Like
Haha
Sad
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
Isn’t this the “Intellectual” dark web, a type of crowd-sourced “think tank”?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
"A couple of things that are not considered in the fatalistic view of the video is that the government doesn’t have to have complete control over the youth of our nation and a few people will react in a way that surprises and circumvents the unjust system."
The video may be "fatalistic" to some people, not to me. I think that it is a message specifically tailored to reach people who need things quick and simple: cartoonish.
The data in the video scratches the surface of a subject that matters, and a subject that inspires people to be aware of and provide for problems associated with Public Schools, as you and I both have apparently done.
The non-cartoonish version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdnTll1yETk
The one forming the message, delivering the message, as far as I can tell is not fatalistic, but the subject matter is worthy of concern.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
"A couple of things that are not considered in the fatalistic view of the video is that the government doesn’t have to have complete control over the youth of our nation and a few people will react in a way that surprises and circumvents the unjust system."
The video may be "fatalistic" to some people, not to me. I think that it is a message specifically tailored to reach people who need things quick and simple: cartoonish.
The data in the video scratches the surface of a subject that matters, and a subject that inspires people to be aware of and provide for problems associated with Public Schools, as you and I both have apparently done.
The non-cartoonish version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdnTll1yETk
The one forming the message, delivering the message, as far as I can tell is not fatalistic, but the subject matter is worthy of concern.
Isn’t this the “Intellectual” dark web, a type of crowd-sourced “think tank”?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
In the previous data offered that was previously failing to communicate (for whatever reasons) is a reference to something called the Mighty Wurlitzer. If you can see the point at which someone somewhere discovers that power as a power, then someone might also endeavor to qualify and quantify that power in such a way as to help explain the current lack of communications among people as people appear to be incapable of communicating effectively with each other on any matter of any significance.
Mighty Wurlitzer = Major Corporate Monopoly Media
I will add a photo at the end of this which is a reference to something described as The Dictator's Dilemma.
If one were to create and maintain a dictatorship then one speaks and everyone else obeys without question, but there are obvious problems in reaching and maintaining that goal.
A dictator is someone alone at the top, and at the start, there are many empty seats. 2 below the first seat, 3 below that second-highest row of seats. 4 empty seats below the third row on this pyramid scheme.
It might be a good idea to recognize, acknowledge, and deal with the clear fact that those operating and maintaining that pyramid scheme are those who allow some feedback of data flowing in the opposite, non-dictatorial, direction. The bottom of the pyramid scheme are afforded the least power to communicate their individual viewpoints to anyone on any level, and absolutely nothing they may want to say can be allowed to reach the top unsolicited. It turns out that it is vitally important in order to maintain a dictatorship that those on the bottom, those who produce the wealth used to purchase the hardware needed to maintain the dictatorship, are those who cannot be allowed to think for themselves, they must blindly obey, doing so without question.
If they dare to exhibit any evidence of self-authorized, original, reasonable, useful, defensive, thought, then effective steps must be taken to soundly discourage such disobedience.
How would those steps be quantifiable, qualitatively measured, how would those steps be manifested into action in real-time?
What possible barriers can be put in place to ensure that each individual slave is discouraged from individual thought internally, and discouraged if they still have managed an individual thought despite discouragement, what can be done to discourage communication of those thoughts from one slave to the rest of the slaves?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoAZ6S0BHA
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
In the previous data offered that was previously failing to communicate (for whatever reasons) is a reference to something called the Mighty Wurlitzer. If you can see the point at which someone somewhere discovers that power as a power, then someone might also endeavor to qualify and quantify that power in such a way as to help explain the current lack of communications among people as people appear to be incapable of communicating effectively with each other on any matter of any significance.
Mighty Wurlitzer = Major Corporate Monopoly Media
I will add a photo at the end of this which is a reference to something described as The Dictator's Dilemma.
If one were to create and maintain a dictatorship then one speaks and everyone else obeys without question, but there are obvious problems in reaching and maintaining that goal.
A dictator is someone alone at the top, and at the start, there are many empty seats. 2 below the first seat, 3 below that second-highest row of seats. 4 empty seats below the third row on this pyramid scheme.
It might be a good idea to recognize, acknowledge, and deal with the clear fact that those operating and maintaining that pyramid scheme are those who allow some feedback of data flowing in the opposite, non-dictatorial, direction. The bottom of the pyramid scheme are afforded the least power to communicate their individual viewpoints to anyone on any level, and absolutely nothing they may want to say can be allowed to reach the top unsolicited. It turns out that it is vitally important in order to maintain a dictatorship that those on the bottom, those who produce the wealth used to purchase the hardware needed to maintain the dictatorship, are those who cannot be allowed to think for themselves, they must blindly obey, doing so without question.
If they dare to exhibit any evidence of self-authorized, original, reasonable, useful, defensive, thought, then effective steps must be taken to soundly discourage such disobedience.
How would those steps be quantifiable, qualitatively measured, how would those steps be manifested into action in real-time?
What possible barriers can be put in place to ensure that each individual slave is discouraged from individual thought internally, and discouraged if they still have managed an individual thought despite discouragement, what can be done to discourage communication of those thoughts from one slave to the rest of the slaves?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoAZ6S0BHA
Isn’t this the “Intellectual” dark web, a type of crowd-sourced “think tank”?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
You express a condition you experience as if blame is factually accountable to words written by me.
Words offered:
"So why isn't there any discussion on this matter?"
Back to the condition you experience:
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
The subject matter (any subject matter for that matter) isn't discussed, so the question asked is clearly to the point: why?
The question asked:
"So why isn't there any discussion on this matter?"
Rather than discuss the subject matter, the following is the first response:
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
Why is the subject matter turned from the subject matter to me personally? Rather than explaining that there is difficulty on the part of the reader to make sense of the subject matter offered, the reader blames the writer for failing to write a clear message.
Next in succession is this:
"It appears you may be using some dictation software and not editing (removing verbal pauses, etc...) it for clarity."
The subject matter is now not only that the writer is not able to write a clear message, but also the reader attempts to account for a possible error on the part of the writer, as the writer may have made poor grammatical choices when seeking help where help is obviously needed since the writer is incapable of writing a clear point.
So, I repeat, why isn't there any discussion on specific matters specified?
"Could you give us your thesis?"
Are you speaking as if you speak for everyone? Is it remotely possible that someone else may have read what I wrote and was able to clearly understand the intended point intact? As far as a stretch of the imagination that may actually be in reality, is it a least possible that someone other than you has understood the point, such as the point of asking why specific matters specified are not discussed?
What do you mean when you choose the word thesis, in this context?
thesis
"a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved"
"Is it perhaps,
“specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.“?"
If I can hazard a guess as to what you consider to be "my" thesis, then my guess is that you think I am here to win an argument with someone, and such arguments are conducted according to some very well established rules. One rule, for example, is to change the subject from the subject, and instead of discussing the subject matter, the well-established rule is to start discussing flaws in the opponent's character.
I am not here to argue. I am here to exchange specific data in the effort to increase my own understanding of the specific data specified.
Why do people refuse to ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I find it very interesting, even telling, as in telling a story or confessing something interesting, that specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.
To put context on this phenomenon that appears to me as a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 5, 2020:
@Daveclark5
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
You express a condition you experience as if blame is factually accountable to words written by me.
Words offered:
"So why isn't there any discussion on this matter?"
Back to the condition you experience:
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
The subject matter (any subject matter for that matter) isn't discussed, so the question asked is clearly to the point: why?
The question asked:
"So why isn't there any discussion on this matter?"
Rather than discuss the subject matter, the following is the first response:
"It isn’t clear what your point is."
Why is the subject matter turned from the subject matter to me personally? Rather than explaining that there is difficulty on the part of the reader to make sense of the subject matter offered, the reader blames the writer for failing to write a clear message.
Next in succession is this:
"It appears you may be using some dictation software and not editing (removing verbal pauses, etc...) it for clarity."
The subject matter is now not only that the writer is not able to write a clear message, but also the reader attempts to account for a possible error on the part of the writer, as the writer may have made poor grammatical choices when seeking help where help is obviously needed since the writer is incapable of writing a clear point.
So, I repeat, why isn't there any discussion on specific matters specified?
"Could you give us your thesis?"
Are you speaking as if you speak for everyone? Is it remotely possible that someone else may have read what I wrote and was able to clearly understand the intended point intact? As far as a stretch of the imagination that may actually be in reality, is it a least possible that someone other than you has understood the point, such as the point of asking why specific matters specified are not discussed?
What do you mean when you choose the word thesis, in this context?
thesis
"a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved"
"Is it perhaps,
“specific subjects that are of the utmost importance are not discussed with a deliberate effort to get to the truth of the matter.“?"
If I can hazard a guess as to what you consider to be "my" thesis, then my guess is that you think I am here to win an argument with someone, and such arguments are conducted according to some very well established rules. One rule, for example, is to change the subject from the subject, and instead of discussing the subject matter, the well-established rule is to start discussing flaws in the opponent's character.
I am not here to argue. I am here to exchange specific data in the effort to increase my own understanding of the specific data specified.
Why do people refuse to ...
Senator Mike Lee: Bring accountability to the the intelligence community.
[foxnews.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 4, 2020:
I see a problem. Congress is filled with treasonous criminals who get paid large shares of the loot they steal from everyone in all the States, at least from everyone who can still produce anything worth stealing including children. So they, these out in the open treasonous criminals, are claiming ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 4, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I see problems, and so I present those problems I see, for reasons that are clear to me, perhaps not as clear to others.
We the people are as free as we defend ourselves. We are the country as in Trial by the Country, which is trial by jury. The National Government, on the other hand, is a criminal organization, a profitable monopoly, and the people are seen as slaves by those who run that crime cabal.
That is not news.
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."
See an old report on this subject matter here too:
"It was anciently called “trial per pais”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”
The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other—or at least no more accurate—definition of a despotism than this.
"On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 4, 2020:
I see a problem. Congress is filled with treasonous criminals who get paid large shares of the loot they steal from everyone in all the States, at least from everyone who can still produce anything worth stealing including children. So they, these out in the open treasonous criminals, are claiming ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 4, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I see problems, and so I present those problems I see, for reasons that are clear to me, perhaps not as clear to others.
We the people are as free as we defend ourselves. We are the country as in Trial by the Country, which is trial by jury. The National Government, on the other hand, is a criminal organization, a profitable monopoly, and the people are seen as slaves by those who run that crime cabal.
That is not news.
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."
See an old report on this subject matter here too:
"It was anciently called “trial per pais”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”
The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other—or at least no more accurate—definition of a despotism than this.
"On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, ...
[m.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 4, 2020:
Bad and worse treatment of all the people by criminals claiming to be the government in America is not news. Each individual who discovers each example of these facts that matter constitute an individual cause to act in defense against such treasonous harm. What could possibly happen once enough ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 4, 2020:
@EAL_Flt1979
You are welcome. I started a group, you may want to go through that data here:
https://slug.com/group/VoluntaryMutualDefense
I was thinking about writing another response, but I had no cause to act that way, not until you responded with that welcome response.
When was the last time you have heard about an angry mob, such as an angry mob hanging a horse thief (clearly against the law)?
The last time I remember that happening was in Waco, Texas, and the angry ones had National Badges, National Licenses to Torture, and National Authority to Mass Murder, to burn people alive in a church, including women, pregnant women, children, and babies.
More recently was the Stand-Off at Bunkerville. Both sides remained (governed by morality) relatively calm, the National Authorities had perpetrated some aggressive violence upon some innocent victims, so that was the extent of that angry mob comprised of National Authorities Authorized to harm innocent people, for personal profit.
My point here is to point out how this fact ought to be celebrated, not bemoaned or discredited. We as a people are generally more peaceful today than yesterday and that trend appears to be unstoppable, save for either natural or man-made (criminal made) species ending catastrophe.
So, one might think that the peaceful mob, rather than the angry mob, might get a clue, and once that light bulb goes off in each individual in turn, use - we the people might use - the actual law to hold these criminals, these angry mobs, to account for their crimes, so as to make their crimes pay less, and less, and less, until there is no longer a very large incentive for these people to turn to crime this way: fake government.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 4, 2020:
Bad and worse treatment of all the people by criminals claiming to be the government in America is not news. Each individual who discovers each example of these facts that matter constitute an individual cause to act in defense against such treasonous harm. What could possibly happen once enough ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 4, 2020:
@EAL_Flt1979
You are welcome. I started a group, you may want to go through that data here:
https://slug.com/group/VoluntaryMutualDefense
I was thinking about writing another response, but I had no cause to act that way, not until you responded with that welcome response.
When was the last time you have heard about an angry mob, such as an angry mob hanging a horse thief (clearly against the law)?
The last time I remember that happening was in Waco, Texas, and the angry ones had National Badges, National Licenses to Torture, and National Authority to Mass Murder, to burn people alive in a church, including women, pregnant women, children, and babies.
More recently was the Stand-Off at Bunkerville. Both sides remained (governed by morality) relatively calm, the National Authorities had perpetrated some aggressive violence upon some innocent victims, so that was the extent of that angry mob comprised of National Authorities Authorized to harm innocent people, for personal profit.
My point here is to point out how this fact ought to be celebrated, not bemoaned or discredited. We as a people are generally more peaceful today than yesterday and that trend appears to be unstoppable, save for either natural or man-made (criminal made) species ending catastrophe.
So, one might think that the peaceful mob, rather than the angry mob, might get a clue, and once that light bulb goes off in each individual in turn, use - we the people might use - the actual law to hold these criminals, these angry mobs, to account for their crimes, so as to make their crimes pay less, and less, and less, until there is no longer a very large incentive for these people to turn to crime this way: fake government.
Anarchy Short:
Anarchy came about in 1600's in contrast to organisation and lent itself to ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 2, 2020:
"Even in a moneyless world creative wealth will still flow to 20% of the people - the most successful people."
Assuming that wealth can be standardized the above could be applied to that standard.
Example:
Wealth as measured scientifically as a stored energy such as can be measured with ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 3, 2020:
@ChrisODonnell
"Anarchy came about in 1600's..."
Can you point to a reference for the emergence of anarchy in the 1600s?
It has been claimed that the first American anarchist was Josiah Warren 1798 to 1874. I think his work is worthy of reading on this subject matter.
"I was condering more along the lines of sucssess and achievement rather than looking to mesure walth by trivial means colories."
A problem identified by Warren when dealing with how wealth is measured is the differences of opinions not only between individuals (each tending to have a different one in some way), but also each individual may measure wealth differently from day to day.
If the goal is to standardize the measure of wealth in an agreeable way then success and achievement is problematic for that reason: differences of opinion. I might agree with a standardized measure of wealth based on success and achievement once I see such a thing.
The number of popular songs by a musician, the number of cures for diseases, and the number of innocent people defended against criminals who would harm them are all measures of success and achievement to me. If the idea is to then give them money (or cars, homes, airplanes, bitcoins, stock shares, precious metals, rare minerals, rare mineral mines) in proportion to their success and achievement how would you then standardize the value of each transfer of wealth?
How much is one car worth compared to how many ounces of rare metals, or a house on the beach in the Bahamas?
Watt/hours are precise measures of productive power and so far as I know the value of productive power does not decrease with abundance or increase with scarcity as do other standard measures of value such as Federal Reserve Notes printed by criminals running a Central Banking Scam.
As more and more Federal Reserve Notes are printed and doled out to favorites of the regime the result is a power transfer from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who print the money, all the while the standard value (one unit of money) depreciates, eventually depreciating to less valuable compared to used toilet paper.
With Watt/hours (convertible to calories or joules precisely) the increase in production of each unit, stored in batteries, stored in ocean water pumped to higher altitudes for later use such as desalinization, filtration, and electric power generation, remains valuable, so long as people can still use that form of productive power.
So...standardized measures of surplus wealth can be thereby compared.
1. Federal Reserve Notes
2. Kilowatt/hours
The more Federal Reserve Notes printed the less valuable is each unit of value, as power flows to the printers, as power flows from those who produce anything worth stealing.
The more kilowatt/hours ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 2, 2020:
"Even in a moneyless world creative wealth will still flow to 20% of the people - the most successful people."
Assuming that wealth can be standardized the above could be applied to that standard.
Example:
Wealth as measured scientifically as a stored energy such as can be measured with ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 3, 2020:
@ChrisODonnell
"Anarchy came about in 1600's..."
Can you point to a reference for the emergence of anarchy in the 1600s?
It has been claimed that the first American anarchist was Josiah Warren 1798 to 1874. I think his work is worthy of reading on this subject matter.
"I was condering more along the lines of sucssess and achievement rather than looking to mesure walth by trivial means colories."
A problem identified by Warren when dealing with how wealth is measured is the differences of opinions not only between individuals (each tending to have a different one in some way), but also each individual may measure wealth differently from day to day.
If the goal is to standardize the measure of wealth in an agreeable way then success and achievement is problematic for that reason: differences of opinion. I might agree with a standardized measure of wealth based on success and achievement once I see such a thing.
The number of popular songs by a musician, the number of cures for diseases, and the number of innocent people defended against criminals who would harm them are all measures of success and achievement to me. If the idea is to then give them money (or cars, homes, airplanes, bitcoins, stock shares, precious metals, rare minerals, rare mineral mines) in proportion to their success and achievement how would you then standardize the value of each transfer of wealth?
How much is one car worth compared to how many ounces of rare metals, or a house on the beach in the Bahamas?
Watt/hours are precise measures of productive power and so far as I know the value of productive power does not decrease with abundance or increase with scarcity as do other standard measures of value such as Federal Reserve Notes printed by criminals running a Central Banking Scam.
As more and more Federal Reserve Notes are printed and doled out to favorites of the regime the result is a power transfer from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who print the money, all the while the standard value (one unit of money) depreciates, eventually depreciating to less valuable compared to used toilet paper.
With Watt/hours (convertible to calories or joules precisely) the increase in production of each unit, stored in batteries, stored in ocean water pumped to higher altitudes for later use such as desalinization, filtration, and electric power generation, remains valuable, so long as people can still use that form of productive power.
So...standardized measures of surplus wealth can be thereby compared.
1. Federal Reserve Notes
2. Kilowatt/hours
The more Federal Reserve Notes printed the less valuable is each unit of value, as power flows to the printers, as power flows from those who produce anything worth stealing.
The more kilowatt/hours ...
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
I am not necessarily a fan either. People are often misdirected by many factors not the least of which is their own ignorance. Why are these Oath Keepers incapable of understanding the 1789 usurpation whereby the Federation under the common law (sheriffs, grand juries, and trial juries) was annihilated by treasonous criminals and replaced with an arbitrary Nation-State under Summary JustUS courts?
If they realize that fact that matters then they may rethink their oaths to that criminal Constitution, they may then consider just how costly it can be to blindly follow oaths out of ignorance.
I get it, I mean I understand how people can be so misdirected by falsehoods, such as is a common bait and switch routine, but seriously these people following these orders from each successive leader of the Nation certainly run the risk of being issued criminal orders, because the fearless leader in question just so happens to be a raving psychopath, and what stands between that potential misuse of the dogs of war and all the bodies that then pile up as a result?
The so-called Supreme Court? The Law of the Land? Military Tribunals? Civil War? What happened to the Bill of Rights? What happened to the common law with independent grand juries, trial juries representing the whole country in a trial by the country, actual due process, what happened to that? Did it go straight down the memory hole?
So I'm not necessarily a fan of Oath Keepers who think they are protecting and serving The People (as in a Republic) while they try as they may to actually do so, all the while those in power know that the Bill of Rights can be safely ignored while they hide under the wings of Summary Justice Courts.
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
I am not necessarily a fan either. People are often misdirected by many factors not the least of which is their own ignorance. Why are these Oath Keepers incapable of understanding the 1789 usurpation whereby the Federation under the common law (sheriffs, grand juries, and trial juries) was annihilated by treasonous criminals and replaced with an arbitrary Nation-State under Summary JustUS courts?
If they realize that fact that matters then they may rethink their oaths to that criminal Constitution, they may then consider just how costly it can be to blindly follow oaths out of ignorance.
I get it, I mean I understand how people can be so misdirected by falsehoods, such as is a common bait and switch routine, but seriously these people following these orders from each successive leader of the Nation certainly run the risk of being issued criminal orders, because the fearless leader in question just so happens to be a raving psychopath, and what stands between that potential misuse of the dogs of war and all the bodies that then pile up as a result?
The so-called Supreme Court? The Law of the Land? Military Tribunals? Civil War? What happened to the Bill of Rights? What happened to the common law with independent grand juries, trial juries representing the whole country in a trial by the country, actual due process, what happened to that? Did it go straight down the memory hole?
So I'm not necessarily a fan of Oath Keepers who think they are protecting and serving The People (as in a Republic) while they try as they may to actually do so, all the while those in power know that the Bill of Rights can be safely ignored while they hide under the wings of Summary Justice Courts.
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
I am still curious about the question in question concerning Stewart Rhodes, or Oath Keepers, or whatever it is that isn't on your fan list.
Can you just post a link here? I will post my latest link now, for a test.
https://slug.com/group/VoluntaryMutualDefense/post/81013/next-up-is-a-lot-of-data-the-cost-of-getting-the-data-working-in-the-brain-is-reading-the-data-wha
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
I am still curious about the question in question concerning Stewart Rhodes, or Oath Keepers, or whatever it is that isn't on your fan list.
Can you just post a link here? I will post my latest link now, for a test.
https://slug.com/group/VoluntaryMutualDefense/post/81013/next-up-is-a-lot-of-data-the-cost-of-getting-the-data-working-in-the-brain-is-reading-the-data-wha
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Perhaps I was too late looking for the 11th post of newest posts. I looked at your page, I looked at all our questions for 4 pages, but I did not find any on Politics Law & Policy. I did find a post in that Group, but that Group still does not show up in Groups.
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Perhaps I was too late looking for the 11th post of newest posts. I looked at your page, I looked at all our questions for 4 pages, but I did not find any on Politics Law & Policy. I did find a post in that Group, but that Group still does not show up in Groups.
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Politics Law & Policy no longer shows up in my Groups. I think that I've been exiled.
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Politics Law & Policy no longer shows up in my Groups. I think that I've been exiled.
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Which post and what is the question?
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Which post and what is the question?
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Fan or not, the point was to point out that Americans still connect the dots.
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Fan or not, the point was to point out that Americans still connect the dots.
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Check the following dot-connecting out, and the point of posting this is to point out that there are other Americans in the dot-connecting business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPJJSPcFhM
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@Xtra
Check the following dot-connecting out, and the point of posting this is to point out that there are other Americans in the dot-connecting business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPJJSPcFhM
Outlaw Gravity!
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
I am an American. I connected a few dots.
Xtra comments on Mar 2, 2020:
I remember a time when Americans were able to connect the dots.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
I am an American. I connected a few dots.
How To End Unemployment
Contrary to what some experts appear to think or at least suggest, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 1, 2020:
Theocratic solutions to unemployment?
How about accurately identifying the willful manipulation of purchasing power that prevents the natural flow of investment to producers who then employ people?
Extorting productive capacity from producers on a National level through Central Banking Fraud...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@dmatic
I have no problem with people faithfully following the Golden Rule and other very wise messages from wherever those messages originate. When people do unto others what they will kill to avoid having the same thing done to themselves, that is worthy of defense, in my opinion, with or without claims that God made them to it.
Do you agree?
Example
"I get to print money and enforce the use of my money on everyone (or else) but no one else is allowed to do the same thing."
"I get to loan out that Monopoly Money at interest (a piece of the action) depending upon just how scarce I can make the supply relative to the demand for my Monopoly Money. Those who really need it the most, and can pay the "interest" get some of the scarce supply. Those who really need it the most but can't pay the interest are out of luck, too bad for them."
I read the following:
"Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
That was passed to me from someone I requested specific information on this subject matter. He found that and passed it on to me.
That falls in line with the logic and reasonable suggestions such as the Golden Rule, with some extra messages that may be very useful to many people suffering at the hands of deceptive, evil, people, whose goals include the corrupting of good people by obvious means such as:
1. Deception
2. Threat of aggressive harm
3. Aggression not limited to fraud, robbery, assault, rape, terror, torture, murder, and mass murder
What do the following 2 messages mean:
"We shall all have one purse"
"it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird"
Do those 2 messages agree with the Golden Rule, both appear to be warnings to me.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 1, 2020:
Theocratic solutions to unemployment?
How about accurately identifying the willful manipulation of purchasing power that prevents the natural flow of investment to producers who then employ people?
Extorting productive capacity from producers on a National level through Central Banking Fraud...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 2, 2020:
@dmatic
I have no problem with people faithfully following the Golden Rule and other very wise messages from wherever those messages originate. When people do unto others what they will kill to avoid having the same thing done to themselves, that is worthy of defense, in my opinion, with or without claims that God made them to it.
Do you agree?
Example
"I get to print money and enforce the use of my money on everyone (or else) but no one else is allowed to do the same thing."
"I get to loan out that Monopoly Money at interest (a piece of the action) depending upon just how scarce I can make the supply relative to the demand for my Monopoly Money. Those who really need it the most, and can pay the "interest" get some of the scarce supply. Those who really need it the most but can't pay the interest are out of luck, too bad for them."
I read the following:
"Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
That was passed to me from someone I requested specific information on this subject matter. He found that and passed it on to me.
That falls in line with the logic and reasonable suggestions such as the Golden Rule, with some extra messages that may be very useful to many people suffering at the hands of deceptive, evil, people, whose goals include the corrupting of good people by obvious means such as:
1. Deception
2. Threat of aggressive harm
3. Aggression not limited to fraud, robbery, assault, rape, terror, torture, murder, and mass murder
What do the following 2 messages mean:
"We shall all have one purse"
"it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird"
Do those 2 messages agree with the Golden Rule, both appear to be warnings to me.
