Like
Haha
Sad
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
Comments
What have the cops REALLY been up to during the recent riots?
[youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 16, 2020:
My comment here is to point out that it isn’t rocket science to see clearly which people are on the lawful, moral, side, and which people are – by their actions, if not their words – on the unlawful, immoral, side, and that having a badge, license, shield, title, position, or seat in office of government does not change the facts that matter when people clearly choose to step from moral behavior and to step clearly into immoral behavior.
It is not difficult when reason prevails.
Is it, for example, reasonable to acknowledge the fact that the Golden Rule (Mathew: 7:12) clearly provides the founding principle that supports morality and law?
Do unto other’s what you would have other’s do to you.
The opposite is clearly opposite of the above, even if you don’t acknowledge that the above is the founding principle that supports morality and law.
Do unto other’s what you would defend against having other’s do to you. I am special, I get to do to other people what other people had better not do to me.
Take any case, any situation, and see which side of the opposite sides people choose to be on, and apply the opposing RULES.
If you want to take from everyone everything they have, including the air they breath, then clearly you are not on the Golden Rule side, even if you think you are on the moral, right, lawful, side. If you were, then you would want other people to take everything from you, even the air you breath, so with that in mind, I think it is useful to think clearly about the current examples of behavior that are flooding the NEWS MEDIA as 2020 moves into the heat of summer. I can also state that the law is based upon the Golden Rule, so those who think otherwise may be confused about the law.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 16, 2020:
My comment here is to point out that it isn’t rocket science to see clearly which people are on the lawful, moral, side, and which people are – by their actions, if not their words – on the unlawful, immoral, side, and that having a badge, license, shield, title, position, or seat in office of government does not change the facts that matter when people clearly choose to step from moral behavior and to step clearly into immoral behavior.
It is not difficult when reason prevails.
Is it, for example, reasonable to acknowledge the fact that the Golden Rule (Mathew: 7:12) clearly provides the founding principle that supports morality and law?
Do unto other’s what you would have other’s do to you.
The opposite is clearly opposite of the above, even if you don’t acknowledge that the above is the founding principle that supports morality and law.
Do unto other’s what you would defend against having other’s do to you. I am special, I get to do to other people what other people had better not do to me.
Take any case, any situation, and see which side of the opposite sides people choose to be on, and apply the opposing RULES.
If you want to take from everyone everything they have, including the air they breath, then clearly you are not on the Golden Rule side, even if you think you are on the moral, right, lawful, side. If you were, then you would want other people to take everything from you, even the air you breath, so with that in mind, I think it is useful to think clearly about the current examples of behavior that are flooding the NEWS MEDIA as 2020 moves into the heat of summer. I can also state that the law is based upon the Golden Rule, so those who think otherwise may be confused about the law.
Always loved my grandfather reading bedtime stories to me!
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 15, 2020:
I'm posting that one on Facebook, thanks.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 15, 2020:
I'm posting that one on Facebook, thanks.
What would you do, if anything, to change the criminal justice system?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 15, 2020:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 15, 2020:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in ...
Has anyone noticed these Russian numbers?
Russian Covid deaths
[google.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
They didn't get on the Bill Gates hit list?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
They didn't get on the Bill Gates hit list?
10 great quotes from Carl Jung
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
7 is working on me.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
7 is working on me.
Reminder: It's illegal to engage in fisticuffs with police officers.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
That is at best a specious claim. If someone claiming to be a police officer is perpetrating a crime and someone else has only "fisticuffs" available to arrest the criminal perpetrating the crime, which is warranted by the fact that the perpetrator is perpetrating the crime at that time and in that place, if possible, then doing so is a duty in a civil, lawful, society.
If the arrest was not warranted in fact, then a jury could determine that fact lawfully, after the fact.
Being labeled a "police officer" does not change the fact that some people, with badges, perpetrate very serious crimes upon innocent people, which warrants (probable cause) defensive actions on the part of whomever is in that place at that time and is able to defend the victim or victims.
The idea that "police" because they have a "license" are immune from defensive actions, because they have a fictional "shield" from accountability, and immunity from prosecution, is an idea.
It is not a new idea. It is called tyranny.
1776:
First Congress:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Previous statements acknowledging the same basic principle (defense against offense):
"That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history.*
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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. * * If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
That is at best a specious claim. If someone claiming to be a police officer is perpetrating a crime and someone else has only "fisticuffs" available to arrest the criminal perpetrating the crime, which is warranted by the fact that the perpetrator is perpetrating the crime at that time and in that place, if possible, then doing so is a duty in a civil, lawful, society.
If the arrest was not warranted in fact, then a jury could determine that fact lawfully, after the fact.
Being labeled a "police officer" does not change the fact that some people, with badges, perpetrate very serious crimes upon innocent people, which warrants (probable cause) defensive actions on the part of whomever is in that place at that time and is able to defend the victim or victims.
The idea that "police" because they have a "license" are immune from defensive actions, because they have a fictional "shield" from accountability, and immunity from prosecution, is an idea.
It is not a new idea. It is called tyranny.
1776:
First Congress:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Previous statements acknowledging the same basic principle (defense against offense):
"That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history.*
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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. * * If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength...
The best example of a “community security system” Is the old Wild West.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
That is an interesting message to me.
I'm reading Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard and it is a Libertarian viewpoint of the time period starting with the first arrival of people from Europe running away from European slavery, running to America to freedom and liberty.
At roughly the time of the Salem (Massachusetts) witch hunts (abuse of government power for personal gain) there were other places in America where people generally moved in the opposite direction.
Rather than moves toward greater crimes involving counterfeit authorities of government, religion, and military matters people moved by obvious forces in the other direction.
The point I want to make here concerns the move done by criminals in 1789 to Consolidate all the political experiments into one monopoly of power and profit, including subsidized slavery.
Running away from England, Spain, France, Germany, or other places where the criminals had taken over government to America was very expensive, just ask the Indentured Servants. Running away from a witch hunt in Massachusetts to relative liberty in Pennsylvania was comparatively less expensive.
How about now?
Had the criminals not taken over on 1789 would the experiments in government worked to perfect precisely what the people demanded?
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"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. ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
That is an interesting message to me.
I'm reading Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard and it is a Libertarian viewpoint of the time period starting with the first arrival of people from Europe running away from European slavery, running to America to freedom and liberty.
At roughly the time of the Salem (Massachusetts) witch hunts (abuse of government power for personal gain) there were other places in America where people generally moved in the opposite direction.
Rather than moves toward greater crimes involving counterfeit authorities of government, religion, and military matters people moved by obvious forces in the other direction.
The point I want to make here concerns the move done by criminals in 1789 to Consolidate all the political experiments into one monopoly of power and profit, including subsidized slavery.
Running away from England, Spain, France, Germany, or other places where the criminals had taken over government to America was very expensive, just ask the Indentured Servants. Running away from a witch hunt in Massachusetts to relative liberty in Pennsylvania was comparatively less expensive.
How about now?
Had the criminals not taken over on 1789 would the experiments in government worked to perfect precisely what the people demanded?
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"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. ...
Rolling Stone Editor's Key Observation About the George Floyd Unrest Will Probably Infuriate the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
"For some, the liberal agenda they grew up with is now considered right-wing in some circles. Why? Well, it doesn't go far enough. It has to be far-left and quasi-Marxist. The woke clowns we used to mock on The College Fix and Campus Reform have graduated. And now, their toxic agenda is spreading like a brush fire. No dissent is permitted. Just one slip-up or differing opinion from that of the far-left mob could get you canceled. These are the hordes of Mordor, an apt description by conservative commentator Erick Erickson. They will make you care. In one way or the other, the left-wing mob will find a way to get you. They also don't want apologies; they want the destruction of those they view as enemies to their unhinged worldview."
Sounds like a bunch of criminals to me, what does that have to do with right or left, other than both sides are criminal?
"He also said if anything that's been exposed during the unrest over the officer-involved fatality of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 that sparked nationwide riots, it's that the American Left has gone totally insane and the liberal media is destroying itself."
How does anyone arrive at such an absolute determination of fact concerning this alleged event? So many examples of staged events exist to at least warrant doubt concerning the facts that matter in these well publicized and well propagandized cases. So...where is the actual law? Where is the process by which the facts that matter in this case are discovered and publicized for everyone to see and know? Where are the trial transcripts?
"Fang was smeared as a racist for peddling countervailing narratives relating to black-on-black crime. He was forced to apologize in a lengthy letter after his co-workers threw him under the bus; Taibbi credits him for being one of the last reporters out there who does excellent investigative work. Now, he's been tarred and feathered by the progressive mob for simply reporting on what's happening on the ground: rioting, looting, and arson."
The mob did it? Who exactly are the perpetrators, and why do they away with all these successful cases of treasonous crimes, or the lesser evils like nonfeasance?
The level of deception goes so deep that people can't even see that they are believing obvious (double think) lies?
When did the Mob change from a criminal gang to a political gang? When did "woke" change from someone no longer believing the "official" lies to someone parroting those lies, or inventing new ones?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 14, 2020:
"For some, the liberal agenda they grew up with is now considered right-wing in some circles. Why? Well, it doesn't go far enough. It has to be far-left and quasi-Marxist. The woke clowns we used to mock on The College Fix and Campus Reform have graduated. And now, their toxic agenda is spreading like a brush fire. No dissent is permitted. Just one slip-up or differing opinion from that of the far-left mob could get you canceled. These are the hordes of Mordor, an apt description by conservative commentator Erick Erickson. They will make you care. In one way or the other, the left-wing mob will find a way to get you. They also don't want apologies; they want the destruction of those they view as enemies to their unhinged worldview."
Sounds like a bunch of criminals to me, what does that have to do with right or left, other than both sides are criminal?
"He also said if anything that's been exposed during the unrest over the officer-involved fatality of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 that sparked nationwide riots, it's that the American Left has gone totally insane and the liberal media is destroying itself."
How does anyone arrive at such an absolute determination of fact concerning this alleged event? So many examples of staged events exist to at least warrant doubt concerning the facts that matter in these well publicized and well propagandized cases. So...where is the actual law? Where is the process by which the facts that matter in this case are discovered and publicized for everyone to see and know? Where are the trial transcripts?
