewpoint is a useful, and accurate, measure.

    "This is not a war of flesh, but a spiritual war against good and evil and it has been waging since the dawn of man. The good news is, the war for the one thing that really matters has already been won, that is the war for our very souls. God has secured our victory in that area through Christ, if only we will receive what has been won at great cost."

    If anyone thinks that I have any reason, or any action accountable to me, whereby I claim that someone else is wrong in their religious belief, then such thoughts are false.

    You have offered a religious belief in words you picked out and your offer of words is received by me, and it is acknowledged by me as your religious belief.

    I do not know what to do with your religious belief, other than to acknowlege it, and to confess that I do not share it. If I knew how to gain your belief, then I would share your belief. I do not.

    From Frank O'Collins I have tried to figure out where religious belief finds people, or where people find religious belief. Many say to me that I must look in the Bible. I do, and there is much wisdom, and much contradiction, in THE Bible.

    Which Bible?

    What do you make of the following?
    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-popes-peace-doves-wer...

    Many people have many views on many events. That event is significant for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the event involves one individual who is titled as The Pope.

    The title, the position, the office, the seat, the authority, the whatever it is, in fact, is The Pope.

    Who are the Jesuits?

    I found the following in my study done yesterday (7-23-2014):

    Quote___________________________
    It was a common saying among many sensible men in Great Britain and Ireland, in the time of the war, that they doubted whether the great men of America, who had taken an active part in favor of independence, were influenced by pure patriotism; that it was not the love of their country they had so much at heart, as their own private, interest; that a thirst after dominion and power, and not to protect the oppressed from the oppressor, was the great operative principle that induced these men to oppose Britain so strenuously. This seemingly illiberal sentiment was, however, generally denied by the well-hearted and unsuspecting friends of American liberty in Europe, who could not suppose that men would engage in so noble a cause thro' such base motives. But alas! The truth of the sentiment is now indisputably confirmed; facts are stubborn things, and these set the matter beyond controversy. The new constitution and the conduct of its despotic advocates, show that these men's doubts were really well founded. Unparalleled duplicity! That men should oppose tyranny under a pretence of patriotism, that they might themselves become the tyrants. How does such villainy disgrace human nature! Ah, my fellow citizens, you have been strangely deceived indeed; when the wealthy of your own country assisted you to expel the foreign tyrant, only with a view to substitute themselves in his stead. . .
    But the members of the Federal Convention were men w e been all tried in the field of action, say some; they have fought for American liberty. Then the more to their shame be it said; curse on the villain who protects virgin innocence only with a view that he may himself become the ravisher; so that if the assertion were true, it only turns to their disgrace; but as it happens it is not truth, or at least only so in part. This was a scheme taken by the despots and their sycophants to bias the public mind in favor of the constitution. For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., formed the majority, whose similitude to each other, consisted only in their determination to lord it over their fellow citizens; like the rays that converging from every direction meet in a point, their sentiments and deliberations concentered in tyranny alone; they were unanimous in forming a government that should raise the fortunes and respectability of the well born few, and oppress the plebeians.

    PHILADELPHIENSIS
    _________________________________________

    That is a newspaper "letter to the editor" written (or said to be written) before RATification of the so called Constitution of the United States of America.

    Note:
    "For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc.,"

    "...a spiritual war against good and evil..."

    So far as I can tell the Jesuits were inspired during those times and places that became known as The Inquisition and The Crusades.

    So...do you speak of such things as The Inquisition and The Crusades when you speak of a spiritual war against good and evil, or am I entirely clueless as to what is precisely your viewpoint without me getting the wrong message by some measurable degree?

    I can simply ask, I suppose, what is measurable as a spiritual war against good and evil?

    Example:
    Evil inspires me to pay the extortion fee called Federal Income Tax Liabilities.

    Good inspires me to resist such payments because such payments constitute the financing of such things as the massacre at Waco.

    Here:
    http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/

    If I ask Jesus, or God, to clue me in on my dilemma concerning those extortion payments, and there is no answer, or I have to imagine the many possible answers that might be sent to me, and then I have to pick the answer from the many answers that might be sent to me from Jesus or God, then does that mean that I am a lost soul according to what you know?

    Example:

    "If it is true liberty you seek, it can only be found in Christ."

    True Liberty to me is accurate accountability. I seek accurate accountability. I've heard from some people this message that I can find things in Christ, in so many words, and yet the accurate account, as far as I know so far, is me asking, and me not getting answers from Christ.

    Here I am.

    There is Christ.

    So far the connections to me from Christ are people who advise me to find Christ.

    Here I am.

    Here are people letting me know that Christ is worth finding.

    Here is Christ.

    What has not happened yet is me finding Christ according to the people who let me know that Christ is worth finding.

    For all I really know, as far as accurate accounting goes, Christ found me, and I found Christ, and all those people advising me to find Christ are simply not seeing the connection, including me, including me not seeing the connection.

    Does that sound reasonable?

    Joe

  • Offerings continue

    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/1694#comment-...

    First:
    I offered my competitive viewpoints to John Darash on the subject matter (jurisdiction?) of Administrator Education.

    I was given the go ahead, by John Darash, to start this Topic with this title. I wanted the title to be along the lines of Administrator Courses Competition. Someone on the Conference Call wanted a different title; hence the title Administrator Discussion instead of Administrator Course Competition, or Administrator Testing Competition.

    During that conversation I asked questions concerning the future Testing procedure that will work as a GATE KEEPING effort to stack the Administrators allowed into POWER as National Liberty Alliance Common Law Grand Jury Administrators.

    Before someone goes all nuts on me, in their brains, as to the GATE KEEPING and JURY STACKING terminology, it may help to know what I mean in FACT.

    It is perfectly legitimate to narrow down the pool of jurists in any case where people in ancient history, or people in recent history, or people now, or people in the future endeavor to employ the concept of trial by jury as an effective means by which people defend each other with a process that is affordable to everyone, and affordable especially to the criminals who may then find a remedy for their life of crime with due process of law.

