Why Are We Unable to Resist?

[lord edward coke]

Indeed, he was a sharp guy.


No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.
Frederick Douglass

It is simple ideas ,such as those expressed in many quotes,that lift the cobwebs from our minds and
enable us to get up from walking upon four legs; to two. 

“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own.  All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

“There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means.”

“The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner.”

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

“All government, of course, is against liberty.”

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-by to the Bill of Rights.”

“We suffer most when the White House bursts with ideas.”

“The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.”

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

“People constantly speak of ‘the government’ doing this or that, as they might speak of God doing it. But the government is really nothing but a group of men, and usually they are very inferior men. They may have some better man working for them, but they themselves are seldom worthy of any respect.”

“It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen; it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly.”

“For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.”

“The average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”
http://www.genekeyes.com/SNVDCO.html

“Samuel Johnson’s saying that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels has some truth in it but not nearly enough. Patriotism, in truth, is the great nursery of scoundrels, and its annual output is probably greater than that of even religion. Its chief glories are the demagogue, the military bully, and the spreaders of libels and false history. Its philosophy rests firmly on the doctrine that the end justifies the means--that any blow, whether above or below the belt, is fair against dissenters from its wholesale denial of plain facts.”

“I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.”

“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.”

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable...”

http://absentcapacity.wordpress.com/

[attietewd]

         

[lord edward coke]

Are ya sure this isn't straight outta the CIA Tavistock manual? lol!

That's right. Like an elephant chained as a baby ,it grows up knowing that it cannot pull
the steak out of the ground. Ridiculous. Now the full-grown elephant doesn't even attempt as he is totally
conditioned since a calf. Same with humans only worse, We have parents and a media constantly bombing
us with presuppositions to forge the chains that enslave.Plus costumed men with jewelry and guns ready to
kill and cage if you colour outside their  lines.

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

One of my favorite quotations comes from Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don´t have to worry about answers." Our world is in the mess it is in today because most of us have internalized the fine art of asking the wrong questions.

Contrary to the thinking that would have us believe that the conflict, violence, tyranny, and destructiveness that permeates modern society is the result of "bad" or "hateful" people, disparities in wealth, or lack of education, all of our social problems are the direct consequence of a general failure to respect the inviolability of one another´s property interests!

I begin my Property classes with the question: "do you own yourself?" Most of my students eagerly nod their heads in the affirmative, until I warn them that, by the time we finish examining this question at the end of the year, they will find their answer most troubling, whatever it may be today. "If you do own yourself, then why do you allow the state to control your life and other property interests? And if you answer that you do not own yourself, then what possible objection can you raise to anything that the state may do to you?" We then proceed to an examination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The question of whether Dred Scott was a self-owning individual, or the property of another, is the same question at the core of the debate on abortion. Is the fetus a self-owning person, or an extension of the property boundaries of the mother? The same property analysis can be used to distinguish "victimizing" from "victimless" crimes: murder, rape, arson, burglary, battery, theft, and the like, are victimizing crimes because someone´s property boundaries were violated. In a victimless crime, by contrast, no trespass to a property interest occurs. If one pursues the substance of the "issues" that make up political and legal debates today, one always finds a property question at stake: is person "x" entitled to make decisions over what is his, or will the state restrain his decision-making in some way? Regulating what people can and cannot put into their bodies, or how they are to conduct their business or social activities, or how they are to educate their children, are all centered around property questions.

"Property" is not simply some social invention, like Emily Post´s guide to etiquette, but a way of describing conditions that are essential to all living things. Every living thing must occupy space and consume energy from outside itself if it is to survive, and it must do so to the exclusion of all other living things on the planet. I didn´t dream this up. My thinking was not consulted before the life system developed. The world was operating on the property principle when I arrived and, like the rest of us, I had to work out my answers to that most fundamental, pragmatic of all social questions: who gets to make decisions about what? The essence of "ownership" is to be found in control: who gets to be the ultimate decision maker about people and "things" in the world?

Observe the rest of nature: trees, birds, fish, plants, other mammals, bacteria, all stake out claims to space and sources of energy in the world, and will defend such claims against intruders, particularly members of their own species. This is not because they are mean-spirited or uncooperative: quite the contrary, many of us have discovered that cooperation is a great way of increasing the availability of the energy we need to live well. We have found out that, if we will respect the property claims of one another and work together, each of us can enjoy more property in our lives than if we try to function independently of one another. Such a discovery has permitted us to create economic systems.

There is no way that I could have produced, by myself, the computer upon which I am writing this article. Had I devoted my entire life to the undertaking, I would have been unable even to have conceived of its technology. Many other men and women, equally unable to have undertaken the task by themselves, cooperated without even knowing one another in its creation. Lest you think that my writing would have to have been accomplished through the use of a pencil, think again: I would also have been unable to produce a pencil on my own, as Leonard Read once illustrated in a wonderful, brief essay.

Such cooperative undertakings have been possible because of a truth acknowledged by students of marketplace economic systems, particularly the Austrians about human nature: each of us acts only in anticipation of being better off afterwards as a result of our actions. Toward whatever ends we choose to act, and such ends are constantly rearranging their priorities within us, their satisfaction is always expressed in terms inextricably tied to decision making over something one owns (or seeks to own). Whether I wish to acquire some item of wealth, or to give it away; whether I choose to write some great novel or paint some wondrous work of art; or whether I just wish to lie around and look at flowers, each such act is premised on the fact that we cannot act in the world without doing so through property interests. It is in anticipation of being able to more fully express our sense of what is important to us, both materially and spiritually, that we cooperate with one another.

"Property" also provides a means for maximizing both individual liberty and peace in society. For once we identify who the owner of some item of property is, that person´s will is inviolate as to such property interest. He or she can do what they choose with respect to what is theirs. If I own a barn, I can set fire to it should I so choose. If I must first get another´s permission, such other person is the owner. Individual liberty means that my decision making is immune from the coercion of others, and coercion is always expressed in terms of property trespasses.

At the same time, the property principle limits the scope of my decision making by confining it to that which is mine to control. This is why problems such as industrial "pollution" are usually misconceived, reflecting the truth of Pynchon´s earlier quote. A factory owner who fails to confine the unwanted byproducts of his activities to his own land, is not behaving as a property owner, but as a trespasser. Economists have an apt phrase for this: socializing the costs. He is behaving like any other collectivist, choosing to extend his decision making over the property of others!

But not all of us choose to pursue our self-interests through cooperation with others. Cooperation can exist only when our relationships with others are on a voluntary basis which, in turn, requires a mutual respect for the inviolability of one another´s property boundaries. Those who seek to advance their interests in non-cooperative ways, create another system: politics. If you can manage to drag your mind away from the drivel placed there by your high school civics class teacher, and look at political systems in terms of what they in fact do, you will discover this: every such system is founded upon a disrespect for privately owned property! All political systems are collectivist in nature, for each presumes a rightful authority to violate the will, including confiscation, of property owners. One can no more conceive of "politics" without "theft" than of "war" without "violence."

Every political system is defined in terms of how property is to be controlled in a given society. In communist systems, the state confiscates all the means of production. In less-ambitious socialist systems, the state confiscates the more important means of production (e.g., railroads, communications, steel mills, etc.). Under fascism, "title" to property remains in private hands, but "control" over such property is exercised by the state. Thus, fascism has given us state regulatory systems, in which property owners, be they farmers, homeowners, or businesses, have the illusion of owning what they believe to be "theirs," while the state increasingly exercises the real ownership authority (i.e., control). In welfare state systems, the state confiscates part of the income of individuals and redistributes it to others.

As stated earlier, property is an existential fact. Whatever the society in which we live, someone will make determinations as to who will live where, what resources can be consumed by whom (and when), and how such property will be controlled. Such decisions can either be made by individual property owners, over what is theirs to control, or by the state presuming the authority to control the lives of each of us. When such decisions are made by the state, it is claiming ownership over our lives.

It is at this point that I let the students in on the secret the political establishment would prefer not to have revealed: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not end slavery, but only nationalized it! That most Americans acquiesce in such political arrangements, and take great offense should anyone dare to explain their implications, has led me to the conclusion that America may be the last of the collectivist societies to wither away. Most Americans, sad to say, seem unprepared to deny the state´s authority to direct their lives and property as political officials see fit. The reason for this, as my first-day question to students is designed to elicit, is that most of us refuse to insist upon self-ownership.

We may, of course, choose to accept our role as state-owned chattels, particularly if we are well-treated by our masters. We may be so conditioned in our obeisance that, like cattle entering the slaughterhouse, we may pause to lick the hand of the butcher out of gratitude for having been well cared for. On the other hand, we may decide to reclaim our self-ownership by taking back the control over our lives that we have long since abandoned.

Perhaps the insanity of our social destructiveness, including the Bush Administration´s deranged declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world, will bring about an examination of alternative ways of living together in conditions of peace and liberty. Our political systems cannot bring about such harmonious and life-sustaining ways because they are premised on a rejection of the principle of self-ownership. In a society of self-owning individuals, there would be no place for politicians, bureaucrats, and other state functionaries. Like the rest of us, they would have to confine their lives to minding their own business, and deriving whatever benefit they could from persons who chose to cooperate with them.

There is one person who can restore you to a state of self-ownership, however, and that person is you. To do so, you need only assert your claim, not as some empty gesture, but in full understanding of the existential meaning of such a claim, including the willingness to take full control of and responsibility for your life. While your claim will likely evoke cries of contempt from many, you may also find yourself energized by a life force that permeates all of nature; an élan vital that reminds us that life manifests itself only through individuals, and not as collective monstrosities; that life belongs to the living, not to the state or any other abstraction.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

[lord edward coke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko

I know how you feel. For me though,i channel those feelings into action and study.

All great ideas are said to go through three phases:  1) they are ridiculed; 2) they are violently opposed; and 3) they are accepted as obviously true.

For most of the past 20 years, the “sovereignty movement” has (consistent with phase #1) been ignored or ridiculed.  With the attached video from the mainstream media outlet MSNBC, we can see that this idea may now be moving into phase #2 (where it will be violently opposed).  That’s scary.

But, we must fight through phase #2 (violent opposition) before we can reach phase #3–where the idea of individual sovereignty is once again accepted as “obviously true”–just as it was for our Founding Fathers.  It’s unfortunate that the attached video depicts several deaths, but the fact that the video was broadcast by mainstream media is actually cause for celebration.  The same sovereignty idea that once animated our Founders to draft the “Declaration of Independence” and fight off government oppression is again gaining traction within The United States of America.

“NBC’s Pete Williams reports on growing concerns over an underground movement in the U.S. called “Sovereign Citizens.” The group, which has resorted to violence in the past, believes the government has no power over them.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/38098958#38098958

Today, I am feeling this frustration and sense of powerlessness against the horrendous evil that is lurking around us every single day. It pollutes the mind and soils the spirit even though we must know what is going on. Often, I wonder is "passive resistance" going to affect the desired outcome.

I listen to Alex and read world events almost every day. Alex is convinced that we can "defeat" the NWO "scum" employing non-violent resistance; by exposing their plans and dissecting their lies.  Today, I am not so sure anymore. A system that is determined to destroy its people and the world does not give a dam whether their lies and evil plans are exposed or not.  The more we expose them the more aggressive and determined they become.  Which makes me wonder aloud, just how long and how much are we willing to take before things finally explode?  

There is no way from what I can see, that passive aggression alone will  stop or counter the inevitable destruction of this nation by these corporate thugs.  The American people will ultimately have to meet force with force. And even this, the deck seems to be already stacked against us.  Using our tax money, they have armed themselves to a tee; developing the most sophisticated spy, torture, weaponry and communications systems known to man. How do we win against this? It seems our only hope is that many in the police and the military stage an old fashioned munity and coup d’etat to just take this dam government back.  If this doesn’t happen, I am beginning to think that we are all screwed.

[Freeski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko

That's a great little short on the legal fiction/strawman angle.

How, though, after presenting this type of info, do you respond to people's innevitable response of: "So what, we still need taxes to fund the cops and roads and if people's cars aren't registered, there'd be total chaos."?

If the above is true, then it means that the whole system is a fraud from the ground up -- and that's tough to sell, as we know all too well.

[phosphene]

How, though, after presenting this type of info, do you respond to people's innevitable response of: "So what, we still need taxes to fund the cops and roads and if people's cars aren't registered, there'd be total chaos."?

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report 1984

[Freeski]

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report 1984

Yep, commissioned by Ronald Reagan -- I remember when it came out but did not recognize its significance at the time.

So if roads, hospitals, cops, garbage collection, etc. are funded by local property taxes, retail taxes, state manufacturing taxes and on and on and on, that leaves federal stuff like the military and alphabet soup agencies which can then only be funded by uploading from states (provinces) and cities and more debt.

But all of this is meaningless to the sleeping people because most (all) of their information comes in soundbytes that are delivered (or ignored) and repeated in unison, based on what the establishment wants them to be aware of (or not).

[Geolibertarian]

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report 1984

For years this edited quote from the Grace Commission has been causing countless people to turn a whole truth into a partial truth, thereby giving self-appointed "debunkers" ammo they shouldn't even have.

There's conflicting documentation on where the interest income received by "the Fed" (i.e., the so-called "Federal" Reserve) ultimately ends up.

According to the "Combined Financial Statements" of the Federal Reserve banks, of the approximately $36.5 billion in "interest income" they received in 2006 on U.S. government securities (the portion of their income that comes from the income tax), roughly 20% went to cover "operating expenses," while the remaining 80% -- or $29 billion -- was turned over to the U.S. Treasury.

So, on the surface at least, it appears the bulk of the income tax revenue that goes to pay interest on the Fed-owned portion of the national debt isn't kept by the Fed as profit, but is rebated to the Treasury. (Where it goes from there is another question.)

The only documentation I know of that seemingly calls this into question -- at least at first glance -- is President Reagan's Grace Commission Report, which states:

-----------------------

"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." [Emphasis added]

-----------------------

Notice the part I boldfaced. Not even that document claims that "all" income tax revenue is absorbed by interest on the national debt, since part of that revenue goes to finance "transfer payments."

Now, that's not to say I'm convinced there isn't some double bookkeeping going on. Far from it. I've seen Alex's documentary on CAFR, so with all the financial chicanery going on at the state and local level, I'm well aware that it's possible if not probable (particularly in view of the "missing" trillions from the Pentagon) that much the same is going on with regard to the billions in tax dollars that go to service the national debt each year. The problem is that this isn't nearly as easy to document as CAFR is.

But what is easy to document is the fact that the bulk of our money supply is created -- not by the Fed -- but by local banks through fractional reserve lending; and that, unlike the Fed, local banks are not required to turn over to the Treasury the bulk of the interest they receive in exchange for the "nothing" out of which they create all the fictional "money" they loan. (And it's not merely through direct interest payments on fraudulent loans that people are being fleeced by the banking system, but through the silent incorporation of usurious interest costs into the selling price of virtually everything they buy. More on that here.)

As Alex would say: "Stick to what you can prove."

[Freeski]

For years this edited quote from the Grace Commission has been causing countless people to turn a whole truth into a partial truth, thereby giving self-appointed "debunkers" ammo they shouldn't even have.

There's conflicting documentation on where the interest income received by "the Fed" (i.e., the so-called "Federal" Reserve) ultimately ends up.

According to the "Combined Financial Statements" of the Federal Reserve banks, of the approximately $36.5 billion in "interest income" they received in 2006 on U.S. government securities (the portion of their income that comes from the income tax), roughly 20% went to cover "operating expenses," while the remaining 80% -- or $29 billion -- was turned over to the U.S. Treasury.

So, on the surface at least, it appears the bulk of the income tax revenue that goes to pay interest on the Fed-owned portion of the national debt isn't kept by the Fed as profit, but is rebated to the Treasury. (Where it goes from there is another question.)

The only documentation I know of that seemingly calls this into question -- at least at first glance -- is President Reagan's Grace Commission Report, which states:

-----------------------

"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." [Emphasis added]

-----------------------

Notice the part I boldfaced. Not even that document claims that "all" income tax revenue is absorbed by interest on the national debt, since part of that revenue goes to finance "transfer payments."

Now, that's not to say I'm convinced there isn't some double bookkeeping going on. Far from it. I've seen Alex's documentary on CAFR, so with all the financial chicanery going on at the state and local level, I'm well aware that it's possible if not probable (particularly in view of the "missing" trillions from the Pentagon) that much the same is going on with regard to the billions in tax dollars that go to service the national debt each year. The problem is that this isn't nearly as easy to document as CAFR is.

But what is easy to document is the fact that the bulk of our money supply is created -- not by the Fed -- but by local banks through fractional reserve lending; and that, unlike the Fed, local banks are not required to turn over to the Treasury the bulk of the interest they receive in exchange for the "nothing" out of which they create all the fictional "money" they loan. (And it's not merely through direct interest payments on fraudulent loans that people are being fleeced by the banking system, but through the silent incorporation of usurious interest costs into the selling price of virtually everything they buy. More on that here.)

As Alex would say: "Stick to what you can prove."

Thanks for the clarification/analysis.

[lord edward coke]

Violence will only get us dead, and that's no good.

Some truth here; As soon as you start using violence-you joined the other side.
The irony is = Fight for peace!   They hate love, and they love hate.

By John Spencer

No human law is of any validity, if contrary to the law of God. (I Blackstone Comm. 40)

Introduction
One of the great tactics of war is to use propaganda and fear to "re-educate" and alter the thinking of your enemies. Goliath used this tactic against the Israelites in the Old Testament. He caused so much fear in the camp of Israel by his words alone, that no one would go out to battle against him.

There is a large population in the United States who remember the words of Nikita Khrushchev, "We will take over the United States without firing a shot. Your children will live under communism!" It is an old and time-tested tactic. Many of us remember the "cold war" which allegedly ended "with the breakup" of the Soviet Union. But Khrushchev was right, the children of those living when he made his statement now live under "communism" in the United States. The takeover of the nation, however, began long ago.

One must respect an enemy who has the cunning to convince a nation that a new kind of law was being given to the American people; a law never before used in the history of the world. The basis of this new law was "WE THE PEOPLE." It was not easy to convince the people in the 13 colonies that the Constitution of the United States was what was needed to make the nation successful. Many fought against it to the very end. Imagine an enemy so cunning that it has been able to convince the American people they are free, while at the same time enslaving them.

The historians tell us the Constitution is a "God-inspired document." The historians tell us that America was founded to be the "melting pot" of the world. Modern language would define the United States as the most cosmopolitan country in the world. It's true, we have more races of people living in this nation than perhaps any nation in the world. We have allowed, through the Constitution, every culture and religion on the face of the earth to come to America and flourish.

Could it be that "the law of the land" is not what we have been told for all these years? Were the founding fathers truly operating on Biblical principles or were they led by "the love of money?" Is it possible that we have been sold a "bill of goods" by our enemies and been taken over by a cunning plan called the Constitution of the United States? Thinking we have been free for over 200 years, has the Constitution now made us slaves? You decide.

Banking History in Early America
It is important to know the people behind any plan. During the last 20 years the media has attempted to slander the good names of many of the founding fathers. Their accounts of these men are mere speculation and it would be good to remember the words of Napoleon, "History is nothing more than agreed upon lies."

The word of God says, "The love of money, is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10) and "the borrower is slave to the lender" (Proverbs 22:7). The nation was founded upon the love of money and debt. In 1716, the Mississippi River region of America was owned by France. John Law of Scotland established the General Bank in France. He issued, through this bank, freshly printed paper called "banknotes." Yes, just like the Federal Reserve notes. The government of France made these banknotes legal tender and the bank flourished by lending these notes at interest.

In August 1717, the General Bank absorbed the Louisiana Company. This new company was given trading rights over the tremendous land area drained by the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri Rivers. In 1718, the General Bank changed its name to "Royal Bank" to give it a better image. The king of France guaranteed the bank notes issued by the Royal Bank. It was a true conglomerate. Another conglomerate was formed about this time called the Western Company. This company was a rival to the Royal Bank and Louisiana Company. This new company absorbed the East India, Oriental and China Companies. The king of France gave this newly formed company the rights to "collect taxes" and a monopoly of the mint and coin issued under the condition they take over the national debt of France. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The next thing to happen almost surpasses belief. The two companies merged! The price of the stock of the new company went out of sight. The merchants and farmers of France mortgaged their homes, farms and businesses to buy stock. When John Law announced his plan to take the gold backing off the banknotes, long lines formed to exchange the banknotes for a meager supply of gold. When the gold ran out, the windows were closed and the homes, farms and businesses of the French people went to the usury bankers. The bankers now had a toehold in America!

England assisted the 13 colonies of America when they went to war with the French and Indians. ENGLAND LENT THE COLONIES MONEY AT INTEREST TO FIGHT THIS WAR. In 1764 the Stamp Act was passed on the colonies to recoup some of this usury-loaned money. The colonies revolted, they had no money to make repayment. In 1770 Virginia passed anti-slavery laws. The King of England gave instructions to His governor in Virginia that no such laws would be allowed. The King desperately needed his share of the slave trade profits to pay his own usury debts.

By 1775, the balance of trade between the colonies of America and England was dramatic. The colonies owed English merchants 4,800,000 pounds. The imposition of usury into this trade imbalance, made war with England inevitable. Unpayable debt was the cause. The colonies were enslaved. Virginia was in poverty. Why? "The borrower is slave to the lender."

     The colonies were in a self-inflicted and long-planned bankers' trap. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written to seek independence from England. The colonies were heavily in debt and did not have the means to fight a war. What did they do? They borrowed money of course! From bankrupt France.

The resulting "war" with England was "won" by the colonies, but while they won the war, the battle was lost, because "the borrower is slave to the lender."

Founding Fathers
Who were the men who led in this "victory" over England and forged a new nation by writing the Constitution of the United States? A majority of them were ugh . . . lawyers. Forty of them held government bonds. Fourteen were land speculators. Twenty-four of them made their living lending money at interest. Eleven were involved in mercantile, manufacturing or shipping. Fifteen owned slaves.

Several of the founding fathers were in the back pocket of the usury bankers. In 1781, the private Bank of Pennsylvania was formed. It later became the Bank of North America. Among those who were able to get in on the original subscription of this bank were 1) Benjamin Franklin, 2) Thomas Jefferson, 3) Alexander Hamilton, 4) James Monroe, 5) John Jay, 6) John Paul Jones; and 7) Commodore John Barry. In 1784, the Bank of New York was founded. This bank was a creation of Alexander Hamilton of New York whose backers were reputed to be the Rothchilds and the Bank of England.

In 1787, the Constitution was fittingly put together in Philadelphia, the home of the Bank of North America. Hamilton and his backers wrote the original document for the Constitution, to the dismay of most of the attendees of the meeting. Many were horrified that an entirely new kind of government was being formulated, when in fact they had been sent only to revise the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry, himself a lawyer, went home to fight against the Constitution.