Simple truth
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 1, 2020:
@JoeySparks
"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."
The place I go with this is to the mirror. It is not arguable that the source of all human law is between the ears of humans, which is merely a phrase, such as "hearts and minds."
The Aristocratic Class of people in America were demonstrably on one side, and on the other side were what we now call patriots, but back then they were called Rebels, Revolutionaries, Insurgents, Terrorists, Liberals, Rabble, and a term less known in modern times: Levelers.
Once I find the law power in the mirror I license myself, authorize myself, and issue myself a warrant to discover the facts that matter in the most serious lawful cases in America ever, and then I seek the lawful steps toward a peaceful solution according to those discoveries I find along the way toward that goal.
The means to that end are handed down from ancient times, as I have found along the way, and those means are collectively called the common law, which was called Legem Terrae in Ancient times, such as the times when the Roman Empire annexed England and the written language in England was Latin, imported by the Criminal Invading Empire Building Romans. Legem Terrae means The Law of the Land.
The currency (language) used to credit (empower) The Law of the Land (common law) includes such things as "innocent until proven guilty," "punishment fits the crime," "unanimous agreement is required for a judicious verdict," etc.
The People as a whole represented in juries selected by lot (randomly) constitute the law of the land, the supreme judicial body, consenting to or not consenting to any higher claims of authority. That is the jargon, the currency, the language of law as told by the patriots.
The Aristocrats made up an exclusive language to credit their privileged court system, on the other hand, the hand behind their backs.
"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."
The implications include such moments of clarity as understanding that forms of work done by patriots include the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and decisions from courts of law (common law Public Trial by Jury cases). Dictates dictated by dictators seeking, stealing, and enforcing dictatorial power from The Public (the people as a whole) document other, opposing, messages, such as many of those messages found in that 1787 document that claims to be a Constitution.
If the common law is the highest court in the land, then the people as a whole maintain their power to consent to or not consent to whatever any government claims to be authoritatively legal. If, on the other hand, the handpicked members of the Aristocracy dictated what is or is not law, then The People...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 1, 2020:
@JoeySparks
"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."
The place I go with this is to the mirror. It is not arguable that the source of all human law is between the ears of humans, which is merely a phrase, such as "hearts and minds."
The Aristocratic Class of people in America were demonstrably on one side, and on the other side were what we now call patriots, but back then they were called Rebels, Revolutionaries, Insurgents, Terrorists, Liberals, Rabble, and a term less known in modern times: Levelers.
Once I find the law power in the mirror I license myself, authorize myself, and issue myself a warrant to discover the facts that matter in the most serious lawful cases in America ever, and then I seek the lawful steps toward a peaceful solution according to those discoveries I find along the way toward that goal.
The means to that end are handed down from ancient times, as I have found along the way, and those means are collectively called the common law, which was called Legem Terrae in Ancient times, such as the times when the Roman Empire annexed England and the written language in England was Latin, imported by the Criminal Invading Empire Building Romans. Legem Terrae means The Law of the Land.
The currency (language) used to credit (empower) The Law of the Land (common law) includes such things as "innocent until proven guilty," "punishment fits the crime," "unanimous agreement is required for a judicious verdict," etc.
The People as a whole represented in juries selected by lot (randomly) constitute the law of the land, the supreme judicial body, consenting to or not consenting to any higher claims of authority. That is the jargon, the currency, the language of law as told by the patriots.
The Aristocrats made up an exclusive language to credit their privileged court system, on the other hand, the hand behind their backs.
"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."
The implications include such moments of clarity as understanding that forms of work done by patriots include the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and decisions from courts of law (common law Public Trial by Jury cases). Dictates dictated by dictators seeking, stealing, and enforcing dictatorial power from The Public (the people as a whole) document other, opposing, messages, such as many of those messages found in that 1787 document that claims to be a Constitution.
If the common law is the highest court in the land, then the people as a whole maintain their power to consent to or not consent to whatever any government claims to be authoritatively legal. If, on the other hand, the handpicked members of the Aristocracy dictated what is or is not law, then The People...
Simple truth
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
How about identifying the claims you make more precisely?
If you do so, such as the "failed attempt" claim, then you can claim precisely what the Slave Traders and Slave Carriers claimed as the reason why "IT" was a failed attempt.
You can also make the same claims as the Central Banking Frauds, when they claimed that "IT" was a failed attempt.
You can make one up, or discover one yourself.
It was framed, formed, and was employed as a federation because the largest criminal army then enforcing absolute, arbitrary, despotic, tyrannical RULE invaded some of the newly formed Republics.
"IT" did not fail to "unify the Republics" sufficiently well enough to drive off that Aggressive Army for Profit. So there is that refutation of your ambiguous claim.
I found a fault found by the 6th President of The United States of America involving a specific failure of those in charge of the Federation as it was while it was one.
"IT" (like the gun) didn't fail, but certainly those using it can be held accountable for what they did with "IT" when they used it. They used "IT" to drive off the criminal British invaders.
What did they fail to do with it?
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
How about identifying the claims you make more precisely?
If you do so, such as the "failed attempt" claim, then you can claim precisely what the Slave Traders and Slave Carriers claimed as the reason why "IT" was a failed attempt.
You can also make the same claims as the Central Banking Frauds, when they claimed that "IT" was a failed attempt.
You can make one up, or discover one yourself.
It was framed, formed, and was employed as a federation because the largest criminal army then enforcing absolute, arbitrary, despotic, tyrannical RULE invaded some of the newly formed Republics.
"IT" did not fail to "unify the Republics" sufficiently well enough to drive off that Aggressive Army for Profit. So there is that refutation of your ambiguous claim.
I found a fault found by the 6th President of The United States of America involving a specific failure of those in charge of the Federation as it was while it was one.
"IT" (like the gun) didn't fail, but certainly those using it can be held accountable for what they did with "IT" when they used it. They used "IT" to drive off the criminal British invaders.
What did they fail to do with it?
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led...
Simple truth
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
"I hope I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am, but don’t forget you’re trying to prove Washington is a psychopath."
If you consider it to be worthy of the effort, then you can expend that effort, no matter what goal you pick. If you think that I am obligated to perform to your narrowly defined boundaries as determined exclusively by you, then you may find my willingness to obey those expectations to be less than expected.
Data:
"Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
It isn't my concern to find an agreeable term or terminology for people who behave torturously and murderously toward people supposedly on the same side in a defensive conflict against torturous and murderous aggressors.
I use the word psychopath because it works for me when I point to such people who act like psychopaths.
"But to say his over all purpose and intent could be undermined by this information you call evidence and therefore he can be equated to the same tyrannical tendencies they were fighting, again i say is absurd."
And again there is no power on earth that can contend with a repeat claim that something "is absurd"!
If Georgie treats "his own" soldiers the way described above, how does Georgie treat the enemy?
Congress said no Georgie, we don't do things that way. Congress at that time was Federal, not National. Georgie wanted a National State Type deal, not a Federal one.
You can claim that that too is absurd, and why would I care?
"A letter to where he was “urging” to receive some kind of grading system in regards to discipline."
The message in the letter is clear:
"The number of lashes may either be indefinite, left to the discretion of the Court to fix, or limited to a larger number; in this case, I would recommend five hundred." Georgie
I want to do as I please: arbitrary.
I suppose that it is possible to read just about anything into just about anything.
"So what I consider to be BS is this academic level of spinning intended to push an agenda that ultimately (seen at every level of American education, which is dominated by the left) turns into something I hear come out of my peers mouth constantly. That “ the founders of our republic were actually just cruel, racist, greedy, white men. That’s what America was founded on”. This is the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
"I hope I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am, but don’t forget you’re trying to prove Washington is a psychopath."
If you consider it to be worthy of the effort, then you can expend that effort, no matter what goal you pick. If you think that I am obligated to perform to your narrowly defined boundaries as determined exclusively by you, then you may find my willingness to obey those expectations to be less than expected.
Data:
"Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
It isn't my concern to find an agreeable term or terminology for people who behave torturously and murderously toward people supposedly on the same side in a defensive conflict against torturous and murderous aggressors.
I use the word psychopath because it works for me when I point to such people who act like psychopaths.
"But to say his over all purpose and intent could be undermined by this information you call evidence and therefore he can be equated to the same tyrannical tendencies they were fighting, again i say is absurd."
And again there is no power on earth that can contend with a repeat claim that something "is absurd"!
If Georgie treats "his own" soldiers the way described above, how does Georgie treat the enemy?
Congress said no Georgie, we don't do things that way. Congress at that time was Federal, not National. Georgie wanted a National State Type deal, not a Federal one.
You can claim that that too is absurd, and why would I care?
"A letter to where he was “urging” to receive some kind of grading system in regards to discipline."
The message in the letter is clear:
"The number of lashes may either be indefinite, left to the discretion of the Court to fix, or limited to a larger number; in this case, I would recommend five hundred." Georgie
I want to do as I please: arbitrary.
I suppose that it is possible to read just about anything into just about anything.
"So what I consider to be BS is this academic level of spinning intended to push an agenda that ultimately (seen at every level of American education, which is dominated by the left) turns into something I hear come out of my peers mouth constantly. That “ the founders of our republic were actually just cruel, racist, greedy, white men. That’s what America was founded on”. This is the ...
Simple truth
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
No amount of evidence can or should change a determined mind. But for those having a need for the facts that matter in the case the evidence is overwhelming, conclusive, consistent, and so far as I have yet to find not refuted.
As to the claim that the speaker is a "hard lefty," it occurs to me to add that opinion to the previous one, an opinion based as far as I can tell on assumption.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Additional information can be found in:
1.
Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle. By Leonard L. Richards.
2.
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
by Thomas P. Slaughter
3.
The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War
by Fred Anderson
Then there is this:
"But if you’re point is that he was some kind of wolf in sheep’s clothing, with a bloodthirsty passion for power and wealth, I call BS."
Again, no amount of information can ever stand up against a call of BS!
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@JoeySparks
No amount of evidence can or should change a determined mind. But for those having a need for the facts that matter in the case the evidence is overwhelming, conclusive, consistent, and so far as I have yet to find not refuted.
As to the claim that the speaker is a "hard lefty," it occurs to me to add that opinion to the previous one, an opinion based as far as I can tell on assumption.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Additional information can be found in:
1.
Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle. By Leonard L. Richards.
2.
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
by Thomas P. Slaughter
3.
The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War
by Fred Anderson
Then there is this:
"But if you’re point is that he was some kind of wolf in sheep’s clothing, with a bloodthirsty passion for power and wealth, I call BS."
Again, no amount of information can ever stand up against a call of BS!
The Logic Of Ownership
What is ownership?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
I read the warning concerning comments, my intention is to share a working concept of ownership, to improve my own working concept, to sharpen it when dealing with obviously unworkable concepts as I see them.
At the start of the Podcast I already encounter problems with the message as I hear it,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@Edify
"We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,"
Theocracy?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
I read the warning concerning comments, my intention is to share a working concept of ownership, to improve my own working concept, to sharpen it when dealing with obviously unworkable concepts as I see them.
At the start of the Podcast I already encounter problems with the message as I hear it,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 29, 2020:
@Edify
"We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,"
Theocracy?
Simple truth
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 28, 2020:
@Clammypollack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo&t=10s
See also:
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray Rothbard, 1979
Example:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
What does that mean?
This dude was a psychopath, so...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 28, 2020:
@Clammypollack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo&t=10s
See also:
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray Rothbard, 1979
Example:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from ...
The Logic Of Ownership
What is ownership?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
I read the warning concerning comments, my intention is to share a working concept of ownership, to improve my own working concept, to sharpen it when dealing with obviously unworkable concepts as I see them.
At the start of the Podcast I already encounter problems with the message as I hear it,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 28, 2020:
@Edify
So you claim amazement and you claim to be at a loss and you claim that my words constitute a rant that sort of does something sort of because my words are confusing and unclear. Then you could not see the point of going any further, but you decide to respond to accomplish what goal? Do you respond to my confusing rant that is unclear so as to inspire me to not go any further?
"I suggest you abandon this project because if you have started out thinking I support the courts or legal ownership provided by law and the courts its only going to get worse."
I asked this:
"Which courts does the speaker own when he speaks of the powers of these courts which are powers that determine what is or is not ownership in any case?"
You are the speaker, which courts do you refer to when you refer to the courts?
Example:
Speaker now writer:
"To make it clear, I claim ownership in capitalism and communism is determined by the court."
There are many courts, and here is a short list:
1.
Common Law Court
2.
Equity Court
3.
Summary Justice Court
4.
Admiralty Court
Which courts do you refer to in your claims concerning ownership?
"...you were so anxious to find fault you forgot to listen to what was actually being said..."
No, you are wrong. I was not as you claim, that is a false claim. Why do you make that false claim? I own my intentions, they are mine, not yours. My intention was to see if my own conceptualizations of ownership can be improved with the help of other people who have improved viewpoints, from other angles of view I have not yet viewed, and so I listened to find those gems, and I listened intently intending to find those gems if they exist.
The first error I saw had to do with confusing the opposing courts into one monopoly of courts as if there weren't opposing courts. I think that it is a serious error to do so, and so I pointed that out and asked the question I asked.
Which courts do you refer to in your claims concerning ownership?
The following is seriously problematic:
"...if not then you really did not listen to anything I said..."
I really did listen to what you said, I listened intently, so the above is a way in which you can prove that I did not do what I in fact did?
If you refer to courts, as you did, then it is reasonable to ask you to be more precise as to which courts you refer to when you refer to courts. If I did not listen, as you appear to expect to prove to yourself, then how would I have known that you refer to courts when you claim that courts determine what is or is not meant by the word ownership.
Which courts do you refer to when you refer to courts when you speak about how courts determine what is or is not ownership?
Example:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 28, 2020:
I read the warning concerning comments, my intention is to share a working concept of ownership, to improve my own working concept, to sharpen it when dealing with obviously unworkable concepts as I see them.
At the start of the Podcast I already encounter problems with the message as I hear it,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 28, 2020:
@Edify
So you claim amazement and you claim to be at a loss and you claim that my words constitute a rant that sort of does something sort of because my words are confusing and unclear. Then you could not see the point of going any further, but you decide to respond to accomplish what goal? Do you respond to my confusing rant that is unclear so as to inspire me to not go any further?
"I suggest you abandon this project because if you have started out thinking I support the courts or legal ownership provided by law and the courts its only going to get worse."
I asked this:
"Which courts does the speaker own when he speaks of the powers of these courts which are powers that determine what is or is not ownership in any case?"
You are the speaker, which courts do you refer to when you refer to the courts?
Example:
Speaker now writer:
"To make it clear, I claim ownership in capitalism and communism is determined by the court."
There are many courts, and here is a short list:
1.
Common Law Court
2.
Equity Court
3.
Summary Justice Court
4.
Admiralty Court
Which courts do you refer to in your claims concerning ownership?
"...you were so anxious to find fault you forgot to listen to what was actually being said..."
No, you are wrong. I was not as you claim, that is a false claim. Why do you make that false claim? I own my intentions, they are mine, not yours. My intention was to see if my own conceptualizations of ownership can be improved with the help of other people who have improved viewpoints, from other angles of view I have not yet viewed, and so I listened to find those gems, and I listened intently intending to find those gems if they exist.
The first error I saw had to do with confusing the opposing courts into one monopoly of courts as if there weren't opposing courts. I think that it is a serious error to do so, and so I pointed that out and asked the question I asked.
Which courts do you refer to in your claims concerning ownership?
The following is seriously problematic:
"...if not then you really did not listen to anything I said..."
I really did listen to what you said, I listened intently, so the above is a way in which you can prove that I did not do what I in fact did?
If you refer to courts, as you did, then it is reasonable to ask you to be more precise as to which courts you refer to when you refer to courts. If I did not listen, as you appear to expect to prove to yourself, then how would I have known that you refer to courts when you claim that courts determine what is or is not meant by the word ownership.
Which courts do you refer to when you refer to courts when you speak about how courts determine what is or is not ownership?
Example:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal ...
More political correctness in public schools.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 27, 2020:
And does anyone wonder why the public is turning toward home schooling?
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
Again, not news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4eYRPjfGYQ
"...the well-read won't be shocked..."
As you may have seen me, I, Joe Kelley, is nothing but an idiot, and so I am not well-read, but...
Fill in the blank, please.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 27, 2020:
And does anyone wonder why the public is turning toward home schooling?
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
Again, not news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4eYRPjfGYQ
"...the well-read won't be shocked..."
As you may have seen me, I, Joe Kelley, is nothing but an idiot, and so I am not well-read, but...
Fill in the blank, please.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules Facebook and YouTube are not bound by the First Amendment-
...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 27, 2020:
And what does anyone anywhere expect from Summary JustUS Courts?
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
And the answer is:
Whatever keeps them in the position that rakes in the LOOT.
This is not NEWS.
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment."
Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
Feb. 27, 1787
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 27, 2020:
And what does anyone anywhere expect from Summary JustUS Courts?
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
And the answer is:
Whatever keeps them in the position that rakes in the LOOT.
This is not NEWS.
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment."
Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
Feb. 27, 1787
Rapid social change from the top down and the bottom up-
[ammoland.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 26, 2020:
This is the basic principle behind decentralization (federation) as opposed to Nationalization, Consolidation, so as to enforce a Profitable Monopoly enforced by Aristocrats upon dumbed down subjects of criminal organizations faking the law power.
The decentralized independent units of defensive...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@KCSantiago
"Thankfully the courts upheld privacy laws for the time being."
Witch courts?
Common law courts serve everyone (The Public, as in Republic) while Summary JustUS courts serve the criminals in power running counterfeit (fake) governments. I think that this is a fact that matters. When the people know this fact the law serves them, when only the criminals know this fact, then that is one of the facts that need to be kept secret.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 26, 2020:
This is the basic principle behind decentralization (federation) as opposed to Nationalization, Consolidation, so as to enforce a Profitable Monopoly enforced by Aristocrats upon dumbed down subjects of criminal organizations faking the law power.
The decentralized independent units of defensive...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 27, 2020:
@KCSantiago
"Thankfully the courts upheld privacy laws for the time being."
Witch courts?
Common law courts serve everyone (The Public, as in Republic) while Summary JustUS courts serve the criminals in power running counterfeit (fake) governments. I think that this is a fact that matters. When the people know this fact the law serves them, when only the criminals know this fact, then that is one of the facts that need to be kept secret.
How does this work?
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I hit the wrong button and posted an empty reply. I looked for the EDIT button but it was not available on my end. I want to to point out the following:
SOROS et al. One individual could - on his own - do a lot of damage, the most damage done by an individual to date in human history: alone. The LONE GUNMAN.
Does SOROS have helpers? Does that constitute an actual conspiracy, or is that merely "Conspiracy Theory"?
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I hit the wrong button and posted an empty reply. I looked for the EDIT button but it was not available on my end. I want to to point out the following:
SOROS et al. One individual could - on his own - do a lot of damage, the most damage done by an individual to date in human history: alone. The LONE GUNMAN.
Does SOROS have helpers? Does that constitute an actual conspiracy, or is that merely "Conspiracy Theory"?
How does this work?
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
How does this work?
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
Have you heard of the Worgl Austria Stamp Script case of competition for the Central Bank frauds? How about the effort by people called "Wall Street" to finance Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt into power; investigative and whistle blowing work done by Anthony Sutton?
http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
Have you heard of the Worgl Austria Stamp Script case of competition for the Central Bank frauds? How about the effort by people called "Wall Street" to finance Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt into power; investigative and whistle blowing work done by Anthony Sutton?
http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/
Adam Kokesh my candidate next election [youtu.be]
808scotty comments on Feb 25, 2020:
Well you have articulated both sides of this debate reasonably. Myself being an engineer, see this from my own perspective, if it's not broke don't fuck with it, if it is broke determine how cost effective it is to repair it, in relation to its value. Example you have a car, lets say worth $5k, it ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
It makes sense to me.
If the law is not broke, don't fix it. You don't have to fix your power of law internally? That may be true, but to me, I must fix my internal power of law, I must study law, it to me is my part of the law, if I do not do this then those who will abuse other people will. My part in the law is small, but all the small parts add up, just like all the small crimes add up.
Applying the if it ain't broke principle (it is a basic economic principle) to the existing National Government:
It is not broke if you are a criminal, it is a cover for criminals, it is National, so it is not broke, so criminals won't fix it.
The Federal Government is broke, it was broken in 1789. Using that terminology the following additional support for this deliberate look into how jurors might deliberate on the crime in question:
"This is the story of how he broke the government and bent the law just so he could see central government revived and used to make politicians more prosperous. I explain in this report to the people of America exactly how George Washington broke the government. If you have ever been in trouble because someone claimed you violated federal written law, the United States Code, you can blame George Washington. If you know someone now in trouble because of the written law, you must share this report with that person. It is written especially so that any person held captive by the government on the pretext of the violation of written law can take just one or two pages from those that follow and understand the impact George Washington has had on their personal freedom.
"The truth shall make you free. This is why this is not written as a book. There are thousands of books written about George Washington, the Constitution, government and the law none of which will make you free. I believe that the truth found in what I have written has the power to make you and others free. You are free to take all or part of this report and share it with anyone who needs to be made free.
"Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath "to support this Constitution." That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," explains that the "United States" means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America."
DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA
PROFESSOR OF Law & GOVERNMENT
February 07, 2009
The Federation was ...
808scotty comments on Feb 25, 2020:
Well you have articulated both sides of this debate reasonably. Myself being an engineer, see this from my own perspective, if it's not broke don't fuck with it, if it is broke determine how cost effective it is to repair it, in relation to its value. Example you have a car, lets say worth $5k, it ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
It makes sense to me.
If the law is not broke, don't fix it. You don't have to fix your power of law internally? That may be true, but to me, I must fix my internal power of law, I must study law, it to me is my part of the law, if I do not do this then those who will abuse other people will. My part in the law is small, but all the small parts add up, just like all the small crimes add up.
Applying the if it ain't broke principle (it is a basic economic principle) to the existing National Government:
It is not broke if you are a criminal, it is a cover for criminals, it is National, so it is not broke, so criminals won't fix it.
The Federal Government is broke, it was broken in 1789. Using that terminology the following additional support for this deliberate look into how jurors might deliberate on the crime in question:
"This is the story of how he broke the government and bent the law just so he could see central government revived and used to make politicians more prosperous. I explain in this report to the people of America exactly how George Washington broke the government. If you have ever been in trouble because someone claimed you violated federal written law, the United States Code, you can blame George Washington. If you know someone now in trouble because of the written law, you must share this report with that person. It is written especially so that any person held captive by the government on the pretext of the violation of written law can take just one or two pages from those that follow and understand the impact George Washington has had on their personal freedom.
"The truth shall make you free. This is why this is not written as a book. There are thousands of books written about George Washington, the Constitution, government and the law none of which will make you free. I believe that the truth found in what I have written has the power to make you and others free. You are free to take all or part of this report and share it with anyone who needs to be made free.
"Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath "to support this Constitution." That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," explains that the "United States" means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America."
DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA
PROFESSOR OF Law & GOVERNMENT
February 07, 2009
The Federation was ...
How does this work?
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
Some people "can just print the money."
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
So the Right and Left Monopoly Halves think that if their all-powerful genie is in charge of everything and everybody then we can buy whatever we want, a wall, a war, free stuff like that, or anything at all, once our side is in power. Meanwhile, the ones in power most certainly must be buying whatever is required to keep their racket going at least one more round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoAZ6S0BHA
KCSantiago comments on Feb 25, 2020:
They think the government can just print the money it needs to pay for all this is what I think is going through most of their minds.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 25, 2020:
Some people "can just print the money."
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
So the Right and Left Monopoly Halves think that if their all-powerful genie is in charge of everything and everybody then we can buy whatever we want, a wall, a war, free stuff like that, or anything at all, once our side is in power. Meanwhile, the ones in power most certainly must be buying whatever is required to keep their racket going at least one more round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoAZ6S0BHA
Fairly Long Article but Worth a Few Minutes
- Why Mercantilism and Economic Nationalism Will ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 23, 2020:
The original use of the word Mercantilism (reported in such works as Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard) is a process exemplified with Monopoly enforcement of trade, such as Monopoly enforcement of the African Slave Trade. This type of criminal enforcement by counterfeit governments did, does, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 23, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Pretty sensitive to the concept of people not agreeing with you arntcha?
Calling them ... considering them ... “Attacks”?"
1. Nonsensical
2. Prone to running off the rails
3. Complainer
4. Not capable of formulating or communicating any solutions
5. Bathers on
And this just in:
6. Overly sensitive
7. Misrepresents disagreement with personal attacks (ad-hominem) paranoid and delusional.
What next? "Conspiracy Theorist"?
DATA (subject matter):
"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
Back to the subject matter offered in the original data:
“Maybe we’re going to discover that globalisation wasn’t such a hot idea after all. … If it means that companies and countries rethink this and relocalise a lot of very vital manufacturing, maybe that’s a good outcome. (But…there’s going to be absolutely massive problems in between.)"
If each State had remained a viable, virtual, factual, defacto and dejure, Independent Nation-State (or Country) unto itself, sovereign, and capable of closing or opening its own borders according to its own capacity to judge right from wrong, good from bad, then from 1789 until this day a Free Market of Government investments would have been maintained by a Federal agreement which governs Federal employees at Federal offices, including a president of the Federal government presiding over the Federal government, which is not a National Governor presiding over federated counties, federated cities, federated churches, federated corporations, federated towns, federated families, and federated individuals.