    Stacking the jury, or keeping the gate closed to unwanted jurists, or opening the gate to jurists wanted, qualifier, able, educated, knowledgeables, wise, moral, effective, accurate, kind, just, merciful, on and on, can be easily seen in a few angles of view.

    1. Rocks cannot sit on juries. Rocks cannot breath air, or see things, but rocks don't lie, so a rock on a jury is better than a specialist who specializes in lying.

    2. Lizards, rats, vampire bats, mad dogs, vipers, tomatoes, cabbages,
    other vegetables, and any number of unqualified living beings cannot sit on juries, but again those living things do not lie, so those things are better on juries than well practiced, well paid, well educated, liars.

    3. Randomly selecting 12 people out of all things, everywhere, including rocks, rats, and cabbages, are not likely to work effectively in defending the innocent from the liars and the criminals who hire the liars to keep the criminals covered up.

    4. Narrowing down the effective pool of jurists is a process that is now working as I type this in reality. Those who volunteer to be jurists are in the pool. Those who don't, are not in the pool.

    5. Despite all the efforts by the well paid liars, the criminals, and the foreign, evil, Exchequer/Common Pleas/Equity/Chancellery/Admiralty-Maritime/Kangaroo (see: http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...) Court people (things cannot be responsible or accountable for willful action) the innocent people are not so stupid, ignorant, apathetic, dumb, reckless, criminally negligent, or criminally insane, to completely remove trial by jury from existence as a means by which people defend people from criminals, and people defend people especially from people who are hidden behind the color of law.

    Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWuXncoKsM

    6. Despite all the effective falsehood infecting so many minds in the existing jury pool, trial by jury remains very powerful as a process afforded to almost everyone - if we the people volunteer.

    7. Can the existing pool of jurists be inspired to volunteer, to educate themselves, and to then be better armed at finding the truth and the law in any case?

    The concept of National Liberty Alliance is effectually an answer to the previous question.

    Yes, that is gate keeping, and yes that is stacking the jury POOL.

    So long as the element of random selection (sortition) is preserved so long will the Rule by Man (dictatorship) element be removed.

    Res-pubica, or government for the people, by the people, and of the people, is thereby preserved, and thereby, with that element of sortition (random selection) the ultimate choice of stacking each jury in each case is out of the hands of dictators and into the hands of whichever POWER is at work when 12 (petite) or 25 (grand) people are randomly selected in each case.

    Let that be clear, please.

    Moving onto subject matter (what I consider to be Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3) information:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWuXncoKsM

    Time: 22:00 onward

    Before commenting a reference ought to be linked:

    For readers:
    http://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_e......

    For those who prefer not to read:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cora2zzVl3o

    The common denominators stand out as:

    1. Monopoly control (antagonistic, criminal, competition)
    2. Free Market Competition (cooperative, mutually beneficial, competition)

    In context of my earlier works on Federation (13 Republics Voluntary Union) versus Consolidation (Con Con of 1787 Legalized Slavery), please consider 5o Constitutionally Limited Republics each commanding their own competitive Free Market Money systems.

    New York may employ the following:
    A New System of Paper Currency by Lysander Spooner
    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

    That type of system backs the money (accurately accounted, or "sound") with Real Estate.

    Alaska my use a money backed by Gold and Oil.

    California may be an Free Market Money State where any city and any county can use their own money exemplified here:
    http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-calif......

    So the idea can be expressed in the following example:
    http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/

    The way it works for the criminals is for the criminals to create a DEPENDENCE upon the CRIMINAL money (unsound, false, misleading, fraudulent, extortive, or just call it what it is: criminal) and then the criminals add or subtract the MONEY SUPPLY to create BOOMS and BUSTS.

    When the criminals create BUSTS, there is then DEPRESSION cause by the criminals who outlaw any money other than the criminal money, and the criminals keep all the money, and the criminals do not allow anyone other than fellow criminals to gain access to the criminal money, and that is a simple as it gets folks.

    So...the story in Worgl Austria, before Wall Street financed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, was a place where the people solved their dependence upon criminal money problem.

    That is the same story each time that solution is used (in any form the money may take) when the criminals intend to cause DEPRESSION or BUST, or DESTABILIZATION, or whichever word they want to use today: inflation, quantitative easing, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, human trafficking.

    How about that one? Look mom there is a human traffic jam.

    How about trail of tears?

    How about Bataan Death March?

    See what happens when accurate accounting is done? Call a spade a spade and follow the trail back to the source to find what?

    So the fix on the Federal design is such that there are then 50 Republics where some of the Republics may have 50 competitions going on in each county, and the result is a FORCE (free market force is strictly voluntary choices people make so as to get more bang for their bucks, better instead of worse, higher quality instead of lower quality, and lower cost instead of higher cost) and what does the money look like at that point when that starts?

    What does the money look like when that free market force works for a long time in many competitive cities, counties, republics, and federations?

    Compare the improvements in money markets (negative) to the improvements in computers and cell phones (positive).

    If people can't set aside the health issues with cell phones, then concentrate only on how free market forces work on personal computers instead of both cell phones and personal computers, or, just look at connectivity in general.

    Free market forces work to inspire people to make better connections.

    1. Gestures made with grunts and hand signals
    2. Spoken language
    3. Written language
    4. Math
    5. Music
    6. Telegraph
    7. Radio
    8. Television (see: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html)
    9. World Wide Web

    In the past someone could have and hold the information needed to save someone else from a life threatening condition, and the distance between the information needed and the information supply was measured in months or years of travel time.

    Now we have the ability to open source all medical information world wide, if we want to, and then a database open to all (the public) would enable each patient to connect almost instantly to the most effective cure (highest in quality and affordable in cost).

    That (free market forces) works on all things within the power of people.

    Money is no different than personal computers.

    If it is open source, or the market is free for all competitors (not criminal competition) then the force applied will be the force of many voluntary choices seeking higher quality and lower cost.