"Fang was smeared as a racist for peddling countervailing narratives relating to black-on-black crime. He was forced to apologize in a lengthy letter after his co-workers threw him under the bus; Taibbi credits him for being one of the last reporters out there who does excellent investigative work. Now, he's been tarred and feathered by the progressive mob for simply reporting on what's happening on the ground: rioting, looting, and arson."
The mob did it? Who exactly are the perpetrators, and why do they away with all these successful cases of treasonous crimes, or the lesser evils like nonfeasance?
The level of deception goes so deep that people can't even see that they are believing obvious (double think) lies?
When did the Mob change from a criminal gang to a political gang? When did "woke" change from someone no longer believing the "official" lies to someone parroting those lies, or inventing new ones?
This was really good [youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
OK. Bullshit.
The reason why the NRA...
It has nothing to do with divide-so-as-to-conquer RACE BAITING.
I ran for Congress in 1996 because people (some were not white) were tortured and murdered in a church in Waco Texas. The NRA, of which I was a member, didn't want anything to do with me, even to the point at which I attended one of their Congress Support-The-Candidate meetings, and I said:
No piece of paper can remove my right to defend myself.
No one at the meeting, supporting a Gun Grabbing Liar, responded at all, not to agree, not to disagree, not to ask me who I was (a Candidate on the Ballot): nothing.
It is very good that this individual Dave speaks out, as everyone ought to without paralyzing fear for what they may have to suffer for doing so, but failure to keep your internal (moral conscience) BULLSHIT meter running is not going to help anyone, not yourself, or anyone else you may love.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
OK. Bullshit.
The reason why the NRA...
It has nothing to do with divide-so-as-to-conquer RACE BAITING.
I ran for Congress in 1996 because people (some were not white) were tortured and murdered in a church in Waco Texas. The NRA, of which I was a member, didn't want anything to do with me, even to the point at which I attended one of their Congress Support-The-Candidate meetings, and I said:
No piece of paper can remove my right to defend myself.
No one at the meeting, supporting a Gun Grabbing Liar, responded at all, not to agree, not to disagree, not to ask me who I was (a Candidate on the Ballot): nothing.
It is very good that this individual Dave speaks out, as everyone ought to without paralyzing fear for what they may have to suffer for doing so, but failure to keep your internal (moral conscience) BULLSHIT meter running is not going to help anyone, not yourself, or anyone else you may love.
This was really good [youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?
A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.
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. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be.
_____________________________
https://thekingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/King_Family_Trial_Transcript.pdf
A trial might help reduce the lies.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?
A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.
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. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be.
_____________________________
https://thekingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/King_Family_Trial_Transcript.pdf
A trial might help reduce the lies.
A nerd that wants you dead...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
"Owns"
Perhaps someone ought to question their understanding of ownership.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
"Owns"
Perhaps someone ought to question their understanding of ownership.
Beijing closes food market, locks down district after new coronavirus outbreak
[foxnews.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
I still think it is worth considering that the powers behind this episode of the Twilight Zone are setting things up for a Boy who Cried Wolf Scenario.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
I still think it is worth considering that the powers behind this episode of the Twilight Zone are setting things up for a Boy who Cried Wolf Scenario.
Are we watching America fall apart in the start of a revolution?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
"What happened in France was the attempt to appease the mob by putting its radical elements in charge, hoping to appease them, as in France then and what we’re seeing now, there is no appeasing the blood lust of a mob, once they gain a foothold and find momentum, they continue often with breathtaking speed."
I don't think so. Who is supposed to "attempt to appease the mob"? When there is no law (accurate accountability in defense of the innocent from the guilty) the worst people seize the opportunity to consolidate power and profit. When criminals take over they decide to take over, and if their victims are to blame in any way it is for lack of understanding those clear and present dangers that warrant defensive actions.
"...Enraged Ones, who were not a cohesive body..."
That sounds like the theory that Men are Bad and if they are not made to be good (by an exceptional individual who isn't bad) then Bad Men will spontaneously (not a cohesive body) riot and do bad things, because Men are Bad, of course, except me with this theory of course.
Call it the angry mob theory.
Call it the excesses of democracy theory.
Never mind the guy behind the curtain, pulling the strings.
If people do bad things in groups they are bonded cohesively by the same means to the same ends, and they don't have to discuss their plans in advance, so as to get on that same page: bonded cohesively by the same means to the same ends.
The Men are Bad theory is not news.
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
"What happened in France was the attempt to appease the mob by putting its radical elements in charge, hoping to appease them, as in France then and what we’re seeing now, there is no appeasing the blood lust of a mob, once they gain a foothold and find momentum, they continue often with breathtaking speed."
I don't think so. Who is supposed to "attempt to appease the mob"? When there is no law (accurate accountability in defense of the innocent from the guilty) the worst people seize the opportunity to consolidate power and profit. When criminals take over they decide to take over, and if their victims are to blame in any way it is for lack of understanding those clear and present dangers that warrant defensive actions.
"...Enraged Ones, who were not a cohesive body..."
That sounds like the theory that Men are Bad and if they are not made to be good (by an exceptional individual who isn't bad) then Bad Men will spontaneously (not a cohesive body) riot and do bad things, because Men are Bad, of course, except me with this theory of course.
Call it the angry mob theory.
Call it the excesses of democracy theory.
Never mind the guy behind the curtain, pulling the strings.
If people do bad things in groups they are bonded cohesively by the same means to the same ends, and they don't have to discuss their plans in advance, so as to get on that same page: bonded cohesively by the same means to the same ends.
The Men are Bad theory is not news.
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable ...
When do we arrest Gates and Fauci?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the
1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials
Carlton F. W. Larson
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547=smulr
In late eighteenth-century England, most felony cases were prosecuted by private parties, generally the victims. Treason cases, by contrast, were generally prosecuted by professional attorneys working for the crown such as the attorney general or solicitor general. Pennsylvania followed England's lead with respect to treason trials, entrusting all of the cases to the state's attorney general, Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant. On August 7, 1778, the SEC informed the Assembly that as "the professors of law are supposed to be making great sums of money by espousing the cause of the disaffected," it would be necessary to increase Sergeant's funding and to provide him with at least one assistant. This was the "more necessary, as there is every reason to suppose that some of the persons charged with treasonable practices will endeavour to obtain, at any expense, the most experienced council in this and the neighboring states." The SEC warned, "[t]he bringing of Traitors to justice is at all times an object of great importance, and more especially so in our present circumstances. The Assembly acquiesced, and the SEC offered the assistantship to Joseph Reed, a member of the Patriotic Society, noting the "important trials of traitors, which would employ the Supreme Court during the next winter."
And thus the wheels of English criminal procedure, rusty from several years of disuse, again began to turn on the banks of the Delaware. The common law criminal jury, developed over hundreds of years in an island kingdom 3000 miles away, would be deployed in a way Englishmen could never have imagined-to try as traitors those men who had remained loyal to their English king. The process began on August 21, 1778, when the three justices of the Supreme Court issued a precept to Philadelphia County Sheriff James Claypoole for holding a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery at the State House, beginning on Monday, September 21. The next day, Claypoole issued a proclamation announcing the court's sitting. Claypoole presumably selected and summoned the grand jury and the panel of trial jurors sometime between August 21 and September 21.
Pages 1453, 1454
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Revolutionary American Jury: A Case Study of the
1778-1779 Philadelphia Treason Trials
Carlton F. W. Larson
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547=smulr
In late eighteenth-century England, most felony cases were prosecuted by private parties, generally the victims. Treason cases, by contrast, were generally prosecuted by professional attorneys working for the crown such as the attorney general or solicitor general. Pennsylvania followed England's lead with respect to treason trials, entrusting all of the cases to the state's attorney general, Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant. On August 7, 1778, the SEC informed the Assembly that as "the professors of law are supposed to be making great sums of money by espousing the cause of the disaffected," it would be necessary to increase Sergeant's funding and to provide him with at least one assistant. This was the "more necessary, as there is every reason to suppose that some of the persons charged with treasonable practices will endeavour to obtain, at any expense, the most experienced council in this and the neighboring states." The SEC warned, "[t]he bringing of Traitors to justice is at all times an object of great importance, and more especially so in our present circumstances. The Assembly acquiesced, and the SEC offered the assistantship to Joseph Reed, a member of the Patriotic Society, noting the "important trials of traitors, which would employ the Supreme Court during the next winter."
And thus the wheels of English criminal procedure, rusty from several years of disuse, again began to turn on the banks of the Delaware. The common law criminal jury, developed over hundreds of years in an island kingdom 3000 miles away, would be deployed in a way Englishmen could never have imagined-to try as traitors those men who had remained loyal to their English king. The process began on August 21, 1778, when the three justices of the Supreme Court issued a precept to Philadelphia County Sheriff James Claypoole for holding a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery at the State House, beginning on Monday, September 21. The next day, Claypoole issued a proclamation announcing the court's sitting. Claypoole presumably selected and summoned the grand jury and the panel of trial jurors sometime between August 21 and September 21.
Pages 1453, 1454
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently ...
I vote for a people’s congress.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
If it is law then it is a voluntary assocation for mutual defense. If it is subsidized slavery hiding behind a fake claim of lawful authority, then it is subsidized slavery, not law.
Since America became subsidized slavery (not even hiding) in 1789 the people as a whole, or the people in unauthorized groups (authorized by the criminals at the top of the criminal government), were subject to whatever was dictated by the dictators in power.
That is a fact.
That is a fact that matters.
If the idea with this proposal is to turn what is (subsidized slavery) into what is not (voluntary association for mutual defense), then that turn will either be accomplished in at least 3 ways:
1. The most evil way possible
2. Lesser evil methods than number 1
3. Lawfully
If 10,000 members per state decided - as a rule - to affect a lawful change in the government (going from subsidized slavery to voluntary association for mutual defense), they could use the common law to do so.
So...why invent a method of government that might work when a method of government has already been proven to work?
A number of volunteers in each county constitutes a pool from which grand juries are constituted. 10,000 in each state is then divided into each county.