As explained in an earlier post with quotes from an individual who explains how federation works to afford decentralized government units the power to decide to allow or not allow bad things or good things to cross the borders of the federated, independent, voluntary, consensual, moral, cooperative, competitive, free market, units of government.
Bad stuff no.
Good stuff yes.
Federated State A says yes to anyone, including those known to be infected with a virus.
Federated State B says no to those suspected of being infected with a virus, not until proof can be determined as to the danger of the contagion.
Those infected infect State A.
Those infected do not infect State B.
The same works for the crime known as Nationalism, Tyranny, Despotism, Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, Mercantilism, Dictatorship, Empire, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy In Name Only, Republicanism In Name Only, and Federalism In Name Only, just to list a few infectious contagions.
If someone ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 23, 2020:
The original use of the word Mercantilism (reported in such works as Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard) is a process exemplified with Monopoly enforcement of trade, such as Monopoly enforcement of the African Slave Trade. This type of criminal enforcement by counterfeit governments did, does, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 23, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Pretty sensitive to the concept of people not agreeing with you arntcha?
Calling them ... considering them ... “Attacks”?"
1. Nonsensical
2. Prone to running off the rails
3. Complainer
4. Not capable of formulating or communicating any solutions
5. Bathers on
And this just in:
6. Overly sensitive
7. Misrepresents disagreement with personal attacks (ad-hominem) paranoid and delusional.
What next? "Conspiracy Theorist"?
DATA (subject matter):
"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
Back to the subject matter offered in the original data:
“Maybe we’re going to discover that globalisation wasn’t such a hot idea after all. … If it means that companies and countries rethink this and relocalise a lot of very vital manufacturing, maybe that’s a good outcome. (But…there’s going to be absolutely massive problems in between.)"
If each State had remained a viable, virtual, factual, defacto and dejure, Independent Nation-State (or Country) unto itself, sovereign, and capable of closing or opening its own borders according to its own capacity to judge right from wrong, good from bad, then from 1789 until this day a Free Market of Government investments would have been maintained by a Federal agreement which governs Federal employees at Federal offices, including a president of the Federal government presiding over the Federal government, which is not a National Governor presiding over federated counties, federated cities, federated churches, federated corporations, federated towns, federated families, and federated individuals.
As explained in an earlier post with quotes from an individual who explains how federation works to afford decentralized government units the power to decide to allow or not allow bad things or good things to cross the borders of the federated, independent, voluntary, consensual, moral, cooperative, competitive, free market, units of government.
Bad stuff no.
Good stuff yes.
Federated State A says yes to anyone, including those known to be infected with a virus.
Federated State B says no to those suspected of being infected with a virus, not until proof can be determined as to the danger of the contagion.
Those infected infect State A.
Those infected do not infect State B.
The same works for the crime known as Nationalism, Tyranny, Despotism, Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, Mercantilism, Dictatorship, Empire, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy In Name Only, Republicanism In Name Only, and Federalism In Name Only, just to list a few infectious contagions.
If someone ...
Fairly Long Article but Worth a Few Minutes
- Why Mercantilism and Economic Nationalism Will ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 23, 2020:
The original use of the word Mercantilism (reported in such works as Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard) is a process exemplified with Monopoly enforcement of trade, such as Monopoly enforcement of the African Slave Trade. This type of criminal enforcement by counterfeit governments did, does, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 23, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Personal Attacks are noted and now listed:
1.
"Sometimes you make some sort of sense ..."
Starting with that personal attack, a diversion from the subject, a diversion to me personally; character assassination, a political (corrupt) game.
The subject matter exists, people can see it, some people see it from 90 degrees angle, some see it from 180 degrees angle, IT (the subject matter) remains to be what IT is, as people see it, comment on it, and assemble a comprehensive viewpoint based in part by their own individual viewpoints (plural) and the viewpoints of other people exchanged freely in the free market of ideas; free from assassins playing corrupt political games.
2.
"Other times you seem to completely run off the rails..."
I, not the words written: "run off the rails..." and therefore there is no responsibility, no accountability, on the part of the reader of the subject matter, the printed words that do not change, they stay there, they are what they are, as printed, even if someone else once printed the words, and all the target of the assassin did was quote those printed words.
So far I, me, myself, the target of the attack is only capable of making sense in a limited manner. Stupid me. I, me, myself, the target of the attack runs off the rails in yet another failed attempt to make sense.
3.
"You actually seem to be one of those who has LOTS of complaints but Not One Single Remedy ..."
I, me, myself, only complain and never have I, could I, or will I ever offer anything remotely like a solution to any problem anywhere anytime absolutely, added to my stupidity, my lack of capacity to make sense, and m propensity to run off the rails.
And the subject matter is?
4.
"But ... its okay ... blather on ... some of the stuff you post / paste is interesting"
Now I am guilty of blathering on, along with mostly me being uninteresting, stupid, nonsensical, a complainer who has no clue as to what to do about my complaints, other than to blather on about my complaints.
Back to the actual subject matter:
"Globalisation has created states that are less resilient, and more vulnerable to the sort of brutal economic shocks that may well accompany the coming coronavirus pandemic."
Fake Federalist Party members (Nationalists) annihilated independence in the States, making them more vulnerable to the sort of brutal economic shocks that may well work as powerful parasitic life forms designed to destroy the life of the host.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 23, 2020:
The original use of the word Mercantilism (reported in such works as Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard) is a process exemplified with Monopoly enforcement of trade, such as Monopoly enforcement of the African Slave Trade. This type of criminal enforcement by counterfeit governments did, does, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 23, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Personal Attacks are noted and now listed:
1.
"Sometimes you make some sort of sense ..."
Starting with that personal attack, a diversion from the subject, a diversion to me personally; character assassination, a political (corrupt) game.
The subject matter exists, people can see it, some people see it from 90 degrees angle, some see it from 180 degrees angle, IT (the subject matter) remains to be what IT is, as people see it, comment on it, and assemble a comprehensive viewpoint based in part by their own individual viewpoints (plural) and the viewpoints of other people exchanged freely in the free market of ideas; free from assassins playing corrupt political games.
2.
"Other times you seem to completely run off the rails..."
I, not the words written: "run off the rails..." and therefore there is no responsibility, no accountability, on the part of the reader of the subject matter, the printed words that do not change, they stay there, they are what they are, as printed, even if someone else once printed the words, and all the target of the assassin did was quote those printed words.
So far I, me, myself, the target of the attack is only capable of making sense in a limited manner. Stupid me. I, me, myself, the target of the attack runs off the rails in yet another failed attempt to make sense.
3.
"You actually seem to be one of those who has LOTS of complaints but Not One Single Remedy ..."
I, me, myself, only complain and never have I, could I, or will I ever offer anything remotely like a solution to any problem anywhere anytime absolutely, added to my stupidity, my lack of capacity to make sense, and m propensity to run off the rails.
And the subject matter is?
4.
"But ... its okay ... blather on ... some of the stuff you post / paste is interesting"
Now I am guilty of blathering on, along with mostly me being uninteresting, stupid, nonsensical, a complainer who has no clue as to what to do about my complaints, other than to blather on about my complaints.
Back to the actual subject matter:
"Globalisation has created states that are less resilient, and more vulnerable to the sort of brutal economic shocks that may well accompany the coming coronavirus pandemic."
Fake Federalist Party members (Nationalists) annihilated independence in the States, making them more vulnerable to the sort of brutal economic shocks that may well work as powerful parasitic life forms designed to destroy the life of the host.
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 21, 2020:
@Seriousreason
I'm going to guess that your message is that people will always use their internal power of will to decide to follow an external power of will. People will always abdicate their duty to decide right from wrong and instead of using their own internal moral conscience people will always, without fail, follow an external leader, an exceptional individual better able to make decisions compared to the followers, who always choose to follow.
Is that true, or did I again fail to understand your message?
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 21, 2020:
@Seriousreason
I'm going to guess that your message is that people will always use their internal power of will to decide to follow an external power of will. People will always abdicate their duty to decide right from wrong and instead of using their own internal moral conscience people will always, without fail, follow an external leader, an exceptional individual better able to make decisions compared to the followers, who always choose to follow.
Is that true, or did I again fail to understand your message?
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@Seriousreason
"The whole who should govern who debate has & will continue for eternity."
I'm not so sure about that, and I'm not sure I understand what that means, but the idea of eternity is interesting to me. If there is such a thing as eternity then it seems to me that everything will happen eventually, what could possibly prevent anything from happening given enough time?
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@Seriousreason
"The whole who should govern who debate has & will continue for eternity."
I'm not so sure about that, and I'm not sure I understand what that means, but the idea of eternity is interesting to me. If there is such a thing as eternity then it seems to me that everything will happen eventually, what could possibly prevent anything from happening given enough time?
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@dmatic
"Wow, I would love to read your book!"
I can send it as a book, or as a text file. My e-mail is josf.kelley - AT - hotmail - dot - com. I would need an address to send the book. I can reply to e-mail with the text file.
"So, you're frustrated with my take of reality, and it doesn't make sense to you?"
Yes, the Plan part loses my ability to apply the idea to reality.
"So, you hate George Washington..."
Oh, no, definitely not. Like Cornwallis, the individual psychopath named George Washington was every bit a courageous, respectable, warrior, if not the smartest one in the toolbox. I hate, more than anything, the image I see in the mirror, the image of someone who fails to apply the knowledge required to tip the balance in favor of the effective defense of liberty, instead of the effective offense of the extinction of life. I have long since ages ago managed to avoid outward feelings of hatred, except for rare moments of instinctual reaction to certain stimuli.
"...and you don't believe God has a plan for His creation?"
Not really. God to me is measurable, scientifically, as ectropy, so build into life is the power to preserve and improve it, but it is an undefinable power, so far. If you believe the plan or other things, and you have reason to believe, then all you need to do to understand me (hopefully expressed well enough in the book) is to trust me when I say that I have not been so fortunate as you as to have encountered whatever power aids you to arrive at that belief. The "believe" part in the "plan" escapes me; so far.
"Nope, I'm not saying that."
I did not think so, but the idea with the words I chose was to quantify and qualify the broken bridge between us, and my incapacity to build something to replace the missing section. For all I know my brain is missing parts that your brain has, receptors, or who knows what, certainly not me.
"If everyone could govern themselves, we would not need another government, correct?"
No. Everyone built and functioning naturally does govern themselves and that is proven by many measures, such as the number of innocent people that have been murdered with malice aforethought, murderers govern their victims, and - if I have my scripture understood - the number of times that governors governing their own actions have refused to prevent a terrible crime when it was in their power to do so: Proverbs.
"The "fictional" one you seem to detest would be unnecessary, correct?"
No, the fictional one is a useful way to communicate a number of people who have agreed to work cooperatively toward a common goal, such as the voluntary mutual defense of the innocent from the guilty, or the total destruction of all life everywhere except our own lives in our group.
The Legal Fiction device can be...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@dmatic
"Wow, I would love to read your book!"
I can send it as a book, or as a text file. My e-mail is josf.kelley - AT - hotmail - dot - com. I would need an address to send the book. I can reply to e-mail with the text file.
"So, you're frustrated with my take of reality, and it doesn't make sense to you?"
Yes, the Plan part loses my ability to apply the idea to reality.
"So, you hate George Washington..."
Oh, no, definitely not. Like Cornwallis, the individual psychopath named George Washington was every bit a courageous, respectable, warrior, if not the smartest one in the toolbox. I hate, more than anything, the image I see in the mirror, the image of someone who fails to apply the knowledge required to tip the balance in favor of the effective defense of liberty, instead of the effective offense of the extinction of life. I have long since ages ago managed to avoid outward feelings of hatred, except for rare moments of instinctual reaction to certain stimuli.
"...and you don't believe God has a plan for His creation?"
Not really. God to me is measurable, scientifically, as ectropy, so build into life is the power to preserve and improve it, but it is an undefinable power, so far. If you believe the plan or other things, and you have reason to believe, then all you need to do to understand me (hopefully expressed well enough in the book) is to trust me when I say that I have not been so fortunate as you as to have encountered whatever power aids you to arrive at that belief. The "believe" part in the "plan" escapes me; so far.
"Nope, I'm not saying that."
I did not think so, but the idea with the words I chose was to quantify and qualify the broken bridge between us, and my incapacity to build something to replace the missing section. For all I know my brain is missing parts that your brain has, receptors, or who knows what, certainly not me.
"If everyone could govern themselves, we would not need another government, correct?"
No. Everyone built and functioning naturally does govern themselves and that is proven by many measures, such as the number of innocent people that have been murdered with malice aforethought, murderers govern their victims, and - if I have my scripture understood - the number of times that governors governing their own actions have refused to prevent a terrible crime when it was in their power to do so: Proverbs.
"The "fictional" one you seem to detest would be unnecessary, correct?"
No, the fictional one is a useful way to communicate a number of people who have agreed to work cooperatively toward a common goal, such as the voluntary mutual defense of the innocent from the guilty, or the total destruction of all life everywhere except our own lives in our group.
The Legal Fiction device can be...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@dmatic
The following is very difficult for me to understand:
"My question was: "Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
In the example of a parent and child, each has been given some "power", or authority, to act in a "legitimate" manner. Each could abuse that authority. Each entity is instructed to govern itself and to use their power to act legitimately."
If you are speaking as if a parent is a government, then I have to call Bullshit. If not, then I don't have to call Bullshit. Government is a thing, a word that alludes to a process acted out by individual people, and "government" can also be a thing that is used as a falsely responsible, and a falsely accountable "entity." Individual people do not become one mind, one thing, one government, individual people, by nature, are responsible as individuals, and accountable as individuals: the government - a fictional entity, a communication thing - didn't make anyone do anything.
Moving on (I hope you can clarify the parent/child/government/governed confusion I have):
"Rebellion is not the preferred method of dealing with an unrighteous authority. An appeal is."
Do you know about the principle driving a Declaration of Independence, and therefore the principle driving a Solemn Notice of Mixed War?
The principle is such that in place is an existing agreement to solve conflicts judiciously, and in the context of this subject matter in this topic, that means precisely the affordability offered by people in government to people out of government that very thing: remedy. If it isn't a source of remedy, but that was the deal, then what is it in fact, and does that fact matter?
The Law is called the Law in many references all during the transfer of power from The People as a whole body, speaking through their grand and trial juries, to the STATE (a fictitious being that does not exist in fact) and if people agree to allow a government to form around this framework of the law, then those in government must, as a rule, afford remedy by Law, not by other means. Debt Collection Courts were not called courts of law, at first, only later were Debt Collection Courts called courts of law. A court of equity, for example, was not a court of law. One was a court of law (remedy), the other was expressly not a court of law.
The other courts included Equity, Exchequer, Admiralty, Maritime, Nisi Prius, Family, and other Summary Justice Courts. Those courts were expressly put in place to usurp The Law. This isn't even controversial, it is a confessed reason on the official records. During the very long process of usurpation in England and then in America, the bait has been The Law (common law, independent grand and trial juries, made up of NGOs, Non-government officers ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@dmatic
The following is very difficult for me to understand:
"My question was: "Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
In the example of a parent and child, each has been given some "power", or authority, to act in a "legitimate" manner. Each could abuse that authority. Each entity is instructed to govern itself and to use their power to act legitimately."
If you are speaking as if a parent is a government, then I have to call Bullshit. If not, then I don't have to call Bullshit. Government is a thing, a word that alludes to a process acted out by individual people, and "government" can also be a thing that is used as a falsely responsible, and a falsely accountable "entity." Individual people do not become one mind, one thing, one government, individual people, by nature, are responsible as individuals, and accountable as individuals: the government - a fictional entity, a communication thing - didn't make anyone do anything.
Moving on (I hope you can clarify the parent/child/government/governed confusion I have):
"Rebellion is not the preferred method of dealing with an unrighteous authority. An appeal is."
Do you know about the principle driving a Declaration of Independence, and therefore the principle driving a Solemn Notice of Mixed War?
The principle is such that in place is an existing agreement to solve conflicts judiciously, and in the context of this subject matter in this topic, that means precisely the affordability offered by people in government to people out of government that very thing: remedy. If it isn't a source of remedy, but that was the deal, then what is it in fact, and does that fact matter?
The Law is called the Law in many references all during the transfer of power from The People as a whole body, speaking through their grand and trial juries, to the STATE (a fictitious being that does not exist in fact) and if people agree to allow a government to form around this framework of the law, then those in government must, as a rule, afford remedy by Law, not by other means. Debt Collection Courts were not called courts of law, at first, only later were Debt Collection Courts called courts of law. A court of equity, for example, was not a court of law. One was a court of law (remedy), the other was expressly not a court of law.
The other courts included Equity, Exchequer, Admiralty, Maritime, Nisi Prius, Family, and other Summary Justice Courts. Those courts were expressly put in place to usurp The Law. This isn't even controversial, it is a confessed reason on the official records. During the very long process of usurpation in England and then in America, the bait has been The Law (common law, independent grand and trial juries, made up of NGOs, Non-government officers ...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@Seriousreason
I am an individual, capable of my own individual thoughts, for you to hear that I am an anarchist out of whatever you decide to listen to, is your individual thought.
The subject matter can be chosen as a topic. Those who choose the subject matter as a topic can listen to the entire video placed by the original topic starter at the beginning of the topic. Those who choose to comment on the content in the video, such as where Adam Kokesh speaks about the use of the word anarchism, and some people did that very thing, made that choice to comment on the topic subject matter.
Some people can instead focus their comments on their subjective interpretation of the character of an individual. Some people can choose to turn from the subject matter of the topic and choose instead to create a new topic subject matter, which is the character traits of individual people who comment on the topic subject matter.
The usual result of such a choice to change from the subject matter to the character traits of individual people who comment on the subject matter is what is commonly known as a flame war. The usual result becomes the usual result because often the choice to turn the subject from the original topic to the personal characteristics of an individual who comments on the subject matter is a choice to spark a flame war, doing so by posting negative personal characteristics that are claimed to be negative personal characteristics possessed by the targeted individual targeted for character assassination.
Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews
"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 19, 2020:
@Seriousreason
I am an individual, capable of my own individual thoughts, for you to hear that I am an anarchist out of whatever you decide to listen to, is your individual thought.
The subject matter can be chosen as a topic. Those who choose the subject matter as a topic can listen to the entire video placed by the original topic starter at the beginning of the topic. Those who choose to comment on the content in the video, such as where Adam Kokesh speaks about the use of the word anarchism, and some people did that very thing, made that choice to comment on the topic subject matter.
Some people can instead focus their comments on their subjective interpretation of the character of an individual. Some people can choose to turn from the subject matter of the topic and choose instead to create a new topic subject matter, which is the character traits of individual people who comment on the topic subject matter.
The usual result of such a choice to change from the subject matter to the character traits of individual people who comment on the subject matter is what is commonly known as a flame war. The usual result becomes the usual result because often the choice to turn the subject from the original topic to the personal characteristics of an individual who comments on the subject matter is a choice to spark a flame war, doing so by posting negative personal characteristics that are claimed to be negative personal characteristics possessed by the targeted individual targeted for character assassination.
Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews
"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such ...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@dmatic
This thread is getting long, and I think that is good.
"Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
That is a very good question and I have trouble answering that question myself, for many reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word sovereignty when dealing with individuals and groups of like-minded individuals working in concert toward an agreed-upon set of known goals.
How about a context? When the British Empire (a number of individuals working toward the same goals) claimed absolute sovereignty over everyone there was an answer from those who disagreed in the form of a revolt by the Duke, Lords, or whatever they were calling themselves then, and the result was a publication known as Magna Carta.
Absolute Sovereign Power in the hands of one individual, claimed by one individual, and all those who then agreed with him. His name was John. He had a nice hat. He also waved a magic wand called falsehood, and a lot of people fell under his spell.
The gang said otherwise, and so John reluctantly signed the piece of paper, but he was lying, he later sold out to The Pope, an inappropriately named man: Innocent.
See: "The papal bull annulling Magna Carta was issued by Pope Innocent III"
As far as I know, the current Pope also claims ownership of everything and everyone, but I would not trust his answer if I asked him personally.
So there are many claims of this power of sovereignty and then the Americans got it in their heads that we are all sovereign, and that is not a popular thing to say today, you will then be put on the Terrorist List at Homeland Security, or some forum troll, on the payroll, will rat on you, for the crime of claiming to be a - hold onto your hat - SOVEREIGN CITIZEN.
"Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
I'm going to hit that one back on your side of the imaginary court (legal fiction), and ask for your authoritative answer, and if you can give me some references that help you support your answer. You have to end up picking an answer, then again you can dodge the question.
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@dmatic
This thread is getting long, and I think that is good.
"Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
That is a very good question and I have trouble answering that question myself, for many reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word sovereignty when dealing with individuals and groups of like-minded individuals working in concert toward an agreed-upon set of known goals.
How about a context? When the British Empire (a number of individuals working toward the same goals) claimed absolute sovereignty over everyone there was an answer from those who disagreed in the form of a revolt by the Duke, Lords, or whatever they were calling themselves then, and the result was a publication known as Magna Carta.
Absolute Sovereign Power in the hands of one individual, claimed by one individual, and all those who then agreed with him. His name was John. He had a nice hat. He also waved a magic wand called falsehood, and a lot of people fell under his spell.
The gang said otherwise, and so John reluctantly signed the piece of paper, but he was lying, he later sold out to The Pope, an inappropriately named man: Innocent.
See: "The papal bull annulling Magna Carta was issued by Pope Innocent III"
As far as I know, the current Pope also claims ownership of everything and everyone, but I would not trust his answer if I asked him personally.
So there are many claims of this power of sovereignty and then the Americans got it in their heads that we are all sovereign, and that is not a popular thing to say today, you will then be put on the Terrorist List at Homeland Security, or some forum troll, on the payroll, will rat on you, for the crime of claiming to be a - hold onto your hat - SOVEREIGN CITIZEN.
"Are you saying the only legitimate power, or 'government' is the individual?"
I'm going to hit that one back on your side of the imaginary court (legal fiction), and ask for your authoritative answer, and if you can give me some references that help you support your answer. You have to end up picking an answer, then again you can dodge the question.
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@808scotty
I operated cranes too, also dozers, loaders, dump trucks, rock plants, and a crew. I got sick (pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis) and the bosses (corporate bureaucrats) decided that I was no longer desired, so they deviously took steps to get rid of me, at which point (when I finally figured out that they were lying in concert) I fired them.
The cranes I operated were small wheel cranes, I can't remember exactly, about 75-foot, perhaps 100 reach with the boom extention. We could drop steel plate into the overhead bins at both Rock and Concrete plants. These cranes were also able to lift a fair amount of weight, again I can't remember the chart data, but rock crusher parts, or a screen deck is tonnage. Damn now I want to look it up.
There is one 18ton LINK-BELT HSP-8018 Rough Terrain
"29 ft-91 ft 4 in (8.84-27.84m) four section full power boom"
I worked on our cranes and I don't think that the Link-belt had four sections, now that I think about it 100 feet is probably well over the highest point we need, so 75 is more like it.
The thing about skill, knowledge, and all that valuable stuff, in my opinion, is power, it is all power, and all this stuff, any work of any kind, is a power struggle, not really that difficult to know sufficiently well enough to solve problems. How do you get a lot of weight up real high? Boom then there was crane!
"....specific parts of govt need to be separated..."
I have lost the quote for this so I'll have to wing it. The People constitute the Supreme Check on all the other separate parts. The People, not on the government payroll, therefore not biased toward their earnings in that way, constitute independent members of both grand and trial juries, and they work in that capacity the same way all the other branches work to check and balance each other. If an individual in government issues an order to be followed by other people in government, within the rules that govern people in the government, then they can follow those rules, or they can access their own moral conscience when those rules turn despotic. They can then gain access to due process to place their decision to not follow orders before The People for a definitive judgment and executable sentence. The People thereby issue the government orders: carry out the will of the people. The same applies to people not in government.
Examples:
The Family of Martin Luther King Jr. finally gain access to due process and they offer one accused conspirator a court date in the conspiracy murder trial of Martin Luther King Jr. The people find the government guilty, along with the one accused conspirator on his death bed (justice delayed by the conspirators who murdered the man), and the family demands 100 dollars as restitution, along with ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@808scotty
I operated cranes too, also dozers, loaders, dump trucks, rock plants, and a crew. I got sick (pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis) and the bosses (corporate bureaucrats) decided that I was no longer desired, so they deviously took steps to get rid of me, at which point (when I finally figured out that they were lying in concert) I fired them.
The cranes I operated were small wheel cranes, I can't remember exactly, about 75-foot, perhaps 100 reach with the boom extention. We could drop steel plate into the overhead bins at both Rock and Concrete plants. These cranes were also able to lift a fair amount of weight, again I can't remember the chart data, but rock crusher parts, or a screen deck is tonnage. Damn now I want to look it up.
There is one 18ton LINK-BELT HSP-8018 Rough Terrain
"29 ft-91 ft 4 in (8.84-27.84m) four section full power boom"
I worked on our cranes and I don't think that the Link-belt had four sections, now that I think about it 100 feet is probably well over the highest point we need, so 75 is more like it.
The thing about skill, knowledge, and all that valuable stuff, in my opinion, is power, it is all power, and all this stuff, any work of any kind, is a power struggle, not really that difficult to know sufficiently well enough to solve problems. How do you get a lot of weight up real high? Boom then there was crane!
"....specific parts of govt need to be separated..."
I have lost the quote for this so I'll have to wing it. The People constitute the Supreme Check on all the other separate parts. The People, not on the government payroll, therefore not biased toward their earnings in that way, constitute independent members of both grand and trial juries, and they work in that capacity the same way all the other branches work to check and balance each other. If an individual in government issues an order to be followed by other people in government, within the rules that govern people in the government, then they can follow those rules, or they can access their own moral conscience when those rules turn despotic. They can then gain access to due process to place their decision to not follow orders before The People for a definitive judgment and executable sentence. The People thereby issue the government orders: carry out the will of the people. The same applies to people not in government.