    Free market choices (Federal design compared to dictatorial/CONSOLIDATED/monopoly design) rises the tide lifting all boats.

    Karen Hudes is describing that difference, despite the fact that Karen Hudes may be very wrong about many other issues.

    The World Reserve Currency Power is often divided into criminal opponents seeking to gain World Reserve Currency Power and that is not an accident, that is done that way on purpose; that is the nature of that game.

    That is World War III. Russia is financed and encouraged to fight Nato; and China ends up with World Reserve Currency Power as the ONE WAR DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY.

    The same people show up as the "leaders of the free world" if you look for them.

    1. New World Order/Illuminati
    2. Jesuits

    Jesuits are said to be betting on the Chinese. Jesuits are probably offering the deal to the New World Order/Illuminati, take it or suffer the consequences.

    If you are not a member you are food for cannons.

    You are given a ticket to the pogrom. You are invited to dinner and you are on the menu.

    The solution was in the hands of the people in the form of a Federal (free market) government design between 1776 and 1787, including trial by jury in each Republic at various levels of competitive power IN OPPOSITION to Exchequer/Common Pleas/Equity/Chancellery/Admiralty-Maritime/Kangaroo "due process," which was, is, and will always be summary just us.

    Are you ready to start your first case in common law?

    Joe

  • More currency

    Here: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/california-administra...

    I will offer study through two sources of information alternating between them.

    Source A will be Trial by Jury
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/T...

    Source B will be the falsely named Anti-Federalist Papers
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo...

    Starting with a very troubling discovery in the falsely labeled Anti-Federalist Papers Numbered 40.

    Quote__________________________
    It was a common saying among many sensible men in Great Britain and Ireland, in the time of the war, that they doubted whether the great men of America, who had taken an active part in favor of independence, were influenced by pure patriotism; that it was not the love of their country they had so much at heart, as their own private, interest; that a thirst after dominion and power, and not to protect the oppressed from the oppressor, was the great operative principle that induced these men to oppose Britain so strenuously. This seemingly illiberal sentiment was, however, generally denied by the well-hearted and unsuspecting friends of American liberty in Europe, who could not suppose that men would engage in so noble a cause thro' such base motives. But alas! The truth of the sentiment is now indisputably confirmed; facts are stubborn things, and these set the matter beyond controversy. The new constitution and the conduct of its despotic advocates, show that these men's doubts were really well founded. Unparalleled duplicity! That men should oppose tyranny under a pretence of patriotism, that they might themselves become the tyrants. How does such villainy disgrace human nature! Ah, my fellow citizens, you have been strangely deceived indeed; when the wealthy of your own country assisted you to expel the foreign tyrant, only with a view to substitute themselves in his stead. . .
    But the members of the Federal Convention were men w e been all tried in the field of action, say some; they have fought for American liberty. Then the more to their shame be it said; curse on the villain who protects virgin innocence only with a view that he may himself become the ravisher; so that if the assertion were true, it only turns to their disgrace; but as it happens it is not truth, or at least only so in part. This was a scheme taken by the despots and their sycophants to bias the public mind in favor of the constitution. For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., formed the majority, whose similitude to each other, consisted only in their determination to lord it over their fellow citizens; like the rays that converging from every direction meet in a point, their sentiments and deliberations concentered in tyranny alone; they were unanimous in forming a government that should raise the fortunes and respectability of the well born few, and oppress the plebeians.

    PHILADELPHIENSIS
    _________________________________________

    A method of discovering the facts to then have facts with which to deliberate on questions of law can be used in this case. Find the names of the people who constituted the Continental Congress as they were the Federal government under The Articles of Confederation.

    There is then three lists of names:

    1. Those signing a Declaration of Independence

    2. Those members of the Continental Congress

    3. Those members usurping Liberty with their secretive, false, Con Con of 1787

    Cut and pasted from the falsely named Anti-Federalist Paper number 40 (a) is:

    "For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., "

    I've read only about half of the text in the falsely named Anti-Federalist Papers but that reading has opened my eyes to many new understandings of what was actually happening during the time between declaring our duty as free people to defend each other against criminals who take over governments, in 1776, and then that criminal take over of our government in 1787.

    There were a group of people called Quakers, for example, and they were pacifists, or conscientious objectors to the concept of violence used to gain anything. That type of driving principle is not the same as the driving principle driving ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., and so there are groups:

    1. Patriots (those include over 10,000 patriots murdered by the Red Coats in so called prison ships, or "hospital" ships, and other extermination camps)

    2. Quakers

    3. Those who were on the side of the Patriots, but all they could do was be raped, or otherwise abused by the Red Coats, because they were ill equipped to violently defend themselves when that is the last option before being raped, or otherwise abused by the Red Coats.

    4. Ambitions men (here the obvious list of names include those merchants working in collaboration with other merchants, and bankers, and politicians, whereby their trade is drug pushing, slave trading now called "human trafficking," money monopolization, and the criminalizing, cartelizing, monopolizing, of governments.)

    5. Jesuits (see: http://one-evil.org/content/entities_organizations_jesuits.html)

    6. Tories

    The idea behind the study and employment of FACTS in the past (a.k.a. Accurate History) includes the often repeated practice of the criminals as the criminals create a pack of lies to replace the FACTS in the past, and therefore the necessity of discovering the FACTS in the past despite the very well worn practice of stealing the wealth of people so as to then feed people a pack of LIES that so happens to aid the criminals in the work of stealing the wealth of the people.

    So the past includes people known as Tories.

    The present can be discovered in 4 offers of current information:

    1. Replacing History with False History:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxCuc-2tfgk

    2. Modern Day Tories (Keep meticulous records - as did the Nazis):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE

    3. Explaining modern day Tories (Red Button Story)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTm3Jbr6ePQ

    4. Modern Day Jesuits (Controlled opposition must be understood)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYlMDrig1Hc

    A comment on numbers, and then a move to Trial by Jury:

    The criminals who take over MUST control the opposition. This is as simple as knowing how many bullies are active on the playground in kindergarten. Some kids figure it out. There is the teacher, a bully, then there is one of the big kids, and which one controls the opposition in time and place?

