slug.com slug.com

1 0

Would things be better if the Third Party candidate won and Reagan lost?

Back in 1980 independents, liberal intellectuals, and college students found something interesting in John Anderson. That included funding for R&D focused on productivity and raising GDP. He wanted to support higher education, and environmental conservation...

... ...but people didn’t want to “waste their vote.”
...so we got Ronald Reagan.

  • So factories were moved to the southern border to make use of illegal foreign labor.
  • War was declared on the middle class, as the Father of Trickle-down Economics. Raised taxes 11 times (while cutting taxes on only the wealthiest), and expanding the federal government. This was biggest peacetime tax increase to that point.
  • Raided Social Security for trillions.
  • Vetoed of the Comprehensive Apartheid Act
  • Opposed regulating emissions to prevent acid rain
  • Spending on higher education was slashed by some 25 percent between 1980 and 1985
  • Enter the War on... ...crime, drugs, and foreign countries!
  • Iran-Contra, CIA cocaine smuggling, supported Saddam by selling him weapons illegally
  • Funded, trained, and armed the Mujahideen (A.K.A. Al-Qaeda).
  • Secret CIA Wars in  (300,000+ dead) Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala
ThoreauYou 4 Aug 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Would things be better if people returned to rule of law instead of criminals counterfeiting governments?

I think that the answer is self-evident.

Yes, the rule of law. But what law? That is a highly subjective response to a very specific question. So would voting for a third party automatically mean a return to the rule of law? What is the “rule of law” that you envision? The constitution? The bill of rights? All the Amendments, even the Sixteenth? What are the consequences of overturning questionable amendments?

@ThoreauYou

Ross Perot attempted to answer your original question. Reagan had one of the Bush Crime Family members as VICE, then that criminal Bush reigned as head of the New World Order for 4 long years.

Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.

If those in power excuse themselves from the STATUTES they enforce, that fact confesses that those STATUTES are not laws, as they are meant, specifically, to apply only to non-members of the Crime Family, or their subordinates, mercenaries, etc.

"Yes, the rule of law. But what law?"

The Law that applies to all, including people in government. It is called the Ancient Law, and it is adjudicated in a Court of Law, where a jury (The People) decide fact from fiction.

"So would voting for a third party automatically mean a return to the rule of law?"

One that knows the difference would be a step in the right direction. I can imagine a number of scenarios that could happen, involving the use of the Bully Pulpit to inform The People of their rights to hold people in government to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case, such as, for example, a fraudulent pandemic.

"What is the “rule of law” that you envision?"

Your use of quotes can be directed at those authorities on the subject that have described the use of rule of law during its use, such as:

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

A Court of Law until recently was specifically referred to as a Court of Law, so as not to confuse it with a Court of any other kind, such as a Summary Justice Court, such as an Admiralty or Equity Court.

Here are a few more specifics:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Or here:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

If you are unfamiliar with Rule of Law to a point where someone familiar with it is seen by you as a crack pot, then it may be a good idea for you to look into the facts that matter in the case where Rule of Law is replaced with counterfeit versions.

"The constitution? The bill of rights?"

That is a case in point. The Constitution (Articles of Confederation) lasted until 1789, and that organic, grass-roots, of, by, and for the people document (Articles of Confederation) were set aside by criminals perpetrating a treasonous crime. Those who knew what was happening were against the move, and they specified their objections to moving from Rule of Law (common law) to the counterfeit version.

Example:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

The Bill of Rights was a failed attempt to put the "Constitution" back in place under the law, not above the law, but experience has proven that the Bill of Rights are ignored by those in power.

"All the Amendments, even the Sixteenth?"

Case in point. What was stated in the first American Federal (not yet turned into a Nation State Monopoly) common law document (The Declaration of Independence) was the fact that individuals are born with natural rights, such as the right to defend oneself from criminals claiming to be the government.

What does the following words mean to you?

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

"What are the consequences of overturning questionable amendments?"

How does someone overturn a questionable amendment?

"Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hands of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.
There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
"These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
"If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States—that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights—it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:119816
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.