Examples:
The Family of Martin Luther King Jr. finally gain access to due process and they offer one accused conspirator a court date in the conspiracy murder trial of Martin Luther King Jr. The people find the government guilty, along with the one accused conspirator on his death bed (justice delayed by the conspirators who murdered the man), and the family demands 100 dollars as restitution, along with ...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@808scotty
That is all correct, well stated, and provable to anyone who cares. What is the way in which people earn that proof?
I've been called out a few times now for failing to offer a solution, which is a demonstrably false statement. I'll tell you what, how about trying the case?
I don't mean me, I mean the case where there is a solution, and it has been tried, and it works when it is tried, and the consequences of failing to try it are very well explained with your words.
I'll start. How about that monster called the FUND?
I don't even have to start the case, it has already passed a lot of the necessary steps right here:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
How about some information on some of the other steps?
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 ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@808scotty
That is all correct, well stated, and provable to anyone who cares. What is the way in which people earn that proof?
I've been called out a few times now for failing to offer a solution, which is a demonstrably false statement. I'll tell you what, how about trying the case?
I don't mean me, I mean the case where there is a solution, and it has been tried, and it works when it is tried, and the consequences of failing to try it are very well explained with your words.
I'll start. How about that monster called the FUND?
I don't even have to start the case, it has already passed a lot of the necessary steps right here:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
How about some information on some of the other steps?
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 ...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@dmatic
"Is there any country that operates under a voluntary tax system?"
If you ask a question then my assumption is that the answer desired is as accurate as possible. To that end, I must insist on a better question. I can presume that you chose the word "country" for a reason.
If the word country is used in the same context as "trial by the country" then what is meant is All The People in a geographical area. If the people realize that they are OVER, not UNDER, the system, then what happens moment by moment, day by day, as that truly shines in each individual mind?
Hierarchy:
1.
All The People without exception unless people volunteer to except themselves (raise themselves above other people), where these exceptions voluntarily become outlaws as they injure innocent people, whereby injuring innocent people is the cost of membership into the outlaw exception group.
2.
Governments, or systems, or corporations, or legal fictions
You can argue that there is a power above that hierarchy, but my point here is to point out that someone hired to be a member of the government is told what to do, and what not to do, by the higher power in that voluntary hierarchy, and again, those who say otherwise, by imposing their will involuntarily upon an innocent victim or two, are those who volunteer to step outside of that hierarchy, as they create a despotic, tyrannical, criminal hierarchy, as they create victims, or fellow criminals in a criminal organization, or slaves.
There is a very easy way to test like a litmus test to see if the hierarchy in question is lawful, legal, voluntary, and moral, or if it is instead the opposite, unlawful, illegal, involuntary, and criminal.
That litmus test may be the higher power worthy of note, a power that creates beings with a moral conscience, and the power to pass on messages such as the Golden Rule, which is that very litmus test that can easily be used to test a genuine government individual thought or act to thereby discriminate with precise accuracy that genuine government from the obvious, demonstrable, provable, counterfeit.
If the individual used their government to do unto others what they would fight against having done to themselves, what is it in your mind?
Does that answer your question? I can try to be more precise:
"Is there any country that operates under a voluntary tax system?"
It happens all the time as many people tax each other with the duty to remain inside that lawful boundary so eloquently given to mankind by the higher power, meanwhile, at the same time, many people (a counterfeit country alongside the genuine article) deceive themselves, ruin their own lives, and tax others by extracting their lives too, one calorie at a time.
Do you want me to point to the Icelandic ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@dmatic
"Is there any country that operates under a voluntary tax system?"
If you ask a question then my assumption is that the answer desired is as accurate as possible. To that end, I must insist on a better question. I can presume that you chose the word "country" for a reason.
If the word country is used in the same context as "trial by the country" then what is meant is All The People in a geographical area. If the people realize that they are OVER, not UNDER, the system, then what happens moment by moment, day by day, as that truly shines in each individual mind?
Hierarchy:
1.
All The People without exception unless people volunteer to except themselves (raise themselves above other people), where these exceptions voluntarily become outlaws as they injure innocent people, whereby injuring innocent people is the cost of membership into the outlaw exception group.
2.
Governments, or systems, or corporations, or legal fictions
You can argue that there is a power above that hierarchy, but my point here is to point out that someone hired to be a member of the government is told what to do, and what not to do, by the higher power in that voluntary hierarchy, and again, those who say otherwise, by imposing their will involuntarily upon an innocent victim or two, are those who volunteer to step outside of that hierarchy, as they create a despotic, tyrannical, criminal hierarchy, as they create victims, or fellow criminals in a criminal organization, or slaves.
There is a very easy way to test like a litmus test to see if the hierarchy in question is lawful, legal, voluntary, and moral, or if it is instead the opposite, unlawful, illegal, involuntary, and criminal.
That litmus test may be the higher power worthy of note, a power that creates beings with a moral conscience, and the power to pass on messages such as the Golden Rule, which is that very litmus test that can easily be used to test a genuine government individual thought or act to thereby discriminate with precise accuracy that genuine government from the obvious, demonstrable, provable, counterfeit.
If the individual used their government to do unto others what they would fight against having done to themselves, what is it in your mind?
Does that answer your question? I can try to be more precise:
"Is there any country that operates under a voluntary tax system?"
It happens all the time as many people tax each other with the duty to remain inside that lawful boundary so eloquently given to mankind by the higher power, meanwhile, at the same time, many people (a counterfeit country alongside the genuine article) deceive themselves, ruin their own lives, and tax others by extracting their lives too, one calorie at a time.
Do you want me to point to the Icelandic ...
Oh, I could think of many reasons why Bloomberg should never be President of the US.
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@TimTuolomne
Let's be clear about something.
You attached the following false accusation to me:
"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"
You did that in your "first pitch," so now you are playing the victim? I disrespected you.
The subject matter was:
"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."
That is the subject matter that you offered as the subject matter, and I agree, that subject matter is worthy of the effort to know precisely, not falsely, and not ambiguously.
I offered this:
"Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?"
You did this:
"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"
That is false, it is called libel in fact. You published a very tiny, inconsequential, but none-the-less false statement that (if I could prove it to a jury) injures me in some way. Even if you did not intend to do it (mens rea), instead you did it without intent to injure me it is still a false statement, a false claim, as to what I may do: disavow them. So your injury, again no matter how slight, is in principle an (actus reus) libel by you against me.
You did that, and I can prove, at least, that in no way did I, do I, or will I "disavow them," as you suggest in your disrespectful manner. You did that, and then when I respond, you then play the victim.
"And you seem to argue that there is a better system, but never say what it might be."
More falsehood, more libel.
In the above text in my comments is this:
"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty?"
The law of the land, previous to the criminal take-over, was trial by jury, and it was the trial by jury that proceeds according to the common law.
Not only did I not, as you falsely claim, "never say what it might be." It is right here in my comments, and out of ignorance, or apathy, or whatever causes you to miss it, you missed it, and you then publish disrespectfully false statements charged to me personally.
What about the subject matter?
There were very good people risking all for liberty, and the power to maintain it, which was rule of law, the law of the land, which includes trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law. They were the founders who founded a number of States and a Federation of States, and I do not, as you claim, disavow them, hell I keep on quoting them as a matter of fact.
You libel, and then you blame me after you libel, and you have the audacity to blame me for...
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@TimTuolomne
Let's be clear about something.
You attached the following false accusation to me:
"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"
You did that in your "first pitch," so now you are playing the victim? I disrespected you.
The subject matter was:
"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."
That is the subject matter that you offered as the subject matter, and I agree, that subject matter is worthy of the effort to know precisely, not falsely, and not ambiguously.
I offered this:
"Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?"
You did this:
"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"
That is false, it is called libel in fact. You published a very tiny, inconsequential, but none-the-less false statement that (if I could prove it to a jury) injures me in some way. Even if you did not intend to do it (mens rea), instead you did it without intent to injure me it is still a false statement, a false claim, as to what I may do: disavow them. So your injury, again no matter how slight, is in principle an (actus reus) libel by you against me.
You did that, and I can prove, at least, that in no way did I, do I, or will I "disavow them," as you suggest in your disrespectful manner. You did that, and then when I respond, you then play the victim.
"And you seem to argue that there is a better system, but never say what it might be."
More falsehood, more libel.
In the above text in my comments is this:
"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty?"
The law of the land, previous to the criminal take-over, was trial by jury, and it was the trial by jury that proceeds according to the common law.
Not only did I not, as you falsely claim, "never say what it might be." It is right here in my comments, and out of ignorance, or apathy, or whatever causes you to miss it, you missed it, and you then publish disrespectfully false statements charged to me personally.
What about the subject matter?
There were very good people risking all for liberty, and the power to maintain it, which was rule of law, the law of the land, which includes trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law. They were the founders who founded a number of States and a Federation of States, and I do not, as you claim, disavow them, hell I keep on quoting them as a matter of fact.
You libel, and then you blame me after you libel, and you have the audacity to blame me for...
Adam Kokesh for president [youtu.be]
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
"A percentage of earnings are required. In the form of tax."
That is a claim of authority of sorts. What is the process you have in mind for collecting those former earnings?
"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." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact ."
Hospitals?
Is the idea to force people to "do the right thing" and pay for those "government" experiments in government medical care?
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of ...
Seriousreason comments on Feb 18, 2020:
What an enlightened truthful poster. Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact . A percentage of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
"A percentage of earnings are required. In the form of tax."
That is a claim of authority of sorts. What is the process you have in mind for collecting those former earnings?
"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." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"Everyone understands that maintaining essential services like hospitals , a police force , roads & infrastructure need to be funded by those who contribute to the continued improvement & maintenance of their communities. Never begrudge the fact ."
Hospitals?
Is the idea to force people to "do the right thing" and pay for those "government" experiments in government medical care?
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of ...
Oh, I could think of many reasons why Bloomberg should never be President of the US.
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@TimTuolomne
It isn't my job to convince you of anything. I write to pass on a messages that set the record straight. Your words prove a point I have figured out on my own.
When criminals (slave traders, warmongers, central banking frauds, Aristocrats, and whichever bottom barrel humans join in) take-over governments calling themselves the government the result is extensively expanding and accelerating damage as power flows from the victims to the criminals.
1. People confuse actual government with the counterfeit version enforced by criminals and the result is ignorance of actual government.
2. The same confused incapacity to hold two opposites in mind at once, like up and down, or left and right in the mind at the same time, results in ignorance of criminals in government.
3. Good people in government are confused with bad people in government and all people in government are collectively guilty of the crimes done by the bad people, as far as the ignorant are concerned.
4. The bad people are no longer bad, as their crimes are blamed on everyone in government including the good people.
5. Good people no longer do good things, as their good deeds are credited to the criminals.
Here is an example:
"We do not agree about THE Founders, and you are certainly within your rights to disavow them."
You blame me for setting the record straight, you remain willfully ignorant, and as a result, you then express your need to strike out with falsehoods. I do not disavow them, as you claim with your chosen words.
Good people:
In Convention, Richmond, Monday, June 9, 1788
Patrick Henry
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."
Criminal fraud:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding ...
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 18, 2020:
@TimTuolomne
It isn't my job to convince you of anything. I write to pass on a messages that set the record straight. Your words prove a point I have figured out on my own.
When criminals (slave traders, warmongers, central banking frauds, Aristocrats, and whichever bottom barrel humans join in) take-over governments calling themselves the government the result is extensively expanding and accelerating damage as power flows from the victims to the criminals.
1. People confuse actual government with the counterfeit version enforced by criminals and the result is ignorance of actual government.
2. The same confused incapacity to hold two opposites in mind at once, like up and down, or left and right in the mind at the same time, results in ignorance of criminals in government.
3. Good people in government are confused with bad people in government and all people in government are collectively guilty of the crimes done by the bad people, as far as the ignorant are concerned.
4. The bad people are no longer bad, as their crimes are blamed on everyone in government including the good people.
5. Good people no longer do good things, as their good deeds are credited to the criminals.
Here is an example:
"We do not agree about THE Founders, and you are certainly within your rights to disavow them."
You blame me for setting the record straight, you remain willfully ignorant, and as a result, you then express your need to strike out with falsehoods. I do not disavow them, as you claim with your chosen words.
Good people:
In Convention, Richmond, Monday, June 9, 1788
Patrick Henry
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."
Criminal fraud:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding ...
Oh, I could think of many reasons why Bloomberg should never be President of the US.
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."
The criminals who wrote and signed the 1787 Constitution are not "our" founders. They represented a faction comprised of Slave Traders, Central Banking Frauds, Despots, Tyrants, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, and Warmongers, and they did not create a "fair" system, as warned about by so many forgotten "founders" like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, Luther Martin, and all those "founders" falsely labeled anti.
Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?
TimTuolomne comments on Feb 17, 2020:
Bloomberg, Clinton, Soros, Rothschild, Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Pelosi, and other extremely wealthy “Liberals” probably have no interest in justice, equality nor truth. Don't you think they became wealthy by taking advantage in the inequities in society? What fool thinks their interest in a one...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."
The criminals who wrote and signed the 1787 Constitution are not "our" founders. They represented a faction comprised of Slave Traders, Central Banking Frauds, Despots, Tyrants, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, and Warmongers, and they did not create a "fair" system, as warned about by so many forgotten "founders" like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, Luther Martin, and all those "founders" falsely labeled anti.
Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Just for the sake of accountability, I think it is important to document the qualities of the character being created by BayOWulf, the character that is supposed to be me. I do this because now it is me, apparently, who is identified with the words "simply weird." It isn't some nebulous theory that is simply weird, it is an example of my writing, apparently, that is "simply weird."
Joe writes and then BayOWulf claims that "that was simply weird."
Therefore, from first to last:
1.
"you went a bit seriously astray"
I did so, it was me that went seriously astray, accordingly.
2.
“Your depiction...is very short sighted and not well thought out.”
I am very short-sighted and I do not think things out well.
3.
“Yup ... but you went seriously astray.”
Reinforced that I did, in fact, go seriously astray.
4.
“jaundiced eye”
That, if I am not mistaken, is a huge attack by someone on someone, to claim that they are prejudiced.
5.
“tedious and not really any sort of answer and much less a solution.”
That is derogatory more towards the process (a solution to crime) known as the law, but it is me, the target, who is producing tedium, and it is me the target who cannot offer a solution, accordingly.
6.
“you post...complaint...argument “against” but none offer any sort of solution or remedy.”
Again derogatory toward the law, a process, but it is the target, me, identified as only a complainer, someone without any solutions to any problems, again accordingly.
7.
"Who would ever have thought it was so easy to complain about things without offering viable solutions?”
No longer ignoring or discredit concerning the law, now simply reinforcing the fact that the target merely complains and is incapable of solutions, as if "my" goal is merely to complain: whiner, cry-baby.
8.
"..less tedious...”
Reinforcing the character trait of someone who writes tedious messages: too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous, Joe is accordingly tedious
9.
“That does seem to be a recurring theme of yours.”
Joe accordingly dreams up a recurring theme, the theme is accountable to Joe, Joe did it.
10.
“...like children in the back seat of a car...”
Joe is now childlike, childish, immature, perhaps infantile.
11.
“if a fool looks long enough they can find something some other fool wrote to support any form of logic or discourse ... not meant as a personal reference”
Joe is not meant to be deemed a fool, rather Joe is placed in proximity to fools, which is ratcheting down at least.
12.
“simply weird”
Ratcheting back up. Good cop, bad cop.
Which cop do I get next, in a few days? Consider this a bookmark, a tally, it isn’t an indictment per se. Why would I choose to add to the list?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Just for the sake of accountability, I think it is important to document the qualities of the character being created by BayOWulf, the character that is supposed to be me. I do this because now it is me, apparently, who is identified with the words "simply weird." It isn't some nebulous theory that is simply weird, it is an example of my writing, apparently, that is "simply weird."
Joe writes and then BayOWulf claims that "that was simply weird."
Therefore, from first to last:
1.
"you went a bit seriously astray"
I did so, it was me that went seriously astray, accordingly.
2.
“Your depiction...is very short sighted and not well thought out.”
I am very short-sighted and I do not think things out well.
3.
“Yup ... but you went seriously astray.”
Reinforced that I did, in fact, go seriously astray.
4.
“jaundiced eye”
That, if I am not mistaken, is a huge attack by someone on someone, to claim that they are prejudiced.
5.
“tedious and not really any sort of answer and much less a solution.”
That is derogatory more towards the process (a solution to crime) known as the law, but it is me, the target, who is producing tedium, and it is me the target who cannot offer a solution, accordingly.
6.
“you post...complaint...argument “against” but none offer any sort of solution or remedy.”
Again derogatory toward the law, a process, but it is the target, me, identified as only a complainer, someone without any solutions to any problems, again accordingly.
7.
"Who would ever have thought it was so easy to complain about things without offering viable solutions?”
No longer ignoring or discredit concerning the law, now simply reinforcing the fact that the target merely complains and is incapable of solutions, as if "my" goal is merely to complain: whiner, cry-baby.
8.
"..less tedious...”
Reinforcing the character trait of someone who writes tedious messages: too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous, Joe is accordingly tedious
9.
“That does seem to be a recurring theme of yours.”
Joe accordingly dreams up a recurring theme, the theme is accountable to Joe, Joe did it.
10.
“...like children in the back seat of a car...”
Joe is now childlike, childish, immature, perhaps infantile.
11.
“if a fool looks long enough they can find something some other fool wrote to support any form of logic or discourse ... not meant as a personal reference”
Joe is not meant to be deemed a fool, rather Joe is placed in proximity to fools, which is ratcheting down at least.
12.
“simply weird”
Ratcheting back up. Good cop, bad cop.
Which cop do I get next, in a few days? Consider this a bookmark, a tally, it isn’t an indictment per se. Why would I choose to add to the list?
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"I understand that you, and all those others before you, are speaking more of a nebulous theory than a solid reality."
If you choose the word "understand" in this context, then my guess is that you have concluded something that is simply not true. Why you would, or even could do that, I don't know.
When the reality is that peace is disturbed by really bad people, the list here is long, including a common crime these days known as human trafficking, then the reality has been an organic, grass-roots, defensive response to those real clear and present dangers from enemies foreign and domestic - enemies to peace - enemies to the common decency that is common to people living and letting other people live in peace and harmony. And harmony is not that hard to conceive either, doing so without the intrusions.
So there is the reality that inspires the defensive response that you now claim to be a nebulous theory. I suppose the next thing is to simply add conspiracy and I might as well be turned over to the Ministry of Truth as a Terrorist Conspiracy Theorist, with this nebulous theory.
So you choose political games, the most obvious one being the ad-hominem attacks. Did someone make you disturb my peace? Are you on the payroll? My response may not be common among people who will seek an eye for an eye, and my response may be measured to reduce the flame in a pending flame war, by simply holding your choices to account for the facts that matter in the case, an uncommon response perhaps to you in the world where it is a given to go right ahead into attack mode.
The choice of the word "nebulous" ratchets things up, in my view, so the measured response is again to bring light into the possible darkness that covers up the likely choices chosen by the one choosing the word "nebulous" in this context.
I refer to a process that is a measured response to choices made by people whose intent is to harm innocent people, or just harm people innocent or not. Call it the law, call it the law of the land, call it "nebulous," if you will, as if intending to wish it into the cornfield, ignore it, fabricate a false narrative about it, pretend that it never was done, is not being done now, and never will be a choice made by anyone, anywhere, anytime in the future, since "IT" is nebulous after all; according to you.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"I understand that you, and all those others before you, are speaking more of a nebulous theory than a solid reality."
If you choose the word "understand" in this context, then my guess is that you have concluded something that is simply not true. Why you would, or even could do that, I don't know.
When the reality is that peace is disturbed by really bad people, the list here is long, including a common crime these days known as human trafficking, then the reality has been an organic, grass-roots, defensive response to those real clear and present dangers from enemies foreign and domestic - enemies to peace - enemies to the common decency that is common to people living and letting other people live in peace and harmony. And harmony is not that hard to conceive either, doing so without the intrusions.
So there is the reality that inspires the defensive response that you now claim to be a nebulous theory. I suppose the next thing is to simply add conspiracy and I might as well be turned over to the Ministry of Truth as a Terrorist Conspiracy Theorist, with this nebulous theory.
So you choose political games, the most obvious one being the ad-hominem attacks. Did someone make you disturb my peace? Are you on the payroll? My response may not be common among people who will seek an eye for an eye, and my response may be measured to reduce the flame in a pending flame war, by simply holding your choices to account for the facts that matter in the case, an uncommon response perhaps to you in the world where it is a given to go right ahead into attack mode.
The choice of the word "nebulous" ratchets things up, in my view, so the measured response is again to bring light into the possible darkness that covers up the likely choices chosen by the one choosing the word "nebulous" in this context.
I refer to a process that is a measured response to choices made by people whose intent is to harm innocent people, or just harm people innocent or not. Call it the law, call it the law of the land, call it "nebulous," if you will, as if intending to wish it into the cornfield, ignore it, fabricate a false narrative about it, pretend that it never was done, is not being done now, and never will be a choice made by anyone, anywhere, anytime in the future, since "IT" is nebulous after all; according to you.
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
That is a point worth knowing, in my opinion. The point at which the word "peers" is defined unambiguously.
An example of contention is the idea that an Aristocrat (in England after the common law was usurped by Admiralty Courts for that expressed purpose on the official record) ought to be tried by fellow Aristocrats. That is an assumption of greater and lesser legal validity or a measure of power in my opinion.
That was dropped (once again) during the American experiment into organic, grass-roots, adaptive, government.
Previous to the American adaptation in England the law power was seized by a faction, to be used arbitrarily by that faction, such as the collection of extortion payments, which is power transferred from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who then counterfeit the law so as to falsely justify the theft: Aristocrats.
Aristocrats (any name will work, Royalty, etc.) have exclusive "jurisdiction" so they say, they can call it Appellate, or whatever, and they decide if a tax is justified or if a tax is merely another word for an extortion payment.
Americans said no, not the first time in history. We the people, in our trial juries, as it once was in England, say no, there is no Royalty, we are all born with the same potential to be as lawful as the next one if we so decide, and there is no magic wand waved on Special Interests, for them to be the only ones capable of moral, legal, lawful, judgment; black robes, crowns, notwithstanding.
There is a practical application or two, if it is lawful to warrant arrest, for example, then that duty is charged to everyone, not just those having the magic wand. But if push does come to shove, then it is wise to place those in conflict, the one claiming lawful warrant to arrest, and the one claiming otherwise, before the country, meaning before the jury, and let the country decide if there is a warrant for an arrest. And you bring up the point, what about the peerage?
We are all peers, say the Americans, not a novel approach, just a return to normal, a turn away from counterfeit law.
"The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry." Original grass-roots Congress of The United States of America.
That is not novel.
"Hallam says, "The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
That is a point worth knowing, in my opinion. The point at which the word "peers" is defined unambiguously.
An example of contention is the idea that an Aristocrat (in England after the common law was usurped by Admiralty Courts for that expressed purpose on the official record) ought to be tried by fellow Aristocrats. That is an assumption of greater and lesser legal validity or a measure of power in my opinion.
That was dropped (once again) during the American experiment into organic, grass-roots, adaptive, government.
Previous to the American adaptation in England the law power was seized by a faction, to be used arbitrarily by that faction, such as the collection of extortion payments, which is power transferred from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who then counterfeit the law so as to falsely justify the theft: Aristocrats.
Aristocrats (any name will work, Royalty, etc.) have exclusive "jurisdiction" so they say, they can call it Appellate, or whatever, and they decide if a tax is justified or if a tax is merely another word for an extortion payment.
Americans said no, not the first time in history. We the people, in our trial juries, as it once was in England, say no, there is no Royalty, we are all born with the same potential to be as lawful as the next one if we so decide, and there is no magic wand waved on Special Interests, for them to be the only ones capable of moral, legal, lawful, judgment; black robes, crowns, notwithstanding.
There is a practical application or two, if it is lawful to warrant arrest, for example, then that duty is charged to everyone, not just those having the magic wand. But if push does come to shove, then it is wise to place those in conflict, the one claiming lawful warrant to arrest, and the one claiming otherwise, before the country, meaning before the jury, and let the country decide if there is a warrant for an arrest. And you bring up the point, what about the peerage?
We are all peers, say the Americans, not a novel approach, just a return to normal, a turn away from counterfeit law.
"The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war—a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry." Original grass-roots Congress of The United States of America.
That is not novel.
"Hallam says, "The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted...
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris
That tactic is called the Parthian Arrow, or Parthian Shot added to the ad-hominem.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris
That tactic is called the Parthian Arrow, or Parthian Shot added to the ad-hominem.
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@dmatic
I am often too dull to see the facts as they are right in front of my area of view. This is an example. What you were doing, and I missed it, was begging the question. I thought that you were asking a specific question, seeking a name.
You believe in an all-powerful God, and you wanted me to answer the question "Do you believe what I believe?" or some such question indirectly asked: begging the question.
Yes and no. I do not believe that a man with a beard is all-seeing, all-powerful, and has "a plan," that often results in His anger, so he is then "jealous," and He then kicks some ass.
If I were to quantify and qualify God with one word I would use the word ectropy.
If entropy (not the scientific meaning) is an all-powerful force that causes everything to deteriorate from complex to simple forms of matter, then ectropy (a scientific meaning exists) is that all-powerful force that inspires matter to form into greater complexity, including the complexity known as self-awareness.