Take Texas and Rhode Island for example:
Texas Counties
254 divided into 10,000 equals 39 people in each County volunteering as Independent Grand Jurors when needed: (they have been called Justices of the Peace, or Magistrates in the past)
Notes On The State Of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
"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 a 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 ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
If it is law then it is a voluntary assocation for mutual defense. If it is subsidized slavery hiding behind a fake claim of lawful authority, then it is subsidized slavery, not law.
Since America became subsidized slavery (not even hiding) in 1789 the people as a whole, or the people in unauthorized groups (authorized by the criminals at the top of the criminal government), were subject to whatever was dictated by the dictators in power.
That is a fact.
That is a fact that matters.
If the idea with this proposal is to turn what is (subsidized slavery) into what is not (voluntary association for mutual defense), then that turn will either be accomplished in at least 3 ways:
1. The most evil way possible
2. Lesser evil methods than number 1
3. Lawfully
If 10,000 members per state decided - as a rule - to affect a lawful change in the government (going from subsidized slavery to voluntary association for mutual defense), they could use the common law to do so.
So...why invent a method of government that might work when a method of government has already been proven to work?
A number of volunteers in each county constitutes a pool from which grand juries are constituted. 10,000 in each state is then divided into each county.
Take Texas and Rhode Island for example:
Texas Counties
254 divided into 10,000 equals 39 people in each County volunteering as Independent Grand Jurors when needed: (they have been called Justices of the Peace, or Magistrates in the past)
Notes On The State Of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
"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 a 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 ...
Fact! See streets full of eco-nazy pussify snowflake cockroaches
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
What would you suggest Donald Trump do to have a positive resolution to the BLM/Defund Police/ANTIFA...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Something else, comment below.
A President of a Federation (not a Monopoly of Power Nation State: were the people are considered hereditary property) ought to encourage a return to rule of law in each independent county in each independent state.
Every single accusation of a crime perpetrated by someone posing as the government, such as a Corporate Enforcement Officer (NGO in reality, wearing a fake badge no different than WallMart Security) who may be "standing down" while rioters riot (nonfeasance, malfeasance, misfeasance, misprision of justice, misprision of felony, misprision of treason, or just plain old treason) ought to be processed according to the (common) law.
That means a witness witnessing the crime contacts a member of the grand jury pool (a common law magistrate) and the independent member of the independent grand jury then forms a grand jury that commands all legal jurisdiction in the county (civil and criminal) to use lawful power (subpoena for example) to validate the accusation (here is a video of the "police standing down"), and then offer the offender a day in court before The People in a Trial by Jury.
If it turns out that the "police" who were ordered to "stand down" were not lawful police, instead they were no different than WallMart Security, then the crime of failure to act when action was warranted is lesser, not greater, because the "police" are not lawful officers of the law: such as a duly elected County Sheriff. But, the failure to act when action is warranted (and action is possible) is still a crime according to reason, logic, morality, and historical precedent. Juries (The People) historically consider failure to act when action is warranted, reasonable, logical, moral, and JUSTIFIED.
If someone is going to claim otherwise, and their claim is backed up by the lack of Public Trial Transcripts involving such cases, then someone is going to prove a point worth knowing: There has been no law in America since 1789.
"Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hands of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.
There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
"These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
"If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States—that is, if we had had ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 13, 2020:
Something else, comment below.
A President of a Federation (not a Monopoly of Power Nation State: were the people are considered hereditary property) ought to encourage a return to rule of law in each independent county in each independent state.
Every single accusation of a crime perpetrated by someone posing as the government, such as a Corporate Enforcement Officer (NGO in reality, wearing a fake badge no different than WallMart Security) who may be "standing down" while rioters riot (nonfeasance, malfeasance, misfeasance, misprision of justice, misprision of felony, misprision of treason, or just plain old treason) ought to be processed according to the (common) law.
That means a witness witnessing the crime contacts a member of the grand jury pool (a common law magistrate) and the independent member of the independent grand jury then forms a grand jury that commands all legal jurisdiction in the county (civil and criminal) to use lawful power (subpoena for example) to validate the accusation (here is a video of the "police standing down"), and then offer the offender a day in court before The People in a Trial by Jury.
If it turns out that the "police" who were ordered to "stand down" were not lawful police, instead they were no different than WallMart Security, then the crime of failure to act when action was warranted is lesser, not greater, because the "police" are not lawful officers of the law: such as a duly elected County Sheriff. But, the failure to act when action is warranted (and action is possible) is still a crime according to reason, logic, morality, and historical precedent. Juries (The People) historically consider failure to act when action is warranted, reasonable, logical, moral, and JUSTIFIED.
If someone is going to claim otherwise, and their claim is backed up by the lack of Public Trial Transcripts involving such cases, then someone is going to prove a point worth knowing: There has been no law in America since 1789.
"Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hands of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.
There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
"These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
"If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States—that is, if we had had ...
Tariffs may benefit a certain constituency, but overall, hurt the vast majority of other producers ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 12, 2020:
Economics 101: If you have to kill the competition to compete, it is not competition, it is murder.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 12, 2020:
Economics 101: If you have to kill the competition to compete, it is not competition, it is murder.
The HighWire with Del Bigtree: COVID NURSE EXPOSES TRUTH WITH HIDDEN CAMERA!
Registered nurse, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 12, 2020:
“Yea, so the thing is, is they’re coming in with difficulty breathing, and a lot of these patients are really coming in with anxiety, because everyone is...they’re scared, they take em...ummm...and they tell them pretty much that if they don’t get on the vent, then they are probably not going to survive, but the reality is that they get on that vent, the likelihood of them walking out of the hospital is the minimum.”
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 12, 2020:
“Yea, so the thing is, is they’re coming in with difficulty breathing, and a lot of these patients are really coming in with anxiety, because everyone is...they’re scared, they take em...ummm...and they tell them pretty much that if they don’t get on the vent, then they are probably not going to survive, but the reality is that they get on that vent, the likelihood of them walking out of the hospital is the minimum.”
How long...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
They would go for the admin first, then the subject population. If they go for the subject population first, they will dig their own grave even faster.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
They would go for the admin first, then the subject population. If they go for the subject population first, they will dig their own grave even faster.
Are White Americans afraid of Blacks?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
People ought to be concerned about criminals, such as those who use the divide and conquer tactic. Ignorance is not bliss when the criminals start ripping your life from you.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
People ought to be concerned about criminals, such as those who use the divide and conquer tactic. Ignorance is not bliss when the criminals start ripping your life from you.
"Many Americans, especially among the young, view the history of the European exploration, the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
Those who ran from slavery in England to freedom in America were followed here by Slave traders.
On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."
On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."
That is the First Congress of The United States of America (before "Consolidation" in 1789)
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
That is the First Draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson before the Slave Traders censored it.
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
That is Thomas Jefferson explaining that the Slave Traders infested the Northern and the Southern attempts at governing.
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
Those who ran from slavery in England to freedom in America were followed here by Slave traders.
On the 20th day of October 1774
"This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."
On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."
That is the First Congress of The United States of America (before "Consolidation" in 1789)
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
That is the First Draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson before the Slave Traders censored it.
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
That is Thomas Jefferson explaining that the Slave Traders infested the Northern and the Southern attempts at governing.
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great ...
This is too good not to read.
[theweeflea.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
"Western Liberal democracies are founded upon some basic principles derived from the Bible. One of which is equality before the law for all. That principle was trashed this weekend."
1. Democracies were small areas whereby the people attempted "equality before the law for all" who agreed to abide by the law. Those who did not agree (such as criminals) were made into slaves.
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
"Western Liberal democracies are founded upon some basic principles derived from the Bible. One of which is equality before the law for all. That principle was trashed this weekend."
1. Democracies were small areas whereby the people attempted "equality before the law for all" who agreed to abide by the law. Those who did not agree (such as criminals) were made into slaves.
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on...
Maybe this will get some engagement. What does everyone think of the new Happy Homelands so far?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
Robert100 states:
“My practical issues with Principled Libertarians thinking. Relates to Styx but all Libertarians seem to be this way. Some of my disagreements with him here.”
1. "Because government is always bad and taxes are always too high...”
If some people are deceived by words such as “government,” then some people may think the thoughts, and say the words, stated above. Some people are not deceived by words. If Principled Libertarians apply Libertarian Principles, then government is Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, and the taxes are investments as are any other transfers of wealth in a Voluntary Association.
Example:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 11, 2020:
Robert100 states:
“My practical issues with Principled Libertarians thinking. Relates to Styx but all Libertarians seem to be this way. Some of my disagreements with him here.”
1. "Because government is always bad and taxes are always too high...”
If some people are deceived by words such as “government,” then some people may think the thoughts, and say the words, stated above. Some people are not deceived by words. If Principled Libertarians apply Libertarian Principles, then government is Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, and the taxes are investments as are any other transfers of wealth in a Voluntary Association.
Example:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of ...
Why haven't Fauci and Gates been arrested?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 10, 2020:
The criminals responsible for the Global Pandemic Treasonous Fraud gave themselves immunity from prosecution. Just like their fake vaccines it is false and depends entirely on the power of deception: "The American Dream, you have to be asleep to believe it" George Carlin.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 10, 2020:
The criminals responsible for the Global Pandemic Treasonous Fraud gave themselves immunity from prosecution. Just like their fake vaccines it is false and depends entirely on the power of deception: "The American Dream, you have to be asleep to believe it" George Carlin.
Do you believe DJT will win in November?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
I heard that DJT has so far escaped 5 attempted murders while in office. The opposition is obviously weaker than the JFK, MLK, RFK examples. And then there is the Ross Perot and Ron Paul events to consider.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
I heard that DJT has so far escaped 5 attempted murders while in office. The opposition is obviously weaker than the JFK, MLK, RFK examples. And then there is the Ross Perot and Ron Paul events to consider.
Was this the worst decade that led us to this mess today??
[en.wikipedia.org]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
1780 to 1790, no doubt in my mind.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
1780 to 1790, no doubt in my mind.
Clowns in America - Unbelievable!!