Like so many of the present day pieces of legislation, out of 62 delegates, only 39 signed the final document. Through the efforts of Hamilton, who wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, the people were finally convinced that the Constitution would, if the people were "vigilant," safeguard their liberties. It was a great con job foisted upon a nation of people. The banks were in, the people and their properties were out!

In 1789, Washington was elected President. He gave Hamilton the appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. The fox was now guarding the hen house. Two years later, Hamilton created the First Bank of the United States. It was a private bank to which all of the new government's money was entrusted. The successor to this bank was the Second Bank of the United States. When it went bankrupt 50 years later, it was found that 64 percent of the bank's 25,000 shares were owned by foreigners. Many were British.

In 1794, taxes forced Pennsylvania farmers to revolt. Washington did what all rulers do when a country is in debt to the bankers. He sent thousands of Federal troops to crush the rebellion. He did to his own people what he had led his people to revolt against in the war with England. But then the bankers must be paid.

What does the Constitution Really Say?
I remember watching a "MASH" television show years ago. An injured soldier was desperate to talk to someone about not being sent back into the war. One of the doctors said, "Would you like to speak to our priest?" The soldier replied, "No, I'm an atheist." The doctor responded, "I don't believe that." "It's true," said the soldier, "I swear to God!" One of the soldier's statements was not true and what we have been taught about the Constitution folks, is not true.

Many people still harp that the Constitution is a God-inspired document. Yet GOD IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. The people were so fearful of it that the 10 Amendments became mandatory, before their fears were quelled. But the die had already been cast. The flexible, easily changed Constitution was in place.

Few people ever examine words for what they actually say. Most prefer to take the word of those they trust, rather than look for themselves. It is a fatal mistake. The godless Constitution has become a fearful taskmaster, as Washington once described government.

Have you ever wondered why the ability to alter the Constitution was so important? Article V allows both the Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses deem it necessary, or, on the Application of two-thirds of the several states, to propose Amendments to the Constitution. The legal "experts" tell us it is important, because of social and economic changes that might take place. We can certainly understand how this may benefit power brokers, but how could it possibly benefit the people of this nation? It doesn't!

The bankers were well taken care of with the Constitution. Article VI makes all previous debts as valid under the Constitution, as under the Confederation. This was for the bankers, not us. They even had a special International Debt Jurisdiction put into the original Constitution. It is found in Article III, Section 2 and is called admiralty and maritime. This special international legal jurisdiction was for the bankers, not us. The bankers, mostly anti-Christ, in Article VI, also made sure that none of their boys and girls in either house could be given any kind of religious test that might keep them out of office. Article I, Section 10, takes away the states' ability to argue with the bankers and their contracts. This clause guaranteeing the obligation of Contracts was not put there for us, it was placed there for the bankers. There is a false notion being taught today that the Constitution of the United States has been suspended. Consider this: The Constitution was put into place for international bankers. It allows the President, when two-thirds of the Senate concurs, to make international treaties. The Senators were originally chosen by the individual state legislators and sent to Washington, D.C. to represent states' rights [Article I, Section 3]. International treaties affect states' rights and the people who live there. NAFTA IS A GOOD EXAMPLE! But in 1913, the Constitution was amended to allow "WE THE PEOPLE" to elect the Senators! The 17th Amendment cleared the way for the removal of states' rights and removed the only obstacle to easy ratification of treaties.

Since treaties become part of the Constitution and the law of the land, do you think the enemies of freedom may have used this UNLIMITED AMENDMENT PROCESS to alter the course of the nation? Of course they did! Have you ever read the hundreds of treaties the Presidents and Senate have made with other nations?

Did you know that the United Nations is a Treaty Agreement and as a signatory nation, the United States is bound by its dictates and that it is part of the Constitution? Yes, when any elected official takes his/her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, that oath includes treaties! Let me quote ARTICLE VI, paragraph 2:

THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.

There you are folks, TREATIES ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND AND EVERY JUDGE IS BOUND BY THEM! Someone has said, "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is invalid." Treaties are not repugnant to the Constitution. They may be repugnant to individual rights, but not the Constitution. Try going to their courts, and attempting to claim your rights in front of their judges! What a joke.

Are treaties under Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty and Maritime? You guessed right if you said Admiralty and Maritime. It is the same legal jurisdiction that the founding fathers discovered in their day. Remember the Declaration of Independence? "He [the King] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." Then the founding fathers placed this same foreign jurisdiction into the Constitution. Who for? The bankers.

Constitution has not been Suspended
It is almost fruitless to discuss how the Constitution itself is the very source of tyranny that has beset the nation. It is an "any god" document and has been used by every religion in this nation and been successful. The Constitution is like water poured into a cavern. It levels itself with current religious thought, including atheism, homosexuality and the murder of the unborn.

The final authority in this document is "WE THE PEOPLE" and they worship every god under the sun of our Creator. This is SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] for "WE THE PEOPLE." When we "walk after our own thoughts," (Isaiah 65:2) God brings His wrath against us.

We truly deserve what God has brought against us for our sin against Him. The "law of the land" eliminated God and His laws, statutes and judgments from the original colonies. Yes, the laws of the thirteen colonies came straight out of the Word of God. Verses were quoted in their entirety as the laws. It was obedience to these laws which brought about the great success of the colonies as a blessing from God. Patrick Henry was right, "What was the emergency that required such a radical change?" The colonies had just defeated the mightiest arm on the face of the earth! Why did they need to change their laws?

Some 80 years later, under the Constitution and as a curse from God, the grandchildren of the founding fathers killed each other by the hundreds of thousands in the ungodly Civil War. Many Americans still brag about World War I, II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War, never knowing that had the founding fathers retained the law of God as "the law of the land," most, if not all of these wars, would not have occurred.

We now live in a nation that has more murders, rapes, etc., than any nation on earth. What kind of prosperity would prevail in the nation today if God's law had been honored and obeyed for the last 200 years?

[lord edward coke]

       

Hehehehehehe!

You buy,what Iam selling.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/index.html

George Washington and his colonial troops were weary of the war when word came from certain European bankers through there agent, Alexander,the Traitor ,Hamilton, ( see- http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=48625.0  ) that a peace could be negotiated provided a central bank would be established allowing the European bankers,primarily the Bank of England, to control
the currency.A private agreement was made,thus concluding the war.
  
     When Thomas Jefferson heard about the negotiations, he was furious.He said that to allow the European Bankers to establish a central bank ,thus controlling our currency,was worse than putting a British soldier in every home.

      Cornwallis was now allowed to leave to leave the shores of the United States with his 8,000 troops
and their armaments,artillery,and ammunition. We took no spoils of war.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/index.html

       Where did the silver (money) come from with which to redeem those continentals? That money had been used for papering walls. Several politicians ,including Alexander,the Traitor, Hamilton, became very wealthy men.

       At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Alexander,the Traitor ,Hamilton established his first central bank in new york city. Thomas Jefferson was so furious he resigned Washingtons cabinet.Jefferson opposed
Hamilton (tT) in the establishment of the bank for the obvious reason that it was unconstitutional.

       Alexander (tT) Hamilton's national bank handled the payments of the public debt for the Treasury,
received subscriptions for the new issues of government securities,and even paid the salaries of public
officials.

       Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801 and served until 1809. During those years he continued to oppose the illegal central bank and evidently persuaded several congressmen to agree with him.When the 20year charter came up for renewal in 1811 it was denied.

      Guess what happened in 1812 !?   ANOTHER WAR!!! The British navy began to commandeer our ships and press U.S. citizens into the British military.England was sending us a message, the United States was not a ''sovereign nation'' after all--- we were still a vassal state! The conflict was called the ''War of
1812,'' and again the British were defeated.........or were they?  It was another negotiated peace,for in
 1816,a new 20 year charter was issued to the central bank.

      One of the heroes of the War of 1812 was Andrew ,the Bankiller, Jackson.He became president in 1829,voicing his opposition to the illegal central bank.He called them  ''a bunch of snakes.'' In 1833 Jackson ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to remove government deposits from the bank of the
United States and place them in state banks.He paid off the national debt,thus making the United
States free from the control of the international banksters.Congress than refused to renew the charter for
the national bank,driving it into bankruptcy.

      In 1836, when the charter of the bank came up for renewal,Jackson managed to get it defeated.
On January 8 1835,Andrew Jackson paid off the final installment of the national debt.HE WAS THE ONLY
PRESIDENT IN HISTORY EVER TO DO SO.The United States was at last out from under the control of the international banksters.

      What happened next? MEXICO INVADED TEXAS!
      On March 5, 1836 Mexican troops ,led by Santa Anna, engineered the fall of the Alamo.Santa Anna's
plan was to push northward to the Mason-Dixion line and eastward to the Atlantic coast.Thus the south
would be ruled by Mexico.Other troops were stationed in Canada during those days in an effort to invade
all the territory north of the Mason-Dixon Line.When those two attempted invasions failed certain poli-
ticians began to stir up strife between the North and the South.

      The stated issue of the dissension was slavery,but was it the cause of the war? The uninformed
generally accepted reason for the war was slavery. The real cause cause lay in the control of America's
economy. The Civil War was another ''money war.'' Who backed the Confederate money used to fight
the war? The answer: Europe's banking houses.

     Now the details: In 1849,when gold was discovered in San Fransisco,California, and in 1859, the
Comstock Lode was discovered in Colorado.Suddenly the European banking houses were left out in the
cold.Real Money- Gold and Silver-provided prosperity for the United States.This would keep the United
States out of the control of the international bankers.

    Two years later ,in 1861,The Civil War began. Abraham Lincoln refused to borrow money from the
European bankers with which to fight the war.Instead he printed the first United States note-The
Greenback. The infamous ''two-dollar bill''  was used to finance the war.

   In the years that followed there was a continual struggle in Americas economy.The economy sagged in
1870's ,the was the depression of 1884 and the panic of 1893 and another panic in 1907. Each was an
effort of the international bankers to cripple our economy in hopes of convincing Congress of allowing
a central bank.
      

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4020719354420953428&ei=oc18Sf-RHp64qAP-3pmzBA&q=The+Gig+Is+Up%3A+Money%2C+the+Federal+Reserve+and+You#docid=-6069580813076072381

 During those years,however,congress refused,and though we suffered the brunt of the bankers
economic recession,amazingly that period witnessed America's greatest financial growth.
     The industrial age flourished.Free enterprise had it's heyday.In 1876 the telephone was invented and from it came our modern means of communication.From those days came the automobile and the airplane.
   
     On march 4,1912, Woodrow ,the dupe, Wilson was inaugurated as the 28th president of the United
States.Immediately,he about to establish a central bank.He said he would lead the fight against those
''wolves of wall street.'' But as is often the case he turned out to be one of those wolves in sheep's
clothing.

      The bill was introduced on June 23rd of that year.It was hotly debated for months,but finally was passed in December of 1913 (while most all the senators and representatives were out for Christmas
holidays),thus establishing the Federal Reserve SCHEME.  http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=18269&cat=532&page=1

      Guess what happened next year! world war I ----- another ''money war.''

      Shortly before noon on June 28, 1914,crowds gathered in the capital of the Austrian province of Bosnia.They came to see the Archduke,Francis Ferdinand,of the House of Hapsburg, and his wife Sophie.
Suddenly,a man jumped on the running board of the royal touring car and fired a pistol. Two shots struck
Ferdinand and one hit Sophie,who was trying to shield him. They both died.

       As a result,war was declared on July28.On July 30th,Russia ordered general mobilization.On August
1st,Germany declared war on Russia.On August 3rd Germany declared war on France.On August 4th,
Germany invaded Belgium,and on the 'story' goes.It was another  'money war.'

        Than came 1929 and the depression that rocked America.Our economy was devastated.Millionaires
became paupers.Millions of others lost their life savings.Many committed suicide because they just couldn't take sudden poverty.The fatefull day came on October 18th,1929.President Hoover ,the scape,was blamed
for the depression and as a result,lost the election in 1932.But who and what was really responsible?

       A new president came to power at that time-----Franklin D. Roosevelt,enslaver of men.On march 6
1933,following his inauguration,Roosevelt called for a bank holiday.Americans were told that all the banks were closed in an effort to help stop the money panic that was spreading in the nation.Depositors had been withdrawing their funds at such speed that many banks ran out of money to pay over the counter.
But is this the whole truth?

      In the early 1930's,America did not lack industrial capacity,fertile farmland,skilled and willing workers,or industrious farmfamilies.Communications between regions and localities were the best in the world,utilizing telephone,teletype,radio,and well operated government mail system.No war had ravaged the cities or the countryside;no pestilence weakend the population;nor had famine stalked the land.The United States of America lacked only one thing:An adequate supply of money to carry on trade and commerce.

      The banking community,the only source of new money and credit, deliberately refused loans to indus
tries,stores,and farms.Payments on existing loans were required,however,and money rapidly disappeared from circulation.Goods were available to be purchased,jobs waited to be done,but the lack of money
brought the nation to a standstill.By this simple ploy America was thrust into a ''depression'' and greedy
bankers took possession of hundreds of thousands of farms,homes,and business properties.The people
were told ''times are hard,'' and  ''money is short.''  Not understanding the system,theywere cruelly robbed of their earnings,their savings, and their property.

      In 1934,Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act.The government stopped minting gold coins,and persons could no longer hold gold money.President Roosevelt called in all the gold held by citizens
throughout the United States,redeeming it for $20.67 an once.Immediately after the gold was,shall we
say,confiscated,the value was set at $35 an ounce. Obviously someone profited overnight.

     Guess what happened next! World War II----another 'money war.'

      On september 1,1939,Germany attacked Poland,launching the most devastating war in the history of
mankind.Casualties are estimated upwards of 50 million people. World War II cost more money,damaged
more property,affected more people and  caused more far reaching changes than any other war in
history.

      But the war ended the 'depression.' The same banking communities which in the '30's had no loans
for peacetime houses,food and clothing,suddenly had unlimited billions to lend for Army barracks,K-rations
and uniforms! A nation in 1934,couldn't produce food for sale ,suddenly could produce bombs to send to
Germany and later Japan.With the sudden increase in money,people were hired,farms sold their produce,
factories added two shifts,and ''The Great Depression'' was over. The truth is,the lack of money (caused
by the international banking Community) brought on the depression,and an adequate money supply ended
it.
Interesting how a similar program is in action today=people losing homes and farms,unemployment,
mortgage crisis,dollar losing value, Commercial real estate crisis looming,Banks not loaning bailout funds
WWIII on the horizon.Plenty for the rich......

[lord edward coke]

That's a great little short on the legal fiction/strawman angle.

How, though, after presenting this type of info, do you respond to people's innevitable response of: "So what, we still need taxes to fund the cops and roads and if people's cars aren't registered, there'd be total chaos."?

If the above is true, then it means that the whole system is a fraud from the ground up -- and that's tough to sell, as we know all too well.

Yes! The whole BEAST SYSTEM is a fraud. Explore from any angle and it comes up slavery.
The Tax system!!! Is the chains. The monetary system is the lock. What is the definition of TAX?

   Tax is a burden, a load, meant to hold down the people. And keep them expending massive amounts of energy under the burden.
 
   The monetary system is the Government self granted monopoly to counterfit, ALL DONE ACCORDING TO LAW whereby Stealing productive human energy by inflation, interest, or dilution.( debasement)


 It's long past time we explore the meaning of the word "law."

I can't say I know how this knowledge will effect your day-to-day life. I know it has effected mine, but listing the ways would be tough. I only know it's important to me. I hope it is also interesting to you.

I've always been a rebellious sort. It used to get me into trouble a lot. Still does sometimes, though not as often now that I've gotten a little smarter. Wisdom comes with age, or it's supposed to. By the time we know enough to be useful, we're ready to turn in our spurs.

I was born in the sixties, and lived my teenage years through the seventies. It was a time of rebellion. Of resistance to authority. I wasn't the only one. Everybody I knew was that way. We didn't have a particular target in mind; we rebelled against everything.

Most of the children of the seventies eventually grew up. They got "real" jobs, and real families, and surrendered to the establishment. Whether they made money or went broke; raised their children themselves or paid to support their broken homes, they gave up their crazy rebellion.

Not me. I held on so long, I actually figured out the source of my craziness. I didn't have a problem with legitimate authority, only illegitimate authority. I'm not opposed to law. I'm opposed to illegal acts done in the name of the law.

Until a few years ago, I used to speak every month to a group of a hundred or so people. All these people were interested in law reform. There were a handful of us who would pick a topic and study it. Then we'd talk about what we'd learned.

One day while I was preparing a presentation, I looked up the word "law" in Black's Law Dictionary. The definition takes up a little more than one full page. But there was one paragraph which stood out for me:

"Law. [... 6th Edition, 4th paragraph:] In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose one's law."
It took awhile to sink in, but this definition caused an epiphany in me. I've never looked at the law, government, or the legal system in the same way. And it brings me to the main point of today's lesson, which is this:

All law is voluntary, and most laws don't apply to most people.
I know, that sounds stupid. Doesn't it? After all, we live in the United States of America, and this country has a long history of laws going back for more than two centuries. Not to mention that those laws are mostly based on English jurisprudence, going back much further.

This is just a bunch of that "Patriot crap," isn't it? Maybe. But I don't think so.

Does that mean we can just go around, willy nilly, ignoring every law on the books? Of course not. We wouldn't even want to. Society has developed a lot of those laws for our mutual protection. Some of them are important. So how do we know which ones to follow, and which to ignore?

What Law is Not
Before we explore further into what law is, let's clear up what it is not. There are lots of definitions, and we need to be speaking the same language. Blackstone's Commentaries has this to say:

"Meaning of law.-- Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." (Jones' Blackstone, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1915)
Laws of nature have long been lumped in with laws of man, and termed collectively "The Law." I believe this is done to intentionally confuse the masses. A deep-seated subconscious belief is created in a man's mind, that the whole body of man's law is as unbending and absolute as the law of gravity. As surely as the sun rises and sets every day, all of a king's subjects must follow the king's laws.

Violating one of the king's laws is therefore subconsciously compared with the planets suddenly spinning out of alignment. The universe must be put back into balance!

It is this confusion we must erase, before we can understand the nature of law. We must separate in our minds the "facts" of nature, which are absolute, from laws made by man. Otherwise we'll never understand the truth about law.

Look at the second part of Blackstone's definition. It presupposes the existence of a "superior" who has the authority to tell people what to do, and what not to do. Where did such a superior get his authority?

Sir William Blackstone was a British subject, so he recognized the British Crown as his superior. What about Americans? Who are our superiors?

The American Declaration of Independence declares:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . ."
I didn't see any part in there about an earthly superior.

The Origin of Law
Who made the first law, and why?

No one can say for sure. The Bible says the first laws were established between God and Adam. That may be true, or not. I wasn't there, so I can't say. I have my beliefs, and you have yours. If earlier laws were made, it must have been done long before Man developed a written language. In which case the event is lost beyond memory.

So let's examine God and Adam for a moment. The earliest law we know of was when God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Most people think this was a command that God laid down. They assume a sovereign authority of God over his creation.

I see this as a reasonable assumption. The creator has authority over the creation, as the owner has control over his property. But if you leave off here, I believe you'll miss the point of Man's covenants with God.

God seems to want us to understand the proper order of things. So, if you examine the Scriptures with this idea in mind, you'll discover that God treats us pretty much as equals. He acknowledges our sovereignty. He does this by granting us free agency.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
The verse says "God Commanded," but really He made a deal with Adam. He had created Adam, and given him eternal life. Then He told Adam, you may keep your eternal life, so long as you never eat from the forbidden tree. Adam agreed. This is the essence of a contract. When Adam breached the contract, God was generous. He could have killed Adam right way, but He didn't. Instead, He again acknowledged Man's free agency:
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)
He decided to make Adam a different deal. Instead of killing Adam immediately He basically said, "I will spare your life, for a time, if you will go forth and multiply."

Again, a contract. In every instance throughout the Scriptures, you will see the same pattern. God never dictates commands. Instead He says, "If you will obey My Laws, you will have My blessings." That's why it's called a covenant. Covenants are contracts.

Maybe you reject the Biblical version. For the sake of argument, let's look at the "desert island" analogy.

If one man is alone on a desert island, he has no use for any law. He can do as he pleases, without complaint from any soul. He is subject only to the "facts" of nature. If he doesn't eat, drink, sleep, and have sufficient shelter from the elements, he will die prematurely. This goes to the "facts" of nature already discussed. Everything else is entirely up to him.

He can live his entire life without law, and without problems. But as soon as a second man appears on the island, they've both got problems. They will inevitably have arguments. One may be dominant; another submissive. Or they may get along wonderfully, as equals (yeah, right). But if they do, it will be because of mutual agreements.

Whatever the case, in the end they will either agree on rules of behavior, or else one will kill or dominate the other. That is the fundamental truth of Mans' existence. There are only two ways for men to avoid and/or settle disputes: violence, and contract.

So, the two men agree to rules of behavior. This works out fine, as long as both men follow the rules, and as long as no one else arrives on the island.

Sooner or later, one of the men violates his agreement. When this happens, the violator can voluntarily make restitution. Maybe even accept a punishment. Or the victim can voluntarily look the other way. Either of these is an example of contract. The only other alternative is war.

The situation is further complicated when other people start arriving on the island. Women show up too. That means children on the island, who grow up into adults. Since each new adult has his own free agency, he/she can contract, or not contract.

Some may agree to follow the same rules agreed to by the first two men. Some will make their own alliances, and their own contracts. Others may refuse to agree with anyone.

After awhile a few of the stronger men decide it's easier to steal than work. Weaker men with something to lose band together for strength. More contracts.

Some of the more industrious build a common wall around their homes and call it a city. The decide that all denizens of the city (citizens) have to agree to certain rules if they want the protection of the wall. Those who refuse either leave, or are killed. Those who stay, agree to the contract.

Cities promise other cities they will send men to aid in time of attack. Men who promised to fight to defend their own city are now compelled to defend other cities, and people they don't even know. Compelled by what? Contract.

Alliances form and dissolve. Countries are born. "Born," as though they are living creatures. We always say, "France did this," or "England did that." But countries are not living beings. They are groups of people who share many common contracts.

The United States of America has a Constitution which few of its own people who are alive today have ever read. Even the members of its Congress, who we can presume have read the Constitution, don't follow it. Each time they vote to pass a "law," it is supposedly done with the authority of the Constitution. But no matter how carefully one might read the Constitution, they won't find any section empowering Congress to pass those so-called laws.

I have searched the Constitution, and I can't find a single line in the whole document that tells the people living in America what they can or cannot do. The document is nothing more, or less, than an instruction manual for government. It presumes to grant certain powers to the people who work in government capacities. Mostly it limits what they can do, and what they can't. But it doesn't say a thing about you, or me, or anyone else living in the country.

I have asked literally thousands of people this question: "Did you, or anyone you know, actually sign the Constitution? How about the Federal Statutes? State Statutes?" Without exception, everyone answers "No."

"Did your parents, or event their grandparents sign any of those things?" Again, "No."