So we may thereby share a sense of God. I can't define God any further, other than to say look around, if you see life, you see the work of God, and thank God, even you can see.
Some of us can't see that which is in our faces.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@dmatic
I am often too dull to see the facts as they are right in front of my area of view. This is an example. What you were doing, and I missed it, was begging the question. I thought that you were asking a specific question, seeking a name.
You believe in an all-powerful God, and you wanted me to answer the question "Do you believe what I believe?" or some such question indirectly asked: begging the question.
Yes and no. I do not believe that a man with a beard is all-seeing, all-powerful, and has "a plan," that often results in His anger, so he is then "jealous," and He then kicks some ass.
If I were to quantify and qualify God with one word I would use the word ectropy.
If entropy (not the scientific meaning) is an all-powerful force that causes everything to deteriorate from complex to simple forms of matter, then ectropy (a scientific meaning exists) is that all-powerful force that inspires matter to form into greater complexity, including the complexity known as self-awareness.
So we may thereby share a sense of God. I can't define God any further, other than to say look around, if you see life, you see the work of God, and thank God, even you can see.
Some of us can't see that which is in our faces.
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris, @Bay0Wulf
From BayOWulf:
"... less tedious..."
If the idea was to ask for the majorities opinion as to what they want to read, how the words are written that they want to read, and how difficult it is for them to read what they want to read, then somone could construct a Poll with that goal in mind, and then answers to that question could be found that way.
Whoever asked you to decide how many words I can publish in answer to your questions can confess that desire for your opinion. It was not me. If you don't care to read the answers offered to your comments, then you can do something other than attack with the ad hominem tactic. Of course, instead, you chose to fill the blank space with more political garbage.
"Common Law? That does seem to be a recurring theme of yours.
Please define this term."
I will, and before I do I'm going to predict something. I may write more words. You may find those words tedious. You may not even read the answer offered to your question. You may then respond with more political garbage. Other people may also not read the answer, and they may also respond with more political garbage. There may also be other people reading, and those other people may include one other person who reads the answer to the question you ask.
The common law existed before the Roman Empire collapsed, which is before England was thereby no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule.
Here is a wordy description of an example of common law before England was no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule:
“Ad questionem juris non respondent Juratores.” (To the question of law the jurors do not answer.) “The Annotist says, that this is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well of the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the (a Saxon word) or judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law.” (Here various Saxon laws are quoted.) “In neither of these fundamental [71] laws is there the least word, hint, or idea, that the earl or alderman (that is to say, the Prepositus (presiding officer) of the court, which is tantamount to the judge on the bench) is to take upon him to judge the delinquent in any sense whatever, the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris, @Bay0Wulf
From BayOWulf:
"... less tedious..."
If the idea was to ask for the majorities opinion as to what they want to read, how the words are written that they want to read, and how difficult it is for them to read what they want to read, then somone could construct a Poll with that goal in mind, and then answers to that question could be found that way.
Whoever asked you to decide how many words I can publish in answer to your questions can confess that desire for your opinion. It was not me. If you don't care to read the answers offered to your comments, then you can do something other than attack with the ad hominem tactic. Of course, instead, you chose to fill the blank space with more political garbage.
"Common Law? That does seem to be a recurring theme of yours.
Please define this term."
I will, and before I do I'm going to predict something. I may write more words. You may find those words tedious. You may not even read the answer offered to your question. You may then respond with more political garbage. Other people may also not read the answer, and they may also respond with more political garbage. There may also be other people reading, and those other people may include one other person who reads the answer to the question you ask.
The common law existed before the Roman Empire collapsed, which is before England was thereby no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule.
Here is a wordy description of an example of common law before England was no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule:
“Ad questionem juris non respondent Juratores.” (To the question of law the jurors do not answer.) “The Annotist says, that this is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well of the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the (a Saxon word) or judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law.” (Here various Saxon laws are quoted.) “In neither of these fundamental [71] laws is there the least word, hint, or idea, that the earl or alderman (that is to say, the Prepositus (presiding officer) of the court, which is tantamount to the judge on the bench) is to take upon him to judge the delinquent in any sense whatever, the ...
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris
"Sheesh, someone likes to hear himself talk, there, doesn't he?"
That is the tactic known as an ad hominem attack:
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
adjective: ad hominem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
adverb: ad hominem
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2.
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@MaskedRiderChris
"Sheesh, someone likes to hear himself talk, there, doesn't he?"
That is the tactic known as an ad hominem attack:
ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
adjective: ad hominem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
adverb: ad hominem
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2.
in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@dmatic
I feel the need to thank you for being persistent, even though your question suggests that you think that I did not already answer your question with authority.
"...but who do you think is in control of them?"
Only the most powerful one is in control of any conspiratorial group of conspirators. If the law is just then it is not justified to try the case as the saying goes: to "air" the accused (presumed to be innocent) dirty laundry.
If I give you a name, of who I think is the one individual whose decision is not questioned by anyone else in the group of conspirators, then that name is published and if I am wrong then I perpetrate a crime known as libel.
I think if I were to claim that Hillary Clinton is guilty of mass murder, on the other hand, I'm not guilty of the crime known as libel. I can back up my claim with a grown mountain of inculpatory evidence that would lead any sane person beyond the point of probable cause to set in motion the power of law. That point being me at the point of contact with a member of a grand jury, I submit the accusation, and the ball begins to roll.
What if you actually wanted the answer in an official, authoritative, legal, lawful, moral, accountable, just, meaningful, defensive, effectively defensive, and an expediently defensive way?
"...but who do you think is in control of them?"
You would not be wasting time asking me, would you? Would you not, duty-bound with just conviction, proceed to the local member of the pool from which an independent common law grand jury is formed, and submit your justified question?
Remember that you did confess:
"Trouble is, most people seem not to know what just means."
Whenever I see that type of communication I am reminded as to where the law exists for EVERYONE: in the mirror.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 17, 2020:
@dmatic
I feel the need to thank you for being persistent, even though your question suggests that you think that I did not already answer your question with authority.
"...but who do you think is in control of them?"
Only the most powerful one is in control of any conspiratorial group of conspirators. If the law is just then it is not justified to try the case as the saying goes: to "air" the accused (presumed to be innocent) dirty laundry.
If I give you a name, of who I think is the one individual whose decision is not questioned by anyone else in the group of conspirators, then that name is published and if I am wrong then I perpetrate a crime known as libel.
I think if I were to claim that Hillary Clinton is guilty of mass murder, on the other hand, I'm not guilty of the crime known as libel. I can back up my claim with a grown mountain of inculpatory evidence that would lead any sane person beyond the point of probable cause to set in motion the power of law. That point being me at the point of contact with a member of a grand jury, I submit the accusation, and the ball begins to roll.
What if you actually wanted the answer in an official, authoritative, legal, lawful, moral, accountable, just, meaningful, defensive, effectively defensive, and an expediently defensive way?
"...but who do you think is in control of them?"
You would not be wasting time asking me, would you? Would you not, duty-bound with just conviction, proceed to the local member of the pool from which an independent common law grand jury is formed, and submit your justified question?
Remember that you did confess:
"Trouble is, most people seem not to know what just means."
Whenever I see that type of communication I am reminded as to where the law exists for EVERYONE: in the mirror.
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@dmatic
"So, who do you think is in control of all the conspirators?"
That is a very good question, a vital one. It took me a long time to reprogram my thinking from the propagandist dogma to the point at which I can answer this question with authority.
The most powerful people (in control of the most powerful gang of conspirators) will be in that position only so long as they overpower the next gang down in that type of criminal system. An example is a Conservative gang under Ronald Reagan, perhaps the closest gang of conspirators in recent times to reach for the goal of Benevolent Dictatorship. It is a Dictatorship, has been since 1789. Some "leaders of the free world," (all dictators) have been more benevolent than others, meaning some have been more malevolent than others.
If the idea is to answer the question in a lawful manner, then more people in America must learn how the process actually works.
You ask a question that is a lawful cause of action.
Again:
"So, who do you think is in control of all the conspirators?"
So pick anyone who is a past, current, or future victim of the criminals who conspired to injure that individual in time and in place.
For example, how about picking the victim of a Central Banking Fraud in the following case:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
Just pluck that out of all the data in this world and work on it as if creating a storyline, a narrative, such as was explained by Jordan Peterson in this topic.
The law is afforded to all, or it is not the law.
So anyone takes the above information at that time and finds one probable criminal to accuse of that very serious crime described above. I'd take the head off myself, so the name of the Fed Chairman would suffice in that case.
So ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@dmatic
"So, who do you think is in control of all the conspirators?"
That is a very good question, a vital one. It took me a long time to reprogram my thinking from the propagandist dogma to the point at which I can answer this question with authority.
The most powerful people (in control of the most powerful gang of conspirators) will be in that position only so long as they overpower the next gang down in that type of criminal system. An example is a Conservative gang under Ronald Reagan, perhaps the closest gang of conspirators in recent times to reach for the goal of Benevolent Dictatorship. It is a Dictatorship, has been since 1789. Some "leaders of the free world," (all dictators) have been more benevolent than others, meaning some have been more malevolent than others.
If the idea is to answer the question in a lawful manner, then more people in America must learn how the process actually works.
You ask a question that is a lawful cause of action.
Again:
"So, who do you think is in control of all the conspirators?"
So pick anyone who is a past, current, or future victim of the criminals who conspired to injure that individual in time and in place.
For example, how about picking the victim of a Central Banking Fraud in the following case:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
Just pluck that out of all the data in this world and work on it as if creating a storyline, a narrative, such as was explained by Jordan Peterson in this topic.
The law is afforded to all, or it is not the law.
So anyone takes the above information at that time and finds one probable criminal to accuse of that very serious crime described above. I'd take the head off myself, so the name of the Fed Chairman would suffice in that case.
So ...
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Interesting no?"
No. Your attempt to redefine me is an obvious tactic. It is called a Man of Straw. You create a weak target, a target made of straw, and then you rip apart your fictional character.
When the problem is corruption in government the solution is the rule of law as eluded to in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the many examples of a Bill of Rights.
Your false version of me:
"These long cut & paste borrowings are long, tedious and not really any sort of answer and much less a solution. I note that pretty much everything you post is by way of complaint ir argument “against” but none offer any sort of solution or remedy."
From the tedious "borrowings" (words taken from the First Congress transcripts):
14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
The law of the land (the solution to the corruption in government problem) has been everywhere all the while in parallel with those who counterfeit it.
This is not news:
(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Interesting no?"
No. Your attempt to redefine me is an obvious tactic. It is called a Man of Straw. You create a weak target, a target made of straw, and then you rip apart your fictional character.
When the problem is corruption in government the solution is the rule of law as eluded to in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the many examples of a Bill of Rights.
Your false version of me:
"These long cut & paste borrowings are long, tedious and not really any sort of answer and much less a solution. I note that pretty much everything you post is by way of complaint ir argument “against” but none offer any sort of solution or remedy."
From the tedious "borrowings" (words taken from the First Congress transcripts):
14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
The law of the land (the solution to the corruption in government problem) has been everywhere all the while in parallel with those who counterfeit it.
This is not news:
(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were...
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
You do not speak for me. If that is not clear, then what can be said other than you are either ignorant or willfully deceptive.
"I admit those problems were there in an enormous multitude and many were poorly dealt with (in aftersight) and concede that they echo and cast shadows throughout Our History and Our Government through to present times."
Attempting to "collectivize" individuals into one figurative group is a tactic. The tactic works to deceive some people, other people know better.
Before-sight includes the known result of creating a Legal Fiction.
"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.
"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
You do not speak for me. If that is not clear, then what can be said other than you are either ignorant or willfully deceptive.
"I admit those problems were there in an enormous multitude and many were poorly dealt with (in aftersight) and concede that they echo and cast shadows throughout Our History and Our Government through to present times."
Attempting to "collectivize" individuals into one figurative group is a tactic. The tactic works to deceive some people, other people know better.
Before-sight includes the known result of creating a Legal Fiction.
"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.
"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the ...
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@dmatic
"I signed up for their daily email, and I am very interested in dismantling the current unjust system and replacing it with a just one. Trouble is, most people seem not to know what just means."
If I combine the work of John Taylor Gatto ("schools" are indoctrination devices) with Jordan Petersons work on the state of American Universities where there is an obvious failure to teach posterity the lessons of history concerning the costs of allowing absolute governments to rise and inevitably fall, then I get an obvious willful goal with an obvious willful process that routinely reaches that goal.
In order for the worst evil examples of people to reach their goal, they must incorporate an army of fellow conspirators willing to work to reach the same goal. If the goal is as I think it is, which I can borrow from the work of Erich Fromm, then the goal is death to life, except of course the individuals who seek that goal, they are not suicidal.
So the goal is death to life, anywhere, and as often as possible, and the more torturous, terrifying, and the more murderous the better, so long as the perpetrators do not get caught, and that means get caught with absolute power, and then the obvious result once caught with absolute power, the people who are targets, the victims, once the perpetrators are caught, the victims pull the power plug, and power no longer flows to the absolute dictators, and they can no longer buy all the things required to reach their goal.
As absurd as that appears to those, who as you say "seem not to know what just means," as absurd or "conspiratorial" as that above may seem to the gullible, nieve, immature, infantile, misled, misinformed, and indoctrinated mass of mankind, the evidence proving it is irrefutable.
Those who finally acknowledge the irrefutable fact that the criminals have taken over, those so awakened dream-up and publish documents such as a Declaration of Independence, or a declaration of mixed war (same principle) and revolutionary ideas, which seem revolutionary only to those who have been indoctrinated and their only experience is as indoctrinated infantile, brainwashed, plebs - revolutionary ideas to them - but rational, natural, moral, and just ideas to those who were not or are not now indoctrinated, not under the spell of indoctrination, not brain-washed, no longer misdirected, etc., - those not stupified - use those ideas to effect, to reach a goal that is opposite to the pathological goal.
Pathological goal: destroy life
Natural human goal: defense, preserve, enhance, improve, life
How much does it cost how many individual lives when people are brainwashed to the point at which you acknowledge with your words?
If only there were a truth detector or a process by which the truth is ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@dmatic
"I signed up for their daily email, and I am very interested in dismantling the current unjust system and replacing it with a just one. Trouble is, most people seem not to know what just means."
If I combine the work of John Taylor Gatto ("schools" are indoctrination devices) with Jordan Petersons work on the state of American Universities where there is an obvious failure to teach posterity the lessons of history concerning the costs of allowing absolute governments to rise and inevitably fall, then I get an obvious willful goal with an obvious willful process that routinely reaches that goal.
In order for the worst evil examples of people to reach their goal, they must incorporate an army of fellow conspirators willing to work to reach the same goal. If the goal is as I think it is, which I can borrow from the work of Erich Fromm, then the goal is death to life, except of course the individuals who seek that goal, they are not suicidal.
So the goal is death to life, anywhere, and as often as possible, and the more torturous, terrifying, and the more murderous the better, so long as the perpetrators do not get caught, and that means get caught with absolute power, and then the obvious result once caught with absolute power, the people who are targets, the victims, once the perpetrators are caught, the victims pull the power plug, and power no longer flows to the absolute dictators, and they can no longer buy all the things required to reach their goal.
As absurd as that appears to those, who as you say "seem not to know what just means," as absurd or "conspiratorial" as that above may seem to the gullible, nieve, immature, infantile, misled, misinformed, and indoctrinated mass of mankind, the evidence proving it is irrefutable.
Those who finally acknowledge the irrefutable fact that the criminals have taken over, those so awakened dream-up and publish documents such as a Declaration of Independence, or a declaration of mixed war (same principle) and revolutionary ideas, which seem revolutionary only to those who have been indoctrinated and their only experience is as indoctrinated infantile, brainwashed, plebs - revolutionary ideas to them - but rational, natural, moral, and just ideas to those who were not or are not now indoctrinated, not under the spell of indoctrination, not brain-washed, no longer misdirected, etc., - those not stupified - use those ideas to effect, to reach a goal that is opposite to the pathological goal.
Pathological goal: destroy life
Natural human goal: defense, preserve, enhance, improve, life
How much does it cost how many individual lives when people are brainwashed to the point at which you acknowledge with your words?
If only there were a truth detector or a process by which the truth is ...
VOX .
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
So you have a storyline, a narrative you claim to be true. I have a few facts to back up what has been documented as true, even if you can't see it.
Examples:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 16, 2020:
"The Founding Fathers came together at Philadelphia to achieve union at nearly any cost, because they wanted to avoid the persistent warfare that plagued Europe. Without a union, Amar says, “each nation-state might well raise an army, ostensibly to protect itself against Indians or Europeans, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 16, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
So you have a storyline, a narrative you claim to be true. I have a few facts to back up what has been documented as true, even if you can't see it.
Examples:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills ...
Laurie Garrett reporter who has worked in over 30 epidemic zones, including SARS in China and Ebola ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 15, 2020:
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
What do R0 values mean?
Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:
If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@iThink
The original interview was well worth viewing despite, in my opinion, the obvious statist (globalist) slant. What I found most troubling is the claims concerning investments toward vaccines or inoculations (I am not sure which word applies) that actually work to replace or enhance the natural human power to fight the disease internally. There are none, apparently.
Another thing is something the ought to be understood is a process that functions like a bounty as in funding a prize to someone who catches or kills a wanted criminal. If there is a power at work that can cause a cure to be scarce, and this power could be measured in the billions or trillions of dollars (or some other measure of the power to purchase), then that bounty can drive the willful creation of something that will then require that cure.
If instead cures, once known, travel the earth faster than the virus, free from those powers that make that cure scarce, then that bounty no longer exists, and along with the removal of that power to make cures scarce goes the demand for something to be cured. This is not an uncommon economic process, that is for example exemplified in the Central Bank Fraud willful creations of Booms and Busts, on a predictable cycle, something very profitable for so-called "insider" traders.
In a world without law (criminals run all the governments) there is a prize to anyone who can deceive people into believing certain lies that result in a massive transfer of power from the deceived to the deceivers.
If I wanted to make a lot of money on the stock price of a company that makes PPEs or Face Masks, what could I do?
https://modernbeyond.com/products/coronavirus-n95-filter-mask?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyp7yBRCwARIsABfQsnRvT2ubAY9v08y-cVDCTMMaDxNhdVeU6mixJFdGOtl_gq64EcGD4JcaAnBtEALw_wcB
If there was a way to not only discover the truth of these matters but to then make those facts available to the Public at large, then the truth would no longer be scarce, and in that world where the truth was abundant, relatively cost-less, then I could have at my disposal much more useful data (messages) to share on this and other topics. I will say that the way to discover the truth of these matters is historically called the law, as in the law of the land, or the common law. Regular people are afforded all jurisdiction civil and criminal in grand and trial juries, to then use the law to discover the truth of these matters, and if there are causes to hold individual people to account for individual crimes, such as making cures scarce to jack up the price, or creating viruses to then create the demand for extremely high priced cures, then those individuals are offered their chance to explain the facts that matter in the case before the trial jury in a trial by the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 15, 2020:
https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number
What do R0 values mean?
Three possibilities exist for the potential spread or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:
If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@iThink
The original interview was well worth viewing despite, in my opinion, the obvious statist (globalist) slant. What I found most troubling is the claims concerning investments toward vaccines or inoculations (I am not sure which word applies) that actually work to replace or enhance the natural human power to fight the disease internally. There are none, apparently.
Another thing is something the ought to be understood is a process that functions like a bounty as in funding a prize to someone who catches or kills a wanted criminal. If there is a power at work that can cause a cure to be scarce, and this power could be measured in the billions or trillions of dollars (or some other measure of the power to purchase), then that bounty can drive the willful creation of something that will then require that cure.
If instead cures, once known, travel the earth faster than the virus, free from those powers that make that cure scarce, then that bounty no longer exists, and along with the removal of that power to make cures scarce goes the demand for something to be cured. This is not an uncommon economic process, that is for example exemplified in the Central Bank Fraud willful creations of Booms and Busts, on a predictable cycle, something very profitable for so-called "insider" traders.
In a world without law (criminals run all the governments) there is a prize to anyone who can deceive people into believing certain lies that result in a massive transfer of power from the deceived to the deceivers.
If I wanted to make a lot of money on the stock price of a company that makes PPEs or Face Masks, what could I do?
https://modernbeyond.com/products/coronavirus-n95-filter-mask?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyp7yBRCwARIsABfQsnRvT2ubAY9v08y-cVDCTMMaDxNhdVeU6mixJFdGOtl_gq64EcGD4JcaAnBtEALw_wcB
If there was a way to not only discover the truth of these matters but to then make those facts available to the Public at large, then the truth would no longer be scarce, and in that world where the truth was abundant, relatively cost-less, then I could have at my disposal much more useful data (messages) to share on this and other topics. I will say that the way to discover the truth of these matters is historically called the law, as in the law of the land, or the common law. Regular people are afforded all jurisdiction civil and criminal in grand and trial juries, to then use the law to discover the truth of these matters, and if there are causes to hold individual people to account for individual crimes, such as making cures scarce to jack up the price, or creating viruses to then create the demand for extremely high priced cures, then those individuals are offered their chance to explain the facts that matter in the case before the trial jury in a trial by the ...
I'm reposting this from "Philosophy/Ideas section Jan.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 15, 2020:
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@DeJake
I could condense the intended messages further, but this subject matter is already condensed to a superficial state.
Thomas Paine's words sound like a description of Liberal Media and the Democratic Party.
"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."
What is very odd about the description of the Liberal Media and the Democratic party is that the words Liberal and Demcrat meant the opposite meaning for Thomas Paine and his contemporaries.
Then condensing again:
"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be."
The POWER of the Liberal Media expressed in so many words: a Supermajority (99% of the Whole People) are deceived.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 15, 2020:
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@DeJake
I could condense the intended messages further, but this subject matter is already condensed to a superficial state.
Thomas Paine's words sound like a description of Liberal Media and the Democratic Party.
"In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness."
What is very odd about the description of the Liberal Media and the Democratic party is that the words Liberal and Demcrat meant the opposite meaning for Thomas Paine and his contemporaries.
Then condensing again:
"And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be."
The POWER of the Liberal Media expressed in so many words: a Supermajority (99% of the Whole People) are deceived.
This is HUGE!!! These 8 States Could Form The Interstate Compact on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary! - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 14, 2020:
House Bill 753
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I can get as dark and pessimistic as the next guy. Perhaps Comic Relief is a part of optimism. Have you listened to any of the reports by Steve Pieczenik? https://stevepieczenik.com/2020/02/14/opus-209-liars/
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 14, 2020:
House Bill 753
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I can get as dark and pessimistic as the next guy. Perhaps Comic Relief is a part of optimism. Have you listened to any of the reports by Steve Pieczenik? https://stevepieczenik.com/2020/02/14/opus-209-liars/
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@dmatic
I do not know what the authorities mean when they use terms like "Income security" or M1. I would not trust an "economist" who claims to know what those words mean. The closest to finding a working meaning for those words that I can trust would be from Murray Rothbard's extensive work. I don't completely trust his working understanding of political economy, for reasons I can explain in detail.
The point I wish to stress concerning any Central Bank Fraud is that it is a well-known fraud, as proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a lawful way:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
If the idea is to consent to one purse, which is a FUND from which such things as Aggressive Wars for Profit are funded, then that idea can involve learning the language and the dogma employed by the frauds who run that Monopoly of Debt Collection.
If this subject matter interests you enough to read a very good book on the subject, then I suggest America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard:
https://mises.org/library/americas-great-depression
I have not yet finished reading that book, as I am much more interested in another of his books titled Conceived in Liberty because I am looking for evidence of the true law process in America during the founding of the original federation. Every single form of organized crime that works behind a false flag of legality - as far as I know - must have a working Central Bank Fraud going, or the power to "govern" arbitrarily is compromised by the fact that the criminals running the government are required to get permission by some means to spend the money created by the producers who work under that government. Think in terms of taxation without any representation at all.
When the criminals get to the point at...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 15, 2020:
@dmatic
I do not know what the authorities mean when they use terms like "Income security" or M1. I would not trust an "economist" who claims to know what those words mean. The closest to finding a working meaning for those words that I can trust would be from Murray Rothbard's extensive work. I don't completely trust his working understanding of political economy, for reasons I can explain in detail.
The point I wish to stress concerning any Central Bank Fraud is that it is a well-known fraud, as proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a lawful way:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
If the idea is to consent to one purse, which is a FUND from which such things as Aggressive Wars for Profit are funded, then that idea can involve learning the language and the dogma employed by the frauds who run that Monopoly of Debt Collection.
If this subject matter interests you enough to read a very good book on the subject, then I suggest America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard:
https://mises.org/library/americas-great-depression
I have not yet finished reading that book, as I am much more interested in another of his books titled Conceived in Liberty because I am looking for evidence of the true law process in America during the founding of the original federation. Every single form of organized crime that works behind a false flag of legality - as far as I know - must have a working Central Bank Fraud going, or the power to "govern" arbitrarily is compromised by the fact that the criminals running the government are required to get permission by some means to spend the money created by the producers who work under that government. Think in terms of taxation without any representation at all.
When the criminals get to the point at...
American Exceptionalism: Delusion and Illusion
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Manifest Destiny is a slogan, it is what is also called a false flag, and it covers up the truth. The truth of Manifest Destiny is that the so-called government of America is run by criminals, and that has been a fact that matters since 1789.
Any claim of territory by someone who wants territory...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@Naomi
I have it, thanks. If this writer is going to claim that people willing to defend freedom (thereby maintaining liberty) is a "creed," and an "ism," and is dogma, then so be it. It is dogma to claim that aggressive, unprovoked, killing of people is murder, from a nihilistic perspective. That is fine by me, but dogma or not if someone is going to kill me, and I have the power to stop them, then I will prevent that killing, and I don't have to call it attempted murder.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Manifest Destiny is a slogan, it is what is also called a false flag, and it covers up the truth. The truth of Manifest Destiny is that the so-called government of America is run by criminals, and that has been a fact that matters since 1789.