    When the criminals take over there just so happens to be piles upon piles of corpses of dead people. How many names of dead people count up to 8,000 dead people, for example?

    http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html

    If one person spoke each name, in an effort to help communicate the salvation of souls, or whatever idea inspired someone to speak each name, how long would it take to speak each name?

    How much time and effort was required to torture and murder each one?

    No one asks vital questions? Not just here, but other places too?

    When is it a good time to ask vital questions? When is a good time to insist upon accurate answers? Is anyone other than myself and my son, known to me, able to offer their experience in trial by jury?

    From Trial by Jury (Essay by Lysander Spooner):

    Quote________________
    THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.
    _____________________

    The work done by Lysander Spooner is very simple. The volumes of words, the walls of text, the profuse use of English language, reinforces the simple truth.

    How about a confirmation on the precise meaning of justice, before going further into the work done by Lysander Spooner on Trial by Jury?

    The Science of Justice (Lysander Spooner)
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2182

    Quote______________________________
    The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”

    This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
    ________________________________________

    So...

    THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

    The right of juries to judge the honesty of the laws.

    That means that each individual member of the whole body of people has a duty to pay their dues, their tax payments, in the form of jury duty, and that is how each King makes sure that each other King is honest in time and place.

    I know, I know, that is not how Lysander Spooner arranges the English symbols so as to convey the intended message intact - without distortion.

    "...to live honestly..."

    Two practical examples:

    1. You sit on a jury and you try a case where Karen Hudes is blowing the whistle on the Jesuits and the New World Order as those two factions are now battling it out to see who owns everyone else on this planet.

    2. You sit on a jury and you try a case where Walter Burien is blowing the whistle on the local Major in your town as the so called taxes collected in your town are funneled into a FUND used at the exclusive pleasure of a few people named in the secretive paper work documenting the actual flow of POWER on a NET basis - not a false BUDGET basis.

    Who decides if Karen Hudes is off her rocker if she starts speaking about Alien races with elongated sculls?

    If I am on the Jury, and you are on the Jury, then we may have a conflict of opinions on that point.

    My point would be that it is entirely possible that Karen Hudes did see someone posing as an Alien with an elongated skull, and she bought into that charade because it looked real from her viewpoint at the time and place where that event took place. She was not able to seize the man posing as an Alien with an elongated skull, cut into the fake scull with a scalpel, or sharp knife, and expose the counterfeiting operation for all to see, including herself - as a possible explanation for that DIVERSION away from the actual case.

    If the case were a case whereby NO ONE in their right mind would ever use fraudulent money as OUR money, then what Karen Hudes has to say on that subject might be worth checking out, to find the FACTS relevant to that case, as my offer to a fellow jurist, as we endeavor to do what?

    THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

    The law, so called, says pay the IRS an extortion payment, and the IRS demands FDRs, or Federal Reserve Notes as payment. Where does that POWER go? Does that POWER finance World War III so as to then cause Russia to do battle with Nato, so as then to allow the Central Banking Criminals to set up shop in Asia so as then to collect all the War DEBT accumulated during that crime in progress that has been a crime in progress since at least 1787 here in America?

    THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

    I am an actual jurist. I sat on an actual jury. So has my son. We the people have this experience in FACT.

    What?

    This:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

    That is the so called "official" Web Page for The Constitution where I look for the official version of the Bill of Rights. That has recently changed from the FACT it was, to the FACT it now is, and if you care to look, you can see a change in the numbering, done by someone, done in time and place in fact.

    Quote (cut and pasted from that official web page):_______________________
    Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    ________________________________________________

    That musical chairs effort to confound the Bill of Rights numbering was done after (coincidence?) a caller called in on the Monday Night National Liberty Alliance Conference Call to tell John Darash about the original copies (wet ink) and the significance of working with those original copies, including the Bill of Rights (numbering 12).

    I don't have original copies. I have a copy (a physical printed copy) of the following book:
    http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

    I took that with me to every meeting I've gone to where people in California met for National Liberty Alliance business. I've witnessed the "constituting" of Counties 3 times now, meetings in Riverside, Kern, and Temecula. I did not find occasions to share quotes in that book at those meetings.

    Here is a .pdf copy:
    http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

    The reason for that book to be delayed in printing had to do with a gag order placed upon the people attending the first Con Con. What type of people gags people?

    Inside that book are copies of the Amendments to the Constitution . There are 12 Articles.

    The book (at the beginning of the pages in the book) prints this:

    Quote__________________
    Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838, by
    WARNER W. GUY,
    In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia
    ______________________

    1838 is after these events:

    __________________________
    1. 1787
    The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

    2. 1789
    Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

    3. 1790
    Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

    4. 1790
    Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

    5. 1791
    The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

    6. 1794
    The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

    7. 1798
    Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

    8. 1798-1799
    The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

    9. 1800
    Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

    10. 1811
    Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

    11. 1812
    Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

    11. 1812
    The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

    12. 1816
    The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

    13. 1833
    Jackson, Democrat, no longer a Democrat - Republican, of course not, the enemies change color so often, KILLS the bank by fiat, so executive fiat, a benevolent dictator, ends the "private" fiat of Central Banking, severing again the connection to the Bank of England.

    14. 1833 to 1861
    Known as Wild Cat Banking there is in America a time in which free market banking contends with Central Banking, seeking dominance, seeking investors, as free market banking goes head to head with the criminal versions.
    ______________________________

    1838 was Martin Van Buren as Monarch (a.k.a. "President") of the British Colonies (a.k.a. Bank of England - slave traders, drug pushers, human traffickers, rapists, torturers, mass murderers, etc. )

    Andrew Jackson has killed the bank (a.k.a. Central Banking Fraud, Second Bank of the United States)

    It was a time of Wild Cat Banking (competition against monopoly) in America, before The so called Civil War.