And here's the kicker: Even if your parents had signed a contract, agreeing to all the "laws," would they have had the authority to obligate you, once you became an adult? The answer is "No, not if each adult has free agency."

"Well then," you ask, "how can any laws apply to me?" And the answer is, "They don't, unless you agree to them." It's all voluntary, right up to the point where you enter into some kind of contract.

The contract can be written, such as an application for driver's license. Or it can be as easy as accepting a "free" handout. Nothing in this world is free. Any time a benefit is given, you can be sure there is an obligation attached somehow.

Many of the things people do, day in and day out, obligate them to contracts without them realizing it.

For example, people register a birth-certificate for their children; get them a Social Security Number, and send them off to "free" government schools. Then they cry out in anguish if the government takes their children away for the slightest infraction. They cry, "These are my children; they're not property of the State!" But they are wrong. Their children became property of the State when the parents put them in the State's care.

Governments resort to this kind of trickery out of necessity. Remember, laws are voluntary. Without law, the only means of compulsion is violence. Governments are good at violence, by their very nature. But government agents are always outnumbered. So they bluff.

They tell us we are subject to laws, and we believe them. They lay benefits at our feet, and the moment we pick them up, we become subject to their quasi-contracts. They tell us we must apply for a license to do something we have the right to do without the license. But once we obtain the license, we are obligated to the rules of the contract. Here's a real-life example:

My father was a land developer most of his life. He started a large development in Michigan, in the 1970s. He didn't have much cash, and he was using all the leverage he could. At the time, even by commonly accepted "laws," he wasn't required to have a real estate broker's license, because his company owned the land.
It was about this time that Michigan started passing all kinds of anti-development laws. The idea (though few knew it then) was to put all developers out of business. He was already half-way into building roads and surveying, when some of these very restrictive laws were passed.

It would have been impossible for Dad to comply. So he had only two choices: non-compliance, or bankruptcy. When Frank Kelly, the Michigan Attorney General tried to prosecute, Dad argued that all those regulations with which he was in non-compliance were tied to the Real Estate section of the Occupational Code. Since Dad wasn't licensed, the regulations didn't apply to him. The AG's response?

Real Estate Broker's licenses have always been very hard to get. You have to show that you've already been licensed, and actively working as a Salesman for at least three years. Then you have to pay a fee, and take a very difficult test. Many people who have been working in Real Estate for twenty years, can't pass this test.

In about 1978, Dad sat in a private meeting with the AG, in the AG's office. Kelly offered to grant Dad a Broker's license, on the spot. No fee, no test. Waive the Salesman's requirement. Dad told me later that he almost jumped at it. But then he realized that Kelly only wanted him to have a license to get a handle on him. If he'd have agreed to accept the license, Kelly would have shut down his development the same day.

There are many of us today who are being bled dry by unjust "laws." Does anything I've said here help bring some relief? You be the judge.

I don't think, at least at this time, we can escape the law buzzards completely. But we should be conscious of what contracts we enter into. Try to limit their number and scope, as much as possible. Realize that the biggest impediment to our success and freedom in this world, is the wall we build around our own minds.
HOW ABOUT WE SAY NO!!!      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08

[lord edward coke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k&feature=PlayList&p=1D4EF8D2C5860622&index=0
                        THIS video is EXTREMELY important.         128,562V

One of the most troubling contentions in modern America is that people have a "right" to jobs, housing, medical care, even food, and cash welfare. I know those claims aren't right, and yet, until now, I wasn't able to articulate why they were wrong.

Likewise, though I am not a Biblical scholar, I have neither seen nor heard of Biblical passages which grant or describe our "God-given rights." The apparent absence of Biblical "rights" raises serious doubts concerning every patriot's claim of "inalienable, God-given rights." After all, if God gave us some "rights," where is that grant expressed in the Bible?

This next article illuminates the difference betwen our real, "negative" rights (derived from God and protected by the Constitution), and our "positive" rights (like welfare) offered by corporate government. Examined closely, the "positive" rights created by government aren't necessarily the innocent "benefits" we are led to believe -- they are often invitations to slavery and another example of government deceit.

However, and even deeper examination of this article suggests that our "negative" rights are derived from our Biblical duties and thus exposes the source of our "inalienable, God-given rights." For example, the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" creates the corollary "negative" right not to be killed; i.e., the "right to life." "Thou shalt not steal" creates the corollary "negative" right not to be robbed; i.e., the "right to own property." Additional Biblical duties to God and our fellow man will likewise create additional "rights." If this notion is correct, then all of our inalienable "rights" are in fact based on our primary duties to God. The idea that rights are based on duties implies that a person or a nation must first learn and fulfill their Biblical obligations before they can claim, or even hope for, any "rights." If so, then rights do not exist in and of themselves, but are eterally wedded to, and dependent upon, our duties. Divorce your Biblical duties, and kiss your "God-given, inalienable rights" goodbye.

It's interesting that government is forever tempting us to be irresponsible. That is, leave everything to "Big Brother" and he will take care of you. Maybe so. But to the extent you abandon your Biblical duties to support yourself and your family to accept unearned government benefits, you must also surrender your claim to "God-given, inalienable rights."

Further, God's law seems to impose a cause-and-effect order: performance of duties (#1) earns the reward of rights (#2). But government inverts that order by first granting seductively attractive "rights" -- but not bothering to mention the implicit consequence of also assuming unpleasant, government-imposed duties. For example, by government-granted "right" to welfare creates your government-imposed duty to pay taxes.

Under God, duties create rights, but under government, rights create duties. Again, the essence of earthly government seems contrary to the essence of God's will.

If my suspicions seem confusing, they are largely derived from this next article. Consider, and see if you find similar implications.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rights versus "Rights"
For the past 200 years or so, a debate has flourished in political philosophy on the issue of what kinds of rights human beings possess. This is not the debate about whether we have any rights at all (some hold that rights were identified by John Locke and others not because these rights actually exist, but to bolster certain hidden goals). Instead, the rights versus "rights" debate is about whether human beings have rights other than "negative" rights not to be killed, assaulted, robbed or silenced. Locke, the major seventeenth-century individual-rights theorist, argued we all possess the "natural" negative rights not to be intruded upon. That is, because of the kind of being we are, we require certain social conditions (including respect for our negative rights) when we form communities.

Locke's critics argued that the negative rights he identified are only some of those we possess. These critics maintain that we also have "positive" rights whereby others must not only refrain from doing us harm, but owe us positive services such as welfare, health care, and education. Positive-rights theorists don't argue it is merely decent and morally proper for others to voluntarily help us when we are in need. Instead, they argue that -- just as others may be forced to desist from murdering or assaulting us -- they can also be forced to give us whatever they can to help -- including their work, their earnings, and the fruits of their talents.

The recent debate in the United States about government-supplied health care illustrates the conflict between these two views of rights. Negative-rights theorists argue that individuals ought to strive to live independently and flourish in voluntary association with each other. Positive rights theorists argue that individuals naturally belong to each other, as parts of an organic body. Locke put the theory of negative rights on record, but Karl Marx thought little of negative rights and spawned an alternative view of "positive" rights in social relations. Marx declared that, "The human essence is the true collectivity of man," meaning we are essentially "species beings," parts of the larger organic body of humanity.

Since Marx, others have softened his hard-line collectivist position into a "kindler, gentler" theory of positive rights. As a result, some misunderstand the nature of positive rights, thinking that they simply arise from an elaboration of negative rights. When columnist George Will noted that one government official leaned toward authoritarianism by inventing positive rights not listed in the Constitution, someone criticized Mr. Will along these lines: "[T]he Constitution has been amended in the past to include the 'right' to vote for African-Americans, women and 18-year-olds, as well as the right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude." In other words, these "positive" rights have been added to the Constitution, so why not add others?

However, these amendments are drastically different from those advocated by many big-government theorists. Many of the amendments are simple elaborations for more specialized cases of the basic negative rights everyone possesses by nature. The "right to vote" is an application of the right to liberty in the arena of political action: government may not prevent any adult citizen from fully participating in the political system. The right to be free from slavery is a simple corollary of the negative right to liberty, as is the right to be free from involuntary servitude.

Just how different such amendments are from those proposed by advocates of positive rights can be appreciated when we consider that all positive rights imply involuntary servitude. If one is forced to make provisions for the health care, social security, or related needs of others, one is forced to serve them, plain and simple.

The negative-vs-positive rights debate is important and must be clearly understood. Basic negative rights must at times be spelled out in some detail, made applicable to new areas of human conduct and problem solving. For example, the right to freedom of speech -- which spells out the right to liberty for communication -- may need to be developed further in light of the growth of the electronic communications "superhighway." The right to own property had to be developed further to clarify ownership of portions of the electromagnetic (broadcast) spectrum. It can be shown, by careful logical reasoning, that these refinements follow from our basic negative rights.

Positive rights, however, violate our basic negative rights, place us in servitude to others and can be presented as derived from our natural rights only through fraud. We should be on guard when those who wish to solve social problems advocate unjustified power for the government by distorting the negative rights we all possess.

We have only those "negative" rights otherwise described as "God-given" and "inalienable." "Positive rights" are deceptive inventions that capitalize on the soundness of the theory of negative rights for dangerous purposes, leading ultimately to the subversion of the original concept of basic individual rights and freedom.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Machan is Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, Alabama. His latest book is Private Rights and Public Illusions, from Transaction Books. His article is reprinted with permission of The Freeman, the monthly publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y. 10533


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Speculation by Editor (Adask):
It's funny how one author's essay can sometimes unleash a waterfall of additional insights in a reader. Professor Machan's essay ("Rights v.s 'Rights'") had that effect on me. Although my newfound "insights" are not necessarily correct, they are at least intriguing. For example:

The Biblical relationship between duties (first/cause) and rights (second/effect) is inherent in the relationship between children (dependents) and parents (providers). "Honor they father and thy mother," Fifth Commandment, remember? So long as the child is dependent on the parent and unable to provide for himself, that child is without rights and duty-bound to obey his parents. When the child is emancipated and becomes liable to provide his own support, the child becomes an adult and for the first time begins to enjoy his claim to "rights."
Today, however, thanks to a new-and-improved United Nations and New World Order government, we are encouraged to endorse the "rights of the child." Sounds like a swell idea on the surface, but it seems contrary to God's notion about childhood duties without much rights. Further, if government rights create government-imposed duties, then the newly-created "rights of the child" also implies some newly-created corellative duties.

Hmmph. If the child gets new rights, who do you suppose will receive the new duties (taxes)? All of adult society? Maybe. But the child's new "positive" rights will also create new duties of performance (enforced by child welfare agencies) which will be primarily imposed on the children's parents. As a result, children will become increasingly unaffordable, less likely to be conceived, more likely to be aborted, less likely to be loved, and more likely to be abused. In short, the "rights of the child" may cause children to become a liability, parents to be regulated, and the Nation's population to shrink and grow relatively older without the presence of children or grandchildren laughing in the backyard.

If this speculation seems farfetched, look out in your backyard: how many kids do you see laughing, playing? Look at the abortion clinics to see how many "unaffordable" children (1.5 million) are murdered each year. Look at the welfare roles to see how many children (25%) are abandoned to poverty, illiteracy, drugs, promiscuity and violence. It may be only coincidence, but the rise in "children's rights" seems so closely associated with the demise of children that we can fairly wonder if these government-granted "rights" haven't caused that demise.

If there were a cause-and-effect relationship between government-granted rights and personal destruction, it might be based on a deeper reality that those who don't work, don't eat. That is, a man (or child) who has rights but no responsibilities is finally a dead-weight on society. Those of us who are compelled to share the fruits of our labor with those who ("by right") don't work, will come to despise the irresponsible and perhaps instinctively seek to destroy them.
It follows that having more rights than responsibilities may be hazardous to your health. Freedom isn't free, and neither are your rights. One way or another every right you claim must be paid for by someone. Therefore, rights without responsibilities means another person or class will be forced to provide your support. It is a virtual certainty that person or class will come to despise you, discriminate against you, and finally seek to destroy you as a social parasite feeding off the productive host. (Lawyers, who enjoy the "right to practice law," are good candidates for this scenario.)

On the other hand, if you accept responsibilites equal to your rights, you'll be at least tolerated and probably welcomed into society. And if you accept responsibilities far greater than your rights, you'll be revered.

If the theory applies to children, it should also apply to other social dependents like inner-city Afro-Americans living on welfare. When blacks received their government-granted "right" to welfare in the early 1960's, they kissed their claim to social respect goodbye. Worse, as persons whose rights exceeded their responsibilities (the essence of "affirmative action"), they laid the foundation for increased discrimination and anti-black violence by the same government that professed to serve them. Think you're entitled to a free lunch? Well, just remember that with every free lunch, you also get a free "entitlement" to a busted head (courtesy of the police) or a broken family (courtesy of the welfare department).

Another example: since the 1970's movement for an Equal Rights Amendment, women have benefitted from new government-granted rights without a correlative increase in their legal responsibilities. The government-granted "rights" to be included in job quotas, receive inordinate "benefits" in divorce courts, and scream "sexual harassment" without proof probably seem like laudable "entitlements" to the ladies of N.O.W.. But just as the rise in government-granted, "positive" rights corresponds with the destruction of blacks and children, so the rise in government-granted rights for women (without a proportional increase in women's legal duties) corresponds to the "feminization of poverty" and increasing levels of violence against women.

Faced with the "coincidental" correlations between government-granted rights and the destruction of government beneficiaries, it's tempting to infer that welfare of any sort is really a kind of bait to discover which of us are weak enough, lazy enough, irresponsible enough, to be seduced, caught, enslaved, and finally destroyed by the promise of a "free lunch." In fact, the government's theory that "positive" rights create duties is so contrary to the Biblical mandate (duties create rights) that big government and the welfare state might be fairly described as essentially diabolical.

To the extent we believe in a divine "judgement day," we must concede that the Christian faith is based on the principle of personal accountability: i.e., "Work first, rewards second." In other words, perform your duties now, and as a consequence of your efforts, you will later (perhaps not even until the next life) receive your reward or punishment. Although God gave us life, He seems to "credit" us with nothing. That is, God's plan is pretty much pay-as-you-go, cash-and-carry, earn-it-or-do-without. He doesn't generally offer a benefit now in return for a duty to be performed later.

Government, on the other hand, offers rewards first, and duties only later. That's credit. That's a debt-based political system. Government gives you a benefit now, you pay later. Typically, government offers the benefit (a "right" perhaps) as if it were an entity in itself, an object without consequence, without any hint that the benefit is a "consideration" on a contract which may obligate you to pay back the government to a degree hugely disproportionate to the original benefit.

Consider social security: Sign up, get a card, and government will provide for your old age. All you have to do is give government a small percentage of your lifetime earnings. However government doesn't tell you that if you put the same money into a savings account, you could retire as a modestly rich man. Instead, by giving the money to government, you will retire in poverty (assuming Social Security even exists when you retire).

: Who do you suppose got the benefit of the fortune you earned over your life and might've had at your retirement? Who enjoyed the difference betwen the wealth you earned and the few small checks you finally received?
: Government and government-preferred special interests.
When you signed up for Social Security, you sold your inheritance (the substantial amount of money you might have had for your retirement) for a bowl of pottage (the pittance you'll actually receive from government). And rightfully so. Rather than provide for yourself, you succumbed to the temptation of "free retirement" and "free medical care" and wound up being robbed. Y'know why? You can't con an honest man -- or an honest nation. If you, me, or America bites into the welfare state's apple, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves if we lose the Garden we've tended and otherwise earned.

If the only rights we can safely claim are those based on duties imposed by the Bible (or government's code of administrative procedure), then it follows that any claim of rights in court must be based either on our personal performance of God-given duties, or on the duties of our adversary, judge, or government (since their administrative and judicial duties create our rights).

I doubt that I can claim any inherent, personal rights unless I can show proof that I have earned them by fulfilling my obligations to God. Since we are all sinners who "fall short," I doubt that any of us can truly prove we've fulfilled our Biblical duties so completely that our claim of "God-given, inalienable rights" is not suspect. Because our claim to "God-given, inalienable rights" is tenuous, it should be morally difficult for a Christian to be a plaintiff (initiate a lawsuit) since the foundation of any lawsuit is a claim of rights.

Further, if all have sinned, how can we truly claim any "God-given, inalienable rights"? Since rights are conditional consequences (rewards) based on personal performance, it appears that (contrary to the Declaration of Independence) NO "Biblical rights" are both inherent and inalienable.

Therefore, as a Christian, it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to claim "my" rights as personal, primary and inherent. Worse, it may even be dangerous to assert my "rights" in a government that sees "rights" not as a reward or consequence, but as a cause for duties; i.e., by claiming any positive, government-granted rights, I admit being responsible to perform certain unspecified duties. If government sees or presumes evidence that I have claimed any positive rights/benefits, government can deny my claim of negative, God-given rights and impose government's previously unmentioned duties (like absolute obedience to summary court decisions).

However, if any claim to rights (the central issue in all litigation) is hard to prove, an assertion of duties is easily resolved. For example, my claim to a "right to travel" may be debatable, but there's no question whatever that the judge owes me the duty of providing a fair and impartial hearing. In fact, on reflection, it's clear that "rights" are always somewhat ambiguous and uncertain -- but duties are spelled out precisely in law and are virtually undeniable.

If rights are uncertain but duties are clear, perhaps the patriot community should change its courtroom strategy from an assertion of "my" rights to an assertion of "their" duties. Recognizing that rights flow from duties, perhaps we should begin to learn the correlation between particular rights and particular duties. Then, rather than asserting "my" rights, I should merely assert my opponent's (or the judge's) clearly-defined, correlative duties. For example, my right to a fair and impartial trial is based on the judge's Biblical duty to "not be a respector of persons"; my "right" to due process may be based on the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not steal" (the court can't take my property unjustly), etc., etc. While rights are questionable, duties have been comparatively clear since they were first burned into stone on Mt. Sinai.

Is there evidence that a legal strategy based on "their" duties rather than "our" rights, works? Surprisingly, yes. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of successful legal strategies we've seen in the last year have been based on challenges to government duties rather than assertions of personal rights. For example:

Eddie Kahn's (407-735-0271) IRS strategy has worked with apparent success for over a year. Rather than asserting your rights against the IRS, Mr. Kahn suggests you simply challenge the IRS' authority to collect the money; i.e., the IRS cannot legally enforce the collection statutes without appropriate "implementing regulations." Mr. Kahn suggests you ask the IRS to see the implementing regulations that allow them to enforce the collection statutes. So far, the IRS hasn't found those implementing regulations and therefore can't fulfill the legal duty necessary to collect the tax. Result: by demanding the IRS fulfill its duty to obey the total tax collection procedure, alleged tax payers have avoided paying taxes.
Another IRS strategy (see AntiShyster Vol. 5 No. 4) that seems to have worked well involves challenging IRS in bankruptcy court. Because the burden of proof is shifted from the alleged tax payer to the IRS in bankruptcy court, the IRS is obligated to prove it has satisfied its legal duty to file a lien on the tax payer that is both lawful and mathematically correct. Typically unable to fulfill its duty, the IRS is compelled to discontinue collection procedures against the alleged tax payer. Again, the assertion of duties seems more effective than the assertion of rights.
The "Common Law Abatement Strategy" (see this issue of AntiShyster) is used to defend against attacks by government agencies. The essence of this abatement strategy is not an assertion of personal rights but a simple demand that government fulfill its duty to obey administrative law. Because the government cannot fulfill its duty, the abatement effectively ends the prosecution. Again, the issue is not "my" rights, but "their" duties.
Even the Bible seems to agree. When challenged by Roman guards, the Christian's first words are "by what authority" do you charge me? In other words, the first order of business is not my rights, but the government agent's duties. Virtually every patriot in the USA is screaming about his "inalienable," "God-given," or "sovereign" rights. None of 'em, however, seem quite so vociferous when it comes to documenting the source of those alleged rights.
Maybe we are making a mistake. Maybe our understanding and reliance on "rights" is faulty. Maybe our focus on "rights" to the exclusion of all else is not only ignorant, but even counter-productive (since, under government, rights create duties). Maybe . . . just maybe . . . "real" rights (inherent and/or granted by God) don't "really" exist in and of themselves -- and even if they do, are too ambiguous, unclear, and uncertain to bet your life on. But duties absolutely exist, can be readily identified and proven in court, and therefore offer a solid foundation for both plaintiffs and defendants in court.

It's a question of emphasis. Whether duties create rights or rights create duties is important, but not the most pragmatic issue. In either case, the correlation between rights and duties is undeniable. Likewise, the legal effect of their duties and my rights is the same. However, while my rights are often vague, their duties are usually well-defined. Therefore, when we appear in court (which theoretically depends on precision, law, logic and evidence), is it more effective to assert my vague right or their precisely-defined duty? The answer's obvious. So which would you rather do? Assert your rights and probably lose, or assert their corresponding duties and probably win? Again, the answer's obvious.

Therefore, I suggest that readers begin to study rights as a secondary derivative of primary duties, identify the duties that create the rights you wish to enforce, and (if your research and this strategy seem solid) then argue their duties (not your rights) in court.

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HfIOYXAN7k&feature=related   13,092V

[nustada]

Simple, they control the coinage, minds and courts. So they can "afford" all the personal protection they want while buying out the world.

The first to resist tend to die. Most people don't want to die. That is why education is so important, it will take a critical mass of like minds to move to prosecute these villains in a rapid concert.

Plutonium in the ground generally doesn't explode, be the neutrons have a very high probability of missing the fissionable nucleus, because of the low density of fissionable material. However if, the ore is purified, and the fissionable nuclei are compressed and enough neutrons are emitted, a nuclear explosion occurs. What makes a neutron fissionable, is the amount of neutrons and protons in the nuclei.

Education, is like bring are minds closer together, and adding ideas (neutrons and protons) to our core, and pushing out the nonreactive idiots, that way the emission of ideas will cause a cascading exponential, and most importantly unstoppable explosion. The ultimate-info-bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TMU6HGGU0&feature=related

Moral of the story, don't waste your time on non-active people, and draw active people close to you. Encourage each one to do the same, its a MLM scheme with no economic limit.

[lord edward coke]

Who Authorizes the Authorities?
by Butler D. Shaffer (January 30, 2010)
I began my class one day with an apparently simple question: Does the U.S. Constitution have legitimacy? As a follow-up question, I asked: By what right does one group of men get together and impose upon others a particular system of government?

These questions, of course, do not apply only to the American political system, but can be asked, with equal force, of every government that has ever existed. By what right did the Bolsheviks, or the Catholic Church, or William the Conqueror, or Genghis Khan, or any other group or individual, assume the authority to make and enforce laws upon other men and women?

Having been educated in traditional schools, most of my students answered with the kind of conditioned responses that it has been the purpose of traditional education to provide: "We all got together and agreed to this form of government," they declared.

Even though the fallacy of such explanations of governmental origins were quickly dispelled by asking the students to tell me the place and date at which they attended this "meeting" with "everybody else" to establish a government, I have no doubt that all of them truly believed that the American government was formed out of the common consent of all Americans.