Any claim of territory by someone who wants territory...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@Naomi
I have it, thanks. If this writer is going to claim that people willing to defend freedom (thereby maintaining liberty) is a "creed," and an "ism," and is dogma, then so be it. It is dogma to claim that aggressive, unprovoked, killing of people is murder, from a nihilistic perspective. That is fine by me, but dogma or not if someone is going to kill me, and I have the power to stop them, then I will prevent that killing, and I don't have to call it attempted murder.
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@dmatic
"Presumably, by criminal power you mean those who violate natural law?"
I think that it is possible to be more specific since the term natural law can be just about anything imagined by anyone anytime.
How about the following?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That is very specific in each and every case of conflict from small to large, from individuals to groups of individuals. The greatest problem associated with enforcement of any law is the power of deception, so what is obviously needed is a litmus type test for matters at law. Why would Mathew 7:12 not be that litmus test? Some obvious answers as to why that would not work for some people is that some people want to get away with harming innocent people, so they don't want such a litmus test working against them.
"Demonstrably, these criminals have enacted unnatural, or unrighteous, laws that define their behavior as not criminal, and subsequently, many who are playing their game admire and esteem these natural law breakers?"
I think that the criminals at the National level have gone way beyond any known, or knowable, boundary of law, well past any requirement to try the case. Their crimes are documented by them as they perpetrate the crimes, they are in a literal sense caught red-handed in the act of perpetrating these crimes.
Would any moral person walking into a room where a devil worshiper was beginning to eat a baby need - would the witness need - to call 911 first if it was in their power to stop the crime in progress? Would someone in that position require a warrant from a (devil-worshiping black-robed) judge?
The point that needs to be driven home here is the point that modern people have gone so far from any moral standard, having been exposed to these evil powers for so long, that people can't even see self-evident crimes in progress, crimes of the greatest evil imaginable. One example is any of the many Wars of Aggression for the Profit of the few at the expense of everyone, and these wars are meticulously documented from beginning to end, meaning - again - they are crimes in progress documented (confessed) by the perpetrators as they begin to contemplate them, begin to perpetrate them, and continue to perpetrate them, as a matter of fact, a fact that matters at law.
Do you need a Congressional Hearing (white-wash) to known, as a matter of fact, that these treasonous, capital, crimes are crimes? Seriously are you incapable of that clear judgment?
"Opposed to them are the righteous, the ones who keep and adhere, and teach the natural law, correct?"
This is not news. Why would this be news if this - the present topic that we dare to discuss - were written in ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@dmatic
"Presumably, by criminal power you mean those who violate natural law?"
I think that it is possible to be more specific since the term natural law can be just about anything imagined by anyone anytime.
How about the following?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That is very specific in each and every case of conflict from small to large, from individuals to groups of individuals. The greatest problem associated with enforcement of any law is the power of deception, so what is obviously needed is a litmus type test for matters at law. Why would Mathew 7:12 not be that litmus test? Some obvious answers as to why that would not work for some people is that some people want to get away with harming innocent people, so they don't want such a litmus test working against them.
"Demonstrably, these criminals have enacted unnatural, or unrighteous, laws that define their behavior as not criminal, and subsequently, many who are playing their game admire and esteem these natural law breakers?"
I think that the criminals at the National level have gone way beyond any known, or knowable, boundary of law, well past any requirement to try the case. Their crimes are documented by them as they perpetrate the crimes, they are in a literal sense caught red-handed in the act of perpetrating these crimes.
Would any moral person walking into a room where a devil worshiper was beginning to eat a baby need - would the witness need - to call 911 first if it was in their power to stop the crime in progress? Would someone in that position require a warrant from a (devil-worshiping black-robed) judge?
The point that needs to be driven home here is the point that modern people have gone so far from any moral standard, having been exposed to these evil powers for so long, that people can't even see self-evident crimes in progress, crimes of the greatest evil imaginable. One example is any of the many Wars of Aggression for the Profit of the few at the expense of everyone, and these wars are meticulously documented from beginning to end, meaning - again - they are crimes in progress documented (confessed) by the perpetrators as they begin to contemplate them, begin to perpetrate them, and continue to perpetrate them, as a matter of fact, a fact that matters at law.
Do you need a Congressional Hearing (white-wash) to known, as a matter of fact, that these treasonous, capital, crimes are crimes? Seriously are you incapable of that clear judgment?
"Opposed to them are the righteous, the ones who keep and adhere, and teach the natural law, correct?"
This is not news. Why would this be news if this - the present topic that we dare to discuss - were written in ...
This is HUGE!!! These 8 States Could Form The Interstate Compact on 2nd Amendment Sanctuary! - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 14, 2020:
House Bill 753
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
It is possible for regular people to agree to combine individual power in such a way as to overpower the National government criminal cabal. There are examples of combined action and examples of written testimony.
Have you read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?
Virginia Resolution
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
"That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy."
Full text:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virres.asp
Kentucky Resolution
"RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 14, 2020:
House Bill 753
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 14, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
It is possible for regular people to agree to combine individual power in such a way as to overpower the National government criminal cabal. There are examples of combined action and examples of written testimony.
Have you read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?
Virginia Resolution
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
"That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy."
Full text:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virres.asp
Kentucky Resolution
"RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the ...
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the power of Congress.
Daveclark5 comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Wjosf-Kelley,
Thank you for your clarification. I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid. Assuming that what you are saying, it makes sense why you would quote an anarchist and a couple of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."
No.
You now make 2 unsupportable claims (pulled out of your posterior, or read from a dogmatic script from the criminals):
1.
There is something that is ours as in "our democratic republic."
Who claims to own this thing? You? If the number of people claimed to be voting is any measure of what you claim to be "ours," then it is clearly not "ours," it is theirs: those who claim to own it.
2.
It (that is not ours) is a democratic republic.
How could you possibly contort language to such a degree as to attempt to support that claim above?
From the original meaning of the word democracy, the government is not an electoral process where government offices are filled by popular vote: a.k.a. so-called Majority Rules. So that claim by you fails in that respect.
If instead, you claim that it is Majority Rules (the modern meaning of democracy), then it can't be a republic by the established meaning of the word republic, which means The Public Thing in a literal sense, not a figurative (fictional) sense. If it is, as you may be claiming, that is it is both the will of the Majority doing whatever it pleases to the minority, and it is a republic, then you also have to change the meaning of the word republic. You would have to twist the meaning of the word republic to mean something other than The Public Thing, such as, perhaps, you can claim that a republic is the Majority thing, or the minority thing, or the corporate thing, or the special interest thing, or the oligarch thing, or the aristocrat thing, or the people with the most power thing, or the people with the most money thing, or the brain dead psychopath sociopath and sycophant thing.
How do you define the meaning of the terms you use in this context where you claim to understand what I am saying?
Digging deeper into the dogma:
"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."
Things do not have rights, processes do not have rights, a majority rules organization or criminal organization under the false flag of a democratic republic has no right, no brain, no will, not legs to stand on, no power of will, no decision making power, no moral conscience. So if you understand that fact that matters, that things don't have rights, then you can work at identifying what does have rights, like people, having rights afforded to each other based upon moral conscience, reason, logic, and such things as The Golden Rule, which is a very competitive example of the words used to describe the law.
Then you use the word country. Is it a democracy? Is it a ...
Daveclark5 comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Wjosf-Kelley,
Thank you for your clarification. I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid. Assuming that what you are saying, it makes sense why you would quote an anarchist and a couple of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."
No.
You now make 2 unsupportable claims (pulled out of your posterior, or read from a dogmatic script from the criminals):
1.
There is something that is ours as in "our democratic republic."
Who claims to own this thing? You? If the number of people claimed to be voting is any measure of what you claim to be "ours," then it is clearly not "ours," it is theirs: those who claim to own it.
2.
It (that is not ours) is a democratic republic.
How could you possibly contort language to such a degree as to attempt to support that claim above?
From the original meaning of the word democracy, the government is not an electoral process where government offices are filled by popular vote: a.k.a. so-called Majority Rules. So that claim by you fails in that respect.
If instead, you claim that it is Majority Rules (the modern meaning of democracy), then it can't be a republic by the established meaning of the word republic, which means The Public Thing in a literal sense, not a figurative (fictional) sense. If it is, as you may be claiming, that is it is both the will of the Majority doing whatever it pleases to the minority, and it is a republic, then you also have to change the meaning of the word republic. You would have to twist the meaning of the word republic to mean something other than The Public Thing, such as, perhaps, you can claim that a republic is the Majority thing, or the minority thing, or the corporate thing, or the special interest thing, or the oligarch thing, or the aristocrat thing, or the people with the most power thing, or the people with the most money thing, or the brain dead psychopath sociopath and sycophant thing.
How do you define the meaning of the terms you use in this context where you claim to understand what I am saying?
Digging deeper into the dogma:
"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."
Things do not have rights, processes do not have rights, a majority rules organization or criminal organization under the false flag of a democratic republic has no right, no brain, no will, not legs to stand on, no power of will, no decision making power, no moral conscience. So if you understand that fact that matters, that things don't have rights, then you can work at identifying what does have rights, like people, having rights afforded to each other based upon moral conscience, reason, logic, and such things as The Golden Rule, which is a very competitive example of the words used to describe the law.
Then you use the word country. Is it a democracy? Is it a ...
American Exceptionalism: Delusion and Illusion
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Manifest Destiny is a slogan, it is what is also called a false flag, and it covers up the truth. The truth of Manifest Destiny is that the so-called government of America is run by criminals, and that has been a fact that matters since 1789.
Any claim of territory by someone who wants territory...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@Naomi
"Hello. Am I right in thinking that when you mention 'criminals', you refer that to corrupt governments? I've got this impression from some of your comments you posted in the past."
I am inspired by your question. Thanks.
My inspiration is not easy to express. What can I say? I do not speak the dogma of the Cult of Might Makes Right. I do not credit Legal Fiction Dogma. How do I manage to answer the question you ask, and do so factually?
"...when you mention 'criminals', you refer that to corrupt governments..."
Governments are not corrupt, people are corrupted, people are then corrupt, not governments. These people who perpetrate crimes (because they have been corrupted, and they are corrupt) have names, actual names, and therefore they are indictable.
What good is it to blame a legal fiction? Can you indict the corrupt governments?
From Conceived In Liberty by Murray Rothbard:
"The fundamental cleavage in politics of the United Provinces developed when the merchants of the cities of Holland and of other provinces, led by the foremost Dutch statesman, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, successfully pursued peace negotiations with Spain despite the complete opposition of the Dutch military leaders. The Dutch merchants desired peace in order to end the threat of military dictatorship and the burden of taxes, and to gain access to world markets through free and peaceful trade. These merchants formed the basis of the Republican party, standing for liberal principles of peace, free trade, liberty, and, in particular, the maintenance of the original Dutch confederation of towns and provinces. In that confederation, each level of governmental power was strictly limited by the application of a virtual unanimity principle. The Republicans, furthermore, tended to be Arminians, following the liberal Dutch Protestant theologian Jacobus Arminius, who emphasized free will, natural law, and religious toleration as over against the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and state enforcement of religious conformity.
"Opposition to the peace negotiations with Spain was centered in the Orange party, composed largely of gentry dependent upon their lucrative and powerful military positions and whose leader was the Prince of Orange, the military commander of the Netherlands. The Orange party sought greater powers for the central government, a strong standing army, and ultimately the substitution of an Orange monarchy for the republican confederation. Allied with the nobility and military in the Orange party was the great part of the Calvinist ministers; the Orange party, in fact, was often termed the “Calvinist party.” The Calvinist ministers found the discipline of war more suitable to Calvinist practices than was the increased standard of living ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Manifest Destiny is a slogan, it is what is also called a false flag, and it covers up the truth. The truth of Manifest Destiny is that the so-called government of America is run by criminals, and that has been a fact that matters since 1789.
Any claim of territory by someone who wants territory...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@Naomi
"Hello. Am I right in thinking that when you mention 'criminals', you refer that to corrupt governments? I've got this impression from some of your comments you posted in the past."
I am inspired by your question. Thanks.
My inspiration is not easy to express. What can I say? I do not speak the dogma of the Cult of Might Makes Right. I do not credit Legal Fiction Dogma. How do I manage to answer the question you ask, and do so factually?
"...when you mention 'criminals', you refer that to corrupt governments..."
Governments are not corrupt, people are corrupted, people are then corrupt, not governments. These people who perpetrate crimes (because they have been corrupted, and they are corrupt) have names, actual names, and therefore they are indictable.
What good is it to blame a legal fiction? Can you indict the corrupt governments?
From Conceived In Liberty by Murray Rothbard:
"The fundamental cleavage in politics of the United Provinces developed when the merchants of the cities of Holland and of other provinces, led by the foremost Dutch statesman, Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, successfully pursued peace negotiations with Spain despite the complete opposition of the Dutch military leaders. The Dutch merchants desired peace in order to end the threat of military dictatorship and the burden of taxes, and to gain access to world markets through free and peaceful trade. These merchants formed the basis of the Republican party, standing for liberal principles of peace, free trade, liberty, and, in particular, the maintenance of the original Dutch confederation of towns and provinces. In that confederation, each level of governmental power was strictly limited by the application of a virtual unanimity principle. The Republicans, furthermore, tended to be Arminians, following the liberal Dutch Protestant theologian Jacobus Arminius, who emphasized free will, natural law, and religious toleration as over against the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and state enforcement of religious conformity.
"Opposition to the peace negotiations with Spain was centered in the Orange party, composed largely of gentry dependent upon their lucrative and powerful military positions and whose leader was the Prince of Orange, the military commander of the Netherlands. The Orange party sought greater powers for the central government, a strong standing army, and ultimately the substitution of an Orange monarchy for the republican confederation. Allied with the nobility and military in the Orange party was the great part of the Calvinist ministers; the Orange party, in fact, was often termed the “Calvinist party.” The Calvinist ministers found the discipline of war more suitable to Calvinist practices than was the increased standard of living ...
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Next Jordan Peterson drops the name George Orwell.
Orwell wrote about 3 Legal Fiction Criminal Gangs claiming to be governments:
1. Oceania
2. Eurasia
3. Eastasia
Returning for my sense of truth telling is the concept that no one knows how do deal with the natural laws government ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
Their game is well explained in that video by Jordan Peterson, ringing very true to me. The game is not simply to fail to do good things, the game is to do bad things. If good things can be explained eloquently, then why would the following not work toward that end: to explain good things eloquently?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That claim above which claims that the law is this thing right here, that law, that claim of law, can be tested out for accuracy, assuming that accuracy has value, then that claim can be tested out for value: that which is good.
Person A does something to someone else:
Good thing (according to Person A)
Person A displays actions in the past that show that person A desires (thinks that it is good) to have this thing he is doing now to someone else, to have that done to himself by other people.
Bad thing (according to Person A)
Person A displays actions in the past that show that person A will fight tooth and nail to avoid having this same thing done to himself.
So what is the Game plan planned out by criminals as demonstrated by their actions, which are often at odds with their words?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should not do to you: do even so to them: for this is the crime and the fake profits.
There is an individual named Eric Fromm who has written 2 books on this subject matter, that may be worth the effort to read.
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
Sane Society
In that work, as far as I remember, is the concept of a living being that worships death, not the death of the individual him or herself, but the pathology of such an individual is such that the goal of life is demonstrably the goal of destroying, even torturing the life out of, life.
What is the goal as measured by hundreds of millions of tortured human souls, as all those wars combined, and perhaps you ought to become familiar with the saying: All wars are banker wars. The saying has meaning, meaning that rings true.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
Next Jordan Peterson drops the name George Orwell.
Orwell wrote about 3 Legal Fiction Criminal Gangs claiming to be governments:
1. Oceania
2. Eurasia
3. Eastasia
Returning for my sense of truth telling is the concept that no one knows how do deal with the natural laws government ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
Their game is well explained in that video by Jordan Peterson, ringing very true to me. The game is not simply to fail to do good things, the game is to do bad things. If good things can be explained eloquently, then why would the following not work toward that end: to explain good things eloquently?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
That claim above which claims that the law is this thing right here, that law, that claim of law, can be tested out for accuracy, assuming that accuracy has value, then that claim can be tested out for value: that which is good.
Person A does something to someone else:
Good thing (according to Person A)
Person A displays actions in the past that show that person A desires (thinks that it is good) to have this thing he is doing now to someone else, to have that done to himself by other people.
Bad thing (according to Person A)
Person A displays actions in the past that show that person A will fight tooth and nail to avoid having this same thing done to himself.
So what is the Game plan planned out by criminals as demonstrated by their actions, which are often at odds with their words?
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should not do to you: do even so to them: for this is the crime and the fake profits.
There is an individual named Eric Fromm who has written 2 books on this subject matter, that may be worth the effort to read.
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
Sane Society
In that work, as far as I remember, is the concept of a living being that worships death, not the death of the individual him or herself, but the pathology of such an individual is such that the goal of life is demonstrably the goal of destroying, even torturing the life out of, life.
What is the goal as measured by hundreds of millions of tortured human souls, as all those wars combined, and perhaps you ought to become familiar with the saying: All wars are banker wars. The saying has meaning, meaning that rings true.
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
I am going to try again to address this:
"It’s a deeply build feature of systems of creative production and no one really knows what to do about it."
The power to create good things (valued as good by individuals and a sum total of those individual valuations) is naturally more powerful in a few people. This is in my opinion well exemplified with popular musicians: Rock Star.
Jordan Peterson is showing that reality in that sentence, as much as many people may want to be a Rock Star, there will always be only a relatively few of them, and there is no such thing as counterfeiting, so why even try?
My point is that the Zero-Sum Game Con (there is only so much value in the world and therefore that limited value must be distributed by some method) is a part of the Criminal Process of eliminating all competition, so as to leave in power the most powerful criminal. In order for the POWER of crime to work, at all, people have to be fooled into giving up their lawful power (in the mirror: their moral conscience), and in order to convince people that they must give up their lawful power the world is claimed to be inadequate, insufficient, scarce of value, only so much value, hardly enough value, nearly starving everyone for lack of value, a small amount of value, and not enough value for everyone: Zero Sum.
I have coined the term Scareonomics. There isn't enough to go around, so power must be put in place to distribute the limited supplies so as to maximize the survivability of those worthy of surviving because everyone cannot survive, it is a Zero-Sum Game.
That is a demonstrable lie, but if you dare to claim otherwise, you are removed from the game, you will be made an example of just exactly what happens to people who do not obey without question.
You can't enter the Monopoly game and take all the money from the current player who has everything. Why? There is only so much money in the Monopoly Game, and the rules don't allow new players to bring to the table their own measures of value, their own Bank account, and their own property, adding another board to the existing board.
When Jordan Peterson explains things the words ring true, and demonstrably true, with few exceptions. I found the exceptions, and they are alarming exceptions.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
I am going to try again to address this:
"It’s a deeply build feature of systems of creative production and no one really knows what to do about it."
The power to create good things (valued as good by individuals and a sum total of those individual valuations) is naturally more powerful in a few people. This is in my opinion well exemplified with popular musicians: Rock Star.
Jordan Peterson is showing that reality in that sentence, as much as many people may want to be a Rock Star, there will always be only a relatively few of them, and there is no such thing as counterfeiting, so why even try?
My point is that the Zero-Sum Game Con (there is only so much value in the world and therefore that limited value must be distributed by some method) is a part of the Criminal Process of eliminating all competition, so as to leave in power the most powerful criminal. In order for the POWER of crime to work, at all, people have to be fooled into giving up their lawful power (in the mirror: their moral conscience), and in order to convince people that they must give up their lawful power the world is claimed to be inadequate, insufficient, scarce of value, only so much value, hardly enough value, nearly starving everyone for lack of value, a small amount of value, and not enough value for everyone: Zero Sum.
I have coined the term Scareonomics. There isn't enough to go around, so power must be put in place to distribute the limited supplies so as to maximize the survivability of those worthy of surviving because everyone cannot survive, it is a Zero-Sum Game.
That is a demonstrable lie, but if you dare to claim otherwise, you are removed from the game, you will be made an example of just exactly what happens to people who do not obey without question.
You can't enter the Monopoly game and take all the money from the current player who has everything. Why? There is only so much money in the Monopoly Game, and the rules don't allow new players to bring to the table their own measures of value, their own Bank account, and their own property, adding another board to the existing board.
When Jordan Peterson explains things the words ring true, and demonstrably true, with few exceptions. I found the exceptions, and they are alarming exceptions.
[youtube.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
The greatest criminal power can be measured. An example of measurement is body counts, such as is done here: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
Another measure is the ongoing National Debt Clock Real Time.
Criminal organizations work only when government does not work. When government works the pay flowing to criminals is insufficient to inspire criminal behavior in most cases. When I speak of government I speak of the actual facts that matter in any case of government, I do not speak the dogma of The Cult of Might Makes Right.
Actual government is found in the mirror, and collective government (actual) is a sum total of all the individual people who look in the mirror and make the right decisions. Actual government is voluntary, as in Voluntary Mutual Defense, which is exemplified in such cases as the original American Federation from 1774 to 1789 under the common law with trial by jury.
So a Zero Sum Con game can be measured by the same measures: body count of victims, and the power to purchase as confessed by the criminals in power. The Zero Sum Con game is the idea that everyone must obey (everyone must play the lying game) or you will be made an example of precisely what happens to the disobedient. No one is allowed to invent a new game, a better game, a game that is higher in quality and a game that is lower in cost.
Zero Sum Con Game = Involuntary Association = Subsidized Slavery = Counterfeit Government = Monopoly of everything in the hand of the few at the expense of everyone
Jordon Peterson offers 2 examples of what he claims to be (almost) natural laws (in so many words) and those two examples are the Monopoly Game, and a thought experiment that can be calculated out mathematically. Both of these examples are not examples of natural laws unless the introduction of involuntary association (Zero Sum Con Game) are in force. In other words, the natural laws claimed by Jordan Peterson only apply when non-players are disappeared, exiled, sent to the gulag or grave.
In government (actual) any number of players can leave or enter the Monopoly game and the money can just as easily flow from the most powerful player to the next most powerful player, and that is not all. There are many competitive solutions to the problems associated with power flowing to the few, rather than power flowing to the many, that do not involve the Zero-Sum Game Con. Jordon Peterson claims that no one knows how to solve this problem. Really?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 13, 2020:
At time 21:00 or so, speaking about the Pareto Principle (80/20 rule?), it was claimed that given enough time a number of traders flipping a coin ends up with one individual with all the money. I think that that is intellectual dishonesty. That is the zero sum game taught in the game Monopoly, an ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
@dmatic
The greatest criminal power can be measured. An example of measurement is body counts, such as is done here: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
Another measure is the ongoing National Debt Clock Real Time.
Criminal organizations work only when government does not work. When government works the pay flowing to criminals is insufficient to inspire criminal behavior in most cases. When I speak of government I speak of the actual facts that matter in any case of government, I do not speak the dogma of The Cult of Might Makes Right.
Actual government is found in the mirror, and collective government (actual) is a sum total of all the individual people who look in the mirror and make the right decisions. Actual government is voluntary, as in Voluntary Mutual Defense, which is exemplified in such cases as the original American Federation from 1774 to 1789 under the common law with trial by jury.
So a Zero Sum Con game can be measured by the same measures: body count of victims, and the power to purchase as confessed by the criminals in power. The Zero Sum Con game is the idea that everyone must obey (everyone must play the lying game) or you will be made an example of precisely what happens to the disobedient. No one is allowed to invent a new game, a better game, a game that is higher in quality and a game that is lower in cost.
Zero Sum Con Game = Involuntary Association = Subsidized Slavery = Counterfeit Government = Monopoly of everything in the hand of the few at the expense of everyone
Jordon Peterson offers 2 examples of what he claims to be (almost) natural laws (in so many words) and those two examples are the Monopoly Game, and a thought experiment that can be calculated out mathematically. Both of these examples are not examples of natural laws unless the introduction of involuntary association (Zero Sum Con Game) are in force. In other words, the natural laws claimed by Jordan Peterson only apply when non-players are disappeared, exiled, sent to the gulag or grave.
In government (actual) any number of players can leave or enter the Monopoly game and the money can just as easily flow from the most powerful player to the next most powerful player, and that is not all. There are many competitive solutions to the problems associated with power flowing to the few, rather than power flowing to the many, that do not involve the Zero-Sum Game Con. Jordon Peterson claims that no one knows how to solve this problem. Really?
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the power of Congress.
Daveclark5 comments on Feb 13, 2020:
@josf-kelley, you start off your comment with "Article 1, section 8 enumerates the power of congress. Every cent of Congress comes from its right to levy taxes that YOU approve by who you vote in," followed by your assessment of that quote from the post above:
"Wrong. That is so wrong..."
I'm ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
"I'm not sure which element of his statement is wrong."
"Every cent of Congress comes from its right to levy taxes that YOU approve by who you vote in..."
I can make a list.
Wrongs
1. Congress has no right to levy taxes
1a. Congress (a number of people) has no right to levy taxes, no more right than a number of people called a Mob, or a single member of a Mob, or a single thief.
2a. Congress (a legal fiction, part of an ideology) has no right to levy taxes, it has no being, no life, no brain, no will, no decision making power, it is a fictional being, it cannot have a right.
2. YOU did not approve by who you vote in
2a. YOU (everyone in the set of people called American taxpayers) does not have one voice, each individual speaks for each individual. If some individuals think that they have given permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone, then that group of people has done so. Membership in that group is exclusive to those who think that they gave permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone.