    A quick search discovers:
    http://www.philadelphiafed.org/publications/economic-educati...

    Keep in mind, fellow jurists, a maxim of economics. No one in their right mind pays more for less. That means that banking, like computers or cell phones, improve over time as the people paying for these things FORCE the people who make these things to improve the quality of these things while the people who make these things are also FORCED to lower the cost of these things when COMPETITION is allowed to happen, and when MONOPOLY is not used to make people insane (out of their minds).

    It is insane for people to use Federal Reserve Notes. Use of Federal Reserve Notes virtually ensures, it finances, World War III and the torturous, horrid, terrifying death of hundreds of millions of people so as to secure World Reserve Currency Power in either The New World Order or the Jesuits, or whoever else is in that criminal Market.

    It is insane not to allow competition, real competition, free market competition, not false "free market competition," in money (accurate accounting) markets.

    Allowing free competition (not false "free") ensures that the quality of money (accurate accounting) goes up while the cost goes down.

    You must get a handle on this, and the following three quotes (with sources) MUST be understood:

    1. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
    http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

    1.a
    Quote___________________________________
    Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

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

    That explains FREE MARKET GOVERNMENT in a few words. FREE MARKET FORCES FORCE suppliers of government to supply every higher quality government at ever lower costs of government. The criminals go out of business when a working Federation works. That is abundantly clear in those falsely named Anti-federalist Papers; which include the END OF BLACK SLAVERY as FACT during the time when the Continental Congress people were the Federal Government under The Articles of Confederation; between 1776 and 1787. The Con Con Con Job (a.k.a The Constitution) reclaimed SLAVERY as a LEGAL PRACTICE in the damn document itself.

    If not for the true Founders insisting upon a Bill of Rights (12 or 10?) there would no longer be any question as to the complete takeover by the human traffickers, drug pushers, rapists, torturers, murderers, and mass murderers. You know this, you know their inculpatory evidence that is in your face, the fraud money, the extortion payments, the piles upon piles of dead people that always pile up when the criminals take over, such as those 8,000 people listed by name murdered by the Red Coats and their Tories , their Layers, their Judges, their ambitious men.

    So you know the fix, it is right there in that book, in those few words, where FREE MARKET GOVERNMENT, in the form of a working Federal Voluntary Union, fixed BLACK SLAVERY for one thing, and fixed Fraudulent Banking for another thing, in this place we call America.

    What happened to ruin these people here in America?

    Same source:

    1. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
    http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

    1.b
    Quote___________________________________
    But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

    To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
    ______________________________________

    That is, as a mater of discoverable FACT, a confession. We the people earn our credit by our honest work. The criminals then claim that they own you. The criminals then claim that in order for their property to gain "credit" the criminals spend their fraudulent money at their pleasure, and they call that National Debt, and they send the bills to the people who earn credit by their honest industry.

    That is a patented process. That is the same process used by the criminals in the time of Jesus. That is the same patented process used by the Communists.

    If you can't see that, then I, and anyone like me, is going to have a hard time with YOU in a jury trial.

    YOU are the problem in that case if WE are deciding a case in a Trial by Jury, because you are so damn ignorant.

    I'm not sorry about it either. If YOU are so damn ignorant then it is your responsibility, accurately accountable to YOU, to stop being so damn ignorant.

    What is at stake?

    8,000 more Patriots piled into a ditch? Can you name each name, or is it much easier to just finance their torturous death? Work all year up to July, pay the extortion fee, with the fraud money, and then fiance the next pogrom. It won't be you in the hell on earth, so who cares?

    Next quote is vital:

    1. State Socialism and Anarchism:
    HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)
    by Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939)
    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    Quote:_____________________________
    First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
    ________________________________________

    OK, jurists, if your damnable willful ignorance has infested your brain to the point where you salivate on command like Pavlov's dogs at the mention of the word socialism, then YOU are a modern day Torrie, and I'm not on YOUR RED COAT SIDE.

    That small offer of words from Benjamin Tucker (publisher of LIBERTY MAGAZINE) explains all you need to know to see why the criminals must create Thesis (Socialism), Anti-Thesis (Capitalism), so as to end up with Synthesis (Central Banking Monopoly Fraud).

    When FREE MARKET (capitalist government or private government) GOVERNMENT (socialist government or public government) works as proven by the Federal model between 1776 and 1787, the demand for public and private government is supplied by individual people working in groups in COMPETITION (non-aggressive, non-antagonistic competition = not the false might makes right version of competition involving crime as a tool) to supply the higher quality and lower cost product viz - the best Constitutional Republic that private money can buy VOLUNTARILY.

    That is my version. The version offered by Benjamin Tucker is his version. If you can't see the simplicity of how capitalism does work when capitalism is actually working in an actual free market, without the Central Banking Fraud on top of it, then you won't understand these words:

    "Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise."

    That turns false capitalism (fascism, crony capitalism, monopoly, communism, legal crime) on its head.

    When the criminals take over they steal everything worth stealing and then they use the stolen loot to steal more, and the obvious, accurately measurable, result of that is a lot of dead bodies, as that works like a sink being sunk by the rats on the ship, and each rat is then at each other rat's throat, as all productive capacity is used up in killing each other while the supplies of everything worth stealing dwindles down to nothing, like the remaining air as the ship sinks, and all the wet rats are then breathing water.

    The criminals know this, so they know when to move of their ship they sink on purpose.

    They don't care that there are piles of bodies floating down the river. They make money on that FACT.

    You don't get it?

    You still don't get it?

    How about one jurist on one place at one time asking another jurist a question, a vital question, and then both jurists refuse all answers that are not competitive, in other words, we can make a list of 10 possible answers to the vital question, and then we these two people discover, deliberately, the one best possible answer out of the 10 we discover in due process of law?

    Vital Questions (10 for a possible effort to find 1 best 1 out of 10):

    1. If people work in America, creating wealth, is an accurately accountable amount of that wealth stolen and then used to finance World War III, so as to move POWER to Asia, where people in Asia will then be collecting WAR DEBT (so called) from people working in America?