CIA Insider Kevin Ship Dallas March 2020 NEVER BEFORE RELEASED ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
Clearly the problem this man has is a conflation with the Constitution of 1789 and the Bill of Right when this man makes a claim concerning the law of the land: so-called "supreme."
Law of the land:
14th October, 1775
First Congress U.S.A.
"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.”
Note the words:
Free
Natural-born
rights
liberties
"being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law"
common law
ancestors
The Ancient Law is a Court of Law is the common law, the law of the land in English, and legem terrae before English was a language.
Before the usurpation by counterfeit "Courts" such as Admiralty, Equity, Exchequer, Family, Traffic, Summary Justice, men in black robes who worship the devil, or other than "being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law," was, and still is the common law in a Court of Law, not a Court of Equity or Admiralty.
Example:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Those are the words of the former President of the United States of America, as that individual was then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania while the Federation of Independent States was an actual Federation of Independent States: before the usurpation of 1789.
U.S. Supreme Court
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
There was no "Appellate" jurisdiction "above" the people themselves as the people judge what is or is not fact, what is or is not law, what is or is not guilt, in any case according to themselves in their trial juries that proceed according to the common law.
It is not a coincidence that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was "enacted" before the Bill of Rights. Those criminals who escaped indictment in 1789 knew very well that they were only adding...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 8, 2020:
Clearly the problem this man has is a conflation with the Constitution of 1789 and the Bill of Right when this man makes a claim concerning the law of the land: so-called "supreme."
Law of the land:
14th October, 1775
First Congress U.S.A.
"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.”
Note the words:
Free
Natural-born
rights
liberties
"being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law"
common law
ancestors
The Ancient Law is a Court of Law is the common law, the law of the land in English, and legem terrae before English was a language.
Before the usurpation by counterfeit "Courts" such as Admiralty, Equity, Exchequer, Family, Traffic, Summary Justice, men in black robes who worship the devil, or other than "being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law," was, and still is the common law in a Court of Law, not a Court of Equity or Admiralty.
Example:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Those are the words of the former President of the United States of America, as that individual was then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania while the Federation of Independent States was an actual Federation of Independent States: before the usurpation of 1789.
U.S. Supreme Court
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
There was no "Appellate" jurisdiction "above" the people themselves as the people judge what is or is not fact, what is or is not law, what is or is not guilt, in any case according to themselves in their trial juries that proceed according to the common law.
It is not a coincidence that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was "enacted" before the Bill of Rights. Those criminals who escaped indictment in 1789 knew very well that they were only adding...
Another Patriot Heard From!
Steve Pieczenik: OPUS 226 Moron Mattis and other failures!
...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
https://stevepieczenik.com/2020/06/07/5618/
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
https://stevepieczenik.com/2020/06/07/5618/
It has been suggested we start with the 911 event.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
Someone claiming that John Kennedy was a victim of conspiracy murder was, is, and will be called a Tin Hat wearing Conspiracy Theorist: shooting the messenger.
John Kennedy was a messenger who was shot for the crime of telling the truth, an executive order to execute the disobedient slave named John.
Then Martin Luther King Jr was soon after the John Kennedy Conspiracy Murder also murdered for truth telling, shooting the messenger who dared to disobey the order to read from the script.
Then Robert Kennedy was shot and killed after his brother and Martin.
Anyone claiming that any of those "assassinations" were conspiracy is someone who will be silenced for failing to read from the script.
The problem with that is the fact that there was a trial in the Martin Luther King Jr. case and the "government" was found guilty of conspiracy murder.
So...
Those claiming that someone is a "Conspiracy Theorist" for pointing out that a jury found the "government" guilt of conspiracy murder are in some way claiming that people conspired (a jury, a judge, a prosecutor, a family of survivors, supporters) to blame the government for yet another "lone gunman assassination."
Had the trial of Martin Luther King Jr. proceeded according to the common law then the trail would have proceeded in a timely manner, not delayed some 30 odd years, and it is possible that Robert Kennedy would not have been assassinated because the light of truth would have been shinning early enough (soon enough) to discourage and deter the conspiracy murder of Robert Kennedy.
That could possibly have put Robert Kennedy as President in 1964.
Robert Kennedy could have possibly done what Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump attempted (or are attempting) to do: defund the counterfeit police, a.k.a. the globalists, elite, establishment, military industrial complex, new world order, central banking frauds, or whatever you want to call those who have been the most powerful criminal gang on this planet for some time, able to make lots of money on wars, drugs, counterfeiting, money laundering, slave trading ("human trafficking"), extortion, etc., all done with impunity because the "court" system of plunder is in their back pockets.
The U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) National Debt in 1964 was 312 Billion.
"The U.S. national debt is more than $25 trillion.1 That's greater than the annual economic output of the entire country."
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Sooner, as with the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder FACT finding mission, is better than later.
How much better would it be to nip it in the bud now, rather than when the next generation is dealing with grand ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
Someone claiming that John Kennedy was a victim of conspiracy murder was, is, and will be called a Tin Hat wearing Conspiracy Theorist: shooting the messenger.
John Kennedy was a messenger who was shot for the crime of telling the truth, an executive order to execute the disobedient slave named John.
Then Martin Luther King Jr was soon after the John Kennedy Conspiracy Murder also murdered for truth telling, shooting the messenger who dared to disobey the order to read from the script.
Then Robert Kennedy was shot and killed after his brother and Martin.
Anyone claiming that any of those "assassinations" were conspiracy is someone who will be silenced for failing to read from the script.
The problem with that is the fact that there was a trial in the Martin Luther King Jr. case and the "government" was found guilty of conspiracy murder.
So...
Those claiming that someone is a "Conspiracy Theorist" for pointing out that a jury found the "government" guilt of conspiracy murder are in some way claiming that people conspired (a jury, a judge, a prosecutor, a family of survivors, supporters) to blame the government for yet another "lone gunman assassination."
Had the trial of Martin Luther King Jr. proceeded according to the common law then the trail would have proceeded in a timely manner, not delayed some 30 odd years, and it is possible that Robert Kennedy would not have been assassinated because the light of truth would have been shinning early enough (soon enough) to discourage and deter the conspiracy murder of Robert Kennedy.
That could possibly have put Robert Kennedy as President in 1964.
Robert Kennedy could have possibly done what Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump attempted (or are attempting) to do: defund the counterfeit police, a.k.a. the globalists, elite, establishment, military industrial complex, new world order, central banking frauds, or whatever you want to call those who have been the most powerful criminal gang on this planet for some time, able to make lots of money on wars, drugs, counterfeiting, money laundering, slave trading ("human trafficking"), extortion, etc., all done with impunity because the "court" system of plunder is in their back pockets.
The U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) National Debt in 1964 was 312 Billion.
"The U.S. national debt is more than $25 trillion.1 That's greater than the annual economic output of the entire country."
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Sooner, as with the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder FACT finding mission, is better than later.
How much better would it be to nip it in the bud now, rather than when the next generation is dealing with grand ...
I have been Looking for the least biased News websites I can find and would appreciate any ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
https://thenewpaper.co/r?r=jlb8z4jokbe
That is biased toward the established Major Media, but it is International, as far as I know, so it isn't U.S.A. Centric or Europe Centric (each having their own unique bias).
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
https://thenewpaper.co/r?r=jlb8z4jokbe
That is biased toward the established Major Media, but it is International, as far as I know, so it isn't U.S.A. Centric or Europe Centric (each having their own unique bias).
Conspiracy theorists believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
Criminal Conspiracy is a fact that matters. It may be seen as an elephant in a room full of blind people. Some people are not blind.
There is a way (Rule of Law) to determine which conspirators are the worst, as the bodies pile up, and as the blind people refuse to see the worst conspirators.
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Rule of Law, the Ancient Law, was called Legem Terrae when the Roman Empire (worst conspirators) subdued the people in England under their Absolute Dictatorship. The term Legem Terrae means "the law of the land," which is also called the common law.
Rule of Law is a process, not a thing, not a word that magically fixes (or breaks) things, and it involves individual moral conscience embodied in people. People are duty bound by that common power of individual conscience to seek out the truth and provide for it. People volunteer to be trial jurors, private prosecutors, magistrates (the pool from which grand jurors are constituted), and grand jurors, when the common law works for the people, because it is of the people and by the people who volunteer to be driven by their well nurtured inner power of moral conscience.
There are those who conspire to destroy, and they know well enough that they must destroy that well nurtured inner power of moral conscience embodied into their victims at birth. They know how do to that and they do that by a process that is then a counterfeit version of Rule of Law.
In a Court of Law (Ancient Law, common law, the law of the land) the people are in power to adjudicate justice through their trial jurors selected by lot. Selection by lot ensures the least bias because everyone is prevented from staking the jury in their favor, or in favor of their faction, gang, party, corporation, business, or other division of the whole people. Selection by lot ensures that the people as a whole are represented as the POWER of LAW.
The Elephant that cannot be seen by blind people blinded by word magic is constituted out of those criminals in humanity that are also known as psychopaths, sociopaths, and sycophants. They all have names, they all have one thing in common, they all cause injury to the innocent as a RULE. Some are willful criminals who know better,...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 7, 2020:
Criminal Conspiracy is a fact that matters. It may be seen as an elephant in a room full of blind people. Some people are not blind.
There is a way (Rule of Law) to determine which conspirators are the worst, as the bodies pile up, and as the blind people refuse to see the worst conspirators.
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Rule of Law, the Ancient Law, was called Legem Terrae when the Roman Empire (worst conspirators) subdued the people in England under their Absolute Dictatorship. The term Legem Terrae means "the law of the land," which is also called the common law.
Rule of Law is a process, not a thing, not a word that magically fixes (or breaks) things, and it involves individual moral conscience embodied in people. People are duty bound by that common power of individual conscience to seek out the truth and provide for it. People volunteer to be trial jurors, private prosecutors, magistrates (the pool from which grand jurors are constituted), and grand jurors, when the common law works for the people, because it is of the people and by the people who volunteer to be driven by their well nurtured inner power of moral conscience.
There are those who conspire to destroy, and they know well enough that they must destroy that well nurtured inner power of moral conscience embodied into their victims at birth. They know how do to that and they do that by a process that is then a counterfeit version of Rule of Law.