2b. A group or set of people inclusive in the word YOU gave permission, or so they think, for another group - a congress - to rob everyone.
3. Votes are not counted, not since who knows when? Certainly not since no one is allowed to legally challenge any vote count, and since the ability to forensically trace the individual votes from the individual voter to the official vote count.
4. No one has a right to rob anyone, it is not a right, it is a criminal decision made by a criminal in time and place, and that is a fact that matters.
If that does not clear things up, then the following may help:
"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 ...
Daveclark5 comments on Feb 13, 2020:
@josf-kelley, you start off your comment with "Article 1, section 8 enumerates the power of congress. Every cent of Congress comes from its right to levy taxes that YOU approve by who you vote in," followed by your assessment of that quote from the post above:
"Wrong. That is so wrong..."
I'm ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 13, 2020:
"I'm not sure which element of his statement is wrong."
"Every cent of Congress comes from its right to levy taxes that YOU approve by who you vote in..."
I can make a list.
Wrongs
1. Congress has no right to levy taxes
1a. Congress (a number of people) has no right to levy taxes, no more right than a number of people called a Mob, or a single member of a Mob, or a single thief.
2a. Congress (a legal fiction, part of an ideology) has no right to levy taxes, it has no being, no life, no brain, no will, no decision making power, it is a fictional being, it cannot have a right.
2. YOU did not approve by who you vote in
2a. YOU (everyone in the set of people called American taxpayers) does not have one voice, each individual speaks for each individual. If some individuals think that they have given permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone, then that group of people has done so. Membership in that group is exclusive to those who think that they gave permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone.
2b. A group or set of people inclusive in the word YOU gave permission, or so they think, for another group - a congress - to rob everyone.
3. Votes are not counted, not since who knows when? Certainly not since no one is allowed to legally challenge any vote count, and since the ability to forensically trace the individual votes from the individual voter to the official vote count.
4. No one has a right to rob anyone, it is not a right, it is a criminal decision made by a criminal in time and place, and that is a fact that matters.
If that does not clear things up, then the following may help:
"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 ...
[stevepieczenik.com]
Rand Paul for Vice President?
warminster100 comments on Feb 12, 2020:
Take some time to post more details on your postings
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 12, 2020:
@warminster100
"Take some time to post more details on your postings."
OR
"Take some time to post more details on this (the only post I am concerned about) posting."
OR
Is there anything worth knowing in the link you posted?
I think that there is a lot of information offered in the link I posted, including a reference to Rand Paul who is the son of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is what Conspiracy Theorists in the 80s found as a sitting member of Congress, much to the surprise of the gang labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. Here is this guy confirming our suspicions about the true state of the state, and look, look there, that guy is actually in Congress right now!
warminster100 comments on Feb 12, 2020:
Take some time to post more details on your postings
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 12, 2020:
@warminster100
"Take some time to post more details on your postings."
OR
"Take some time to post more details on this (the only post I am concerned about) posting."
OR
Is there anything worth knowing in the link you posted?
I think that there is a lot of information offered in the link I posted, including a reference to Rand Paul who is the son of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is what Conspiracy Theorists in the 80s found as a sitting member of Congress, much to the surprise of the gang labeled as Conspiracy Theorists. Here is this guy confirming our suspicions about the true state of the state, and look, look there, that guy is actually in Congress right now!
[stevepieczenik.com]
Rand Paul for Vice President?
warminster100 comments on Feb 12, 2020:
Take some time to post more details on your postings
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 12, 2020:
Have you seen any of my other postings?
warminster100 comments on Feb 12, 2020:
Take some time to post more details on your postings
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 12, 2020:
Have you seen any of my other postings?
The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
"If liberals don’t like guns, they want government to take everyone else’s guns away.
I don't wish to credit anyone using the dubious terms Liberal and Conservative, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@dmatic
Criminals already convicted of counterfeiting and conspiracy murder according to law, not according to fake law, such as Family, Equity, Admiralty, Exchequer, or whatnot, convicted by trial jurors.
Convicted of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, and convicted of counterfeiting in at least the following:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
So...using reason, and that power of moral conscience, what does one who has stolen absolute power over more than 300 million people buy if there is no limit to the Trillions of Units of Purchasing Power that they can spend and charge to those not yet born?
If your taste is to dabble in harvesting baby parts, eating baby parts yourself, selling the remainder, then how much will it cost to shut everyone up who may think about questioning that taste that you have while you are the one in power?
Who do you need to shut up? How much does it cost to shut them up? How much does it cost to shut up everyone with a naturally born human conscience? The amount does not matter, the amount is unlimited, you can spend whatever you want to spend, but you must shut everyone up.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
"If liberals don’t like guns, they want government to take everyone else’s guns away.
I don't wish to credit anyone using the dubious terms Liberal and Conservative, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@dmatic
Criminals already convicted of counterfeiting and conspiracy murder according to law, not according to fake law, such as Family, Equity, Admiralty, Exchequer, or whatnot, convicted by trial jurors.
Convicted of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, and convicted of counterfeiting in at least the following:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
So...using reason, and that power of moral conscience, what does one who has stolen absolute power over more than 300 million people buy if there is no limit to the Trillions of Units of Purchasing Power that they can spend and charge to those not yet born?
If your taste is to dabble in harvesting baby parts, eating baby parts yourself, selling the remainder, then how much will it cost to shut everyone up who may think about questioning that taste that you have while you are the one in power?
Who do you need to shut up? How much does it cost to shut them up? How much does it cost to shut up everyone with a naturally born human conscience? The amount does not matter, the amount is unlimited, you can spend whatever you want to spend, but you must shut everyone up.
The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
"If liberals don’t like guns, they want government to take everyone else’s guns away.
I don't wish to credit anyone using the dubious terms Liberal and Conservative, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@dmatic
I can tell you stories of how dull my truth bell has been in the past, so dull as to fail to ring when I encountered the truth in the past. My knee jerk reaction, in the past, to messages of the truth would not ring the truth bell at all. It takes effort to find those needles of truth in the growing haystack of "official" lies.
Once my bullshit detector (moral cognizance) became active (after having been put to sleep by internal and external powers) it started to work again, like someone regaining the ability to walk after breaking both legs.
Now I can read with great intent messages from both sides (criminal and anti-criminal) and see these truthful messages because the bell rings soundly.
Not much compares to the message called The Golden Rule on the anti-criminal side, and the following ought to concern everyone as the following is a clear and present warning of very serious evil infesting what people call the government.
"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."
A look at that above combined with a look at The National Debt Clock Real Time ought to charge moral brains with duty, in my opinion.
According to what people call the government, the people as a whole (meaning everyone) cannot question the right of individual people in government to force everyone to never question the collection of those payments of that debt, and if someone dares to do so, all the cost associated with making an example of that individual who dares to question those payments of that debt is added to that debt.
Pay or else your payments increase, and anyone caught questioning those payments will be subject to severe punishment, in the national interest. Not in the interest of protecting and serving the people as a whole. Not in the interest of defending the innocent from the guilty anywhere anytime. Not in the interest of moral rights, such as protection of life, liberty, property, and individual powers of moral cognizance. The legal fiction's interest is paramount, so say those who operate it.
They are criminals, and all the evidence required is published by the perpetrators, the evidence that proves to anyone with a functioning human brain, evidence that affordes anyone the clear and present dangers that warrants the probable cause to act in defense against them: as a fact that matters. All the evidence required to prove the case is published by them on the official record.
So what is due process? What are the steps that must be taken so as to remain lawful during the lawful employment of the law in defense against criminals claiming to be the government?
One might ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"The democrats have made guns an impossibly divisive issue.
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
"If liberals don’t like guns, they want government to take everyone else’s guns away.
I don't wish to credit anyone using the dubious terms Liberal and Conservative, but ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@dmatic
I can tell you stories of how dull my truth bell has been in the past, so dull as to fail to ring when I encountered the truth in the past. My knee jerk reaction, in the past, to messages of the truth would not ring the truth bell at all. It takes effort to find those needles of truth in the growing haystack of "official" lies.
Once my bullshit detector (moral cognizance) became active (after having been put to sleep by internal and external powers) it started to work again, like someone regaining the ability to walk after breaking both legs.
Now I can read with great intent messages from both sides (criminal and anti-criminal) and see these truthful messages because the bell rings soundly.
Not much compares to the message called The Golden Rule on the anti-criminal side, and the following ought to concern everyone as the following is a clear and present warning of very serious evil infesting what people call the government.
"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."
A look at that above combined with a look at The National Debt Clock Real Time ought to charge moral brains with duty, in my opinion.
According to what people call the government, the people as a whole (meaning everyone) cannot question the right of individual people in government to force everyone to never question the collection of those payments of that debt, and if someone dares to do so, all the cost associated with making an example of that individual who dares to question those payments of that debt is added to that debt.
Pay or else your payments increase, and anyone caught questioning those payments will be subject to severe punishment, in the national interest. Not in the interest of protecting and serving the people as a whole. Not in the interest of defending the innocent from the guilty anywhere anytime. Not in the interest of moral rights, such as protection of life, liberty, property, and individual powers of moral cognizance. The legal fiction's interest is paramount, so say those who operate it.
They are criminals, and all the evidence required is published by the perpetrators, the evidence that proves to anyone with a functioning human brain, evidence that affordes anyone the clear and present dangers that warrants the probable cause to act in defense against them: as a fact that matters. All the evidence required to prove the case is published by them on the official record.
So what is due process? What are the steps that must be taken so as to remain lawful during the lawful employment of the law in defense against criminals claiming to be the government?
One might ...
If this fellow votes the same as he talks then he might be one of the "good" ones (politicians I ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"Lucas told the nearly 60 people in audience, including four ABC Stewart students, that he believes gun control laws won’t prevent school shootings, training teachers to use firearms can make schools safer and that a federal court has ruled “police do not have a duty to protect children while ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@Xtra
"That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power."
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 10, 2020:
"Lucas told the nearly 60 people in audience, including four ABC Stewart students, that he believes gun control laws won’t prevent school shootings, training teachers to use firearms can make schools safer and that a federal court has ruled “police do not have a duty to protect children while ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 11, 2020:
@Xtra
"That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power."
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Republic vs Democracy
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 9, 2020:
The word democracy is misused, but putting that aside and rephrasing the question so as to convey the modern misused meaning of democracy, I can then attempt to offer a competitive answer.
Original question:
"Was the US Civil War the death knell of the Republic and the rise of the Democracy"...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 9, 2020:
@Boris-the-Spider
Discussion can continue to our mutual benefit. Facts that matter defeat falsehoods that also matter; facts often aid, falsehoods often injure on purpose.
"The reason for asking the original question stemmed from seeing how things were so fouled up during reconstruction, the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, Johnson's presidency and Grant's administration."
Fouling up is the purpose, from the psychopaths viewpoint the slaves must be purged from time to time, if not they become unruly.
A Law is something agreed to as a law by the consent of the people as a whole, and this has been accomplished in human history through such agreeable devices as trial by the country, which is also called trial by jury, which was called in Latin Legem Terrae, which means in English the law of the land, which is the common law.
Example:
(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”
A Statute is a suggestion in a free society such as a Republic, and when everyone agrees then it works as a Law, but the test to see if a Statute is a Law is that process known as due process of law (again by many other names such as the common law, law of the land, trial by jury, trial by the country, legem terrae, and natural law), whereby the people as a whole represented by 12 randomly selected members of The Public (vetted for cause reasonably in voir dire to weed out confessing psychopaths or other active or potential criminals; like weeding out the insane from the judges of morality) who command all jurisdiction ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 9, 2020:
The word democracy is misused, but putting that aside and rephrasing the question so as to convey the modern misused meaning of democracy, I can then attempt to offer a competitive answer.
Original question:
"Was the US Civil War the death knell of the Republic and the rise of the Democracy"...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 9, 2020:
@Boris-the-Spider
Discussion can continue to our mutual benefit. Facts that matter defeat falsehoods that also matter; facts often aid, falsehoods often injure on purpose.
"The reason for asking the original question stemmed from seeing how things were so fouled up during reconstruction, the enforcement of Jim Crow laws, Johnson's presidency and Grant's administration."
Fouling up is the purpose, from the psychopaths viewpoint the slaves must be purged from time to time, if not they become unruly.
A Law is something agreed to as a law by the consent of the people as a whole, and this has been accomplished in human history through such agreeable devices as trial by the country, which is also called trial by jury, which was called in Latin Legem Terrae, which means in English the law of the land, which is the common law.
Example:
(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”
A Statute is a suggestion in a free society such as a Republic, and when everyone agrees then it works as a Law, but the test to see if a Statute is a Law is that process known as due process of law (again by many other names such as the common law, law of the land, trial by jury, trial by the country, legem terrae, and natural law), whereby the people as a whole represented by 12 randomly selected members of The Public (vetted for cause reasonably in voir dire to weed out confessing psychopaths or other active or potential criminals; like weeding out the insane from the judges of morality) who command all jurisdiction ...
What are some examples of functional and dysfunctional hierarchies?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 9, 2020:
A tale of two types of hierarchies:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 9, 2020:
@Cecil_J_Twillie
The Backyard (South America) is a well-known target for those corrupt people who have gained power corruptly, in or out of corporate legal fiction governments, in or out of corporate legal fictions that are not governments per se.
The consequence of becoming the Backyard has been exporting corruption from America to the Backyard in various forms.
A taste of this is offered by a whistleblower whose work goes by the name Economic Hitman. His name is John Perkins.
If you have working in your brain a notion that people in South America are naturally more corrupt and incompetent at producing and maintaining good government, and there are no externalities working against good government in South America, then you can dismiss this type of information, and you can try to figure out why things are the way they are in South America while ignoring this information. To me, that is like trying to figure out why the National Debt in America has reached the figure Liability Per Citizen of 388,941.00. without accounting for the following information:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
Failing to account for the damage done to people in South America by criminals in government in North America is like failing to understand the causes of World War I and World War II, as World War III will become a surprise to those who failed to learn from that history, and if that failure is general, meaning almost no one has learned the causes, then that universal failure almost ensures that World War III will occur on a similar schedule.
Perhaps you are not yet familiar with the claim that all wars are banker wars, and if so then you may want to dig into it.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 9, 2020:
A tale of two types of hierarchies:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 9, 2020:
@Cecil_J_Twillie
The Backyard (South America) is a well-known target for those corrupt people who have gained power corruptly, in or out of corporate legal fiction governments, in or out of corporate legal fictions that are not governments per se.
The consequence of becoming the Backyard has been exporting corruption from America to the Backyard in various forms.
A taste of this is offered by a whistleblower whose work goes by the name Economic Hitman. His name is John Perkins.
If you have working in your brain a notion that people in South America are naturally more corrupt and incompetent at producing and maintaining good government, and there are no externalities working against good government in South America, then you can dismiss this type of information, and you can try to figure out why things are the way they are in South America while ignoring this information. To me, that is like trying to figure out why the National Debt in America has reached the figure Liability Per Citizen of 388,941.00. without accounting for the following information:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
Failing to account for the damage done to people in South America by criminals in government in North America is like failing to understand the causes of World War I and World War II, as World War III will become a surprise to those who failed to learn from that history, and if that failure is general, meaning almost no one has learned the causes, then that universal failure almost ensures that World War III will occur on a similar schedule.
Perhaps you are not yet familiar with the claim that all wars are banker wars, and if so then you may want to dig into it.
Anyone else ever hear of the Georgia Guidestones, and if so what's your take on it?
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
@Edgework
I'm eased up, dude. You don't know me, you don't speak for me. That is obvious to me, as I am not at all fond of having to deal with criminals at all, therefore I am not fond of rule of law, it is a necessary duty, like cleaning the toilet. Are "we" fond of cleaning the toilet?
And you don't speak for me when "we" let something slip away. I go to jury duty, I learn the actual law, I work at offering data that describes in detail the law, and I work at offering data that describes in detail the opposite - counterfeit - version of the law.
I also ran for congress in my district, again like cleaning the toilet. So how is it that you assume this authority to speak for me? I'm curious, and at ease in my curiosity.
"This didn’t happen over night. It’s been a decades long process."
Again, you do not speak for me. The process is as old as mankind, and in America, the process you speak about has been going on since 1774. The criminals gain power, taking over government, counterfeiting it, and those who know better are over-powered by falsehood, threats of violence, and displays of violence perpetrated by the criminals who take-over governments. If you have only discovered the recent (decades) advances down the road to hell on earth created and maintained by criminals posing as the government, then you are scratching at the surface of a very long progression that took a major step toward despotism in 1789.
"My question: why would you assume a personal attack when mere grammar and syntax gives no justification for doing so."
If you were to leave me out of the discussion, and if you were to discuss the topic instead, then you would not risk making errors in your assumptions concerning my personal feelings. Is that not clear?
"Don’t look now, but I think we’re on the same side."
I think so too. My guess is that the number of people you personally "suicided" is the same number of fucks I give as to your personal feelings.
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
@Edgework
I'm eased up, dude. You don't know me, you don't speak for me. That is obvious to me, as I am not at all fond of having to deal with criminals at all, therefore I am not fond of rule of law, it is a necessary duty, like cleaning the toilet. Are "we" fond of cleaning the toilet?
And you don't speak for me when "we" let something slip away. I go to jury duty, I learn the actual law, I work at offering data that describes in detail the law, and I work at offering data that describes in detail the opposite - counterfeit - version of the law.
I also ran for congress in my district, again like cleaning the toilet. So how is it that you assume this authority to speak for me? I'm curious, and at ease in my curiosity.
"This didn’t happen over night. It’s been a decades long process."
Again, you do not speak for me. The process is as old as mankind, and in America, the process you speak about has been going on since 1774. The criminals gain power, taking over government, counterfeiting it, and those who know better are over-powered by falsehood, threats of violence, and displays of violence perpetrated by the criminals who take-over governments. If you have only discovered the recent (decades) advances down the road to hell on earth created and maintained by criminals posing as the government, then you are scratching at the surface of a very long progression that took a major step toward despotism in 1789.
"My question: why would you assume a personal attack when mere grammar and syntax gives no justification for doing so."
If you were to leave me out of the discussion, and if you were to discuss the topic instead, then you would not risk making errors in your assumptions concerning my personal feelings. Is that not clear?
"Don’t look now, but I think we’re on the same side."
I think so too. My guess is that the number of people you personally "suicided" is the same number of fucks I give as to your personal feelings.
[youtube.
warminster100 comments on Feb 8, 2020:
Demonrats are in step with the Military Industrial Complex to create wars with everyone!
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
Power corrupts to a point at which the human brain so corrupted deteriorates, causing the corrupted to go insane. I think it is true, and explains a lot about these evil people who constitute these evil groups such as the Neocons, Democrats (in name only), Republicans (in name only), and whichever other people endeavor to claw their way to the top of a corrupt Pyramid scheme.
If Trump is a Nationalist in battle with Globalists, then it is a classic example of the lesser of two evils battle. Trump as a Nationalist at least moves in the direction back to individual power of will, individual sovereign control of moral conscience, and therefore a return to rule of law.
I will mark the Trump regime as a move in the right direction when there are Public Trial Transcripts published to document a Trial by Jury case (common law, not Admiralty, or Military) against one (and then obviously the next, and next) of these criminally insane Democrats, Republicans, Neocons, or whoever else has abused their power to such a degree as to measure that abuse with massive numbers of murders of the innocent.
warminster100 comments on Feb 8, 2020:
Demonrats are in step with the Military Industrial Complex to create wars with everyone!
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
Power corrupts to a point at which the human brain so corrupted deteriorates, causing the corrupted to go insane. I think it is true, and explains a lot about these evil people who constitute these evil groups such as the Neocons, Democrats (in name only), Republicans (in name only), and whichever other people endeavor to claw their way to the top of a corrupt Pyramid scheme.
If Trump is a Nationalist in battle with Globalists, then it is a classic example of the lesser of two evils battle. Trump as a Nationalist at least moves in the direction back to individual power of will, individual sovereign control of moral conscience, and therefore a return to rule of law.
I will mark the Trump regime as a move in the right direction when there are Public Trial Transcripts published to document a Trial by Jury case (common law, not Admiralty, or Military) against one (and then obviously the next, and next) of these criminally insane Democrats, Republicans, Neocons, or whoever else has abused their power to such a degree as to measure that abuse with massive numbers of murders of the innocent.
Anyone else ever hear of the Georgia Guidestones, and if so what's your take on it?
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
@Edgework
Why do you have to turn things into a personal attack? You don't know me. What is your goal when you claim that I am "fond of the rule of law"?
If the information offered is useful, which I think it is, then either use it or let it slip away, but really, why drag me down with you?
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 8, 2020:
@Edgework
Why do you have to turn things into a personal attack? You don't know me. What is your goal when you claim that I am "fond of the rule of law"?
If the information offered is useful, which I think it is, then either use it or let it slip away, but really, why drag me down with you?
Anyone else ever hear of the Georgia Guidestones, and if so what's your take on it?
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 7, 2020:
A return to rule of law might help.
Edgework comments on Feb 7, 2020:
WIRED has a good article.
https://www.wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 7, 2020:
A return to rule of law might help.
A free country is an oxy moron.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 2, 2020:
"A free country is an oxy moron."
The word country has been used to mean many different things. Trial by the country, for example, is another way to say trial by jury according to the common law. Country can also mean a legal fiction, or corporate being, such as The State. If the former (trial by...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 5, 2020:
@DeJake
"But I think they make a very clear point"
If you were to offer some test results to back up your thoughts expressed above, then what would be those test results?
If for example you posted your thoughts (that you think "make a very clear point") onto a public forum, and there were responses to your thoughts on that public forum, would those responses constitute the data that either proves or disproves your hypothesis?
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 2, 2020:
"A free country is an oxy moron."
The word country has been used to mean many different things. Trial by the country, for example, is another way to say trial by jury according to the common law. Country can also mean a legal fiction, or corporate being, such as The State. If the former (trial by...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 5, 2020:
@DeJake
"But I think they make a very clear point"
If you were to offer some test results to back up your thoughts expressed above, then what would be those test results?
If for example you posted your thoughts (that you think "make a very clear point") onto a public forum, and there were responses to your thoughts on that public forum, would those responses constitute the data that either proves or disproves your hypothesis?
A free country is an oxy moron.
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@DonProvolone
May you explain what you mean when you decide to interact with non-idiots who manage to maintain Civil Society?
What is - in your view - a Civil Society?
I'm curious.
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@DonProvolone
May you explain what you mean when you decide to interact with non-idiots who manage to maintain Civil Society?
What is - in your view - a Civil Society?
I'm curious.
After watching a YouTube video on the decentralization of government, I’m finding myself intrigued...
damo9f comments on Jan 31, 2020:
It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead.
There needs to be a balance between local control and experimentation - states and towns, and central control that benefits everyone.
In particular, the bit ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@damo9f
"We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
During the time between 1774 and 1789 people volunteered to join forces for mutual defense, and during that time a Federation was formed and documented as such in the Articles of Confederation.
You now claim that something failed, and then you claim that "we needed to form the United States instead."
My response is that we did no such thing. Some people claimed that the Federal government under the Articles of Confederation were not centralized enough. That is the basis of your claim that you now make. Many people claimed otherwise. Therefore there is no "we" to support your claim. We did not need to form the United States instead, as you claim.
In fact, the United States of America was already formed at the time that the United States of America was replaced with the United States. So...your claim is baseless unless you have some way of showing how your claim is based upon something.
Example:
Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
That is the Confederacy known as The United States of America.
There were a number of Presidents before the Confederation was replaced with a Nation-State. One was Thomas McKean.
Thomas McKean (DE)
2nd President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/
One reason for the change from a voluntary Confederation to a Nation-State was a desire to Tax everyone in every State so as to FUND National Debt from a Central Bank: Centralization.
We (all of us) did not need to get rid of the Federation (Confederation), which was a voluntary association for mutual defense, but some people did "need" to Tax everyone in America to Fund National Debt.
I hope that helps to clear things up.
If not then consider reading the message quoted from Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th President of the United States of America during the Confederation period. The point he makes is that the Articles of Confederation, if "it" failed, was a failure to keep corruption out of the Federal Government. The change from a Federation (voluntary association) to a ...
damo9f comments on Jan 31, 2020:
It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead.
There needs to be a balance between local control and experimentation - states and towns, and central control that benefits everyone.
In particular, the bit ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@damo9f
"We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
During the time between 1774 and 1789 people volunteered to join forces for mutual defense, and during that time a Federation was formed and documented as such in the Articles of Confederation.
You now claim that something failed, and then you claim that "we needed to form the United States instead."
My response is that we did no such thing. Some people claimed that the Federal government under the Articles of Confederation were not centralized enough. That is the basis of your claim that you now make. Many people claimed otherwise. Therefore there is no "we" to support your claim. We did not need to form the United States instead, as you claim.
In fact, the United States of America was already formed at the time that the United States of America was replaced with the United States. So...your claim is baseless unless you have some way of showing how your claim is based upon something.
Example:
Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
That is the Confederacy known as The United States of America.
There were a number of Presidents before the Confederation was replaced with a Nation-State. One was Thomas McKean.
Thomas McKean (DE)
2nd President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/
One reason for the change from a voluntary Confederation to a Nation-State was a desire to Tax everyone in every State so as to FUND National Debt from a Central Bank: Centralization.
We (all of us) did not need to get rid of the Federation (Confederation), which was a voluntary association for mutual defense, but some people did "need" to Tax everyone in America to Fund National Debt.
I hope that helps to clear things up.