    2. If 1 is true, then can we the people in these Republics like California, and we the people in these Counties in California like San Bernardino, can we find those accurate accounts of those transfers of wealth flowing from we the people into that FUND that is then used to finance World War III?

    3. If 2 is true, then are those accurate records those extortion payments known as Internal Revenue Service Tax Liabilities, and those payments that are known as Interest payments made to a Central Bank, such as The International Monetary FUND, whereby criminals are operating a counterfeiting racket, and therefore all so called "interest" payments and all so called "tax liabilities" are, in FACT, the accurate record of the incuplatory evidence proving the FACT, that people in America are financing their own demise, and those FACTS constitute our authority to know we have been had, in a big way.

    4. If 3 is true, then can we the people help each other defend each other against any further damage?

    5. If 4 is true, then can we the people use trial by jury because we the people want to defend ourselves?

    6. If 5 is true, then can we the people use the Bill of Rights (original ink copy preferred) as evidence proving the FACT that people can use FACTS as their authority to defend each other?

    7. If 6 is true, then can we the people use common law grand jury due process as a process that affords everyone LAW, including the criminals, as a defense against any crime whatsoever in time and in place?

    8. If 7 is true, then can we the people randomly select 25 people in each county and with just 3 cases can we the people end the central banking fraud, the extortion racket, and the practice of following criminal orders without question, in each county, in each Republic, in this Federation that we work as a true Federation?

    9. If 8 is true, then what do those 3 cases look like on paper?

    10, If 9 is done, who will do it?

    Joe

  • Thanks

    Working on trial by jury business:
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/1675#comment-...

    Joe

  • Founding Father Monopoly?

    The Federalists were not the Anti-Federalists.

    There were two groups before, during, and after the Revolutionary War.

    Here is a list of 8000 of one group:

    http://www.usmm.org/revdead.html

    Here too:
    http://www.prisonshipmartyrs.com/

    Quote___________________
    According to the Department of Defense, there were 4,435 battle deaths during the Revolutionary War. The most reliable estimate of prison ship casualties is 11,500. Although these men could be released if they joined the British forces, all refused and purchased your freedom at enormous personal costs.
    _________________________

    1776
    Common Sense by Thomas Paine
    1776
    The Declaration of Independence
    From 1776 through to 1787
    13 Independent Republics, constitutions, bills of rights, trial by jury, self-defense units, 13, confederated into a voluntary association for mutual defense against the invasion of the criminal Red Coats who invade, plunder, rape, torture, and mass murder for fun and profit.

    Then the local aristocrats who grew fat with profits from the war hold a secret meeting in Philadelphia for the purpose of adjusting The Articles of Confederation.

    Those criminals, those "founders," created a satellite of the Bank of England, with that so called Constitution.

    Two groups of founders.

    1. Those who would rather die than deal with the devilish Red Coats.

    2. Those who were of the same color as the Red Coats; but hiding behind a false color.

    Main actors of the so called (false) Federalist Party:

    1. Robert Morris
    2. Alexander Hamilton
    3. George Washington
    4. John Adams
    5. James Madison

    To name only 5.

    Opposing the (false) Federalist Party were those who would rather die than deal with the criminal Red Coats.

    1. Robert Yates
    2. Luther Martin
    3. George Mason
    4. Patrick Henry
    5. John Lansing

    Reading Material:

    1.
    http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

    2.
    http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedRep...

    3.
    http://mises.org/daily/2885

    4.
    http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-...

    5.
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

    6.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Revolut...

    7.
    http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentuck...

    Quote from 7___________________________
    But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

    To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
    ___________________________________

    8.
    http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdo...

    The curious thing about James Madison can be seen in the chronological order as follows:

    1. 1787
    The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

    2. 1789
    Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

    3. 1790
    Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

    4. 1790
    Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

    5. 1791
    The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

    6. 1794
    The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

    7. 1798
    Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

    8. 1798-1799
    The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

    9. 1800
    Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

    10. 1811
    Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

    11. 1812
    Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

    11. 1812
    The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

    12. 1816
    The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

    So called (false) Federalists held the newly created "Consolidated" government that usurped the voluntary federation from Washington to Adams, and then the Democrat Republican Party retook the high command of the new Monarchy (satellite) with Jefferson elected as President.

    All those guys are in the class of the rich and powerful by the way; not the ordinary cannon fodder types.

    So...Madison just so happens to be the next Chief and suddenly the Red Coats are burning the White House, and the Second Bank of the United States opens for legal fraud business as usual?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_Unite...

    Red Coats = (false) Federalists

    It just so happens that while those clowns are "in office" there is The First Bank of the United States, an army of Lawyers and Judges pushing the Americanized version of Admiralty Law, Slave Trade goes wide open despite Rhode Island and Pennsylvania having already outlawed the dirty business (before the 1787 usurpation at the Con Con), and now any slave running away anywhere there is a ready army of more slaves (conscripts) ready to return them to their owners. It just so happens that now all the people in America are buddy buddy with The British, so much so that a law has to be enacted to censor anyone daring to side with The French (Statue of Liberty, help with the Revolutionary War)against The British?

    What?

    Right after The British slaughter over 10,000 of the best and brightest in America, we the people are all in bed with the same criminals?

    It just so happens that so many of we the people have had enough of Whiskey Proclamations, Alien and Sedition Acts, Excisemen, liars, fraud money, that a Thomas Jefferson is elected and the First Bank of the United States expires, by coincidence?

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had already collaborated to reign in the overreaching, dictatorial, new regime who worked so well to destroy the independence of each autonomous Republic, and then when Thomas Jefferson steps down, our good buddies The British return to reclaim their Might making Right business including another run at a Central Fraud Bank under this character Madison?

    One Monopoly of Founders?

    Quote:
    __________________________________
    Antifederalist No. 38

    SOME REACTIONS TO FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS

    This was an essay by "BRUTUS JUNIOR" which appeared in The New-York Journal on November 8, 1787. Two articles by "A COUNTRYMAN" were written by DeWitt Clinton, and appeared also in the New York Journal on January 10 and February 14, 1788.