I forged ahead with my questions: "If we all have inalienable rights, how can some men vote to take away the rights of others?" "How does the fact that ten men may choose to join together for their common protection impose upon the eleventh man any obligation to go along with them?"

True to their public school upbringings, my students tried to take comfort in the process of voting: "If the majority are in favor of something, that makes it right," a number of them agreed.

"But what makes the will of the majority sacrosanct?" I asked.

I went on. "Suppose three muggers confront you on the street and say, 'We want your money. But don't worry -- we're going to let you vote on whether or not you should give it to us.' If this group votes three-to-one in favor of taking your money, does this legitimize its actions?"

A few of my students saw the obvious analogy to government, but for others the characterization of government as nothing more than sanctified theft and violence was too unsettling. One student tried to rehabilitate the democratic process with the weak plea that "It has to involve more than just a few people," while another felt obliged to defend democracy and voting at all costs, as something in the nature of an ultimate principle.

"Majority rule is just the way our government is set up," he argued, not seeing that he had succeeded in arguing himself into one big circle.

"But that's what I'm asking you to explain." I went on: "How does this -- or any other -- system of government acquire the legitimacy to impose such processes upon those who do not choose to be bound by it?"

The discussion ended with a number of my students resorting to the traditional method of all totalitarian systems and ideas: "If you don't like it, you should leave the country," they shouted.

When the discussion was over, one of my students stated that this had been a very "unsettling" and "uncomfortable" experience. "It was my purpose to make you uncomfortable," I replied, "for only in facing hard, uncomfortable questions will we be able to overcome the dependencies on authority that we have accepted for our lives."

I remarked upon how institutions not only cause most of the social conflict in the world today, but absolutely require conflict in order to maintain their power over our lives. Government, in particular, generates and manages conflict and, in the process, solidifies its base of power over us.

"But what is the answer to this?" a number of them asked. "What alternatives are there for us?" I told them that since the problem of government involves our self-induced dependencies on authority figures, for me to give you my answer is simply to substitute me as your new authority.

The social problems of our world are occasioned by our consciousness. They are the problem of how we think -- about ourselves, others, and our responsibilities for our own behavior and our own conclusions. "The answer," I concluded, "is that you must figure out your own answers."

That has always been the source of the human dilemma. Because we have come to enjoy the luxury of having other people make judgments and decisions for us, we are terribly uncomfortable when someone comes along and challenges our complacency.

We enjoy triviality -- a fact that has spawned mindless television programming, gossip magazines, and a general banality in what used to be the art of serious conversation -- and eschew fundamental inquires. But if life is to have any meaning, if we are ever to overcome the viciousness and vulgarity that are destroying the quality of human life, we must get ourselves in the habit of asking the sorts of questions we have been trained not to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdEUR-Xhob8

[jeremystalked1]

"But what is the answer to this?" a number of them asked. "What alternatives are there for us?" I told them that since the problem of government involves our self-induced dependencies on authority figures, for me to give you my answer is simply to substitute me as your new authority.

The social problems of our world are occasioned by our consciousness. They are the problem of how we think -- about ourselves, others, and our responsibilities for our own behavior and our own conclusions. "The answer," I concluded, "is that you must figure out your own answers."

Exactly.  And in those two paragraphs is encapsulated the best advice for how to wake people up - not by telling them what's happening, but by asking questions which they don't have ready-made answers for.

The obviously fake cover story about 9/11 created burning questions in thousands of minds that have since ignited millions more.  It's the questions that are bringing this system down, not the answers.

[phosphene]

Exactly.  And in those two paragraphs is encapsulated the best advice for how to wake people up - not by telling them what's happening, but by asking questions which they don't have ready-made answers for.

The obviously fake cover story about 9/11 created burning questions in thousands of minds that have since ignited millions more.  It's the questions that are bringing this system down, not the answers.

indeed. when you're "asking" you're "as king"

[Freeski]

lord edward coke

"But what is the answer to this?" a number of them asked. "What alternatives are there for us?" I told them that since the problem of government involves our self-induced dependencies on authority figures, for me to give you my answer is simply to substitute me as your new authority.

The social problems of our world are occasioned by our consciousness. They are the problem of how we think -- about ourselves, others, and our responsibilities for our own behavior and our own conclusions. "The answer," I concluded, "is that you must figure out your own answers."

Exactly.  And in those two paragraphs is encapsulated the best advice for how to wake people up - not by telling them what's happening, but by asking questions which they don't have ready-made answers for.

Very nice!

[lord edward coke]

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report 1984

I know you will appreciate this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ZxfwOzlUg-s&feature=related

ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST

by James Hazel

You will find the enclosed articles, published under the Masthead of THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST, to be factual and provocative. They raise disturbing questions concerning the basis of modern government. These questions MUST BE ANSWERED by individuals who are in search of personal Liberty. Failure to solve the riddles posed by a bewildering Constitution can result, at best, in wasted energy and spirit-crushing frustration. At worst, failure may result in individual tragedies and collective catastrophe.

But an individual cannot answer questions he does not know how to ask; or solve riddles of which he is unaware. That’s where you come in! It’s important that these questions, issues and "riddles" be brought to the attention of numerous Americans.

It is essential that a dialogue begin to take place concerning the intentions and covert motives behind the Constitution; and of that instrument’s real purposes, as well as its grave, deleterious effects throughout the history of America. Many of the issues raised in my enclosed articles, have NEVER BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE! These are indeed novel, CUTTING EDGE CONCEPTS. As you will soon realize -- they are well-documented; and you may wonder why no one, in over 200 years, has raised them before. You will find one answer to that question in 'THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY,' which is included herein.

For the benefit of your subscribers and readers, I urge you to reprint any or all of the enclosed ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST articles that you find of interest. I will appreciate your giving appropriate credit for the source.

I also publish some powerful, mind-boggling, and thoroughly- documented reviews and commentaries -- for details, contact: James Hazel, P.O. Box 863, Mount Angel, OR 97362.

I Thank you in advance for taking the time to examine and review the enclosures. But be forewarned: they may knock your socks off!

THAT CUNNING CONSTITUTION
On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine clever businessmen proposed a Constitution for the United States of America. Today, those 39 men are memorialized as the Founding Fathers. A more perfect title for the consortium would be the Fleecing Fathers!

With unparalleled conceit, they styled themselves: "We, the People of the United States." Never before in history had there been a legal body named "the People of the United States." In the Union of Independent States, under the Articles of Confederation, there were citizens of a State and residents or inhabitants of a State, but no collective status named People of a State or of States. The Fleecing Fathers coined the name for themselves. Their motives were as sinister as the Constitution they tagged after their new name; after: "We, the People of the United States, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union..."

The Charter they crafted was as hallucinatory [emphasis added] as a President’s State of the Union address; wordsmithed to appear innocuous, but in language calculated to slash, kill and indenture the innocents who are lulled to sleep by euphonic rhetoric.


Their proposed constitution was advertised as the blueprint for eternal bliss; for peace, safety and order for all free men then living, and for their generations ad infinitum.

BUT IN FACT, it provided for that constitution to be a commercial establishment; to be erected in an unapproachable place, above, around, but most particularly BETWEEN the wealthy States of the Union whose names it plagiarized. The face of the Preamble and the seven Articles of Incorporation literally reveal to whom the profits and benefits are assigned: to the Fleecing Fathers (We, the People) and their linear descendants.

Did you think the Constitution was a Warm, Fuzzy Sacred Puppy!?

LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
1. "We, the People of the United States" includes ONLY those 39 men who signed the Constitution on September 27, 1787.

2. The only Public Authority vested in the 39 Signers was to "propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation." In 1781, those Articles of Confederation had established a perpetual Union of States.

3. The Constitution established an entirely different Union, without abolishing the perpetual Union. Its authors did not propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They acted individually and collectively in their private capacity.

4. The Constitution is a private-law instrument which establishes a commercial monopoly. Its primary "place of business" or Seat of Government is between and above the States of the perpetual Union.

5. The Constitution does not act directly on citizens of the States in perpetual Union except on those citizens who voluntarily or tacitly consented to be subject to its terms.

6. The perpetual Union consisted of only those 13 sovereign States which joined under the Articles of Confederation. No other States have ever been added to that Union.

7. All 50 "states," which are members of the "United States" pursuant to the Constitution, are all "new States" or "statuses"; including the original 13 state-names; surreptitiously appropriated from the 13 States in perpetual Union.

8. Inhabitants, citizens or residents of the 37 district-states which have been admitted to the different, more perfect Union by the Congress, since the first 13 new States were admitted in 1789, have no standing to claim the rights which are reserved to citizens of the sovereign States in perpetual Union. They may claim their Natural Birthrights, with no organized government to support and adjudicate their claims. Or they may claim the puny, revocable privileges offered by the Constitution in exchange for their allegiance and servile servitude.

THE CONSTITUTION: BLUEPRINT FOR HUMAN BONDAGE
The 39 authors of the Constitution, resorted to virtually every editorial trick in the book to draft an instrument which would enable them, and their heirs, to enslave whoever would dare cross, or be born into, their private es-State.

The instrument is all about enslaving the mass of men under the euphemism of voluntary servitude. To interpret their motives and methods, we examine the Corporate Articles which concern human slavery: Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 4 and 5, and Article V (which refers to Article I, Section 9). The most pertinent Clause of Article I, provided as follows:

"The Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The 39 inventors of the Private Commercial Constitution were not concerned with eventually abolishing slavery of black men, but with extending coercive servitude to include ALL men other than themselves and their posterity, while collecting a tax on import and export of slaves, for the corporate coffer.

As provided by Article VII, the Constitution was erected as an Establishment (i.e., a place of business or commerce) on imaginary lines ABOVE and BETWEEN the States which would ratify or agree to it, and which would thereby collectively grant the 39 "We, the People" the private corporate charter they proposed and applied for. Having acquired absolute jurisdiction over the "places" drawn by imaginary lines; they thereafter had the right to charge tolls, fees, duties or taxes for any person or thing that may cross their private property.

Other provisions, including provision for establishing the corporate headquarters in a district (of Columbia), situated between states; and the promulgation of new Articles (known as the "13th and 14th amendments"), with their prolific byelaws, made completion of their scheme of mass enslavement, possible.

DECODING THE MOTHER OF ALL RIDDLES
When is this Union not the Union?

In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First impressions, however, are often wrong.

Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing? HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making legal instruments.

When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant!

The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution. In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic [emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution for over 200 years.

Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence, invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles.

They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article 2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect Union.

For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in 1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit. [emphasis added]

The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego" and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more unique.

Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union, nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the Authors and their Posterity.

As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order, after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped. "When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the original, lawful Union.

A MOUSE IN BEN’S POCKET
[from Joshua Mouse's Notes On the Constitutional Convention]

A cabal of businessmen, mostly Free Masons, met in secret sessions. They were charged, as their respective credentials stated, to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They soon adopted a different, more sinister agenda.

In their public capacity, authorized by the Legislatures of several independent States "to amend or revise the Articles of Confederation"; they were obligated to Convene in Public.

But Secret Societies, by definition and necessity, meet in secret. As for business or commercial negotiations, especially those which involve trade secrets: the historical Maxim is that it’s nobody else’s business. The fact that the Free Press and the general public were barred from the Convention, raised many hackles and suspicions. Patrick Henry, from his vantage point outside the bar, in Virginia, thought he smelt a rat.

The year was 1787. The place: Philadelphia’s State House. Security was tight. A pundit was heard to exclaim: "Nary a mouse could breech the guard." But one did. His name was Joshua. His notes read (in pertinent part) as follows:

JUNE 23, 1787, 2 O’clock P.M. -- The argument between Mason and Hamilton wearied the Master, who called a recess.

B. Franklin, G. Washington and A. Hamilton retired to the table near my post, discretely distant from the others. Grasping fast my notepad, I scurried into the generous pocket of Franklin’s coat to better hear, while taking repast of crumbs his careless valet had missed on last cleaning.

GW: To continue the conversation began over dinner last night: of this I am certain: to indenture the common herd to serve us like our black slaves, will require their tacit consent. We must therefore devise an instrument that they will unanimously misperceive to be in their best interests, over our own. It must appear to be not only for them, but more importantly, deriving from, of and by the common people, while the ultimate power is reserved to us.

AH: (Addressing Franklin): The proposition of our friend and lodge Brother, George, deserves our most profound scrutiny and assistance. If General Washington’s martial talents are excelled by others, it is his experience and expertise in Agriculture; and especially in the management, breeding, and domestication of black human animals.

BF: Gentlemen, we have long had before us a model of a contract such as George advocates. Back in ‘34, when I was a young printer, I published Anderson’s Constitutions; which established the formal, written government for the fraternity of Free Masons. Surely you have both studied it as you have progressed through the Degrees.

Recall its Article 10, which permits even probates of each Lodge to merge their opinions with the majority, to be addressed to their Master. Not, mind you, that the Master need act on the instructions of the lowly. And consider Article 39, which provides for secret election of the Grand Master and other officers; with its appearance that Power lies with the majority; but is silent about the provocateurs who mingle with it, fomenting the consensus of opinion.

In combination, the Articles of Anderson’s Constitutions establishes a government which superficially appears to be of, by and for the general Lodge membership, but which in their legal language make all meaningful power to reside in the hands of the Ruling Elite.

Anderson’s is an exemplary model for accomplishing what George proposes; that is: drawing the labor of all inhabitants, of every race -- with the exception of ourselves and our posterity-- into a condition of tacitly-consensual servitude; to be human resources for our eternal Agri-Business.

(Old Ben pushed a soiled handkerchief into my sanctuary. The discussion continued for several more minutes; but muffled to my ear).

I scampered from Franklin’s coat as the threesome arose, and resumed my post near the woodpile.

A. Hamilton received permission to address the Convention. "Gentlemen," he began, "I propose a new form of government; a proposal which will end our impasse and which, I predict, will garner the unanimous approval of the governed..."

THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA
Constitutionalists are Constitutionalists because they are confused. All it takes for one to become a fervent Anti-Constitutionalist is A BRIEF MOMENT OF CLARITY. This may be that moment!

The typical Constitutionalist adheres religiously to the false tenet that the Constitution provided for a continuing government for those thirteen sovereign States which comprised the Union under the Articles of Confederation. In other words, the Doctrine alleges that upon ratification of the Constitution, those 13 States came into the more perfect Union, lock, stock and barrel.

In fact, only the NAMES of those 13 States were admitted into the more perfect Union! After the new, different Union was established with the admission of the first 13 names, the perpetual Union between the Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation, continued to exist. Neither the boundaries, sovereignty nor jurisdiction of any of the Original States was altered or abolished. And they exist today. Perpetuity is much longer than 200 years!

The first 13 names to enter the more perfect Union were each admitted under authority of Article IV, Section 3, of that Sacred Writ; that Corporate Commercial Charter to which so many fools pledge their lives and honor: the Constitution for the United States of America. It states:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another (perpetual Union) State; nor any (new) State be formed by the Junction of two or more (new) States, or parts of (new) States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the (new) States concerned as well as of the Congress."

We, the People, those 39 inventors of the more perfect Union, lacked authority to act on the Sovereign States of the Confederation. Therefore, each reference they made to "any State or States," referred only to their New States — to names or Statuses. The Original States, under the Articles of Confederation, remained intact and sovereign; associated in an unique perpetual Union.

By the explicit terms of the Charter (at Article IV, Section 3, above), no new Name or Status (State) admitted into the more perfect Union, could bring with it any jurisdiction (power and authority) of any perpetual Union State.

Article IV, Section 3, provides that new States "may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The Unanimous Order of the Convention, issued simultaneous with the signing of the proposed Constitution, provided that the Congress and President be selected and installed BEFORE the terms of the Constitution, including the admission of any States, would be executed.

Before approving admission of new names or statuses (States) into nominal, inferior membership; the "Chairman" (President) and “Board of Directors” who were charged with enacting the bylaws (the Congress), must be installed.

All new members, names, statuses (States), beginning with the first 13, were admitted only by approval of the pre-installed Congress.

The "United States of America" under the commercial Constitution is a clever forgery, which appropriates not only the names of lawful States in perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation, but even the name of that pre-existing Union, itself!

The Constitution is a gigantic fraud, perpetrated upon generations of trusting and gullible inhabitants of North America. It doesn’t benefit me; and it doesn’t benefit YOU, unless you are a direct descendant of one of the 39 Fleecing Fathers. It is fit only for docile and domesticated herd animals who do not object to being bred, harnessed and milked for the profit of a privileged few.

I have recorded here only one of the deceitful webs woven in that commercial charter. There are many, many more. To ferret them out for yourself you need only read the Constitution literally; as all legal instruments must be interpreted.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY
[Why Otherwise Intelligent People Slavishly Support a Constitution They Don’t Understand.]

At first glance, the impartial scientific observer discovers in the Constitution what appear to be gross inconsistencies in Language and grammar. But on closer inspection he finds they are not inconsistencies or typos after all, but are in fact evidence of an underlying sinister nature and intent.

To offer up only one of dozens of examples, many of which have even more grave implications than our instant sample:

Article VI, Section 2, mentions "the Laws of the United States," providing that they shall constitute one-third of "the supreme Law of the Land." That’s pretty heavy stuff, with no room for ambiguity! But Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, mentions different Laws which, not being the Laws of the United States, are deemed inferior. Those inferior Laws are the Laws which the Militia may be called forth to execute. They are "the Laws of the Union."

The Apologist for the Constitution and its authors, the Fleecing Fathers, will allege that those giant, highly-educated minds used the United States and the Union interchangeably, and that they mean one and the same thing. THEY DON’T! In fact, "the United States" and "the Union," as legal entities, are as different as black and white or night and day! They are not literally the same. And in the context of history, they are as dissimilar as a real person and an artificial person.

If the Apologist is wrong and the literal language of the Constitution is the Legal Reality, what are the implications, beyond confusing the Hell out of millions of somnambulistic Americans? Consider this:

While Article I identifies the purpose of the Militia (plural) as being to execute the (inferior) Laws of the Union, and the unanimously misconstrued Second Amendment defines the purpose of the Militia as being necessary to the security of a free State; what does that say about "the United States" and its supreme Laws? BINGO! Of Course! — "the United States" is an UN-FREE STATE, and pre-existing States of the Union (that unique, perpetual legal entity under the preexisting Articles of Confederation) and the Laws thereof, are the free States which the Militia is charged with defending.

As these words are written the confused members of the many upstart "Citizen Militia" (respectively singular) have not yet been slaughtered or taken as prisoners by the Armed Forces of the United States. (Time will correct that nonfeasance). To a man, the members of self-appointed Militia pledge their very lives to the defense and support of the Constitution... not to the defense of the lawful perpetual Union, and to the execution of its Laws. No sane and fully-informed Man would consider supporting a constitution that is unfit for, and designed to "kill," the natural, inborn freedom of Men and Women. What psychological imperatives drive people to commit their minds and bodies to such delusions? The following analogy should suffice to get the point across: A certain child acts like a perfect angel at home; well-mannered, ingratiating, studious and seemingly empathetic. But when out of his mother’s line of vision, he is a budding sociopath. He steals from cons and manipulates everyone in his destructive path. He is the veritable Bad Seed. To the casual observer, he is a classic schizophrenic; a split or dual personality. But in fact his real personality is sociopathic. The personality he presents to his mother is superficial, merely an appearance.

Mother isn’t completely stupid. She sees inconsistencies between her child’s at-home and away personas. There are the unexplained fruits of them that appear in the child’s room. There are the "hateful rumors" of mutilation of small animals, spread by neighbors.

But Mother ignores the "inconsistencies," and gives the benefit of the doubt to her sweet, precocious child. After all SHE is Good. She knows that. And therefore, her child, however poorly she understands his nature, must also be Good. He is, after all, a child that derives of her, by her and in the universal view, for the Mother. Protecting, supporting and defending her offspring (like supporting a misunderstood constitution) is an emotional necessity having nothing to do with reason and logic.

It’s one thing, and as excusable as it is understandable, to permit one’s emotion to rule in matters concerning his progeny. But where legal instruments are concerned, which can result in our death, deprivation, imprisonment or other restraints on our birthrights to Liberty; we dare not suspend our reason, logic, common sense and capacity for CRITICAL ANALYSIS!

Editor’s Comments: In regarding the pretended "perpetual Union" created by the so-called "Articles of Confederation" as lawful, Mr. Hazel makes a serious error. As Lysander Spooner effectively indicated in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' all supposed "constitutions" are instruments of fraud and deception. This applies as much to the pretended "Articles of Confederation" as it applies to the falsely-called "U.S. Constitution."

The spinners of all supposed "constitutions" are spiders spinning webs of illusion, delusion, and hallucination!

[lord edward coke]

LEADERLESS RESISTANCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxfwOzlUg-s&feature=fvsr


The concept of Leaderless Resistance was proposed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss, who was the founder of International Service of Information Incorporated, located in Baltimore, Maryland. Col. Amoss died more than fifteen years ago, but during his life was a tireless opponent of communism, as well as a skilled Intelligence Officer. Col. Amoss first wrote of Leaderless Resistance on April 17, 1962. His theories of organization were primarily directed against the threat of eventual Communist take-over in the United States. The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and daughters necessary to fight off ever increasing persecution and oppression, this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it are rare today, but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains secreted, the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into their sparking eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they mine. We are a band of brothers, native to the soil gaining strength one from another as we have rushed head long into a battle that all the weaker, timid men, say we can not win. Perhaps...but then again, perhaps we can. It's not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the same happens to those who would destroy their freedom.

Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the government is the foremost threat to the life, and liberty of the folk. The government will no doubt make today's oppressiveness look like grade school work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many have not. We are cognizant that before things get better they will certainly get worse as government shows a willingness to use ever more severe police state measures against dissidents. This changing situation makes it clear that those who oppose state repression must be prepared to alter, adapt, and modify their behavior, strategy, and tactics as circumstances warrant. Failure to consider new methods and implement them as necessary will make the government's efforts at suppression uncomplicated. It is the duty of every patriot to make the tyrant's life miserable. When one fails to do so he not only fails himself, but his people.

With this in mind, current methods of resistance to tyranny employed by those who love our race, culture, and heritage must pass a litmus test of soundness. Methods must be objectively measured as to their effectiveness, as well as to whether they make the government's intention of repression more possible or more difficult. Those not working to aid our objectives must be discarded or the government benefits from our failure to do so.

As honest men who have banded together into groups or associations of a political or religious nature are falsely labeled "domestic terrorists" or "cultists" and suppressed, it will become necessary to consider other methods of organization--or as the case may very well call for: non-organization. One should keep in mind that it is not in the government's interest to eliminate all groups. Some few must remain in order to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors vision for the masses that America is a "free democratic country" where dissent is allowed. Most organizations, however, that possess the potential for effective resistance will not be allowed to continue. Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power, should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.