If not then consider reading the message quoted from Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th President of the United States of America during the Confederation period. The point he makes is that the Articles of Confederation, if "it" failed, was a failure to keep corruption out of the Federal Government. The change from a Federation (voluntary association) to a ...
A free country is an oxy moron.
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@DonProvolone
As the message from Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet suggests, what is in a name? A rose by any other name...
It was a poor choice as noted by one of the so-called American Anarchists named Stephen Pearl Andrews:
Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews
"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."
Words are often falsified.
Examples:
Democracy
Originally the word meant the opposite of Electoral Politics or so-called Majority Rule, now people use the word Democracy to mean Majority Rule.
Republic
Republic means The Public Thing, from the original respublica word. Now republic means Nation-State, which is a Legal Fiction or Corporate Being used by Elite for exclusive Power and Profit at the expense of the people who make anything worth stealing.
Federation
The original meaning as explained during the First Congress in 1776 in America was a voluntary association. Now federation means Nation-State, the same as democracy and republic.
Anarchy, on the other hand, originally meant chaos, and free thinkers like Proudhon attempted to change the meaning as explained by Stephen Pearl Andrews above.
One word that appears to be incapable of falsification is the word Liberty.
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
@DonProvolone
As the message from Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet suggests, what is in a name? A rose by any other name...
It was a poor choice as noted by one of the so-called American Anarchists named Stephen Pearl Andrews:
Proudhon and his Translator
The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews
"Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it."
Words are often falsified.
Examples:
Democracy
Originally the word meant the opposite of Electoral Politics or so-called Majority Rule, now people use the word Democracy to mean Majority Rule.
Republic
Republic means The Public Thing, from the original respublica word. Now republic means Nation-State, which is a Legal Fiction or Corporate Being used by Elite for exclusive Power and Profit at the expense of the people who make anything worth stealing.
Federation
The original meaning as explained during the First Congress in 1776 in America was a voluntary association. Now federation means Nation-State, the same as democracy and republic.
Anarchy, on the other hand, originally meant chaos, and free thinkers like Proudhon attempted to change the meaning as explained by Stephen Pearl Andrews above.
One word that appears to be incapable of falsification is the word Liberty.
A free country is an oxy moron.
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
What is meant by the word "Civil Society"?
"We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society."
That can mean anything from Liberty (Civility among the people in a society) to Absolute Dictatorship (Civil Society means what the dictators say it means, and it can mean one thing one day, and the opposite the next day).
DonProvolone comments on Feb 2, 2020:
Yes.
We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society.
One is free to pick their poison, or try to make it on their own, or in a commune of like minded people.
Just don't expect others to finance it.
EDIT: Or fight for your right to or for it, Without ratified Treaty.
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 2, 2020:
What is meant by the word "Civil Society"?
"We sacrifice some of our freedom, to live within a Civil Society."
That can mean anything from Liberty (Civility among the people in a society) to Absolute Dictatorship (Civil Society means what the dictators say it means, and it can mean one thing one day, and the opposite the next day).
The Mainstream Media Mogul with the former Number 1 show on primetime television, Donald Trump ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
You may have me confused with someone in your imagination. I have no desire to argue.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
You may have me confused with someone in your imagination. I have no desire to argue.
The Mainstream Media Mogul with the former Number 1 show on primetime television, Donald Trump ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
We as individuals and we as a collection of individuals (sum total) are failing at the duty knowable as The Law. That means Trump, you, me, and everyone else. Trump promised to put a specific criminal in jail if elected. Does that mean that Trump is failing more so than I?
You are the judge, just as much as anyone else, myself included.
As to CNN, the link I choose was chosen simply to point to the record of facts concerning what was, or was not, claimed by Mr. Trump during the election cycle. I could have spent more time searching for a different source where Mr. Trump is on the record making the claims he made in fact.
CNN works well enough for the purpose intended. I did not intend to suggest that anyone working at CNN is to be trusted for anything other than precisely what they get paid to do, or they choose to do on their own authority.
Most people working for so-called Major Media (information monopoly power that is current evaporating against grown competition) are high paid liars, propagandists, whose goal is to stupify all the people who produce anything worth stealing.
Murder by agents of government has already been proven in a court case that almost lived up to the standard which is Rule of Law; see the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts.
If "they" (the people in the government) can't keep out the psychopathic murderers (such as the Clintons) then "they" are not the government in point of fact.
We the people are the government in the absence of government, another useful fact that matters.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
We as individuals and we as a collection of individuals (sum total) are failing at the duty knowable as The Law. That means Trump, you, me, and everyone else. Trump promised to put a specific criminal in jail if elected. Does that mean that Trump is failing more so than I?
You are the judge, just as much as anyone else, myself included.
As to CNN, the link I choose was chosen simply to point to the record of facts concerning what was, or was not, claimed by Mr. Trump during the election cycle. I could have spent more time searching for a different source where Mr. Trump is on the record making the claims he made in fact.
CNN works well enough for the purpose intended. I did not intend to suggest that anyone working at CNN is to be trusted for anything other than precisely what they get paid to do, or they choose to do on their own authority.
Most people working for so-called Major Media (information monopoly power that is current evaporating against grown competition) are high paid liars, propagandists, whose goal is to stupify all the people who produce anything worth stealing.
Murder by agents of government has already been proven in a court case that almost lived up to the standard which is Rule of Law; see the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts.
If "they" (the people in the government) can't keep out the psychopathic murderers (such as the Clintons) then "they" are not the government in point of fact.
We the people are the government in the absence of government, another useful fact that matters.
The Mainstream Media Mogul with the former Number 1 show on primetime television, Donald Trump ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
"What part of Trump's agenda is not consistent with the rule of law?"
It is our lawful duty to process those clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, and individual moral conscience even when those clear and present dangers are enemies domestic.
Campaign promises are broken:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/11/15/trump-clinton-doj-special-prosecutor-vstan-orig-bw.cnn
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
If America was a sanctuary where people - as a rule - are protected from harm done to them by very powerful criminals, then very powerful criminals would be processed according to The Law of the Land (the common law), as an efficient deterrent that ensures that crime does not pay, and criminals, as a rule, do not choose a criminal path.
America is not that sanctuary, far from it, as exemplified in the failure to reduce the Clinton Body Count that continues unabated.
Josf-Kelley comments on Feb 1, 2020:
"You really think NBC hates their former TV star?"
People use the terms White Hat and Black Hat these days. There is no such thing as NBC whereby NBC can hate, or think, or act. NBC is not one thing having human attributes, such as the power of will.
I get the message, perhaps.
Overall ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Facci
"What part of Trump's agenda is not consistent with the rule of law?"
It is our lawful duty to process those clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, and individual moral conscience even when those clear and present dangers are enemies domestic.
Campaign promises are broken:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/11/15/trump-clinton-doj-special-prosecutor-vstan-orig-bw.cnn
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
If America was a sanctuary where people - as a rule - are protected from harm done to them by very powerful criminals, then very powerful criminals would be processed according to The Law of the Land (the common law), as an efficient deterrent that ensures that crime does not pay, and criminals, as a rule, do not choose a criminal path.
America is not that sanctuary, far from it, as exemplified in the failure to reduce the Clinton Body Count that continues unabated.
After watching a YouTube video on the decentralization of government, I’m finding myself intrigued...
Marcoullier comments on Jan 31, 2020:
I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization. They wanted the states to be experiments which people could easily partake in or move elsewhere. The Constitution limits the power granted to the federal government. The rest belong to the states or the...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Marcoullier
Naturally, there was treasonous fraud involved. You can call it whatever you want.
The false Federalist Party were Nationalists, the Nationalists consolidated (centralized) the States, as was their unstated, but obvious, aim.
The word Federal was understood to be the opposite of National at the time. Those against the Nationalization of the existing Federal Constitution were - if words mean anything - federalists.
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13, Luther Martin
The Nationalists confessed during the Secret (illegal) Proceedings in Philadelphia, see for example the following publication.
From Papers of Dr. James McHenry on [at] the Federal [National] Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
Those against the Centralization (consolidation) of the many States in competitive Liberty blew the whistle on the Con game at the Con Con, and subsequent illegal RATification.
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”
June 14, 1788
...
Marcoullier comments on Jan 31, 2020:
I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization. They wanted the states to be experiments which people could easily partake in or move elsewhere. The Constitution limits the power granted to the federal government. The rest belong to the states or the...
Josf-Kelley replies on Feb 1, 2020:
@Marcoullier
Naturally, there was treasonous fraud involved. You can call it whatever you want.
The false Federalist Party were Nationalists, the Nationalists consolidated (centralized) the States, as was their unstated, but obvious, aim.
The word Federal was understood to be the opposite of National at the time. Those against the Nationalization of the existing Federal Constitution were - if words mean anything - federalists.
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13, Luther Martin
The Nationalists confessed during the Secret (illegal) Proceedings in Philadelphia, see for example the following publication.
From Papers of Dr. James McHenry on [at] the Federal [National] Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
Those against the Centralization (consolidation) of the many States in competitive Liberty blew the whistle on the Con game at the Con Con, and subsequent illegal RATification.
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”
June 14, 1788
...
After watching a YouTube video on the decentralization of government, I’m finding myself intrigued...
damo9f comments on Jan 31, 2020:
It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead.
There needs to be a balance between local control and experimentation - states and towns, and central control that benefits everyone.
In particular, the bit ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 31, 2020:
"It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
That is false. "We" did no such thing. If the play is worth the candle then getting rid of the voluntary association for mutual defense (Federation: Articles of Confederation) would have improved the power of America to defend against psychopaths taking over the former lawful government, turning the former lawful government into despotic tyranny.
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free ...
damo9f comments on Jan 31, 2020:
It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead.
There needs to be a balance between local control and experimentation - states and towns, and central control that benefits everyone.
In particular, the bit ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 31, 2020:
"It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
That is false. "We" did no such thing. If the play is worth the candle then getting rid of the voluntary association for mutual defense (Federation: Articles of Confederation) would have improved the power of America to defend against psychopaths taking over the former lawful government, turning the former lawful government into despotic tyranny.
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free ...
After watching a YouTube video on the decentralization of government, I’m finding myself intrigued...
Marcoullier comments on Jan 31, 2020:
I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization. They wanted the states to be experiments which people could easily partake in or move elsewhere. The Constitution limits the power granted to the federal government. The rest belong to the states or the...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 31, 2020:
"I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization."
No, that is false.
The so-called "founding fathers" were demonstrably (according to their published words) on two sides:
1. Centralization (The falsely named Federalist Party)
2. Decentralization (The falsely named "Anti" Federalist Party)
If that is unclear to anyone, then perhaps some study is in order.
Marcoullier comments on Jan 31, 2020:
I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization. They wanted the states to be experiments which people could easily partake in or move elsewhere. The Constitution limits the power granted to the federal government. The rest belong to the states or the...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 31, 2020:
"I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization."
No, that is false.
The so-called "founding fathers" were demonstrably (according to their published words) on two sides:
1. Centralization (The falsely named Federalist Party)
2. Decentralization (The falsely named "Anti" Federalist Party)
If that is unclear to anyone, then perhaps some study is in order.
Entrenched oligarchy infiltrated by America’s enemies.
Xtra comments on Jan 30, 2020:
Interesting, but what can we do about it? Thinking out loud
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 30, 2020:
@David42
The power to discover and bring to trial clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, and natural human moral conscience - enemies domestic - is a power commanded by the people as a whole.
That fact that matters has been swept under the rug.
People have been led to believe that our common laws (due process of law) merely shields us from harm done to us by those enemies domestic.
That is a falsehood that falls under the category of a half-truth, which is a misprision of treason and nonfeasance.
Think in terms of telling the truth, the whole truth, so help you yourself, so help you anyone else with their own command of their own moral conscience, and so help you the creator of our genetic moral conscience as individuals and as a collective sum total of human moral conscience.
Those who tell lies that harm innocent people (including half-truths) ought to face the Country in a trial.
Who exemplifies this demand for justice?
Can you think of anyone befitting this move from abject ubiquitous pathological apathy - moving to - discovery of the facts that matter in the case, presentment of a court date, and a trial for cause?
"Do we have to sink into civil or racial war before we establish some truth in media laws with teeth?"
Treasonous lies propagated by individuals in Media or in Government - pick any example - constitute at the very least libel, and at the most misprision of treason, nonfeasance, and misfeasance.
How about an example to prove the point?
How about an example in the recent past, a fraud upon the American people (each individual is victim to the treasonous fraud), now known factually as a lie told in the past? Current examples are more important, but the facts concerning current examples are not yet Public Knowledge.
General Colin Powell
Address to the United Nations Security Council
delivered 5 February 2003
Any individual in America by Law (actual not counterfeit) could have set in motion due process of law with an affidavit or without such formality. The accusation is transferred to a member of a grand jury in any county in America. If it is a lawful grand jury, then it is an independent one, meaning it is independent of control by anyone in the government, such as a so-called "prosecutor."
The member of the independent grand jury is then duty-bound to assemble a grand jury for cause. The cause is the defense of the victims who are clearly and presently in danger as a probable cause based upon the testimony (written or not) brought to the grand jury member by the witness.
The assembled grand jury commands civil and criminal jurisdiction including the power of subpoena.
If the grand jury discovers cause to put the accused on trial then a report, presentment, or indictment is written and the...
Xtra comments on Jan 30, 2020:
Interesting, but what can we do about it? Thinking out loud
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 30, 2020:
@David42
The power to discover and bring to trial clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, and natural human moral conscience - enemies domestic - is a power commanded by the people as a whole.
That fact that matters has been swept under the rug.
People have been led to believe that our common laws (due process of law) merely shields us from harm done to us by those enemies domestic.
That is a falsehood that falls under the category of a half-truth, which is a misprision of treason and nonfeasance.
Think in terms of telling the truth, the whole truth, so help you yourself, so help you anyone else with their own command of their own moral conscience, and so help you the creator of our genetic moral conscience as individuals and as a collective sum total of human moral conscience.
Those who tell lies that harm innocent people (including half-truths) ought to face the Country in a trial.
Who exemplifies this demand for justice?
Can you think of anyone befitting this move from abject ubiquitous pathological apathy - moving to - discovery of the facts that matter in the case, presentment of a court date, and a trial for cause?
"Do we have to sink into civil or racial war before we establish some truth in media laws with teeth?"
Treasonous lies propagated by individuals in Media or in Government - pick any example - constitute at the very least libel, and at the most misprision of treason, nonfeasance, and misfeasance.
How about an example to prove the point?
How about an example in the recent past, a fraud upon the American people (each individual is victim to the treasonous fraud), now known factually as a lie told in the past? Current examples are more important, but the facts concerning current examples are not yet Public Knowledge.
General Colin Powell
Address to the United Nations Security Council
delivered 5 February 2003
Any individual in America by Law (actual not counterfeit) could have set in motion due process of law with an affidavit or without such formality. The accusation is transferred to a member of a grand jury in any county in America. If it is a lawful grand jury, then it is an independent one, meaning it is independent of control by anyone in the government, such as a so-called "prosecutor."
The member of the independent grand jury is then duty-bound to assemble a grand jury for cause. The cause is the defense of the victims who are clearly and presently in danger as a probable cause based upon the testimony (written or not) brought to the grand jury member by the witness.
The assembled grand jury commands civil and criminal jurisdiction including the power of subpoena.
If the grand jury discovers cause to put the accused on trial then a report, presentment, or indictment is written and the...
This is how it will happen. [youtube.com] the potential horrors the new American red flag law
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 28, 2020:
@DeJake
If you formed such a negative condemnation of a whole people, and now the evidence leading to the condemnation is forgotten in your mind, then my desire to know why you condemn them is fruitless.
I want to know because I see this "collective" punishment routine so often, and then when looking further into the matter I find instead the routine power struggle. Some people are demonstrably guilty, while other people are many things, including victims, people fighting to protect the victims, and people refusing to protect the victims even though they can protect the victims without great cost to themselves; yet.
Example:
"The men were wiped out and the women sold into slavery, in which, not making successful slaves, they died soon after. Roger Williams’ pleas to Massachusetts for mercy for the Pequot prisoners were unheeded – despite his great service in keeping the Narragansetts out of the war."
And:
"The United Colonies, however, struggled hard to conquer the Narragansetts. In 1645 Miles Standish led a confederation force into Rhode Island to beat the Narragansett Indians into a “sober temper.” Foiled by Roger Williams’ negotiation of peace and neutrality with the Indians, the enraged Standish threatened to seize any settler helping the Indians."
Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard, 1979
That was written after the following was also written by the same author in the same book:
"In the minds of the white men of that era, the deaths of a few white settlers were enough to justify the immediate extermination of the entire Indian nation – and it was precisely on such a course that the new England colonies now embarked."
The entire number of people who are white, or so the story goes, justified the extermination of the entire Indian nation."
The very Americans who created the U.S. were slavers themselves; a common enough claim.
My guess is that the number of evil people behind most of the human carnage is roughly equal to the number of people who could have done something to stop it, but didn't, and in between are a whole lot of powerless targets.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 28, 2020:
@DeJake
If you formed such a negative condemnation of a whole people, and now the evidence leading to the condemnation is forgotten in your mind, then my desire to know why you condemn them is fruitless.
I want to know because I see this "collective" punishment routine so often, and then when looking further into the matter I find instead the routine power struggle. Some people are demonstrably guilty, while other people are many things, including victims, people fighting to protect the victims, and people refusing to protect the victims even though they can protect the victims without great cost to themselves; yet.
Example:
"The men were wiped out and the women sold into slavery, in which, not making successful slaves, they died soon after. Roger Williams’ pleas to Massachusetts for mercy for the Pequot prisoners were unheeded – despite his great service in keeping the Narragansetts out of the war."
And:
"The United Colonies, however, struggled hard to conquer the Narragansetts. In 1645 Miles Standish led a confederation force into Rhode Island to beat the Narragansett Indians into a “sober temper.” Foiled by Roger Williams’ negotiation of peace and neutrality with the Indians, the enraged Standish threatened to seize any settler helping the Indians."
Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard, 1979
That was written after the following was also written by the same author in the same book:
"In the minds of the white men of that era, the deaths of a few white settlers were enough to justify the immediate extermination of the entire Indian nation – and it was precisely on such a course that the new England colonies now embarked."
The entire number of people who are white, or so the story goes, justified the extermination of the entire Indian nation."
The very Americans who created the U.S. were slavers themselves; a common enough claim.
My guess is that the number of evil people behind most of the human carnage is roughly equal to the number of people who could have done something to stop it, but didn't, and in between are a whole lot of powerless targets.
Jordan Peterson. "The Death and Resurrection Of Christ."
[youtu.be]
BikerPetehall70 comments on Jan 26, 2020:
I like Mr Peterson's discourse and demolition of leftist Marxist ideology etc, but can't help noticing the self inflicted religion indoctrination since his rehabilitation, I get it I've been there, its how they get you, but I took their good books to task not to heart
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I suspect that every attempt to communicate something true, good, mutually beneficial, moral, right, efficient, expedient, and naturally lawful is an opportunity for those who set traps. Whatever religion is naturally it is comparable to what it is in counterfeit. Whoever gets credit for the Golden Rule is beside the point that it makes good sense.
BikerPetehall70 comments on Jan 26, 2020:
I like Mr Peterson's discourse and demolition of leftist Marxist ideology etc, but can't help noticing the self inflicted religion indoctrination since his rehabilitation, I get it I've been there, its how they get you, but I took their good books to task not to heart
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I suspect that every attempt to communicate something true, good, mutually beneficial, moral, right, efficient, expedient, and naturally lawful is an opportunity for those who set traps. Whatever religion is naturally it is comparable to what it is in counterfeit. Whoever gets credit for the Golden Rule is beside the point that it makes good sense.
Jordan Peterson. "The Death and Resurrection Of Christ."
[youtu.be]
BikerPetehall70 comments on Jan 26, 2020:
I like Mr Peterson's discourse and demolition of leftist Marxist ideology etc, but can't help noticing the self inflicted religion indoctrination since his rehabilitation, I get it I've been there, its how they get you, but I took their good books to task not to heart
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
My overall take on this was well enough explained in the monkey trap example. If people want good things, then people may want to avoid traps.
Example:
"...if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
More specifically this: "... it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird."
So why do theoretical monkies refuse to let go of the bait? The monkey can't see that it is a trap even while trapped?
Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
The trap is set when the monopolists first scare the intended targets with stories of scarcity, there is not enough, and mankind is a rat-like creature, each will kill or be killed fighting over the last morsel of cheese, so let's make a deal: some security for a small sacrifice to God, or at least his speaker before you with this tale of woe.
BikerPetehall70 comments on Jan 26, 2020:
I like Mr Peterson's discourse and demolition of leftist Marxist ideology etc, but can't help noticing the self inflicted religion indoctrination since his rehabilitation, I get it I've been there, its how they get you, but I took their good books to task not to heart
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
My overall take on this was well enough explained in the monkey trap example. If people want good things, then people may want to avoid traps.
Example:
"...if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
More specifically this: "... it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird."
So why do theoretical monkies refuse to let go of the bait? The monkey can't see that it is a trap even while trapped?
Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
The trap is set when the monopolists first scare the intended targets with stories of scarcity, there is not enough, and mankind is a rat-like creature, each will kill or be killed fighting over the last morsel of cheese, so let's make a deal: some security for a small sacrifice to God, or at least his speaker before you with this tale of woe.
Jordan Peterson. "Slaying the Dragon Within Us."
[youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
There is no such thing as an industrial complex.
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@Haraldson
Are you covering something up?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
There is no such thing as an industrial complex.
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@Haraldson
Are you covering something up?
This is how it will happen. [youtube.com] the potential horrors the new American red flag law
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@DeJake
"And if my childhood admiration of the city serves me any good, the very Athenians who were considered able to vote or have their say were slavers themselves."
Have you formed a negative conclusion concerning those people based upon conclusive evidence or something less? I'd like to know.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@DeJake
"And if my childhood admiration of the city serves me any good, the very Athenians who were considered able to vote or have their say were slavers themselves."
Have you formed a negative conclusion concerning those people based upon conclusive evidence or something less? I'd like to know.
Agorism = peacefully boycotting the government, refusing to pay tax wherever possible
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
If it isn't voluntary, then don't pay it. If it isn't voluntary, then it is a crime scene. Why call it a tax if it isn't voluntary?>
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@DeJake
People have figured out ways to avoid being robbed, and that is a good point. It is a power struggle. If the thieves steal everything (no one figures a way to avoid robbery) we all starve.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
If it isn't voluntary, then don't pay it. If it isn't voluntary, then it is a crime scene. Why call it a tax if it isn't voluntary?>
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@DeJake
People have figured out ways to avoid being robbed, and that is a good point. It is a power struggle. If the thieves steal everything (no one figures a way to avoid robbery) we all starve.
Details
- BirthdayJuly 5
- Education2-Year
- Top tags#government #USA #rights #video #truth #crime #money #world #reason #laws #evidence #freedom #justice #evil #god #children #death #federal #society #media
- Level8 (85,725pts)
- Followers 17
- Fans 0
- Following 1
- Referrals11
- Joined Oct 29th, 2019
- Last Visit 6+ months ago
Josf-Kelley's Groups
Q is for question
460 members, Host
Voluntary Mutual Defence
37 members, Host
End Game (formerly Ryan Faulk Fans)
14 members, Host
Controversial Charts
48191 members
Jordan Peterson Group
25436 members
Ben Shapiro Group
22987 members
Joe Rogan Group
16345 members
Just Jokes and Memes
14497 members
Tucker Carlson Fans
13549 members
Dinesh D'Souza Fans
10234 members
IDW Topic-of-the-Day
9848 members
News From All Views
7280 members
DaisyCousens
5902 members
Tim Pool Group
5879 members
Sydney Watson Fanspace
5511 members
Classical Liberalism
4844 members
Canadian Politics
4021 members
Arielle Scarcella FanSpace!
2802 members
IDW Political Party
2798 members
Politically Incorrect folks
2479 members
Anti-Socialism
2267 members
Learning from Christ
2237 members
President Donald J. Trump... Latest
2065 members
Saving Western Civilisation
2056 members
RamZPaul
1889 members
John Paul Watson Group
1610 members
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder
1568 members
Alex Jones Fans
1301 members
Conspiracy Truth : Wolves And Sheeple
1227 members
Stefan Molyneux Fans
1049 members
Anti Communists
1022 members
Emergency Preparedness and Survival
949 members
Libertarian Freethinkers
898 members
COVID-19
764 members
The Great Reset
707 members
The Second Amendment Sanctuary
650 members
True Crime Discussion Group
597 members
Conspiracy Research
575 members
Words of Wisdom
480 members
Feminism = cancer
474 members
International News
396 members
Comedy, Laughs and Humor.
326 members
Vaccine Education & Discussion Group
307 members
Ideas of God
291 members
The Case Against Corona Panic
250 members
Dr. Steve Turley Group
185 members
Joe Biden Is Not My President
178 members
United We Stand
153 members
The History Corner
150 members
Brain soup
128 members
IDW.Community Senate
124 members
ORIGINAL MEMES ( GREGORY ALAN ELLIOTT )
118 members
Liz Wheeler Fans Page.
116 members
Red Pilled Hotties (Yes you can still flirt & remain politically engaged)
107 members
Propaganda Clearing House
95 members
MGTOW: Exodus From The Plantation
63 members
Anarcho-Capitalism / Voluntaryism
55 members
IDW Liberty Alliance Culture War Room
49 members
Now You Are Talking With
48 members
Rednecks Anonymous
44 members
Current Events
28 members
50 Policies
23 members
Anthony Brian Logan Fans
21 members
Freemerica
19 members
Children's Health Defense
16 members
UnCommon Sense 42020 PodCast
9 members