In a Court of Law (Ancient Law, common law, the law of the land) the people are in power to adjudicate justice through their trial jurors selected by lot. Selection by lot ensures the least bias because everyone is prevented from staking the jury in their favor, or in favor of their faction, gang, party, corporation, business, or other division of the whole people. Selection by lot ensures that the people as a whole are represented as the POWER of LAW.
The Elephant that cannot be seen by blind people blinded by word magic is constituted out of those criminals in humanity that are also known as psychopaths, sociopaths, and sycophants. They all have names, they all have one thing in common, they all cause injury to the innocent as a RULE. Some are willful criminals who know better,...
Self defense insurance vs legal protection plans for gun owners-
[ammoland.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 6, 2020:
I think that the above proves a point concerning what is or is not lawful, legal, right, moral, justified, and the opposite.
The point of "The Law" (also called the common law, the law of the land, due process of law, and in Latin Legem Terrae) is a "legal protection plan," and "self defense insurance."
The Law is legal protection self defense insurance.
That is the law.
Why would someone need legal protection from legal protection, or why would someone need self defense insurance from self defense insurance?
A clue:
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787
What was (is) a competitive alternative to a Systematic Enabling of the Rich to Oppress and Ruin the Poor?
A clue:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 6, 2020:
I think that the above proves a point concerning what is or is not lawful, legal, right, moral, justified, and the opposite.
The point of "The Law" (also called the common law, the law of the land, due process of law, and in Latin Legem Terrae) is a "legal protection plan," and "self defense insurance."
The Law is legal protection self defense insurance.
That is the law.
Why would someone need legal protection from legal protection, or why would someone need self defense insurance from self defense insurance?
A clue:
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787
What was (is) a competitive alternative to a Systematic Enabling of the Rich to Oppress and Ruin the Poor?
A clue:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. ...
SoFMag: Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act. What they really mean.
[sofmag.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 4, 2020:
"The posse comitatus, in common law, is a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a sheriff – to suppress lawlessness or defend the county. The posse comitatus originated in ninth century England simultaneous with the creation of the office of sheriff."
The law is what The People consent to through their jurisdictional POWER to nullify anything claimed to be law by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Any "act" following the 1789 Constitution Fraud is null and void on its face: self-evident.
No law can be derived from fraud. That is an axiom of law.
Posse comitatus is an integral part of the Ancient Law (common law, law of the land, legem terrae) dating back thousands of years and it is basic, self-evident, principled, moral, conscionable, reasonable, logical, lawful, legal, and right: based upon natural rights.
If there is a large threat to natural rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, the power to lawfully indict criminals in government (freedom of speech), the power to defend (with arms), etc.), there must, by reason, be a method by which a defensive power can be mustered in time to meet that threat. When there is probable cause to muster a defensive force large enough to DETER (or less peaceful goals remaining, subject to the decisions made by the offending forces), then posse comitatus is warranted as the process by which that defensive force is mustered to meet the clear and present dangers of enemies foreign or domestic.
If someone is going to claim that the National government (consolidated after 1789) has the absolute power to over-rule the common law, then they have no legs to stand on other than deceit, threat of aggressive violence, or aggressive violence (clear and present dangers in fact): criminal means.
You have been lied to, and if you believe these lies, then you may agree to anything including Subsidized Slavery of yourself and your fellow inhabitants of this planet.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 4, 2020:
"The posse comitatus, in common law, is a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a sheriff – to suppress lawlessness or defend the county. The posse comitatus originated in ninth century England simultaneous with the creation of the office of sheriff."
The law is what The People consent to through their jurisdictional POWER to nullify anything claimed to be law by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Any "act" following the 1789 Constitution Fraud is null and void on its face: self-evident.
No law can be derived from fraud. That is an axiom of law.
Posse comitatus is an integral part of the Ancient Law (common law, law of the land, legem terrae) dating back thousands of years and it is basic, self-evident, principled, moral, conscionable, reasonable, logical, lawful, legal, and right: based upon natural rights.
If there is a large threat to natural rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, the power to lawfully indict criminals in government (freedom of speech), the power to defend (with arms), etc.), there must, by reason, be a method by which a defensive power can be mustered in time to meet that threat. When there is probable cause to muster a defensive force large enough to DETER (or less peaceful goals remaining, subject to the decisions made by the offending forces), then posse comitatus is warranted as the process by which that defensive force is mustered to meet the clear and present dangers of enemies foreign or domestic.
If someone is going to claim that the National government (consolidated after 1789) has the absolute power to over-rule the common law, then they have no legs to stand on other than deceit, threat of aggressive violence, or aggressive violence (clear and present dangers in fact): criminal means.
You have been lied to, and if you believe these lies, then you may agree to anything including Subsidized Slavery of yourself and your fellow inhabitants of this planet.
The state cedes monopoly on violence to the insurrectionists.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
Monopolies are extremely precious to monopolists, but they are always subject to some form of competition: perishable.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
Monopolies are extremely precious to monopolists, but they are always subject to some form of competition: perishable.
Friends, Romans and Countrymen .
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
"We have given out “Candy” "
Is there a powerful mouse in your pocket? I can't give out "Candy," so leave me out of your COLLECTIVE "we," please. I am asking nice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
"We have given out “Candy” "
Is there a powerful mouse in your pocket? I can't give out "Candy," so leave me out of your COLLECTIVE "we," please. I am asking nice.
Another common Media lie they repeat over and over again as thus to make it true by repeating it.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
You may want to learn from history, not fake history.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
You may want to learn from history, not fake history.
AndrewMcCarthy: the government has the Constitutional authority to restore order.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
People are the government in fact. When ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
People are the government in fact. When ...
As long as Keyboard warriors can remain anonymous you will never have civility, in order to create ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
I think that a device called a lie detector has clear advantage when the goal isn't deception. The state of technology is at a point at which a lie detector is possible.
Since there isn't one (lie detector) when clearly it is possible, the goal is deception.
When the goal is no longer deception, and a lie detector (or many competitive examples) is used, the power of falsehood (deception) will decline, and so then will the power of violence decline.
This is not that hard to figure out.
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Take any message from anyone anywhere anytime and put it into the lie detector. No longer is the messenger a concern, so an anonymous messenger does not get credit and an "authority" with a name attached to the message does not get blame either.
The message goes through the lie detector and the message is authorized as true or false or whatever the best lie detector offers those who are tired of deception CURRENTLY.
Example:
"Germs cause disease."
No longer are many people shouting from their individual studies to alert the world that germs do not cause disease, rather toxic substances such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde - all of which are in "vaccines" - cause specific injuries to human bodies.
The lie detector (the best so far invented and used by people who are tired of the costs of deception) checks the message and evaluates the accuracy of the message, and all the data used in the calculation are published for all to see clearly from highest priority to lowest priority leaving no stone unturned, until someone adds new data to the system.
How about another example?
"Riots are most often started by Agent Provocateurs, paid for by people in government."
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 2, 2020:
I think that a device called a lie detector has clear advantage when the goal isn't deception. The state of technology is at a point at which a lie detector is possible.
Since there isn't one (lie detector) when clearly it is possible, the goal is deception.
When the goal is no longer deception, and a lie detector (or many competitive examples) is used, the power of falsehood (deception) will decline, and so then will the power of violence decline.
This is not that hard to figure out.
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Take any message from anyone anywhere anytime and put it into the lie detector. No longer is the messenger a concern, so an anonymous messenger does not get credit and an "authority" with a name attached to the message does not get blame either.
The message goes through the lie detector and the message is authorized as true or false or whatever the best lie detector offers those who are tired of deception CURRENTLY.
Example:
"Germs cause disease."
No longer are many people shouting from their individual studies to alert the world that germs do not cause disease, rather toxic substances such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde - all of which are in "vaccines" - cause specific injuries to human bodies.
The lie detector (the best so far invented and used by people who are tired of the costs of deception) checks the message and evaluates the accuracy of the message, and all the data used in the calculation are published for all to see clearly from highest priority to lowest priority leaving no stone unturned, until someone adds new data to the system.
How about another example?
"Riots are most often started by Agent Provocateurs, paid for by people in government."
‪AG Barr: Radicals Hijacked Floyd Protests; NASA, SpaceX Launch DRAGON2 I.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
Criminals (radicals) are paid by other criminals (employers of "radicals") to rob, assault, and perpetrate other crimes (hijack) otherwise peaceful gatherings of protesters at protests. This is not a new thing.
In the Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts for the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trail there were witnesses testifying to the fact that "government" agents were paid to look like "protesters" and they were paid to rob, assault, and perpetrate other crimes so as to then falsely blame the protesters for those crimes.
Perhaps few people know that "government" has been found guilty of conspiracy murder already. If "government" conspires to murder and murders, then it is not as serious of a crime to rob and assault protesters, to then discredit peaceful protesters.
Serious crimes perpetrated by "government:"
1. Conspiracy to Murder
2. Murder
3. Assault
4. Fraud (blame the assault on the victims)
Is it also necessary to point out that any of those crimes, if done by someone in government, is cause to defend against a list of other crimes:
1. Misfeasance (government agents misuse - abuse - of their power)
2. Malfeasnace (government agents perpetrating crimes - not merely abuse - while in office)
3. Nonfeasance (government agents failing to actually do their actual job: keep criminals out of office)
4. Misprision of justice (government agents covering up for fellow criminals in government office)
5. Treason (see the above laundry list)
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
Criminals (radicals) are paid by other criminals (employers of "radicals") to rob, assault, and perpetrate other crimes (hijack) otherwise peaceful gatherings of protesters at protests. This is not a new thing.
In the Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts for the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trail there were witnesses testifying to the fact that "government" agents were paid to look like "protesters" and they were paid to rob, assault, and perpetrate other crimes so as to then falsely blame the protesters for those crimes.
Perhaps few people know that "government" has been found guilty of conspiracy murder already. If "government" conspires to murder and murders, then it is not as serious of a crime to rob and assault protesters, to then discredit peaceful protesters.