The question as to who is to be left alone and who is not, will be answered by how groups and individuals deal with several factors such as: avoidance of conspiracy plots, rejection of feeble minded malcontents, insistence upon quality of the participants, avoidance of all contact with the front men for the federals--the news media--and, finally, camouflage (which can be defined as the ability to blend in the public's eye the more committed groups of resistance with mainstream "kosher" associations that are generally seen as harmless.) Primarily though, whether any organization is allowed to continue in the future will be a matter of how big a threat a group represents. Not a threat in terms of armed might or political ability, for there is none of either for the present, but rather, threat in terms of potentiality. It is potential the federals fear most. Whether that potential exists in an individual or group is incidental. The federals measure potential threat in terms of what might happen given a situation conducive to action on the part of a restive organization or individual. Accurate intelligence gathering allows them to assess the potential. Showing one's hand before the bets are made, is a sure way to loose.

The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.

The concept of Leaderless Resistance is nothing less than a fundamental departure in theories of organization. The orthodox scheme of organization is diagrammatically represented by the pyramid, with the mass at the bottom and the leader at the top. This fundamental of organization is to be seen not only in armies, which are of course, the best illustration of the pyramid structure, with the mass of soldiery, the privates, at the bottom responsible to corporals who are in turn responsible to sergeants, and so on up the entire chain of command to the generals at the top. But the same structure is seen in corporations, ladies' garden clubs and in our political system itself. This orthodox "pyramid" scheme of organization is to be seen basically in all existing political, social and religious structures in the world today from the Federal government to the Roman Catholic Church. The Constitution of the United States, in the wisdom of the Founders, tried to sublimate the essential dictatorial nature of pyramidal organization by dividing authority into three: executive, legislative and judicial. But the pyramid remains essentially untouched.

This scheme of organization, the pyramid, is however, not only useless, but extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance movement against state tyranny. Especially is this so in technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure revealing its chain of command. Experience has revealed over and over again that anti-state, political organizations utilizing this method of command and control are easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment, and destruction of the personnel involved. This has been seen repeatedly in the United States where pro-government infiltrators or agent provocateurs weasel their way into patriotic groups and destroy them from within.

In the pyramid type of organization, an infiltrator can destroy anything which is beneath his level of infiltration and often those above him as well. If the traitor has infiltrated at the top, then the entire organization from the top down is compromised and may be traduced at will.

An alternative to the pyramid type of organization is the cell system. In the past, many political groups (both right and left) have used the cell system to further their objectives. Two examples will suffice. During the American Revolution "committees of correspondence" were formed throughout the Thirteen colonies.

Their purpose was to subvert the government and thereby aid the cause of independence. The "Sons of Liberty", who made a name for themselves dumping government taxed tea into the harbor at Boston, were the action arm of the committees of correspondence. Each committee was a secret cell that operated totally independently of the other cells. Information on the government was passed from committee to committee, from colony to colony, and then acted upon on a local basis. Yet even in these bygone days of poor communication, of weeks to months for a letter to be delivered, the committees without any central direction whatsoever, were remarkable similar in tactics employed to resist government tyranny. It was, as the first American patriots knew, totally unnecessary for anyone to give an order for anything. Information was made available to each committee, and each committee acted as it saw fit. A recent example of the cell system taken from the left wing of politics are the Communists. The Communist, in order to get around the obvious problems involved in pyramidal organization, developed to an art the cell system. They had numerous independent cells which operated completely isolated from one another and particularly with no knowledge of each other, but were orchestrated together by a central headquarters. For instance, during World War II, in Washington, it is known that there were at least six secret Communist cells operating at high levels in the United States government (plus all the open Communists who were protected and promoted by President Roosevelt), however, only one of the cells was rooted out and destroyed. How many more actually were operating no one can say for sure.

The Communist cells which operated in the U.S until late 1991 under Soviet control could have at their command a leader, who held a social position which appeared to be very lowly. He could be, for example, a busboy in a restaurant, but in reality a colonel or a general in the Soviet Secret Service, the KGB. Under him could be a number of cells and a person active in one cell would almost never have knowledge of individuals who are active in another cell. The value of this is that while any one cell can be infiltrated, exposed or destroyed, such action will have no effect on the other cells; in fact, the members of the other cells will be supporting that cell which is under attack and ordinarily would lend very strong support to it in many ways. This is at least part of the reason, no doubt, that whenever in the past Communists were attacked in this country, support for them sprang up in many unexpected places.

The efficient and effective operation of a cell system after the Communist model, is of course, dependent upon central direction, which means impressive organization, funding from the top, and outside support, all of which the Communists had. Obviously, American patriots have none of these things at the top or anywhere else, and so an effective cell organization based upon the Soviet system of operation is impossible.

Two things become clear from the above discussion. First, that the pyramid type of organization can be penetrated quite easily and it thus is not a sound method of organization in situations where the government has the resources and desire to penetrate the structure; which is the situation in this country. Secondly, that the normal qualifications for the cell structure based upon the Red model does not exist in the U.S. for patriots. This understood, the question arises "What method is left for those resisting state tyranny?" The answer comes from Col. Amoss who proposed the "Phantom Cell" mode of organization. Which he described as Leaderless Resistance. A system of organization that is based upon the cell organization, but does not have any central control or direction, that is in fact almost identical to the methods used by the Committees of Correspondence during the American Revolution. Utilizing the Leaderless Resistance concept, all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization.

At first glance, such a type of organization seems unrealistic, primarily because there appears to be no organization. The natural question thus arises as to how are the "Phantom cells" and individuals to cooperate with each other when there is no intercommunication or central direction? The answer to this question is that participants in a program of Leaderless Resistance through phantom cell or individual action must know exactly what they are doing, and how to do it. It becomes the responsibility of the individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to be done. This is by no means as impractical as it appears, because it is certainly true that in any movement, all persons involved have the same general outlook, are acquainted with the same philosophy, and generally react to given situations in similar ways. The pervious history of the committees of correspondence during the American Revolution show this to be true.

Since the entire purpose of Leaderless Resistance is to defeat state tyranny (at least insofar as this essay is concerned), all members of phantom cells or individuals will tend to react to objective events in the same way through usual tactics of resistance. Organs of information distribution such as newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc., which are widely available to all, keep each person informed of events, allowing for a planned response that will take many variations. No one need issue an order to anyone. Those idealist truly committed to the cause of freedom will act when they feel the time is ripe, or will take their cue from others who precede them. While it is true that much could be said against this type of structure as a method of resistance, it must be kept in mind that Leaderless Resistance is a child of necessity. The alternatives to it have been show to be unworkable or impractical. Leaderless Resistance has worked before in the American Revolution, and if the truly committed put it to use for themselves, it will work now.

It goes almost without saying that Leaderless Resistance leads to very small or even one man cells of resistance. Those who join organizations to play "let's pretend" or who are "groupies" will quickly be weeded out. While for those who are serious about their opposition to federal despotism, this is exactly what is desired.

From the point of view of tyrants and would be potentates in the federal bureaucracy and police agencies, nothing is more desirable than that those who oppose them be UNIFIED in their command structure, and that every person who opposes them belong to a pyramid type group. Such groups and organizations are an easy kill. Especially in light of the fact that the Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in. These federal "friends of government" are intelligence agents. They gather information that can be used at the whim of a federal D.A. to prosecute. The line of battle has been drawn. Patriots are required therefore, to make a conscious decision to either aid the government in its illegal spying, by continuing with old methods of organization and resistance, or to make the enemie's job more difficult by implementing effective countermeasures.

Now there will, no doubt, be mentally handicapped people out there who, while standing at a podium with an American flag draped in the background, and a lone eagle soaring in the sky above, will state emphatically in their best sounding red, white, and blue voice, "So what if the government is spying? We are not violating any laws." Such crippled thinking by any serious person is the best example that there is a need for special education classes. The person making such a statement is totally out of contact with political reality in this country, and unfit for leadership of any thing more than a dog sleigh in the Alaskan wilderness. The old "Born on the fourth of July" mentality that has influenced so much of the American patriot's thinking in the past will not save him from the government in the future. "Reeducation" for non-thinkers of this type will take place in the federal prison system where there are no flags or eagles, but abundance of men who were "not violating any law."

Most groups who "unify" their disparate associates into a single structure have short political lives. Therefore, those movement leaders constantly calling for unity of organization rather than the desirable unity of purpose, usually fall into one of three categories.

They may not be sound political tacticians, but rather, just committed men who feel unity would help their cause, while not realizing that the government would greatly benefit from such efforts. The Federal objective, to imprison or destroy all who oppose them, is made easier in pyramid organizations. Or perhaps, they do not fully understand the struggle they are involved in and that the government they oppose has declared a state of war against those fighting for faith, folk, freedom and constitutional liberty. Those in power will use any means to rid themselves of opposition. The third class calling for unity and let us hope this is the minority of the three, are men more desirous of the supposed power that a large organization would bestow, than of actually achieving their stated purpose.

Conversely, the last thing Federal snoops would have, if they had any choice in the matter, is a thousand different small phantom cells opposing them. It is easy to see why. Such a situation is an intelligence nightmare for a government intent upon knowing everything they possibly can about those who oppose them. The Federals, able to amass overwhelming strength of numbers, manpower, resources, intelligence gathering, and capability at any given time, need only a focal point to direct their anger. A single penetration of a pyramid type of organization can lead to the destruction of the whole. Whereas, Leaderless Resistance presents no single opportunity for the Federals to destroy a significant portion of the Resistance.

With the announcement by the Department of Justice (sic) that 300 FBI agents formerly assigned to watching Soviet spies in the US (domestic counter intelligence) are now to be used to "combat crime", the federal government is preparing the way for a major assault upon those persons opposed to their policies. Many anti-government groups dedicated to the preservation of the America of our forefathers can expect shortly to feel the brunt of a new federal assault upon liberty.

It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be.


"If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly." ---The Law. Frederick Bastiat Paris, 1850.

[lord edward coke]

THE TYGER

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
With your terror, might, and fright
What immortal hands or eyes
Could expose your fearful lies?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burns the hot fire of your eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art
Could twist the sinews of your heart?
And what could stop your heartbeat?
What dread hand? And what dread feet?

What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was your brain?
What the anvil? What dead grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

Could our dear Founding Fathers
Arise from their restful graves,
Would they smile their work to see?
Or cackle with deadly glee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
With your terror, might, and fright
What immortal hands or eyes
Dare expose your fearful lies?

by William Blake (edited and expanded)

A GAME CALLED "U.S.A."

There is a game called "U.S.A." The play of the game is concentrated on parts of a board called "United States of America." But players can move all over the world. The players have different pieces they move around. Some pieces are considered more important and more powerful than other pieces. The pieces are called names like "president," "senator," "representative," "secretary," "judge," "general," "captain," "governor," "attorney," "marshall," "sheriff," "policeman," "policewoman," "businessman," "businesswoman," "doctor," "soldier," "citizen," "employee," "taxpayer," "voter," "parent," "child," "teacher," "preacher," "journalist," "unemployee," "criminal," etc.

The pieces considered to be most important (joined in an association called the "government") make up the rules of the game as they go along. The rules are called "laws." The "most important players" change the rules whenever they like. The score of the game is kept with tokens called "money."

The board on which the game is played has good squares, neutral squares, and bad squares. If a piece lands on a good square, the player might win a million tokens or get a promotion and exchange his or her piece for a more important piece. If a piece lands on a neutral square, the player just continues as usual. If a piece lands on a bad square, the player might get sick and/or die, or might have "money" tokens or "property" "seized" by the "most important players," or is locked up in "jail" by the "most important players." Sometimes when two pieces land on the same square, they form a union called "marriage" - this could be good, neutral, or bad.

The "most important players" compel the players with pieces called "children" to move into squares (good, neutral, or bad?) called "schools," where the pieces are "educated" so they will learn that the game called "U.S.A." is the only game and the best game in the world. Of course, they are also "educated" on how to play the game.

Sometimes the "most important players" organize a subgame called "war." The purpose of this subgame is to destroy as many pieces as possible. When a player's piece is destroyed, the player is killed and buried.

The silly little game called "U.S.A." also has elements called "problems" that need to be "solved." These "problems" are called names like: "terrorism," "unemployment," "inflation," "depression," "drug addiction," "pollution," "crime," "rape," "child abuse," "suicide," etc., etc.

Practically all humans have been "educated" to believe that they must play silly little games like "U.S.A." throughout their lives. And if they don't like their silly little games, they must change their silly little games, for example, by begging "the most important players" to change some of the rules of their silly little games.

Horror of horrors! Humans are "educated" to believe that their silly little games are real life. They have no idea that what they are doing is just playing a silly, arbitrary, optional game, and that they can play many other games if they wake up. Is it justified to ask whether practically all humans are like characters in an Alice-in-Wonderland dream who never wake up?

Build Freedom is an entirely new game. Free Sovereign Citizens of Build Freedom jump out of the silly little games to the maximum practical degree. They create their own new games and make their own rules. Of course, there are "most important players" with guns and jails who try to force everyone to play their silly little game. Build Freedomns apply freedom technology to play the games of their choice.

THE 'BIG LIE' PHENOMENON

It is a principle of political propaganda that:

THE BIGGER THE LIE,
THE MORE EASILY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.

As Nietzsche wrote, "Everything the state says is a lie." This report sets out to demonstrate that everything about the pretended "state" is a lie - including the pretended "state" itself. It is a gigantic fraud, a hoax, a nothing.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

This report may contradict some of your basic ideas about the world - even if you are a most advanced Thinker, Libertarian, or Anarchist. "Cognitive dissonance" refers to the intellectual disruption that is caused by new or unusual ideas that challenge some of your current basic ideas. Your challenge is to handle any cognitive dissonance that may be caused by this report, and not to let it interfere with your integration of this information.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
OF LYSANDER SPOONER

This brief biography is based on the chapter, "Lysander Spooner, Dissident Among Dissidents," in the book Men Against The State by James J. Martin (Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs; 1970). I (Frederick Mann) first read The Constitution of no Authority (probably Spooner's most famous essay) in 1976. It had a profound effect on my thinking. First it became clear to me that there is no legitimate country called "The United States of America" - it is a gigantic hoax, a fraud, a nothing. Next I realized that all other pretended "countries" in the world were also hoaxes, frauds, or nothings - there were hucksters, hoaxes, and believers. The people who call themselves "governments" are liars and imposters - Spooner's essential message.

Lysander Spooner was born on January 19, 1808 in Athol, MA. He died in May, 1887 in Boston, MA. He grew up on a farm, which he left at age 25 to become a clerk in Worcester. Soon thereafter he started studying law. His first seven years as a lawyer were spent in Ohio.

Spooner became involved in the Freethought movement as a pamphleteer during the thirties. In 1836 he wrote, "all men of common sense disregard authority." During the late 1830s he also became an ardent advocate for Free Banking and alternative currencies, and wrote extensively on these subjects over a period of thirty years.

In 1844 Spooner started his own postal service, the American Letter Mail Company, carrying letters between New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. In 1845 his postal company was "outlawed" by the government. Benjamin Tucker called Spooner "the father of cheap postage in America." (Tucker was one of the most influential early American Anarchists. He said, "Liberty, to be effective, must find its first application in the realm of economics." James Martin devotes two chapters to Tucker in Men Against the State.)

Spooner opposed slavery. In 1845 and 1846 he published two booklets titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Tucker described Spooner as "one of the profoundest political philosophers that ever added to the knowledge of mankind."

Spooner was also an advocate of natural law or common law. In 1846 he published Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure. He wrote that it was a principle of natural law that every man was entitled to "all the fruits of his own labor"; and "There is, and can be, correctly speaking, no law but natural law." He was a strong opponent of all violations of the right to make contracts, particularly the granting of monopolies by "terrocrats" (coercive government agents or terrorist bureaucrats).

In 1852 he published An Essay On The Trial By Jury. He asserted that there had never been a single legal jury trial in the United States since the adoption of the pretended "constitution." No one has explained as well as Spooner, what the phrase "trial by jury" means.

During his career as a dissident, Spooner gradually became more radical. Early on, much of his economic, financial, and political criticism was based on the argument that various measures were unconstitutional. Later on, he started to expose the illegality of the pretended "constitution" itself. Soon after the Civil War he began publishing a series of pamphlets under the title, No Treason. The final one appeared in 1870 and was subtitled The Constitution of No Authority (Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs; 1973).

In my opinion, Lysander Spooner was the greatest lawyer there has ever been.

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS
AND ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll can be regarded as introductions to the Spooner-insight. All three these books are analyzed in Report #TL07A: Gulliver's Travels and Alice in Wonderland. insofar as they relate to the Spooner-insight.

In his Introduction to Gulliver's Travels, Michael Foot wrote, "It is an attempt to tear off the mask of imposture from the world..."

The essence of the Spooner-insight is that all the political systems in his time (1869) were fraudulent impostures. This is as true today as it was in Spooner's time.

THE SPOONER-INSIGHT

Note: In the rest of this report double quotation marks are used to invalidate the concept enclosed within quotation marks. For example, "constitution" indicates that the validity of the notion of a "U.S. Constitution" is being rejected. Sometimes 'pretended' is added to emphasize the rejection of the word, concept, or notion. It is vital that you understand this syntax (grammatical structure). Where the report says 'pretended "president",' for example, it means that there is no real president - the idea that there is a real president is being rejected. In other words, the person masquerading as "president" is an imposter and a liar.

The Spooner-insight may be the most challenging viewpoint of political systems you have been confronted with. It is vital that you think it through in all its details and implications.

Because the basic political notions have been powerfully imprinted in your brain, you may be faced with a formidable challenge. In effect, what you may have to do drastically change what has been 'burned into your brain' all your life. Because the basic political notions are represented by physical patterns in your brain, you may have to think about the Spooner-insight for at least 21 days before it 'sinks in.'

In order to fully understand the Spooner-insight, you will probably have to read this entire report.

Eight Elements of the Spooner-Insight

The pretended "U.S. constitution" has been a fraud and a hoax from the outset. It was never signed as a contract in any legal way by anyone. It never bound anyone. It was foisted on a naive, gullible, credulous populace.
Therefore, the pretended "United States of America" has been a fraud and a hoax from the outset. It has always been a nothing masquerading as a something. It is pure imagination or make-believe.
The pretended "government of the U.S.A." has no legal authority whatsoever. It is a hoax and a fraud in its entirety.
All the people claiming to be "presidents," "senators," "representatives," "secretaries," "judges," "generals," "ambassadors," etc. of the pretended "U.S.A." are liars and imposters, whether they realize it or not. They are hucksters and hoaxers.
The pretended "laws" of the pretended "U.S.A." are in reality no more than absurd noises and scribbles made by liars and imposters.
The same applies to all other pretended "states" and "countries" of the world. Their pretended "emperors," "kings," "queens," "prime ministers," etc. have all been liars and imposters all along. Likewise, all their pretended "laws" have in reality been no more than absurd noises and scribbles of liars and imposters.
The real rulers all along have been the major money lenders behind the scenes. The pretended "presidents," "senators," "representatives," "secretaries," "judges," "generals," "ambassadors," "emperors," "kings," "queens," "prime ministers," etc. are mostly pawns of the money lenders.
In reality the whole world is ruled by secret bands of money lenders, tyrants, robbers, and murderers.
Objection:
The Founding Fathers were honorable and sincere men with the best of intentions. The U.S. Constitution is a legitimate contract "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Response: The Founding Fathers were mostly lawyers. In their pretended "constitution" they misrepresented themselves as "We the people of the United States." They arbitrarily excluded women and blacks. They knew common law (in use at the time), which requires that for a contract to be valid it needs to be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by all parties. For a written contract to be valid, it must be signed by all parties. The Declaration of Independence was signed as a mutual pledge between the signatories. Comparing the Declaration to the pretended "constitution" may lead you to the conclusion that the latter was a betrayal of the former. Some of the Founding Fathers realized that the "constitution" was a betrayal of liberty, so they formulated the "bill of rights" in an attempt to undo the betrayal. The pretended "bill of rights" became part of the pretended "constitution" nearly three years after the latter was signed. The pretended "constitution" has been a fraud and a hoax from the outset - and an abomination, particularly if compared to the Declaration of Independence.

How to Grasp and Integrate the Spooner-Insight

Read this entire report.
Don't discuss this report with just anyone. We have all been brainwashed since early childhood with political lies. They are burned into our brains. The whole population has been duped, hoodwinked, brainwashed. If you show this report to others, most will tell you it is insane. They have been duped, hoodwinked, brainwashed.
Even if you are an advanced Libertarian or Anarchist thinker, you may gain important insights from this report.
Read Report #TL07A: Gulliver's Travels and Alice in Wonderland.
If necessary, re-read the eight elements of the Spooner-insight at least once a day for at least 21 days.
At times thoughts may come up like, "I must be crazy to even consider the Spooner-insight." Don't let these thoughts stop you from reprogramming your brain.
If necessary, re-read this entire report from time to time.
Think about the implications of the Spooner-insight and how the implications affect what you think you need to do to increase your personal freedom, wealth, and power.
As Nietzsche wrote, "Everything the state says is a lie." All our political systems are based on lies. The pretended "constitution" is a lie. The pretended "U.S.A." is a lie. All other pretended "constitutions" and pretended "countries" are lies. The idea that Bill Clinton is "president of the U.S.A." is a lie - whether he knows it or not. The same applies to all the other politicians in the world. It is all lies.

The whole population of earth is being continuously brainwashed by the media to believe the colossal political lies. You have to put in the effort to unbrainwash yourself and reprogram your mind. You have to do some serious thinking. You may have to think about the Spooner-insight for at least 21 days to let it 'sink in.'

THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY
by Lysander Spooner (condensed and edited)

I. Who is Bound by the Pretended "Constitution?"
The "constitution" (pretended) has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the pretended "constitution," so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument [the pretended "constitution"] does not purport to be an agreement between anybody but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

"We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the pretended "United States"), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their "posterity," as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is nothing in the pretended "constitution" that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those who established the pretended "constitution," had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.

II. Does Voting Imply Support of the Pretended "Constitution?"
Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately; and first, voting. All the voting that has ever taken place under the pretended "constitution" has been of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the pretended "constitution," but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the following considerations show.

In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters.
Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement. No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the pretended "constitution" beyond that term.
It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the pretended "constitution," unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers (masquerading as a "government") that he cannot resist; terrocrats who force him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot - which is a mere substitute for the bullet - because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support any pretended "constitution" or the terrocrats, who use it as a shield to justify their plunder and murder. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge anyone to support any pretended "constitution." It utterly fails to prove that the "authority" or "jurisdiction" (pretended) of any terrocrats rest upon the voluntary support of anyone. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that any terrocrats have any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown precisely who their voluntary supporters are.
As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of terrocrats. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being forcibly taken from him and used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the pretended "constitution." It is, in fact, no proof at all.
At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the pretended "constitution." On the contrary, they may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the pretended "constitution." This supposition is the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the pretended "constitution."
Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospects of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the execution of, the pretended "constitution."
As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who against, the pretended "constitution." Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the pretended "constitution." And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the pretended "constitution," it cannot be legally said that anybody supports it at all. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.
There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. Men's voluntary support of the pretended "constitution" is doubtless,in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the pretended "constitution," they can make themselves masters, or be made slaves. Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.
As everybody who supports the pretended "constitution" by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the act of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the pretended "constitution" by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as to assent to, or support, the pretended "constitution," unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.
As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret "governments" (pretended) are necessarily only secret bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, the general fact that terrocrats are voted for, does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the pretended "constitution."
So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the pretended "constitution," legally speaking, has no supporters at all. And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the pretended "constitution" has a single legitimate supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the pretended "constitution" really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.