    I have read with a degree of attention several publications which have lately appeared in favor of the new Constitution; and as far as I am able to discern, the arguments (if they can be so termed) of most weight, which are urged in its favor, may be reduced to the two following:

    1st. That the men who formed it, were wise and experienced; that they were an illustrious band of patriots, and had the happiness of their country at heart; that they were four months deliberating on the subject, and therefore, it must be a perfect system.

    2nd. That if the system be not received, this country will be without any government, and of consequence, will be reduced to a state of anarchy and confusion, and involved in bloodshed and carnage; and in the end, a government will be imposed upon us, not the result of reason and reflection, but of force and usurpation. As I do not find ' that either Cato or the Centinel, Brutus, or the Old Whig, or any other writer against this constitution, have undertaken a particular refutation of this new species of reasoning, I take the liberty of offering to the public, through the channel of your paper, the few following animadversions on the subject; and, the rather, because I have discovered, that some of my fellow citizens have been imposed upon by it.

    With respect to the first,-it will be readily perceived that it precludes all investigation of the merits of the proposed constitution, and leads to an adoption of the plan without inquiring whether it be good or bad. For if we are to infer the perfection of this system from the characters and abilities of the men who formed it, we may as well determine to accept it without any inquiry as with. A number of persons in this [New York] as well as the other states, have, upon this principle, determined to submit to it without even reading or knowing its contents.

    But supposing the premises from which this conclusion is drawn to be just, it then becomes essential in order to give validity to the argument, to inquire into the characters of those who composed this body, that we may determine whether we can be justified in placing such unbounded confidence in them.

    It is an invidious task, to call in question the characters of individuals, especially of such as are placed in illustrious stations. But when we are required implicitly to submit our opinions to those of others, from a consideration that they are so wise and good as not to be liable to err, and that too in an affair which involves in it the happiness of ourselves and our posterity, every honest man will justify a decent investigation of characters in plain language.

    It is readily admitted that many individuals who composed this body were men of the first talents and integrity in the union. It is at the same time, well known to every man, who is but moderately acquainted with the characters of the members, that many of them are possessed of high aristocratic ideas, and the most sovereign contempt of the common people; that not a few were strongly disposed in favor of monarchy; that there were some of no small talents and of great influence, of consummate cunning and masters of intrigue, whom the war found poor or in embarrassed circumstances, and left with princely fortunes acquired in public employment.

    That there were others who were young, ardent, and ambitious, who wished for a government corresponding with their feelings, while they were destitute of experience ... in political researches; that there were not a few who were gaping for posts of honor and emolument-these we find exulting in the idea of a change which will divert places of honor, influence and emolument, into a different channel, where the confidence of the people will not be necessary to their acquirement. It is not to be wondered at, that an assembly thus composed should produce a system liable to well founded objections, and which will require very essential alterations. We are told by one of themselves (Mr.[James] Wilson of Philadelphia) the plan was [a] matter of accommodation, and it is not unreasonable to suppose, that in this accommodation, principles might be introduced which would render the liberties of the people very insecure.

    I confess I think it of no importance what are the characters of the framers of this government, and therefore should not have called them in question, if they had not been so often urged in print, and in conversation, in its favor. It ought to rest on its own intrinsic merit. If it is good, it is capable of being vindicated; if it is bad, it ought not to be supported. It is degrading to a freeman, and humiliating to a rational one, to pin his faith on the sleeve of any man, or body of men, in an affair of such momentous importance. In answer to the second argument, I deny that we are in immediate danger of anarchy and commotions. Nothing but the passions of wicked and ambitious men will put us in the least danger on this head. Those who are anxious to precipitate a measure will always tell us that the present is the critical moment; now is the time, the crisis is arrived, and the present minute must be seized. Tyrants have always made use of this plea; but nothing in our circumstances can justify it. The country is in profound peace, and we are not threatened by invasions from any quarter. The governments of the respective states are in the full exercise of their powers; and the lives, the liberty, and property of individuals are protected. All present exigencies are answered by them. It is true, the regulation of trade and a competent provision for the payment of the interest of the public debt is wanting; but no immediate commotion will arise from these; time may be taken for calm discussion and deliberate conclusions. Individuals are just recovering from the losses and embarrassment sustained by the late war. Industry and frugality are taking their station, and banishing from the community, idleness and prodigality. Individuals are lessening their private debts, and several millions of the public debt is discharged by the sale of the western territory. There is no reason, therefore, why we should precipitately and rashly adopt a system, which is imperfect or insecure. We may securely deliberate and propose amendments and alterations. I know it is said we cannot change for the worse; but if we act the part of wise men, we shall take care that we change for the better. It will be labor lost, if after all our pains we are in no better circumstances than we were before.

    I have seen enough to convince me very fully, that the new constitution is a very bad one, and a hundred-fold worse than our present government. And I do not perceive that any of the writers in favor of it (although some of them use a vast many fine words, and show a great deal of learning) are able to remove any of the objections which are made against it. Mr. [James] Wilson, indeed, speaks very highly of it, but we have only his word for its goodness; and nothing is more natural than for a mother to speak well of her own bantling, however ordinary it may be. He seems, however, to be pretty honest in one thing-where he says, "It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest, in preference to the public good"'-for they tell me he is a lawyer, and his interest then makes him for the new government, for it will be a noble thing for lawyers. Besides, he appears to have an eye to some high place under it, since he speaks with great pleasure of the places of honor and emolument being diverted to a new channel by this change of system.