Serious crimes perpetrated by "government:"
1. Conspiracy to Murder
2. Murder
3. Assault
4. Fraud (blame the assault on the victims)
Is it also necessary to point out that any of those crimes, if done by someone in government, is cause to defend against a list of other crimes:
1. Misfeasance (government agents misuse - abuse - of their power)
2. Malfeasnace (government agents perpetrating crimes - not merely abuse - while in office)
3. Nonfeasance (government agents failing to actually do their actual job: keep criminals out of office)
4. Misprision of justice (government agents covering up for fellow criminals in government office)
5. Treason (see the above laundry list)
Reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
"Some that go as far to say the unreal is as real or more real than real. Witch personally I think should worry everyone. What in actual fact is part of your psyche is fear, dread."
I can find agreement in those words.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
"Some that go as far to say the unreal is as real or more real than real. Witch personally I think should worry everyone. What in actual fact is part of your psyche is fear, dread."
I can find agreement in those words.
Reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
What is ectropy?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jun 1, 2020:
What is ectropy?
From the new blog space that be up and running in a few day.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 31, 2020:
"I had in effect fallen through the gaps of the education system due to the fact, no one really knew what they were doing."
I think that "they" know precisely what they are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
"The stoic might say..."
"The best revenge is to be unlike the one who performed the injustice." – Marcus Aurelius
Josf-Kelley comments on May 31, 2020:
"I had in effect fallen through the gaps of the education system due to the fact, no one really knew what they were doing."
I think that "they" know precisely what they are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
"The stoic might say..."
"The best revenge is to be unlike the one who performed the injustice." – Marcus Aurelius
I refuse to believe you are a moronic idiot.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 29, 2020:
Being aware could lead to effective defense. Having only threats in view is comparable to ignoring them if there is no thought or actions applied for defense.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst,..."
Josf-Kelley comments on May 29, 2020:
Being aware could lead to effective defense. Having only threats in view is comparable to ignoring them if there is no thought or actions applied for defense.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst,..."
I was wondering what your opinions on the whole george floyd case is.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 29, 2020:
People in fake government give themselves immunity from prosecution for crimes that they perpetrate, which are the same crimes that they punish non-fake-government people for perpetrating.
This is a fundamental confession of criminality on the part of those people who fake (counterfeit) government.
If you think I am off on some conspiracy theory, then you may want to actually check the data that supports this very obvious conclusion.
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress, United States of America, 1776
Bonding Code:
"A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
Commercial Lien Right and Military Lien Right:
"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 29, 2020:
People in fake government give themselves immunity from prosecution for crimes that they perpetrate, which are the same crimes that they punish non-fake-government people for perpetrating.
This is a fundamental confession of criminality on the part of those people who fake (counterfeit) government.
If you think I am off on some conspiracy theory, then you may want to actually check the data that supports this very obvious conclusion.
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress, United States of America, 1776
Bonding Code:
"A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."
Commercial Lien Right and Military Lien Right:
"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the ...
Not Your Daddy's Classical Liberalism - The American Mind
Josf-Kelley comments on May 28, 2020:
“Thompson claims that the classical ideas of the common good and the highest good are antithetical to the principles of the American Founding. He writes: “While it may be true that Ahmari’s notions of the ‘common good and the highest good are among the bedrock principles of classical and Christian philosophy,’ they are not a part of the American tradition unless you think John Winthrop’s puritan Massachusetts was reborn in 1776 and re-instituted in 1788.””
That is especially telling in the context of the subject matter (classical liberalism versus despotism) because the author once again misses a vital point.
The first vital point missed by the author has to do with how “classical liberalism” worked when it worked, whereby legislation power was suggestive and legislative power was not dictatorial. In other words there is no great concern over what legislators do when the government is a “classical liberalism” government, of, by, and for the people as individuals, in free markets, where even government is a free market service. Legislators, far from being all powerful dictators demanding blind obedience without question, in a “classical liberalism” government, are – legislators are – at best educated, skillful, and knowledgeable statesmen who are able to discover and communicate clear and present threats to life, liberty, and property for all, which are thereby probable causes that warrant efficient, effective, and economical defensive measures, and at worst legislators are untrustworthy wolves in sheep garb.
The author of the article makes a very telling additional mistake when the author refers to an ongoing power struggle that is always present, but rather than identify the power struggle the author conveys a message as if that power struggle was somehow settled in a definitive manner. What exactly is, according to the author of the article, The American Founding?
Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the ratification of 13 Independent States as the American Founding? Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the formation of a Federation of Independent States as the American Founding? Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the Declaration of Independence as the American Founding?
I think not. I think that the author intends to lead the readers to conclude that the Constitution of 1789 was the American Founding, and that is a dire error.
Previous to the 1789 events that then created a National Consolidated Government, which annihilated the existing Federal Government of Independent States, where people were moving toward “classical liberalism” as never before in human history, more so than perhaps even the examples provided by the Saxons and the...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 28, 2020:
“Thompson claims that the classical ideas of the common good and the highest good are antithetical to the principles of the American Founding. He writes: “While it may be true that Ahmari’s notions of the ‘common good and the highest good are among the bedrock principles of classical and Christian philosophy,’ they are not a part of the American tradition unless you think John Winthrop’s puritan Massachusetts was reborn in 1776 and re-instituted in 1788.””
That is especially telling in the context of the subject matter (classical liberalism versus despotism) because the author once again misses a vital point.
The first vital point missed by the author has to do with how “classical liberalism” worked when it worked, whereby legislation power was suggestive and legislative power was not dictatorial. In other words there is no great concern over what legislators do when the government is a “classical liberalism” government, of, by, and for the people as individuals, in free markets, where even government is a free market service. Legislators, far from being all powerful dictators demanding blind obedience without question, in a “classical liberalism” government, are – legislators are – at best educated, skillful, and knowledgeable statesmen who are able to discover and communicate clear and present threats to life, liberty, and property for all, which are thereby probable causes that warrant efficient, effective, and economical defensive measures, and at worst legislators are untrustworthy wolves in sheep garb.
The author of the article makes a very telling additional mistake when the author refers to an ongoing power struggle that is always present, but rather than identify the power struggle the author conveys a message as if that power struggle was somehow settled in a definitive manner. What exactly is, according to the author of the article, The American Founding?
Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the ratification of 13 Independent States as the American Founding? Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the formation of a Federation of Independent States as the American Founding? Does the author intend to lead the readers to conclude the Declaration of Independence as the American Founding?
I think not. I think that the author intends to lead the readers to conclude that the Constitution of 1789 was the American Founding, and that is a dire error.
Previous to the 1789 events that then created a National Consolidated Government, which annihilated the existing Federal Government of Independent States, where people were moving toward “classical liberalism” as never before in human history, more so than perhaps even the examples provided by the Saxons and the...
Not Your Daddy's Classical Liberalism - The American Mind
Josf-Kelley comments on May 28, 2020:
I started reading and I got to the following quote, at which time I now respond, and I respond before reading further into this article.
"...local communities no longer have the legislative power..."
The people as a whole cannot be represented as a whole unless there is a way to do that, as a matter of fact.
Legislative power, so-called, is either dictatorial or suggestive.
When dictatorships dictate then legislative power is dictatorial, a fact that matters.
When the people as a whole are represented as a whole, employing a process whereby that is the goal, then legislative powers are suggestive, not dictatorial.
The loss of local control over legislative power is CENTRAL to a dictatorship, or involuntary, association, as the dictatorship cannot afford to allow competition over control of the target, slave, population.
Moves from CENTRAL control to local control are subject to approval by CENTRAL control, and the people have no say at all. The people (targets, slaves, drones, subjects, plebs, human capital, etc.) in a dictatorship have no control as a whole.
So the article misses a vital point so far in the article, as the article zeros in on a phenomenon known to occur within a dictatorship, whereby the Central Power either allows or does not allow local control based entirely on the decisions made a Central Control: monopoly of power and profit.
What happened to the power of the people to consent to or not consent to any government whatsoever?
Earlier in the article is this:
“The classical liberalism of the founding era assumed that individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are grounded in nature and that government’s primary responsibility is to protect those rights. This meant that government must be impartial in adjudicating rival conceptions of the good life.”
No such thing existed. The government, so-called, as maintained by the people as a whole was, is, and can continue to be the common law with the process by which the people as a whole are represented by trail jurors, grand jurors, private prosecutors, sheriffs, coroners, magistrates, and other private individuals who work voluntarily or who are employed by local assemblies of locals in a locality such as a county.
If there is a government consented to by the people through the common law, then that government is for mutual defense only, and it is strictly voluntary.
As exemplified in the following record:
“[4] 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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 28, 2020:
I started reading and I got to the following quote, at which time I now respond, and I respond before reading further into this article.
"...local communities no longer have the legislative power..."
The people as a whole cannot be represented as a whole unless there is a way to do that, as a matter of fact.
Legislative power, so-called, is either dictatorial or suggestive.
When dictatorships dictate then legislative power is dictatorial, a fact that matters.
When the people as a whole are represented as a whole, employing a process whereby that is the goal, then legislative powers are suggestive, not dictatorial.
The loss of local control over legislative power is CENTRAL to a dictatorship, or involuntary, association, as the dictatorship cannot afford to allow competition over control of the target, slave, population.
Moves from CENTRAL control to local control are subject to approval by CENTRAL control, and the people have no say at all. The people (targets, slaves, drones, subjects, plebs, human capital, etc.) in a dictatorship have no control as a whole.
So the article misses a vital point so far in the article, as the article zeros in on a phenomenon known to occur within a dictatorship, whereby the Central Power either allows or does not allow local control based entirely on the decisions made a Central Control: monopoly of power and profit.
What happened to the power of the people to consent to or not consent to any government whatsoever?
Earlier in the article is this:
“The classical liberalism of the founding era assumed that individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are grounded in nature and that government’s primary responsibility is to protect those rights. This meant that government must be impartial in adjudicating rival conceptions of the good life.”
No such thing existed. The government, so-called, as maintained by the people as a whole was, is, and can continue to be the common law with the process by which the people as a whole are represented by trail jurors, grand jurors, private prosecutors, sheriffs, coroners, magistrates, and other private individuals who work voluntarily or who are employed by local assemblies of locals in a locality such as a county.