The ostensible supporters of the pretended "constitution," like the ostensible supporters of most terrocrats, are made up of three classes, viz.:

Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see terrocrats as people they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
Dupes - a large class, no doubt - each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in enslaving, robbing, and murdering others, that others have in enslaving, robbing, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government," "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities.
A class who have some appreciation of the evils of terrocrats, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.
III. Does Paying Taxes Imply Support of the Pretended "Constitution?"
The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that anyone voluntarily supports the pretended "constitution" (or any supposed "government" under it), as the following considerations show.

It is true that the the theory of our pretended "constitution" is that all our taxes are paid voluntarily; that our terrocrats operate a "mutual insurance company," voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the pretended "constitution," to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our terrocrats is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that our terrocrats, like highwaymen, say to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
Our terrocrats do not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and is is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of "protection." He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest and pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a "rebel," a "traitor," and an "enemy" to your "country," and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his "authority" or "jurisdiction," or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the pretended "constitution" or the pretended "government," is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular terrocrats are, who have taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to "protect" him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them. To him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. "The government" itself he never sees.
Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of "the government" - that is, the agent of a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of "the government," and have determined to jail or kill anybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand. To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as the agent does not make his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who are "the government" - that is who were the robbers - than he did before. To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent, he entered into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledges himself to obey them, to support them, and to give them whatever money they should demand of him in the future, is simply ridiculous.
All political power, as it is called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government" (pretended); because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with pretended "government," as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money. So these villains, who call themselves "governments," well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their "authority" or "jurisdiction" (pretended) are denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money. For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.:
(a) That every man who puts money into the hands of terrocrats (who masquerade as "government"), puts into their hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection of their arbitrary will.
(b) That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resists their demands in the future.

(c) That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?

(d) If a man wants protection, he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.

(e) That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.

(f) That no criminals (whether they call themselves "government" or not), can be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, for as long as they depend on extortion, rather than voluntary support.

These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that anyone will voluntarily pay money to the terrocrats who masquerade as "the government," for the purpose of securing their protection, unless he first makes an explicit and purely voluntary contract with them for that purpose.

It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the pretended "constitution." Consequently we have no evidence at all that the supposed "constitution" is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it.

IV. Contracts Must Be Signed
The pretended "constitution" not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," or stamp his seal upon wax affixed to the parchment, before he is bound by any contract.

The very men who drafted it, never signed the pretended "constitution" in any way to bind themselves by it, as a contract. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, as a contract. The imposter "judges," who profess to derive all their supposed "authority" from the pretended "constitution" - from an instrument that nobody ever signed - would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.

V. Irresponsible Power Derived from the Pretended "Constitution"
Such are some of the precautions which the laws require, and which individuals - from the motives of common prudence, even in cases not required by law - take, to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed, and, to guard against all uncertainties and controversies in regard to their meaning and validity. And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract - the pretended "constitution" - made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means.

Moreover, this supposed "contract," which would not be received in any court of justice sitting under its supposed "authority," if offered to prove a debt of five dollars, is one by which - as it is generally interpreted by those who pretend to "administer" it - all men, women, and children throughout the country, and through all time, surrender not only their property, but also their liberties, and even their lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed "contract," are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed "contract," which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of law and reason, the merest waste paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind.

It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the pretended "constitution" - not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to "administer" it - the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the supposed "United States" are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the pretended "constitution" itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them. Thus the pretended "constitution" (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, "for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the pretended "senators" and "representatives") shall not be questioned in any other place." The whole pretended "law-making power" is given to these pretended "senators" and "representatives" (when acting by a two-thirds vote - and this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum; that is, two-thirds of a majority); and this provision protects them from all the pretended "laws" they make.

The pretended "constitution" also enables them to secure the execution of all their supposed "laws," by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all "judicial and executive officers," who refuse to execute them. Thus the whole power of the gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers who masquerade as "government" is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?

It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under pretended "oath" to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for pretended "oaths" and limits, when it is expressly provided in the pretended "constitution" itself, that they shall never be "questioned," or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their pretended "oaths," or transgressing those limits.

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the particular individuals holding this power can be changed once in two or six years; for the power of each set of men is absolute during the term for which they hold it; and when they can hold it no longer, they are succeeded only by men whose power will be equally absolute and irresponsible.

Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is nonetheless a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because they are permitted to periodically choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible. And of what appreciable value is it to any man, as an individual, that he is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters? His voice is only one of several millions.

The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, the individuals who pretend to constitute the pretended "congress," have the absolute and irresponsible "law-making power," which the pretended "constitution" - according to their interpretation of it - gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our "law." If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no "authority" over us.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, owner or agent. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?

For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, or representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have entrusted to him. If I have entrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property by the acts of the individuals who pretend to constitute the pretended "congress," can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their pretended agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.

If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of the members who pretend to constitute the pretended "congress," then these members are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature - the highest of all laws - anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers or offenders.

It is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason - such principles as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life - the pretended "constitution" is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody; and that all those who pretend to act by its "authority," are really acting without any legitimate authority at all; that on general principles of law and reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound to treat them as such.

If some people wish to establish and maintain such a "government," as the pretended "constitution" describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of their pretended "government." But no one has ever been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked to sign it, is that it is known that they never would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs be to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligation as the compacts which thieves, robbers, and pirates enter into with each other, but never sign.

If any considerable number of people believe the pretended "constitution" to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other, leaving all other persons ( who do not interfere with them ) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the gall to impose their pretended "constitution" upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for such absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the pretended "constitution," not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others. It is for this latter reason, that they eulogize the pretended "constitution," that they exhort the gullible to revere it, that they expend so much money and blood to sustain it.

[lord edward coke]

VI. The Pretended "Authority" of Pretended "Government"
The pretended "constitution" itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our pretended "government" practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to "administer" it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their supposed "authority" to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?

The most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a pretended "government" under the pretended "constitution"; that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and that those persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act as their representatives, and administer the pretended "constitution" in their name, and by their authority.

But this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at all justify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so. He is none the less a tyrant, robber, and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone.

Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he legitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no written authority from them accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation to take his word as to who his principals may be, or whether he has any. Bringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority even as he claims to have, and that he is therefore intending to rob, enslave, or murder me on his own account.

This tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters of the country, amounts to nothing as an authority to their agents. Neither do the ballots by which they select their agents, avail any more than does their tacit understanding; for their ballots are given in secret, and therefore in a way to avoid any personal responsibility for the acts of their agents.

No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principal, they have none.

But even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their pretended principals are. These latter act in secret; for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much as if they were to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of the night. And they are personally as much unknown to the agents they select, as they are to others. No pretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots he is selected, or consequently who his real principals are. Not knowing who his principals are, he has no right to say that he has any. He can, at most, say only that he is the agent of a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who are bound by that faith which prevails among confederates in crime, to stand by him, if his acts, done in their name, shall be resisted.

Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world, have no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agents to do acts for which they (the principals) are not willing to be personally responsible.

The secret ballot makes a secret tyranny, a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: "I am the state; my will is law; I am your master; I take the responsibility of my acts; the only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword; if any one denies my right, let him try conclusions with me."

But a secret tyranny is little less than a tyranny of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing with certainty. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.

This is the kind of tyranny we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: "We will consent to no constitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no agents or representatives to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.

VII. The Secret Ballot
What is the motive behind the secret ballot? This, and only this: Like other confederates in crime, those who use it are not friends, but enemies, and they are afraid to be known, and to have their individual doings known, even to each other. They can contrive to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable them to act in concert against other persons; but beyond this they have no confidence, and no friendship, among themselves. In fact, they are engaged quite as much in schemes for plundering each other, as in plundering those who are not of them. And it is perfectly well understood among them that the strongest party among them will, in certain contingencies, murder each other by the hundreds of thousands (as they lately did do) to accomplish their purposes against each other. Hence they dare not be known, and have their individual doings known, even to each other. And this is avowedly the only reason for the ballot: for a secret tyranny; a tyranny by secret bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers. And we are insane enough to call this liberty! To be a member of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers,m and murderers is esteemed a privilege and an honor! Without this privilege, a man is considered a slave; but with it a free man! With it he is considered a free man, because he has the same power to secretly (by secret ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement, and murder of another man, and that other man has to procure his robbery, enslavement, and murder. And this they call equal rights!

If any number of men, many or few, claim the right to "govern" the people of this country, let them make and sign an open compact with each other to do so. Let them thus make themselves individually known to those whom they propose to "govern." And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility of their acts. How many of those who now support the pretended "constitution," will ever do this? How many will ever dare openly proclaim their right to "govern"?, or take the legitimate responsibility for their acts? Not one!

VIII. Pretended "Government" is a Hoax
It is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason, there is no such thing as a "government," created by, or resting upon, any consent, compact, or agreement of "the people of the United States" with each other; that what we have is a tyranny, composed of a few individuals only, who act in concert, and call themselves by the several names of "senators," "representatives," "presidents," "judges," "marshalls," "treasurers," "collectors," "generals," "colonels," "captains," etc., etc.

On general principles of law and reason, it is of no importance whatever, that those few individuals profess to be the agents and representatives of "the people of the United States"; since they can show no credentials from the people themselves; they were never appointed as agents or representatives in any open, authentic manner, they do not themselves know, and have no means of knowing, and cannot prove, who their principals (as they call them) are individually; and consequently cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals at all.

It is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals ever did appoint these pretended agents, or representatives, they appointed them secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for their acts; that, at most, these alleged principals put these pretended agents forward for the most criminal purposes, viz.: to plunder the people of their property, and restrain them of their liberty; and that the only authority that these alleged principals have for so doing, is simply a tacit understanding among themselves that they will imprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists the exactions and restraints which their agents or representatives may impose upon them.

Thus it is obvious that what we have is a tyranny, made up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies and murders, have taken to themselves the title of "the people of the United States"; and who, on the pretense of being "the people of the United States," assert their right to subject to their dominion, and to control and dispose of at their pleasure, all property and persons found in the country.

IX. Meaningless "Oaths" Given to the Winds
On general principles of law and reason, the pretended "oaths" which these pretended agents of the people take to support and uphold the pretended "constitution," are of no validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given to nobody. There is no "privity" (as the lawyers say) - that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement - between those who take these pretended "oaths," and any other persons. If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hundred thousand people, men, women, and children, with whom I have no contract on the subject, take a pretended "oath" that I will enforce upon them the laws of Moses, of Lycurgus, of Solon, of Justinian, or of Alfred, that pretended "oath" is, on general principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no obligation, not merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, but also because it is given to nobody, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody. It is merely given to the winds.

X. Responsibilities of Tax-Gatherers
For the same reasons, the pretended "oaths" of all the other pretended agents of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers are, on general principles of law and reason, equally destitute of obligation. They are given to nobody; but only to the winds.

The pretended "oaths" of the tax-gatherers and treasurers of the gang, are, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity. If any tax-gatherer, for example, should put the money he receives into his own pocket, and refuse to part with it, the members of this gang could not say to him: "You collected that money as our agent, and for our uses; and you swore to pay it over to us, or to those we should appoint to receive it. You have betrayed us, and broken faith with us."

It would be a sufficient answer for him to say to them: "I never knew you. You never made yourselves individually known to me. I never gave my pretended "oath" to you, as individuals. You may, or you may not, be members of that secret gang, who appoint agents to rob and murder other people; but who are cautious not to make themselves individually known, either to such agents, or to those whom their agents are commissioned to rob. If you are members of that gang, you have given me no proof that you ever commissioned me to rob others for your benefit. I never knew you, as individuals, and of course never promised you that I would pay over to you the proceeds of my robberies. I committed my robberies on my own account, and for my own profit. If you thought I was fool enough to allow you to keep yourselves concealed, and use me as your tool for robbing other persons; or that I would take all the personal risk of the robberies, and pay over the proceeds to you, you were particularly stupid. As I took all the risk of my robberies, I propose to take all the profits. Begone! You are fools, as well as villains. If I gave my pretended "oath" to anybody, I gave it to other persons than you. But I really gave it to nobody. I only gave it to the winds. It answered my purposes at the time. It enabled me to get the money I was after, and now I propose to keep it. If you expected me to pay it over to you, you relied only upon that honor that is said to prevail among thieves. You now understand that that is a very poor reliance. I trust you may become wise enough to never rely upon it again. If I have any duty in the matter, it is to give back the money to those from whom I stole it; not to pay it over to such villains as you."

XI. Pretended "Oaths" by Foreigners, Southerners, and Soldiers
On general principles of law and reason, the pretended "oaths" which foreigners take, on coming here, and being "naturalized" (as it is called), are of no validity. They are necessarily given to nobody; because there is no open, authentic association, to which they can join themselves; or to whom, as individuals, they can pledge their faith. No such association, or organization, as "the people of the United States," having ever been formed by any open, written, authentic, or voluntary contract, there is, on general principles of law and reason, no such association, or organization, in existence. And all pretended "oaths" that purport to be given to such an association are necessarily given only to the winds. They cannot be said to be given to any man, or body of men, as individuals, because no man, or body of men, can come forward with any proof that the pretended "oaths" were given to them, as individuals, or to any association of which they are members. To say that there is a tacit understanding among a portion of the male adults of the country, that they will call themselves "the people of the United States," and that they will act in concert in subjecting the remainder of the people of the country to their dominion; but that they will keep themselves personally concealed by doing all their acts secretly, is wholly insufficient, on general principles of law and reason, to prove the existence of any such association, or organization, as "the people of the United States"; or consequently to prove that the pretended "oaths" of foreigners were given to any such association.

On general principles of law and reason, all the pretended "oaths" which since the civil war, have been given by southern men, that they will obey the pretended "laws of congress," support the supposed "union," and the like, are of no validity. Such pretended "oaths" are invalid, not only because they were extorted by military power, and threats of confiscation, and because they are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they please (provide they do not harm others and their property), but also because they were given to nobody. They were nominally given to the supposed "United States." But being nominally given to the supposed "United States," they were necessarily given to nobody, because, on general principles of law and reason, there were no pretended "United States," to whom the pretended "oaths" could be given. That is to say, there was no open, authentic, avowed, legitimate association, corporation, or body of men, known as the "United States," or as "the people of the United States," to whom the pretended "oaths" could have been given. If anybody says there was such a corporation, let him state who were the individuals that composed it, and how and when they became a corporation. Were Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatures? Where is the evidence of their membership? Where is the record? Where is the open, authentic proof? There is none. Therefore, in law and reason, there was no such corporation.

On general principles of law and reason, every corporation, association, or organized body of men, having a legitimate corporate existence, and legitimate corporate rights, must consist of certain known individuals, who can prove, by legitimate and reasonable evidence, their membership. But nothing of this kind can be proved in regard to the corporation, or body of men, who call themselves "the United States." Not a man of them, in all the pretended "northern States," can prove by any legitimate evidence, such as is required to prove membership in other legal corporations, that he himself, or any other man whom he can name, is a member of any corporation or association called "the United States," or "the people of the United States," or, consequently, that there is any such corporation. And since no such corporation can be proved to exist, it cannot of course be proved that the pretended "oaths" of southern men were given to any such corporation. The most that can be claimed is that the pretended "oaths" were given to a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who called themselves "the United States," and extorted those pretended "oaths." But that certainly is not enough to prove that the pretended "oaths" are of any obligation.

On general principles of law and reason, the pretended "oaths" of soldiers, that they will serve a given number of years, that they will obey the orders of their superior officers, that they will bear true allegiance to the supposed "government," and so forth, are of no obligation. Independently of the criminality of an pretended "oath," that, for a given number of years, he will kill all whom he may be commanded to kill, without exercising his own judgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity of such killing, there is this further reason why a soldier's pretended "oath" is of no obligation, viz., that, like all the other pretended "oaths" that have now been mentioned, it is given to nobody. There being, in no legitimate sense, any such corporation, or nation, as "the United States," nor, consequently, in any legitimate sense, any such entity as "the government of the United States," a soldier's pretended "oath" given to, or contract made with, such an absent entity, is necessarily an pretended "oath" given to, or a contract made with, nobody. Consequently such pretended "oath" or contract can be of no obligation or authorization. Hence any killing done by such a soldier is done purely on his personal responsibility.

XII. Invalidity of Pretended "Treaties"
On general principles of law and reason, the "treaties" (pretended) which purport to be entered into with other supposed "nations," by persons calling themselves "ambassadors," "secretaries," "presidents," and "senators" of the supposed "United States," in the name, and in behalf, of "the people of the United States," are of no validity. These pretended "ambassadors," "secretaries," "presidents," and "senators," who claim to be the agents of "the people of the United States," for making these purported "treaties," can show no open, written, or other authentic evidence that either the whole "people of the United States," or any other open avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended "ambassadors" and others to make treaties in the name of, or binding upon any one of, "the people of the United States," or any other open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name. No one ever authorized these pretended "ambassadors," "secretaries," and others, in their name and behalf, to recognize certain other persons, calling themselves "emperors," "kings," "queens," and the like, as the rightful rulers, sovereigns masters, or representatives of the different peoples whom they assume to "govern," to represent, and to bind.

The "nations," as they are called, with whom our pretended "ambassadors," "secretaries," "presidents," and "senators" profess to make supposed "treaties" are as much myths as our own. On general principles of law and reason, there are no such "nations." That is to say, neither the whole people of "England," for example, nor any open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever, by any open, written, or other authentic contract with each other, formed themselves into any bona fide, legitimate association or organization, or authorized any pretended "king," "queen," or other representative to make treaties in their name, or to bind them, either individually, or as an association, by such treaties.

Our pretended "treaties," then, being made with no legitimate or bona fide "nations," or representatives of "nations," and being made, on our part, by persons who have no legitimate authority to act for us, have intrinsically no more validity than a pretended "treaty" made by the "Man in the Moon" with the "King of the Pleiades."

XIII. Fraudulent Debts
On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of "the United States," or of "the people of the United States," are of no validity. It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred millions of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people, when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence - such as would be required to prove a private debt - that can be produced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.

Certainly, neither the whole people of the country, nor any number of them, ever separately or individually contracted to pay a cent of these debts. Certainly, also, neither the whole people of the country, nor any number of them, by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation, or association, by the name of "the United States," or "the people of the United States," and authorized their agents to contract debts in their name. Certainly, too, there is in existence no such firm, corporation, or association as "the United States," or "the people of the United States," formed by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with which to pay these debts.

How, then, is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when, on general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate property?, never made any corporate or individual contract?, and neither have, nor ever had, any corporate existence?

Who, then, created these debts, in the name of "the United States"? Why, at most, only a few persons, calling themselves "members of congress," etc., who pretended to represent "the people of the United States," but who really represented only a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who wanted money to carry on the robberies and murders in which they were then engaged; and who intended to extort from the future people of the country, by robbery and threats of murder (and real murder if that should prove necessary), the means to pay these debts.

This gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who were the real principals in contracting these debts, is a secret one, because its members have never entered into any open, written, avowed, or authentic contract, by which they may be individually known to the world, or even to each other. Their real or pretended representatives, who contracted these debts in their name, were selected (if selected at all) for that purpose secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to furnish evidence against none of the principals individually; and these principals were really known individually neither to their pretended representatives who contracted these debts in their behalf nor to those who lent the money. The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent in the dark; that is, by men who did not see each other's faces, or know each other's names; who could not then, and cannot now, identify each other as principals in the transactions; and who consequently can prove no contract with each other.

Furthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for criminal purposes; that is, for purposes of robbery and murder; and for this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void, and would have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and lenders had come face to face, and made their contracts openly, in their own proper names.

Furthermore, this secret gang of robbers and murderers, who were the real borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence, have no corporate property with which to pay these debts. They do indeed pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, on general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them, for the payment of these debts.

Having no corporate property with which to pay what purports to be their corporate debts, this secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In fact, they do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and were known to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time the money was lent. And it was, therefore, virtually a part of the contract, that the money should be repaid only from the proceeds of these future robberies and murders. For this reason, if for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning.

In fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders, were really one and the same class. They borrowed and lent money from and to themselves. They themselves were not only part and parcel, but the very life and soul, of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money. Individually they furnished money for a common enterprise; taking, in return, what purported to be corporate promises for individual loans. The only excuse they had for taking these pretended corporate promises of, for individual loans by, the same parties, was that they might have some apparent excuse for the future robberies of the gang (that is, to pay the debts of the corporation), and that they might also know what shares they were to be respectively entitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies.

Finally, if these debts had been created for the most innocent and honest purposes, and in the most open and honest manner, by the real parties to the contracts, these parties could thereby have bound nobody but themselves, and no property but their own. They could have bound nobody that should have come after them, and no property subsequently created by, or belonging to, other persons.

XIV. The Lenders of Blood-Money
The pretended "constitution" having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever, by virtue of which the "United States government" (pretended), is maintained; and it being well known that none but male persons, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, are allowed any voice in the supposed "government"; and it being also well known that a large number of these adult persons seldom or never vote at all; and that all those who do vote, do so secretly (by secret ballot ), and in a way to prevent their individual votes being known, either to the world, or even to each other; and consequently in a way to make no one openly responsible for the acts of their agents, or representatives - all these things being known - the questions arise: Who composes the real "governing power" in the country? Who are the men, the responsible men, who rob us of our property? Who restrain us of our liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary dominion? And devastate our homes, and shoot us down by the hundreds of thousands, if we resist? How shall we find these men? How shall we know them from others? How shall we defend ourselves and our property against them? Who, of our neighbors, are members of this secret gang of tyrants, robbers and murderers? How can we know which are their houses, that we may burn or demolish them? Which their property, that we may destroy it? Which their persons, that we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants and monsters?

These are questions that must be answered before men can be free; before they can protect themselves against this secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. The answer to these questions is, that only those who have the will and the power to shoot down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this, as in all other pretended "civilized countries," for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.

Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part of one man may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very little money or other wealth, may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob enslave, or kill another body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves. And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with so-called "civilized peoples," among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting in concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons and other means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less importance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other instrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had for money, the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It is so in Europe, and it is so in this country.

In Europe, the nominal rulers, the pretended "emperors," "kings," and "parliaments," are anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. They are little or nothing else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob, enslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at all. The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who call themselves "governments," to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.