    As to Mr. Publius [The Federalist], I have read a great many of his papers, and I really cannot find out what he would be at. He seems to me as if he was going to write a history, so I have concluded to wait and buy one of his books, when they come out. The only thing I can understand from him, as far as I have read, is that it is better to be united than divided-that a great many people are stronger than a few-and that Scotland is better off since the union with England than before. And I think, he proves too, very clearly, that the fewer nations there are in the world, the fewer disputes [there] will be about the law of nations-and the greater number that are joined in one government, the abler will they be to raise ships and soldiers, and the less need for fighting. But I do not learn that any body denies these matters, or that they have any thin- to do with the new constitution, Indeed I am at a loss to know, whether Mr. Publius means to persuade us to return back to the old government, and make ourselves as happy as Scotland has by its union, or to accept of the new constitution, and get all the world to join with us, so as to make one large government. It would certainly, if what he says is true, be very convenient for Nova-Scotia and Canada, and, for ought I know, his advice will have great weight with them. I have also read several other of the pieces, which appear to be wrote by some other little authors, and by people of little consequence, though they seem to think themselves men of importance, and take upon them grand names such as . . . Caesar,' . . . Now Mr. Caesar do[es] not depend so much on reasoning as upon bullying. He abuses the people very much, and if he spoke in our neighborhood as impudently as he writes in the newspapers, I question whether he would come off with whole bones. From the manner he talks of the people, he certainly cannot be one of them himself. I imagine he has lately come over from some old country, where they are all Lords and no common people. If so, it would be as well for him to go back again as to meddle himself with our business, since he holds such a bad opinion of us.

    A COUNTRYMAN

    The Federalist, as he terms himself, or Publius, puts one in mind of some of the gentlemen of the long robe, when hard pushed, in a bad cause, with a rich client. They frequently say a great deal which does not apply; but yet, if it will not convince the judge nor jury, may, perhaps, help to make them forget some part of the evidence, embarrass their opponent, and make the audience stare, besides increasing the practice.

    A COUNTRYMAN
    _______________________________________

    Joe

  • Often is the case.

    I can offer a viewpoint.

    The viewpoint offered travels through the medium of exchange to someone.

    Someone receives the viewpoint offered and I know about this fact because the receiver of the viewpoint feeds back a FALSE version of the viewpoint offered.

    That is a STRAW MAN.

    The genuine viewpoint exists within the actual man.

    The false version of the viewpoint exists in a utopian fantasy created by the creator of the Man of Straw.

    The creator of the Man of Straw owns the Man of Straw, but the creator of the Man of Straw claims (falsely) that the genuine flesh and blood man IS the Man of Straw.

    No amount of information offered by the genuine flesh and blood man can alter the Man of Straw constructed by the creator of the Man of Straw who attaches the false version of the flesh and blood man.

    So...

    Person 1 is a flesh and blood member of the entire body of people, and this individual offers a viewpoint with words.

    Person 2 is another flesh and blood member of the entire body of people, and this Person alters the viewpoint offered by Person 1, creating, constructing, and then attaching a Man of Straw onto Person 1.

    No amount of words offered by Person 1 can change the Man of Straw created by Person 2.

    It is unreasonable, illogical, and outside of common sense, to suggest that Person 1 can ever change, improve, or replace the false Man of Straw with an accurate account of the actual viewpoint offered by Person 1, since Person 2 already confesses a capacity to ignore the actual viewpoint of Person 1, as Person 2 creates a false version of the viewpoint of Person 1.

    That is the Man of Straw.

    Having that out of the way, there is an offer of words offered by the man who was labeled (by people) as The First American Anarchist; having to do with the Topic subject matter on the meanings of words.

    http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD4/Lay-outed%20texts/PDF-vers...

    Quote______________________________
    24.
    Theorize as we may about the interpretation of "the Constitution," every individual does unavoidably measure it and all other words by his own peculiar understanding or conceits, whether he understands himself or not, and should, like General Jackson, recognize the fact, "take the responsibility of it," and qualify himself to meet its consequences. The full appreciation of this simple but almost unknown fact will neutralize the war element in all verbal controversies, and the binding power of all indefinite words, and place conformity thereto on the voluntary basis! Did any institution-makers (except the signers of the "Declaration") ever think of this?
    ______________________________________

    So...

    Let me let you define words and if we can agree then we can proceed in keeping the record straight, without one of us placing false words in the other's mouth.

    If someone defines government to be the same thing as crime, then that is what they mean, they mean that government is their word for crime.

    If someone defines anarchy as the absence of government, then they define anarchy as the absence of crime WHEN they define government as the same thing as crime.

    If anarchy is a method by which crime (government) is no more, then anarchy is the method by which crime is no more, according to that one individual who defines words that way.

    Who stands to gain from who when words are counterfeited on purpose?

    Who decides to create the Man of Straw?

    Joe

  • Not complicated beyond reason

    Not simple either.

    1.
    End the FED
    2.
    End the IRS
    3.
    Bring the Troops Home

    That was Ron Paul's offers of solutions as far as I heard, and I listened, because those ring true each angle viewed including this so called homeless problem.

    It is important, in my view, to first know the following:

    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    Quote_______________
    First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of one per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
    ___________________________________________

    If people invest in earnings (instead of people having earnings stolen) there is a rising of the tide that lifts all boats.

    Homelessness is relative.

    Joe

  • Which force?

    1.
    Do you have the right to a monopoly on any force in your own home?

    2.
    Do you have the right to a monopoly on defensive force in your own home?

    Case in point:

    Person A in error opens door entering home and upon entering home Person B in error assumes intent by Person A to harm Person B, so Person B employs lethal defensive force in error.

    Under Question 1 (if yes) there is no question as to the right or wrong done by Person B.

    Under Question 2 (if yes) there is a question as to the right or wrong done by both Person A and Person B.

    Is it not important to accurately discriminate the difference between aggressive force and defensive force?

    Under Question 1 (if no) Person B is always wrong, even if Person A is intending to kill Person B.

    Under Question 2 (if no) Person B is always wrong, even if Person A is intending to kill Person B.

    If no is the answer to both questions, then Person A is right even if Person A willfully intends to kill (murder) person B, in, or out, of any home of any kind?

    Joe

  • Other than nothing

    There exists something. If there exists nothing, then one thing exists.

    Joe