If there is a government consented to by the people through the common law, then that government is for mutual defense only, and it is strictly voluntary.
As exemplified in the following record:
“[4] 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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the ...
Well I was making a.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 27, 2020:
At that time Plato was what could be called a progressive today, or a Statist, perhaps the word Aristocrat suffices to being meaning to the type of government (top-down) envisioned by Plato and the other Aristocrats of the day.
Those not paying members of the Aristocrat Mob (Mob Rule) included people like Zeno. Zeno of Citium was what may now be called an anarchist, but then their non-mob was called the Stoics.
Someone in the middle may be Marcus Aurelius.
Plato as the Statist (involunary association enforced by the powerful upon the weak) with Zeno as the Anarchist leaves Marcus Aurelius as the Anarchist occupying the job as Dictator of the State.
The elusive benevolent Dictator:
“The best revenge is not to be like your enemy.” – Marcus Aurelius
Josf-Kelley comments on May 27, 2020:
At that time Plato was what could be called a progressive today, or a Statist, perhaps the word Aristocrat suffices to being meaning to the type of government (top-down) envisioned by Plato and the other Aristocrats of the day.
Those not paying members of the Aristocrat Mob (Mob Rule) included people like Zeno. Zeno of Citium was what may now be called an anarchist, but then their non-mob was called the Stoics.
Someone in the middle may be Marcus Aurelius.
Plato as the Statist (involunary association enforced by the powerful upon the weak) with Zeno as the Anarchist leaves Marcus Aurelius as the Anarchist occupying the job as Dictator of the State.
The elusive benevolent Dictator:
“The best revenge is not to be like your enemy.” – Marcus Aurelius
Please pass this URGENT scientific review to any politician or doctor you think concerned about ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 26, 2020:
Thanks.
Knowledge is power.
https://www.inpowermovement.com/
Josf-Kelley comments on May 26, 2020:
Thanks.
Knowledge is power.
https://www.inpowermovement.com/
You may have noticed that there looks to be a copy of IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
Is a slug a snail without the defensive shell?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
Is a slug a snail without the defensive shell?
"The concept of variolation/inoculation was introduced in North America in 1721.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
"Before the introduction of variolation/inoculation in England in the sixteenth century the burden of infectious diseases including smallpox, measles, whooping cough, dysentery, scarlet fever, influenza, and pneumonia accounted for the death of more than 30% children of age below 15 years as the record."
Fake News, Junk Science, Rewriting history to fit a current Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
And George Washington fits the narrative perfectly: Tyrannical Solution to a falsified problem.
"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."
https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
"Before the introduction of variolation/inoculation in England in the sixteenth century the burden of infectious diseases including smallpox, measles, whooping cough, dysentery, scarlet fever, influenza, and pneumonia accounted for the death of more than 30% children of age below 15 years as the record."
Fake News, Junk Science, Rewriting history to fit a current Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
And George Washington fits the narrative perfectly: Tyrannical Solution to a falsified problem.
"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."
https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty
I’ve been thinking more about mandatory vaccination in America and done a bit looking to finger ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
The fraud of "vaccines" has been thoroughly exposed for all who care to know the facts that matter in the case. Those who claim that you must be "vaccinated" to "save" other people is one of the many contradictions that are self-evident falsehoods.
If the "vaccine" gives someone "immunity" from harm by the "germ," then those who choose to inject themselves at great risk to their heath can "immunize" and fear not if everyone else in the world does not choose to inject themselves at great risk to their health.
The great risks include death by "vaccine" injection, and the producers of those killer "vaccines" have given themselves immunity from prosecution for their mass murder spree.
Some people will march like lemmings right off a cliff, and other people will enforce that march pro bono (at their own cost, as volunteer enforcers) all the while parroting the official lies.
Some people actually look into the fraud and find the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is, in fact, a World Wide Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
4,373,905,457.40
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
The most obvious falsehood (self-evident fraud) with the latest Chinese Virus Scam is the fact that on average "vaccine" is a greater risk to health than the claimed cause of the Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
The fraud of "vaccines" has been thoroughly exposed for all who care to know the facts that matter in the case. Those who claim that you must be "vaccinated" to "save" other people is one of the many contradictions that are self-evident falsehoods.
If the "vaccine" gives someone "immunity" from harm by the "germ," then those who choose to inject themselves at great risk to their heath can "immunize" and fear not if everyone else in the world does not choose to inject themselves at great risk to their health.
The great risks include death by "vaccine" injection, and the producers of those killer "vaccines" have given themselves immunity from prosecution for their mass murder spree.
Some people will march like lemmings right off a cliff, and other people will enforce that march pro bono (at their own cost, as volunteer enforcers) all the while parroting the official lies.
Some people actually look into the fraud and find the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is, in fact, a World Wide Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
4,373,905,457.40
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
The most obvious falsehood (self-evident fraud) with the latest Chinese Virus Scam is the fact that on average "vaccine" is a greater risk to health than the claimed cause of the Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud.
Another fine video to share.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
False Problem/False Solution with "Universal Health Care."
Here again I will quote for cause. Before doing so the obvious false problem is to claim that "government" has jurisdiction over medical CARE. That is clearly a move from defensive government power (legitimate government power) and a move to offensive criminal power claimed to be "government" power.
False Problem: people get sick and therefore people must be forced to CARE for sick people.
That is also the False Solution, there is no switch on the Trolly Tracks.
See here:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
I won't listen to the video any longer, I can't help but comment, and ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
False Problem/False Solution with "Universal Health Care."
Here again I will quote for cause. Before doing so the obvious false problem is to claim that "government" has jurisdiction over medical CARE. That is clearly a move from defensive government power (legitimate government power) and a move to offensive criminal power claimed to be "government" power.
False Problem: people get sick and therefore people must be forced to CARE for sick people.
That is also the False Solution, there is no switch on the Trolly Tracks.
See here:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
I won't listen to the video any longer, I can't help but comment, and ...
Another fine video to share.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
False Problem/False Solution with the "Labor Problem"
I will quote for this one. The False Problem is "they are taking our jobs." So the false solution is once again restrict the free movement of people.
The actual Labor Problem is explained here:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
False Problem/False Solution with the "Labor Problem"
I will quote for this one. The False Problem is "they are taking our jobs." So the false solution is once again restrict the free movement of people.
The actual Labor Problem is explained here:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after ...
Another fine video to share.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
Time 3:00 or so....
"People destroy the environment."
Why are people (specific people with names) so ready to punish collectively? If a number of people (all with names) are dumping raw toxins upriver from your home on the river, do you look in the mirror and blame yourself for dumping raw toxins upriver? This is an example of a False Problem/False Solution.
False Problem: People destroy the environment.
False Solution: Restrict the free movement of people (build walls in mind or in fact)
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
Time 3:00 or so....
"People destroy the environment."
Why are people (specific people with names) so ready to punish collectively? If a number of people (all with names) are dumping raw toxins upriver from your home on the river, do you look in the mirror and blame yourself for dumping raw toxins upriver? This is an example of a False Problem/False Solution.
False Problem: People destroy the environment.
False Solution: Restrict the free movement of people (build walls in mind or in fact)
Another fine video to share.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
I really stumbled onto this one, almost letting it go. Fortunately I get to view the messages, rather than failing to do so, and thanks for posting it.
Before I finish watching the messages I want to make a quick comment concerning the very clear differences between an actual Trolly Problem and a Counterfeit Trolly Problem (a false set of choices based upon a false diagnosis of a problem).
The major false problem is the one so eloquently restated in the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli. Rather than quote that eloquent statement I will cut it down to base principles.
False Problem/False Solution
Men are bad. It takes me and my gang to force men to be good.
Now that can be seen as a false Trolly Problem.
Create a Criminal Gang to RULE everyone because failing to do so will allow a "less" Criminal Gang to RULE everyone. That is the lesser of two evils False Problem/False Solution.
Rather than a few people on one track (one path after the Y in the tracks with the controller on the track path switch, switching the Trolly to go on one or the other path) there are instead billions of people for many generations mowed down by the STATE Trolly as it is allowed to travel down the despotic, tyrannical, path, and the other path (not chosen) is the freedom in liberty path made so with (voluntary) rule of law, such as the common law, which is the Ancient Law, also known as the law of the land.
So....
The False Problem is expressed as a Greater or Lesser Evil non-choice (no choice to defend against all evil), and the people in power use that deception to keep the Trolly going down the despotic path, or if the Trolly somehow got on the other path (1774 to 1789 in America for example), then the False Problem is used to get the Trolly back on the despotic path that mows down everyone eventually, even the despots.
The False Solution Choices are Despotic Path A (greater evil claimed) or Despotic Path B, which is claimed to be the lesser evil path.
The idea never occurs to someone to stop the Trolly and find out why people are insisting on mowing down either Group A or Group B.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
I really stumbled onto this one, almost letting it go. Fortunately I get to view the messages, rather than failing to do so, and thanks for posting it.
Before I finish watching the messages I want to make a quick comment concerning the very clear differences between an actual Trolly Problem and a Counterfeit Trolly Problem (a false set of choices based upon a false diagnosis of a problem).
The major false problem is the one so eloquently restated in the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Machiavelli. Rather than quote that eloquent statement I will cut it down to base principles.
False Problem/False Solution
Men are bad. It takes me and my gang to force men to be good.
Now that can be seen as a false Trolly Problem.
Create a Criminal Gang to RULE everyone because failing to do so will allow a "less" Criminal Gang to RULE everyone. That is the lesser of two evils False Problem/False Solution.
Rather than a few people on one track (one path after the Y in the tracks with the controller on the track path switch, switching the Trolly to go on one or the other path) there are instead billions of people for many generations mowed down by the STATE Trolly as it is allowed to travel down the despotic, tyrannical, path, and the other path (not chosen) is the freedom in liberty path made so with (voluntary) rule of law, such as the common law, which is the Ancient Law, also known as the law of the land.
So....
The False Problem is expressed as a Greater or Lesser Evil non-choice (no choice to defend against all evil), and the people in power use that deception to keep the Trolly going down the despotic path, or if the Trolly somehow got on the other path (1774 to 1789 in America for example), then the False Problem is used to get the Trolly back on the despotic path that mows down everyone eventually, even the despots.