They lend their money in this manner, knowing that it is to be expended in murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking their liberty and their rights; knowing also that neither the interest nor the principal will ever be paid, except as it will be extorted under terror of the repetition of such murders as those for which the money lent is to be expended.

These money-lenders, the Rothschilds, for example, say to themselves: If we lend a hundred millions sterling to the pretended "queen and parliament of England," it will enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England, Ireland, or India; and the terror inspired by such wholesale murder, will enable them to keep the whole people of those countries in subjection for twenty, or perhaps fifty, years to come; to control all their trade and industry; and to extort from them large amounts of money, under the name of taxes; and from the wealth thus extorted from them, they ( the "queen" and "parliament") can afford to pay us a higher rate of interest for our money than we can get in any other way. Or, if we lend this sum to the pretended "emperor of Austria," it will enable him to murder so many of his people as to strike terror into the rest and thus enable him to keep them in subjection, and extort money from them, for twenty or fifty years to come. And they say the same in regard to the pretended "czar of Russia," the "king of Prussia," the "emperor of France," or any other so called "ruler," who, in their judgment, will be able, by murdering a reasonable portion of his people, to keep the rest in subjection, and extort money from them, for a long time to come, to pay the interest and principal of the money lent to him.

And why are these men so ready to lend money for murdering their fellow men? Solely for this reason, viz., that such loans are considered better investments than loans for purposes of honest industry. They pay higher rates of interest; and it is less trouble to look after them. This is the whole matter.

The question of making these loans is, with these lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the whole, such loans pay better than any others. They are no respecters of persons, no superstitious fools, that reverence pretended "monarchs." They care no more for a pretended "king," or "emperor," than they do for a beggar, except as he is a better customer, and can pay them better interest for their money. If they doubt his ability to make his murders successful for maintaining his power, and thus extorting money from his people in future, they dismiss him as unceremoniously as they would dismiss any other hopeless bankrupt, who should want to borrow money to save himself from open insolvency.

When these great lenders of blood-money, like the Rothschilds, have loaned vast sums in this way, for purposes of murder, to a pretended "emperor" or "king," they sell out the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to anybody, and everybody, who are disposed to buy them at satisfactory prices, to hold as investments. They (the Rothschilds and their ilk) thus soon get back their money, with great profits; and are now ready to lend money in the same way again to any other tyrant, robber, and murderer, called an "emperor" or "king," who, they think, is likely to be successful in his robberies and murders, and able to pay a good price for the money necessary to carry on his robberies and murders.

This business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of their plunder. And the men who loan money to pretended "governments" for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest, villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be gotten rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.

When these "emperors" and "kings," pretended, have obtained their loans they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional murderers, called "soldiers," and employ them in shooting down all who resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large bodies of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means of enforcing their extortions. There are now, I think, four or five millions of these professional murderers constantly employed by the pretended "sovereigns" of Europe. The enslaved people are, of course, forced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to all the other extortions which these murderers are employed to enforce.

It is only in this way that most of the pretended "governments" of Europe are maintained. These pretended "governments" are in reality only great bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert. And the pretended "sovereigns," in these different supposed "governments," are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of tyrants, robbers, and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are dependent upon the lenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And their first care is to maintain their credit with them; for they know their end is come, the instant their credit with them fails. Consequently the first proceeds of their extortions are scrupulously applied to the payment of the interest on their loans.

In addition to paying the interest on their bonds, they perhaps grant to the holders of them great monopolies in banking, like the Banks of England, of France, and of Vienna, with the agreement that these banks shall furnish money whenever, in sudden emergencies, it may be necessary to shoot down more of their people. Perhaps also, by means of tariffs on competing imports, they give great monopolies to certain branches of industry, in which these lenders of blood-money are engaged. They also, by unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property of these loan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who are too poor and weak to resist.

Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the high-sounding names of "Emperors," "Kings," "Sovereigns," "Monarchs," "Most Christian Majesties," "Most Catholic Majesties," "High Mightinesses," "Most Serene and Potent Princes," and the like, and who claim to rule "by the grace of God," by "Divine Right" - that is, by "special authority from Heaven" - are intrinsically not only the merest miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, but that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, laugh in their sleeves, and say to themselves: These despicable creatures, who call themselves "emperors," and "kings," and "majesties," and "most serene and potent princes," who profess to wear "crowns," and sit on "thrones"; who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels; and surround themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we suffer to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as "sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God"; and to hold themselves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power - all these miscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them; that in us they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the price of their positions ) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the danger, and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to pay over to us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see fit to demand.

XV. The Superstitious Belief in Pretended "Authorities"
Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no visible, permanent head, or chief, of these tyrants, robbers, and murderers, who call themselves "the government." That is to say, there is no one man, who calls himself "the state," or even "emperor," "king," or "sovereign"; no one who claims that he and his children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or by "special appointment from Heaven." There are only certain men, who call themselves "presidents," "senators," and "representatives," and claim to be the authorized agents, for the time being, or for certain short periods, of all "the people of the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic evidence that they are so, and who notoriously are not so; but are really only the agents of a secret gang of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes.

What is important to be noticed is, that these pretended "presidents," "senators," and "representatives," these pretended agents of all "the people of the United States," the moment their exactions meet with any formidable resistance from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of blood-money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow their money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those "people of the United States" - their own constituents and principals, as they profess to call them - who resist the robberies and enslavement which these borrowers of the money are practising upon them. And they expect to repay the loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate through a long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest.

Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible "government," the pretended "presidents," "senators," and "representatives," pretended, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war. In proof of all this, look at the following facts.

Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have gotten rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that supposed "rulers" derived their pretended "authority" directly from "heaven"; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments could rightfully occur only by the free will, and on the voluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of their terrocrats.

Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, that these lenders of blood-money had, for a long series of years previous to the civil war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the pretended "government" from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary consideration. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future-that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South - that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These - and not any love of liberty or justice - were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets ) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.

On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.

And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the "government," pretended, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest - enormous as the latter was - are to be paid in full, but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further - and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid - by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood-money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war.

This program having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war (pretended "general" Grant), and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says: "Let us have peace." The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you. These, alone, are the terms on which terrocrats ever give "peace" to "their people."

The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And the imposters who masquerade as "congress" and "the president" are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as "rulers," pretended, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and their crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt" as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"

By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, tyrants, robbers, and murderers, assume to be "the nation," and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.

The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference in principle - but only one of degree - between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: "All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace." Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day occur among all men, the world over, if the several "nations," so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called "governments," that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.

Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a "government of consent," is this - that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have gotten what is called "peace."

Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people - or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) - could be said to have any "country." This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats - so transparent that they ought to deceive no one - when uttered as justifications for the war, or for now compelling people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support terrocrats against their will.

The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continues to pay "national debts," pretended - that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered - so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers, and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.

XVI. Conclusion
Inasmuch as the pretended "constitution" was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such a one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the pretended "constitution" is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the gang of terrocrats has made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from the intended "government" the supposed "constitution" itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the pretended "constitution" really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

[lord edward coke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVTKHI5ovyc

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong
gives it a superficial appearance of being right,
and raises a formidable outcry in defence of custom."
-- Thomas Paine ('Common Sense')

"When watching men of [coercive political] power in action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the independent individual -- the independent voter, consumer, worker, owner, thinker -- and that every device they employ aims at turning men into a manipulable 'animated instrument' which is Aristotle's definition of a slave." -- Eric Hoffer

"A country may be governed with justice,
And a war may be won with cunning,
But people can only be mastered by following them.
How can this be known?
By looking!
The more people are controlled, the poorer they become;
The poorer they become, the more restless they get;
the more restless they get, the more forcefully they are restrained.

When people are forcefully restrained, their defiance becomes ingenious.
And the more ingenious their defiance, the stranger are the things that happen.

Now when strange things begin to happen, laws and regulations become stricter;
Then stricter laws and regulations mean more criminals and fugitives.
Soon everyone is either a criminal or a fugitive,
And no one can untangle the mess.

Therefore,
The sage does nothing and people govern themselves,
Provokes no one and people are peaceful,
Does not interfere and people prosper,
Is without desire and people fulfill themselves.

The more people are controlled, the less contented they become.
But when will leaders understand the significance of this?"

-- Lao Tzu, tr. Ray Grigg; stanza 57-58 (trad.), 20-21 (MaWangTui)

In his book 'Why Government Doesn't Work,' Harry Browne writes:

"Government dominates our lives; it is at the center of most news and most public discussion. And yet no one person in a hundred can explain what we mean by "government," and no school or textbook bothers to provide a precise definition."

"The distinctive feature of government is coercion -- the use of force and the threat of force to win obedience. This is how government differs from every other agency in society. The others persuade; government compels."

"So what is government? Very simply, it is an agency of coercion."

"Of course, there are other agencies of coercion -- such as the Mafia. So to be more precise, government is the agency of coercion that has flags in front of its offices."

"Or, to put it another way, government is society's dominant producer of coercion. The Mafia and independent bandits are merely fringe competitors -- seeking to take advantage of the niches and nooks neglected by government."

"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments... that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity." -- John Hospers

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- William O. Douglas ("Supreme Court Justice")

"Man can hardly recognize the devils of his own creation." -- Albert Schweitzer

"There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off... These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would reinvent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised." --Etienne de la Boetie ('The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude')

"Government" as "Legal Plunder"


"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone." -- Frederic Bastiat

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and son on, and so on. All these plans as a whole - with their common aim of legal plunder - constitute socialism." -- Frederic Bastiat

"When plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by peaceful or revolutionary means - into the making of laws." -- Frederic Bastiat

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it... Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal. In short, there is legal plunder." -- Frederic Bastiat

"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man." -- H.L. Mencken

"Once a right to collective looting has been substituted for the right of each person to have whatever he has produced, it is not at all surprising to find the official dispensers deciding that it is right for them to loot the loot - for a "worthy" purpose, of course. Then we have the loot used by the insiders to buy votes so that they may stay in power; we have political pork barrels and lobbying for the contents; we have political patronage for political loyalty - even for loyalty to immoral conduct." -- F.A. Harper

"Thievery and covetousness will persist and grow, and the basic morals of ourselves, our children, and our children's children will continue to deteriorate unless we destroy the virus of immorality that is embedded in the concept of the Welfare State; unless we come to understand how the moral code of individual conduct must apply also to collective conduct, because the collective is composed solely of individuals." -- F.A. Harper

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Robert Heinlein ('The Moon is a Harsh Mistress')

"The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it." -- Bertold Brecht (The Threepenny Opera)

More Definitions of Government


"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a dangerous servant and fearful master." -- George Washington

"Governments are triumphant monopolies of murder, robbery, swindling and all that is atrocious and detestable. Ever since the beginning, they have forced mankind to kill or prepare and hold themselves in readiness to kill each other by the thousands and even millions at a time, and by the cruelest and most destructive means that spite can devise." -- Calvin Blanchard (1865)

"The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"A government, at bottom, is nothing more than a gang of men, and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men. Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent. Indeed, it would not be far wrong to describe the best as the common enemy of all decent citizens." -- H.L. Mencken

"All governments are comprised of two layers: A large number of bureaucrats at the bottom, and a small number of politicians at the top. Politicians are persons who are invested with an above average AIQ. The combination of their aggressiveness with their relatively high intelligence enables politicians to prod the general population into compliance with their wishes and desires. Some governments may be more aggressive than others, but all governments have in common the ability and the willingness to use force, or the threat of force, to perpetuate their existence and to bring about compliance with the wishes of its leadership. The secondary and progressively lower layers of government consist of large numbers of "public servants" who act as the bureaucratic executives of the dominant layer of government...Two hundred years ago, the French philosopher Rousseau formulated the basic principle of interaction between man and his governments: "The less government, the better off its citizenry." This simple but axiomatic statement remains the ultimate foundation of individual freedom. Human beings are only free to the extent that governments are inefficient. The desirability of governments is not a black and white situation. The advantages and disadvantages of a particular government revolve around many shades of grey. In his seminal work, "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith set forth three, and only three, legitimate functions of any government: 1.) The judiciary, 2.) the protection of the country against foreign enemies, and 3.) the infrastructure, such as highways and bridges. To these factors we could add the "safety net" as a modern, enlightened contribution of government." -- Walter E. Requadt

http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertyInOurTime#p/a/3A4FABEFB6295CAD/1/XBMuxXaJYug

[lord edward coke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0bz4I33cPc

"The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by governments." -- Ludwig von Mises

"The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." -- Ludwig von Mises

"If [America] becomes militant, it will be because its people choose to become such; it will be because they think that war and warlikeness are desirable." -- William Graham Sumner

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur

"Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk, the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs — to kill people and to destroy." -- Gen. Thomas S. Power

"A government at war is a juggernaut of centralization determined to crush any internal opposition that impedes the mobilization of militarily vital resources. This centralizing tendency of war has made the rise of the state throughout much of history a disaster for human liberty and rights." -- Bruce Porter

"The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other — instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals." -- Edward Abbey

"Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power." -- Ludwig von Mises

"The environmental movement is animated by a desire to regiment human society rather than 'save the planet.' The movement's economic outlook is socialist, its political ambitions are totalitarian, and its religious affinities are unmistakably pagan." -- William Norman Grigg

"A state is a territorial monopolist of compulsion — an agency which may engage in continual, institutionalized property rights violations and the exploitation — in the form of expropriation, taxation, and regulation of private property owners." -- Hans-Hermann Hoppe

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world." -- Robert E. Lee

"We can breathe the air of liberty only to the extent that we are ready to bear the burden of moral responsibility associated with it." -- Wilhelm Röpke

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"In total, during the first eighty-eight years of [the 20th century], almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs." -- R. J. Rummel

"All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it." -- Mark Twain

"Imperialism is an institution under which one nation asserts the right to seize the land or at least to control the government or resources of another people." -- John T. Flynn

"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone." -- H. L. Mencken

"Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism." -- Ludwig von Mises

"Goodness in man can only grow in a climate of liberty." -- F.A. Harper

"Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him?" -- Blaise Pascal
About Me: "Warfare is the quintessential government activity." -- Robert Higgs

"Since outright slavery has been discredited, democracy is the only remaining rationale for state compulsion that most people will accept." -- Joseph Sobran

"There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power." -- Joseph Sobran

"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed — we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of." -- Albert Jay Nock

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." -- Murray N. Rothbard

"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." -- F. A. Hayek

"Democracy is the pathetic belief in the wisdom of collective ignorance." -- H. L. Mencken

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." -- Aldous Huxley

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." -- George Orwell

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Standing armies are standing curses in every country under the sun, where they are more powerful than the people." -- John Trenchard

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -- James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

[lord edward coke]

please take special note of the writings of The king.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiSQaFvzFSA
Nothing has changed since the days of William the Conqueror I, where taxes were levied based on the record of the land holdings written down in the Doomsday Book, used by the Exchequer to tax the benefactors of the kings grants. Today the same procedure is followed, continued under the Charters creating this country. The king established the rent-roll tax in the states based on the counties record of all titles, which are now used by the Exchequer/Federal Reserve to tax the stranger, levy or foreclose on the ryot-tenure, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed..

"A system of land-tenure, where the government takes the place of landowners and collects the rent by means of tax gatherers. The farming is done by poor peasants, (ryots), who find the capital, so far as there is any, and also do the work. The system exists in Turkey, Egypt, Persia, and other Eastern countries, and in a modified form in British India. After slavery, it is accounted the worst of all systems, because the government can fix the rent at what it pleases, and it is difficult to distinguish between rent and taxes." Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

I want to inject a big however, the king and the Vatican are both in violation of the LAW, they do not have ownership of the land, or have perfected land title, no matter what their Charters and land patents say. Why? Who is the original Grantor of land? God Almighty. Not the King or the Pope, their claim to the land to the detriment of the righteous will be revoked. Who did He intrust the land to? The Church (government), the Christians, trustees of Christ’s Kingdom. Are not the riches of the world stored up for the righteous? Do not the kingdoms of the world, become the Kingdom of Christ, upon his return? So who are the true benefactors of the one and only Lawful land Grant? The servants of Jesus Christ!
I asked the Informer to run this statute on RightWriter to see how it would grade the reading level of this statute. It has a reading grade level of a 17th grade level, that is as high as the program goes.

READABILITY INDEX: 16.97

4th 6th 8th 10th 12th 14th
|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|
SIMPLE | ------ GOOD ----- | COMPLEX Readers need a 17th grade level of education. The writing is complex and may be difficult to read.


The Informer also tried to run it on Grammatik and program went bonkers. If you have a hard time understanding this statute, don’t be surprised. You will be in good company, our fore fathers with their high level of education would have a hard time understanding this statute. By the way, the Informer has said since his early book "Which One Are You", that we were still subject to the king and under the ryot-tenure system, since the inception of this country.
Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)

(a) Parties
St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof, as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors, lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved, suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by other means come to the hands and possession of the King’s majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition, covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, That as well all and every person and persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same, which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed, relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King’s hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord, (4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person or persons than the King’s highness, and the heirs, executors, successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors, administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent, or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses, demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters patent had been made by His Highness.
II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors, administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action, advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord, or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same manors, lands, tenements, and other hereditaments so letten, or any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or otherwise only excepted.Fn#1

Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore to be governed by the common law." 1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74

Marty you are right, the 14th Amendment is very relevant, but I think misunderstood on just what its implications are. If you will read British Colony part III, I include forgotten history that shows just how relevant the 14th Amendment argument is. However, after you learn this information, if you do not already know it, you will come to the conclusion the Informer and I have come to. No reoccurring remedy will be obtained in the courts, just brief aberrations of justice based on the demeanor or impatience of the judge, or his/her lack of self-confidence based on the judges lack of knowledge concerning public policy. Once the judges know their decisions will not be overturned, or their careers damaged, defeat of patriot arguments will be swift, and the penalty for frivolous lawsuits will be just as swift and increase with intolerance of the Judiciary. I don’t mean to sound like a stick in the mud, but it is true. Only through the education of the public, coinciding with the coming financial pain, will change the publics perception of their freedom. Unfortunately I fear it will be to late to make any changes, until Rome self-destructs.

James Montgomery

http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/ans/a04.htm

[lord edward coke]

Deception is a very powerful survival mechanism. Among more primitive creatures deception (or camouflage) is often used as a disguise to prevent being eaten by a predator; e.g., insects disguised to look like leaves or twigs. And predators often use deception (or camouflage) to lure prey into their vicinity so they can be snatched and eaten; eg, the crocodile that looks like a dead branch floating on the water, and the squid whose tentacle looks like a worm. The fisherman uses bait to lure the fish onto his hook.
Much of "modern" human culture is based on similar deception (and camouflage). Most parents use fraud-concepts to control and dominate their children. Some preachers use fraud-concepts to obtain "tithes" from their prey - in return for a promise of "paradise in the hereafter." Most politicians use fraud-concepts to obtain "taxes" from their prey - in return for promises of "running the country," "defending the weak," "feeding the hungry," "healing the sick," "paying the poor," "caring for the old," "building houses for the homeless," "teaching the young," "controlling inflation," "creating jobs," "preventing pollution," "fighting drugs," etc.
The difference between the primitive predator and the human predator is that the latter is somewhat more sophisticated. The human predator doesn't usually eat the human prey or victim (except where cannibalism is still practiced). Instead, the human predator uses deception and camouflage to obtain values produced by the prey or victim. The human predator lives by consuming the values produced by his or her victims, giving little more than promises in return. The victims are allowed to live so they can continue to produce values for the predator to usurp and consume. It is a more sophisticated form of cannibalism.


In order to dupe their victims into parting with their values, human predators use fraud-concepts like "king," "queen," "emperor," "pope," "government," "state," "country," "constitution," "law," etc. The fraud-concepts are the primary tool they use to subjugate their victims. The secondary tools they use are fear and terror: "Bow down, kiss my feet, and call me king - or your head will be chopped off!"; "Pay 25% of your income to the IRS - or they'll take your house, your furniture, your car, and all the money in your bank account, and put you in jail!" To ensure that everyone will be brainwashed and indoctrinated with such fraud-concepts, children are forced into so-called "schools" where they "learn" to recite the "pledge of allegiance" like parrots, "respect the sacred flag" like idol-worshippers, and stand up for the "national anthem" like puppets - where they will "learn" that if you don't believe, conform, and obey you will be punished.
In order to become more conscious you need to throw away most of what you "learned" from your parents, preachers, teachers, politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers. You need to personally test as much as possible against observable reality. There are a series of tests you can subject any concept to, in order to determine if it is a fraud-concept or not:

Can the concept be used to manipulate and control people?

Does my acceptance of the concept place me at a disadvantage?

Can somebody gain an advantage by using the concept if it isn't challenged?

Does the concept have a referent?

If so, is there a better concept/word to describe the same referent?

Note that the fact that practically everyone you know agrees with a concept is not part of the test.
Let us subject the concept/word "pope" to the above tests:

Can the concept "pope" be used to manipulate and control people? Yes, because the so-called "pope" claims to be the "personal representative of god," therefore believers will obey him and pay so-called "tithes" to him. Also, he claims to enjoy "papal infallibility," which means it is impossible for him to make a mistake - therefore everything he says is true.

Does my acceptance of the concept "pope" place me at a disadvantage? Yes, I have to pay for the "privilege" of obeying whatever absurdities flow from the "infallible" mouth and pen of the "divine pope."

Can somebody gain an advantage by using the concept if it isn't challenged? Definitely, the supposed "pope" can live in splendor off the values created by his victims. And so can numerous "papal" employees.

Does the concept "pope" have a referent? Yes, the referent is a man.

If so, is there a better concept/word to describe the same referent? Yes, "man"; or "a man who lives by deception, misrepresentation, and fraud"; or "criminal."

Now let's put "government" (as most people use the concept) to the test:

Can the concept "government" be used to manipulate and control people? Yes, "The government is the authority we must obey."

Does my acceptance of the concept place me at a disadvantage? Yes, I have to pay for the "privilege" of obeying the people who call themselves "government."

Can somebody gain an advantage by using the concept if it isn't challenged? Definitely, the people who call themselves "government" enjoy the status of being masters financed by their "subjects" or slaves.

Does the concept have a referent? Just what the referents are is not clear. They could include: people, guns, bombs, buildings, systems, pieces of paper, etc.

If so, are there better concepts/words to describe the same referents? Yes, territorial gangsters, guns, bombs, buildings, systems, pieces of paper, etc.

To discover the extent to which some concepts are bogus, it may be necessary to dig into history (particularly revisionist history). For example, in the case of the so-called "US Constitution" we find that the 70 odd people who signed it as "We the people of the United States of America" signed it on their own behalf and made no attempt or even suggestion that it would apply to any descendants of people then living.


The people who pretend to "govern" in the name of the so-called "US Constitution" are liars and impostors. The people who kill in the name of the so-called "US Constitution" are terrorists and murderers. The people who tax in the name of the so-called "US Constitution" are thieves and robbers. Similar considerations apply to other political systems around the world.
The concepts and words we use have consequences. Concepts can be "locks" that lock us into automatic unworkable thinking and behavior. Most humans cannot question their concepts. Some advanced humans can and do. The consequences of fraud-concepts, such as "country," "constitution," "government," "law," "nation," etc., include war, poverty, crime, pollution, and a host of other apparently intractable problems. Most humans cannot see this. So their "solution" is to "change the government," or to advocate "new laws," or to "smash the state." They remain stuck in the same old conceptual framework that is at the root of the problems. The results they have produced so far have been meager, to say the least. It remains to be seen whether a sufficient number of humans can break through the conceptual frameworks of current primitive human culture, in order to create new civilizations completely outside our current abominations.

[phosphene]

The victims are allowed to live so they can continue to produce values for the predator to usurp and consume. It is a more sophisticated form of cannibalism.

"vampire" is the term the author is searching for there.

[Nailer]

The justice department, run by Eric Holder and Obama, has recently launched a new website in which the US flag banner has been replaced with an ominous dark banner. Across the top is the cryptic phrase " The Common law is the will of Mankind issuing from the life of the people. "

The phrase was penned by a 1950's member of the International Labor Organization and outspoken communist, D. Wilfred Jenks. It was Janet Reno's favorite phrase.

Writes Blogger Ann Huggett at RenewAmerica.com:

"What if life, especially in the partisan political arena, started imitating (low) art by ridding itself of its pertinent constitutional, American symbolism and meaning in order to go internationalist from look, feel and orientation so as not to unduly ruffle the feathers of transnationalists everywhere? Then add a statement motto attributed to communists just to rub the corruption of the original departmental intent further into the face of American citizens and voila! I've just described the new U.S. Department of Justice's official web site, a soulless paean of generic surface black and, white with gold accents underlain with red socialist intent..."

Read more about the strange new DOJ website here (it shows side by side pictures of the new and old website:



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=185773



http://www.justice.gov/

[chris jones]

Conditioning, MSM controlled, voluntary service, music-GAGA, fear,terror, it doesn't end does it.
A s mentioned the 60's and 70's were a different kettle of fish.

The NWO leaned from Vietnam, this was to me their staging ground, the practice run for this war on terror.

The key to instigation , the fear, the terror factor was 911, this gave the NWO and their lackey Bush the domination over the minds of the citizenry. The most basic human emotions were utilized, fear and the need for revenge.

The DRAFT, these insidous bloodsuckers realized the draft was one main reason for the revolt, solution, a volunteeer military.

the MSM, in nam they were involved, shocking photos, nightly live footage, reistance to the war was was front page. Investigative reporting mainstram is controlled.

Music, a large percentage was anit-war- the musicians (atrists) were devoted..

i could go on and on, rant up a storm, simply put, these freaks have this nation under their thumb....

[Freeski]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=152636.msg1062778#msg1062778

Lord Edward Coke, ^ that was an excellent read... thanks!

But if the only valid laws are those that we accept (voluntarily enter into contract on), does that jive with your analogly on the deserted island where - after time - they build a walled city and say "agree to these laws or get tossed over the wall"? I mention this because a common response I get from people is that if I don't like my city or country, I am free to leave.

[lord edward coke]

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=152636.msg1062778#msg1062778

Lord Edward Coke, ^ that was an excellent read... thanks!

But if the only valid laws are those that we accept (voluntarily enter into contract on), does that jive with your analogly on the deserted island where - after time - they build a walled city and say "agree to these laws or get tossed over the wall"? I mention this because a common response I get from people is that if I don't like my city or country, I am free to leave.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889#
you'll will want to check part 1 also.....Freeski,Deception has much to do with this.You are free to leave but the agreements you have already contracted into are a major tarbaby and you will not want to leave go of one rope until you have a firm grasp on the other rope (lifeline). As you might end up shamming your emancipation.

If you buy a pig in a poke, you have just bought a pig. A poke is a cage in which you can not see the pig. You stick a stick in a hole and if it squeals like a pig and smells like a pig, its a pig.
The government is not responsible for telling you everything.
If you are free, then 'let a guy be responsible.'
It is not the well written contract that 'gets you'. Its the benefits you take that bind you. You dance to the music, you may have to pay the piper. You take the benefit, that you do not have a right to and it creates an obligation to pay.

You know you can loose your birth right over a bowl of porridge.

When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23

Hebrew for city ` iyr [rye] actually means "excitement, anguish, of terror." The City State was guarded and offered some protection but often became a threat to those around it as the people in it became lazy and apathetic as well as greedy and envious. The people sought to possess the benefits of the City State and the City States possessed the people or at least a portion of their service in return. The people became the laboring assets of the City State and debt from taxes could enslave them as a bondservant of the state on civic improvement projects. In more modern times this statutory labor was called a corvee which was nothing more than the voluntary enslavement or employment of the people at large.

When the burden and demand of the political contribution brought a threat of rebellion the City State often reached out to take from its neighbor what it could no longer safely extract from the blood and flesh of its own members.This way they always turn to war?
Take the benefit and you are either agreeing or you are a thief.

Do you think peter was talking about thiswhen he said, And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:3

 Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; ... But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. The word evil is from poneros meaning "full of labours, annoyances, hardships "
      Without an oath before men you cannot lawfully enforce your government and with it evil shall come of it.
This is why you sign your name voluntarily at the botom of these 'government forms.

      Whether a single chief or an elected elite all top down governments bring the warning of 1 Samuel 8:11...

The Civil State was instituted by Cain.If you compact with men then you give men power to enforce the contract, to decide the law, where men pick and choose of the fruit of good or evil. I believe we should form our compacts with the LORD and let Him be God.

      15 Isaiah 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

      People assume that without the construction of a binding covenant of governance man cannot function, that the success of the technological world is the results of corporations, constitutions, bounds and borders. I see that it is in spite of the restrictions imposed by men who usurp God as ruler of the lives of their brothers that this world has made it as far as it has. I also see that we have constructed the beast that devours us daily. that is partly why the Hebrew word for covenant and league comes from the word meaning devour and eat. I see that it is the renegade, the individual thinker who goes beyond the bonds of thinking imposed by men that has pushed society ahead. I also see that it is our advancements without the wisdom of God's ways that makes us most vulnerable today.

      God does not want men to rule over other men or to go under agreements that bind us under the rule of men. Such agreements makes gods of men.

To enter into compacts with men for mutual assurance is to become a surety for your brother. The enforcer of that compact becomes the exercising authority of that agreement. They become gods and you become a surety by your pledge of allegiance.

      Proverbs 11:15 He that is surety for a stranger shall smart [for it]: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.

      Proverbs 17:18 A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

      Proverbs 22:26 Be not thou [one] of them that strike hands, [or] of them that are sureties for debts.

      Proverbs 6:1 My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend. Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler.

      Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.

      Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. God wants us to be bound to him and come together recognizing his law, his love for that is where the real power is.

      More governmental compacts will make you servants of men and it is the deception of vanity that allows men to think that they will be able to control the beast they create.

      I know people are afraid, I know people believe they must exercise authority and establish laws and rule over others. They may do so. God has tried to show us a world without man made rules and controls without borders and boundaries of our own making a world where anything is possible.

      And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.Joshua 24:

[lord edward coke]

One of the great tactics of war is to use propaganda and fear to reeducate and alter the thinking of your enemies. Goliath used this tactic against the Israelites in the Old Testament. He caused so much fear in the camp of Israel by his words alone that no one would go out to battle against him. There is a large population in the United States who remember the words of Nakita Kruschev, "We will take over the United States without firing a shot. Your children will live under communism!" An old and time tested tactic. Many of us remember the "cold war" which allegedly ended with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Kruschev was right, the children of those living when he made his statement, now live under communism in the United States. The take over of our nation however, began long ago.

One must respect an enemy who has the cunning to convince a nation that a new kind of law was given to the American people, a law never before used in the history of the world. The basis of this new law was "WE THE PEOPLE." It was not easy to convince the people in the 13 colonies that the Constitution of the United States was needed to make our nation successful. Many fought against it to the very end. Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us?" Replied, "A Republic Madam, if you can keep it!" When reading the definitions of this word Republic, confusion sets in to those who can still read. "Our Republic is not like those we read about in history, it is a Representative Republic," they say. Imagine an enemy so cunning, it has convinced the American people they have been free, while enslaving us.

Our historians tell us the Constitution is "a God-inspired document." Our historians tell us that America was founded to be the "melting pot of the world." Modern language would define the United States as the "most cosmopolitan country in the world." It's true, we have more races of people living in this nation than perhaps any nation in the world. We have allowed, through the Constitution, every culture and religion on the face of the earth to come to America and flourish.

The "law of the land" may not be what we believe. Were our founding fathers operating on biblical principles or were they led by "the love of money?" Have we accepted a "bill of goods" from our enemies and been taken over by a cunning plan called the Constitution of the United States? Thinking we have been free for over 200 years, has our Constitution now made us slaves?

You decide.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
It is important to know the people behind any plan. During the last 20 years the media has attempted to slander the "good names" of many of our founding fathers. Quite an uproar resulted in the conservative community when Hollywood and television made some of these men look like perverts, rather than men of God who gave us our "law of the land." Their accounts of these men are mere speculation and it would be good to remember the words of Napoleon when reading and listening to any account of history. "History is nothing more than agreed upon lies."

The word of God says, "The love of money, is the root of all evil" (1 Tim. 6:10) and "the borrower is slave to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7) Our nation was founded upon the "love of money" and "debt." In 1716, the Mississippi River region of the United States was owned by France. John Law of Scotland established the General Bank in France. He issued through this bank, freshly printed paper called "banknotes." Yes, just like our Federal Reserve notes. The government of France made these banknotes legal tender and the bank flourished by lending these notes at interest. In August 1717, the General Bank absorbed the Louisiana Company. This new company was given the trading rights over the tremendous land area drained by the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri Rivers and also trading rights in Canada. In 1718 the General Bank changed its name to "Royal Bank" to give it a better image. The king of France guaranteed the bank notes issued by the Royal Bank. It was a true conglomerate.1

Another conglomerate was formed about this time called the "Western Company." This company was a rival to the Royal Bank and Louisiana Company. This new company absorbed the East India, Oriental and China Companies. The king of France gave this newly formed company the rights to "collect taxes" and a monopoly of the mint and coin issue under the condition they take over the national debt of France.1 Sound familiar?

The next thing to happen almost surpasses belief. The two companies merged! The price of the stock of the new company went out of sight. The merchants and farmers of France mortgaged their homes, farms and businesses to buy stock.1

When John Law announced his plan to take the gold backing off the banknotes, long lines formed to exchange the banknotes for a meager supply of gold. When the gold ran out, the windows were closed and the homes, farms and businesses of the French people went to the usury bankers.1 The bankers now had a toehold in America!

England assisted the 13 colonies of America in their war with the French and Indians. THEY LENT THE COLONIES MONEY AT INTEREST TO FIGHT THIS WAR. This was another violation of God's law. (Exodus 22:25, Mt. 25:27) In 1764 the Stamp Act was passed on the colonies to recoup some of this usury loaned money. The colonies revolted, they had no money to make repayment. In 1770 Virginia passed anti-slavery laws. The King of England gave instructions to His governor in Virginia that no such laws would be allowed. The King desperately needed his share of the slave trade profits to pay his own usury debts.1

By 1775, the balance of trade between the colonies of America and England was dramatic. The colonies owed English merchants L-4, 800, 000. The imposition of usury into this trade imbalance, made war with England inevitable. Unpayable debt was the cause. The colonies were enslaved. Virginia was in poverty.1 Why? "The borrower is slave to the lender."

The colonies were in a self inflicted and long planned bankers trap. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written to seek independence from England. The colonies were heavily in debt and did not have the means to fight a war. What did they do? They borrowed money of course! From whom did they borrow? Bankrupt France, who else!2

The resulting "war" with England was "won" by the colonies, but while they won the war, the battle was lost, because "the borrower is slave to the lender."

Who were the men who led us to "victory" over England and forged a "new nation by writing the Constitution of the United States? A majority of them were...lawyers. Forty of them held government bonds. Fourteen were land speculators. Twenty-four of them made their living lending money at interest. Eleven were involved in mercantile, manufacturing or shipping. Fifteen owned slaves.3 Do not confuse these men with those who signed the Declaration of Independence. Only Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert Morris, George Clymer, James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, and George Read of Delaware, signed both.

Several of our founding fathers were in the back pockets of the usury bankers. In 1781, the private Bank of Pennsylvania was formed. It later became the Bank of North America. Among those who were able to get in on the original subscription of this bank were: (1) Benjamin Franklin, (2) Thomas Jefferson, (3) Alexander Hamilton, (4) James Monroe, (5) John Jay, (6) John Paul Jones, (7) Commodore John Barry. In 1935, this bank took over the National Bank of the Danish W. Indies based in London."1

In 1784, the Bank of New York was founded. This bank was a creation of Alexander Hamilton of New York whose backers were reputed to be the Rothchilds and the Bank of England.1

In 1787, the Constitution was fittingly put together in Philadelphia, the home of the Bank of North America.1 Hamilton and his backers wrote the original document for the Constitution, to the dismay of most of the attendees of the meeting. Many were horrified that an entirely new kind of government was being formulated, when in fact they had been sent only to revise the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry, himself a lawyer, went home to fight against the Constitution. Like so many of our present day pieces of legislation, out of 62 delegates, only 39 signed the final document. Through the efforts of Hamilton, who wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers, the people were finally convinced that the Constitution would, if the people were "vigilant," safeguard their liberties. John Jay, another writer of the Federalists Papers, later became Secretary of State under President John Adams. It was discovered that Jay had made a secret treaty with England to pay war reparations to our defeated foe.2 All in a days work! It was a great con job foisted upon a nation of people. The banks were in, the people and their properties were out!

In 1789, Washington was elected President. He gave Hamilton the appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. The fox was now guarding the hen house. Two years later Hamilton created the First Bank of the United States. It was a private bank to which all of the new governments money was entrusted. The successor to this bank was the Second Bank of the United States. When it went bankrupt 50 years later, it was found that 64% of the banks 25,000 shares were owned by foreigners. Many were British!1

In 1794, taxes forced Pennsylvania farmers to revolt. Washington did what all rulers do when a country is in debt to the bankers. He sent thousands of Federal troops to crush the rebellion. He did to his own people what he had led his people to revolt against in the war with England. 2 But then the bankers must be paid.

Thomas Jefferson who signed the Declaration of Independence, but fought against the Constitution and who in fact left the country during its inception, thinking that without him it did not stand a chance of being passed; in 1806, as President of the United States, signed into effect the Articles of War which provided for International Law venue in America.

In passing the information contained in this essay to many throughout our nation, I have been assailed with threats and called every name you can think of, by men who are "Christian patriots." A few, less threatening, have suggested that I should look less at the fallible men who wrote the words and more at the "intent" of the words of the Constitution. With the examples of the fallible men in this short essay, and there are many more, how should this be answered? I know of only one way and that is to take the actions of these men into account in determining their intent!

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION REALLY SAY?
I remember watching a "MASH" television show years ago. An injured soldier was desperate to talk to someone about not being sent back into the war. A doctor said, "Would you like to speak to our priest?" The soldier replied, "No, I'm an atheist." The doctor responded, "I don't believe that." "It's true," said the soldier, "I swear to God!" Was the soldier an atheist? Is the Constitution a document designed for our freedom?

Many people still say the Constitution is a God inspired document. Yet God is never mentioned in the Constitution. The people were in such fear of the Constitution, that the 10 Amendments became mandatory before their fears were quelled. The die had already been cast. The flexible, easily changed Constitution was in place.

Few people ever examine words for what they actually say. Most prefer to take the word of those they "trust," rather than look for themselves. It is a fatal mistake. The godless Constitution has become "our fearful taskmaster," as Washington himself once described government. Have you ever wondered why the ability to alter the Constitution was important to us? Article V allows both the Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses deem it necessary, or, on the Application of two-thirds of the several states, to propose Amendments to the Constitution. The legal "experts" tell us it is important, because of social and economic changes that might take place. We can understand how this may benefit power brokers, but how could it possibly benefit the people of this nation? It doesn't! Law cannot be changed.

The bankers were well-taken care of with the Constitution. Article V1 makes all previous debts as valid under the Constitution, as under the Confederation. This was for the bankers, not us. They even had a special International Debt Jurisdiction put into our original Constitution. It is found in Article 111, Section 2 and is called admiralty and maritime. This special international legal jurisdiction was for the bankers, not us. The bankers, mostly anti- Christ, in Article V1, also made sure that none of their boys and girls in either house could be given any sort of religious test that might keep them out of office. Article 1, Section 10, takes away the state's ability to argue with the bankers and their contracts. This clause guaranteeing the obligation of Contracts was not put there for us, it was placed there for the bankers. WE THE PEOPLE did not write the Constitution. That's what we are "told" and what most people "believe," but the truth is the Constitution was written by an elite few who have convinced us that we wrote a contract that "limits" government!

There is a false notion in the Patriot community today, which is teaching that the Constitution of the United States has been suspended. There are some fine men and women teaching this concept. Consider this: The Constitution was put into place for international bankers. It allows the President, when two-thirds of the Senate concurs, to make international treaties. Treaties are an EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE! The Senators were originally chosen by the individual state legislators and sent to Washington, D.C. to represent state's rights. [Article 1, Section 3] International treaties affect states rights and the people who live there. NAFTA IS A GOOD EXAMPLE! In 1913, the Constitution was amended to allow WE THE PEOPLE to elect the Senators! The 17th Amendment cleared the way for the removal of state's rights and removed the only obstacle to easy ratification of treaties PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT

[thebiglie]

You don't need to burn tires and start riots to resist.

Being overtly aggressive or conducting desperate acts fueled by frustration are not signs of a healthy resistance. All you need to do is educate people, and they will resist in their own way.

The tea party movement is resisting, in fact its crippled the enemy. The illusion is that the tea party is not changing politics, that's what the news stations want you to believe, so you get frustrated and act out in irrational ways. But really though, the teaparty is kicking ass

[Geolibertarian]

The tea party movement is resisting, in fact its crippled the enemy.

I wish I could agree with you, but I have to call it like I see it, and from what I've seen, the corporate-owned Republican Party has in fact hijacked -- and consequently "crippled" -- the Tea Party:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=170622.0

Last April, members of We Are Change had to find this out the hard way.

That would not have happened in 2007.

[lord edward coke]

You don't need to burn tires and start riots to resist.

Being overtly aggressive or conducting desperate acts fueled by frustration are not signs of a healthy resistance. All you need to do is educate people, and they will resist in their own way.

The tea party movement is resisting, in fact its crippled the enemy. The illusion is that the tea party is not changing politics, that's what the news stations want you to believe, so you get frustrated and act out in irrational ways. But really though, the teaparty is kicking ass

You might want to read over post 101 =  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=152636.msg1066470#msg1066470

http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/index.html

[lord edward coke]

Freeman kickin A$$ =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU7G6XIMt2Q&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0&feature=related

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

-Lysander Spooner

The Constitution forms a Trust. Your Estate has been stolen. Claim it back.
http://thelastoutpost.com/video-5/law-seminars.html

In theory.

How will controllers leave those "who don't need the control" "on their own?"

How will a tyranny imposed on the majority live co-equally with a republic of a minority?

By the minority constantly entering their military courts to corner them with their own "laws?"

It seems a quandary to me.

The ones "who don't need control," to the "controllers" of those "who need control" are likely the very ones who are most dangerous to an obviously existing overarching socio/political engineering agenda, and are likely to be an especial target.

Live and let live?

[phosphene]

The ones "who don't need control," to the "controllers" of those "who need control" are likely the very ones who are most dangerous to an obviously existing overarching socio/political engineering agenda, and are likely to be an especial target.

Omerta
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6mlxmla2w
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If I Die, You are forgiven. If I Live, I will kill you." Such is the Rule of Honor.

Broken the paradigm an example must be set.
Invoke the Siren's song and sign the death warrant.
This is what has been wrought for 30 pieces of silver.
The tongues of men and angels bought by a beloved betrayer.

I am the result, what's better left unspoken.
Violence begins to mend what was broken.
You've been talking, I've been all ears.

Words meant to dwell in darkness shall never see the light of day.
Words can be broken so can bones, execute the mandate.
Mouth full of dirt your name is removed from the registry.
St. Peter greets with empty eyes then turns and locks the gate.

I am the result, what's better left unspoken.
Violence begins to mend what was broken.
You've been talking, I've been all ears.
Omerta.

Cheaply venal, stupidly verbose.
A slip of the tongue, a slit of the throat.
Six feet under with no marker.
Keep my name from your mouth forever.
Free speech for the living, dead men tell no tales.
Your laughing finger will never point again.
Omerta.
Omerta.
Sing for me now.

[lord edward coke]

Are we free slaves? or are we enslaved freemen?
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertyInOurTime#p/f/307/1B-5Lbpk_3Y

It's true of course that many of your actions are the result of suggestions, requests or orders and commands from others -but that doesn't change the fact that the decision to act and the action itself are always under your own control.
Let's take an extreme case:

A robber breaks into your house and threatens you at the point of a gun. Discretion being the better part of valor, you give in and tell him where your valuables are hidden. Butit's YOU that makes the decision and it's YOU that does the telling.

If, instead of a robber, it was a kidnaper after your child, it would be a different story. But in either case your thoughts and acts are under your own control. Thousands of men and women have suffered torture and even death
without speaking a word that their persecutors tried and failed to make them speak.

Your freedom of action may be forbidden, restricted or prevented by force. The robber, kidnaper or jailer may bind your hands and feet and put a gag in your mouth. But no amount of force can make you act unless you agree to do so-maybe with hesitation and regret, but the fact remains.

I know this all sounds hair-splitting and academic, but it leads to a very important point -in fact two important points :

1st Individual freedom is the natural heritage of each living person.

2nd Freedom cannot he separated from Responsibility.

Your natural freedom, your control over your own life energy was born in you along with life itself. It is a part of life itself.

It's not something that somebody can give you or that you can give to someone else. Nor can you hold any other person responsible for your acts. Control simply can't be separated from responsibility because control IS responsibility.

http://iahushua.com/WOI/conman2.html

[Freeski]

Are we free slaves? or are we enslaved freemen?
http://www.youtube.com/user/LibertyInOurTime#p/f/307/1B-5Lbpk_3Y

Bump this 30-minute video for later... this guy rocks!

[lord edward coke]

Bump this 30-minute video for later... this guy rocks!

Yes but the real kick a$$ video is the debate btween him and mike badnarik(who i love and have all the respect in the world for i
cannot say enough good about mike.)

Mike has to concede many points and agrees with stef to a rousing applause of the audience- this vid is mouth-watering good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc

There are two parts and if you can find em unedited it would be best. One criticism of stef is he is a lil long-winded,but he has a lot
to say,right. Even tho on a scale of one to ten i give this debate an ELEVEN!!!