The False Solution Choices are Despotic Path A (greater evil claimed) or Despotic Path B, which is claimed to be the lesser evil path.
The idea never occurs to someone to stop the Trolly and find out why people are insisting on mowing down either Group A or Group B.
Why is freedom of speech so important?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
"Once this right is lost what do we do then?"
Missing in this message is the obvious turn from rule of law to rule by criminal means. When people know and employ rule of law then the so-called freedom to speak is understandable as the freedom to indict: to put the accused on trial before the people in a Court of Law where the people decide what is or is not the law: trial by jury (according to the Ancient Law, which is the common law, which is the law of the land, which was the law of the land before the English Language was used by anyone).
Examples:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress U.S.A., 1776
That above is Freedom of Speech exemplified by a number of people assembled for the purpose of deliberating on the decision to publish a Declaration of Independence: a common law legal action.
That dates back further:
"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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. * * If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice wad denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. * * There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
"Once this right is lost what do we do then?"
Missing in this message is the obvious turn from rule of law to rule by criminal means. When people know and employ rule of law then the so-called freedom to speak is understandable as the freedom to indict: to put the accused on trial before the people in a Court of Law where the people decide what is or is not the law: trial by jury (according to the Ancient Law, which is the common law, which is the law of the land, which was the law of the land before the English Language was used by anyone).
Examples:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress U.S.A., 1776
That above is Freedom of Speech exemplified by a number of people assembled for the purpose of deliberating on the decision to publish a Declaration of Independence: a common law legal action.
That dates back further:
"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 the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. * * If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice wad denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. * * There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be ...
Mainer v. Pritzker Transcript – Let Liberty Ring – Illinois Leaks
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
“When laws do not apply to those who make them, people are not being governed, they are being ruled. Make no mistake, these executive orders are not laws. They are royal decrees. Illinois citizens are not being governed, they are being ruled. The last time I checked Illinois citizens are also Americans and Americans don’t get ruled. The last time a monarch tried to rule Americans, a shot was fired that was heard around the world. That day led to the birth of a nation consensually governed based upon a document which ensures that on this day in this, any American courtroom tyrannical despotism will always lose and liberty, freedom and the constitution will always win.”
That is false. The Shot Heard Around The World was April 19, 1775. The free people organically formed States of competitive Liberty (some States were sanctuaries for runaway Slaves, some not so much), almost all had their own Constitutions drawn up and put to the test for consent: common law trial by jury. A FEDERAL (not National) Constitution was drawn up and sufficed to afford the 13 Nations a fighting chance against the Largest Criminal Army of Aggression for Profit then on the Planet. With the help of France the American Nations under a Federal Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense drove out the Monarchical (Aristocratic) Criminal Military Forces and their Mercenary Employees.
To wit:
First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Then in 1787 the Last Battle of the Revolutionary War was fought by Americans against American Monarchs and Aristocrats in Massachusetts, which became known as Shays's Rebellion, but the freedom fighters called it a regulation: the people regulating their own government. Unfortunately the freedom fighters lost the battle and some of the fighters ran to escape slavery in Massachusetts, they ran and found ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
“When laws do not apply to those who make them, people are not being governed, they are being ruled. Make no mistake, these executive orders are not laws. They are royal decrees. Illinois citizens are not being governed, they are being ruled. The last time I checked Illinois citizens are also Americans and Americans don’t get ruled. The last time a monarch tried to rule Americans, a shot was fired that was heard around the world. That day led to the birth of a nation consensually governed based upon a document which ensures that on this day in this, any American courtroom tyrannical despotism will always lose and liberty, freedom and the constitution will always win.”
That is false. The Shot Heard Around The World was April 19, 1775. The free people organically formed States of competitive Liberty (some States were sanctuaries for runaway Slaves, some not so much), almost all had their own Constitutions drawn up and put to the test for consent: common law trial by jury. A FEDERAL (not National) Constitution was drawn up and sufficed to afford the 13 Nations a fighting chance against the Largest Criminal Army of Aggression for Profit then on the Planet. With the help of France the American Nations under a Federal Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense drove out the Monarchical (Aristocratic) Criminal Military Forces and their Mercenary Employees.
To wit:
First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Then in 1787 the Last Battle of the Revolutionary War was fought by Americans against American Monarchs and Aristocrats in Massachusetts, which became known as Shays's Rebellion, but the freedom fighters called it a regulation: the people regulating their own government. Unfortunately the freedom fighters lost the battle and some of the fighters ran to escape slavery in Massachusetts, they ran and found ...
What happened on Barr bringing justice on behalf of the American people, is justice even possible ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
There is no law in America, it was over-ruled in 1789.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 24, 2020:
There is no law in America, it was over-ruled in 1789.
Geller Report: Who will fight for your rights?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
“When might makes right, the public good is whatever the collective’s masters say it is—argument over.”
In time and place might makes right and that is called a crime scene in that place at that time. Each crime scene is an individual being injured by an individual, the greater might does the injuring to the less mighty. That happens in the absence of the law power: effective deterrence, defense, through accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each individual case, no exceptions, no immunities, no special treatment for special interests.
“There is a silver lining in all this: the curtain has been lifted, we now know exactly what we confront. Present governments and their many bootlickers and minions do not recognize—much less protect or hold themselves subordinate to the protection of—individual rights. Nor should we expect that they will do so within our lifetimes. Absent their replacement via revolution or abandonment via secession, we will continue to live in a political order where they are free to do as they please while we may act only by permission.
If we want our rights, our freedom, and our lives, we’re going to have to fight for them with word and deed. It has ever been so; it will ever be so. Those who choose to fight will have one important ally: rule by brute force is the agent of its own collapse. It has always failed, it always will. Whether we have the virtue and wisdom to replace it with it’s antitheses—freedom and individual rights protected rather than destroyed by government—remains to be seen.
Stay sane.”
Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, also known as the common law, also known as due process of law, also known as the law of the land, also known in Latin as legem terrae, is the law power that affords everyone the opportunity to hold everyone else to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case of might makes right: crime. The power in power is not the law power, it is a criminal power and has been since 1789.
Pertinent data:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"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 ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
“When might makes right, the public good is whatever the collective’s masters say it is—argument over.”
In time and place might makes right and that is called a crime scene in that place at that time. Each crime scene is an individual being injured by an individual, the greater might does the injuring to the less mighty. That happens in the absence of the law power: effective deterrence, defense, through accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each individual case, no exceptions, no immunities, no special treatment for special interests.
“There is a silver lining in all this: the curtain has been lifted, we now know exactly what we confront. Present governments and their many bootlickers and minions do not recognize—much less protect or hold themselves subordinate to the protection of—individual rights. Nor should we expect that they will do so within our lifetimes. Absent their replacement via revolution or abandonment via secession, we will continue to live in a political order where they are free to do as they please while we may act only by permission.
If we want our rights, our freedom, and our lives, we’re going to have to fight for them with word and deed. It has ever been so; it will ever be so. Those who choose to fight will have one important ally: rule by brute force is the agent of its own collapse. It has always failed, it always will. Whether we have the virtue and wisdom to replace it with it’s antitheses—freedom and individual rights protected rather than destroyed by government—remains to be seen.
Stay sane.”
Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, also known as the common law, also known as due process of law, also known as the law of the land, also known in Latin as legem terrae, is the law power that affords everyone the opportunity to hold everyone else to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case of might makes right: crime. The power in power is not the law power, it is a criminal power and has been since 1789.
Pertinent data:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"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 ...
Free to Choose Network: Free To Choose Under 2 Minutes - Episode 2 - The Tyranny of Control
...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
Episode 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RauDli6K5XY
There is a false claim made concerning free markets and "its the human energy which created the United States." time .20 in Episode 1.
The human energy that creates and maintains non-aggressive (non-criminal) competition is individual capacity to invent higher quality and lower cost alternatives to that which is the best so far, releasing free market forces collectively.
Free market "collective" forces:
1. Division of labor
2. Specialization
3. Economies of scale
Individuals must be free to compete, to invent newer and better which replaces older and worse, in order to unlock thereby those free market forces above, and people must be able to freely choose (demand, and then be supplied) better instead of worse.
That is the exact opposite of the creation of the Legal Fiction Nation-State known infamously as the United States.
So already this Chicago School of Free Market Economics launches from a foundation made of quick sand.
Pertinent Data:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
Episode 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RauDli6K5XY
There is a false claim made concerning free markets and "its the human energy which created the United States." time .20 in Episode 1.
The human energy that creates and maintains non-aggressive (non-criminal) competition is individual capacity to invent higher quality and lower cost alternatives to that which is the best so far, releasing free market forces collectively.
Free market "collective" forces:
1. Division of labor
2. Specialization
3. Economies of scale
Individuals must be free to compete, to invent newer and better which replaces older and worse, in order to unlock thereby those free market forces above, and people must be able to freely choose (demand, and then be supplied) better instead of worse.
That is the exact opposite of the creation of the Legal Fiction Nation-State known infamously as the United States.
So already this Chicago School of Free Market Economics launches from a foundation made of quick sand.
Pertinent Data:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option ...
I realise that there are many variations of anarchism.
1. What is your definition of anarchism?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
1. Anarchism is a contentious (duplicitous) word having at least 2 opposing meanings therefore:
a. A social phenomenon in which no one enforces their arbitrary RULE on anyone else; synonymous with freedom and liberty
b. Everyone enforces their arbitrary RULE on everyone else all the time; synonymous with lawlessness
2.
a. Anywhere, anytime, any number of people are not enforcing their arbitrary RULE on anyone else.
b. Anywhere, anytime, any number of people are enforcing their arbitrary Rule on everyone else.
c. Mixtures of a and b anyplace, anytime, as groups of people aggressively enforce arbitrary RULE and groups of people avoid or defend against enforcement of arbitrary RULE
3.
Defensive society (not "my version") requires a means by which those who aggressively RULE by criminal means are accurately accounted as such and those who do the accurate accounting do so in fact. A competitive example of said means by which aggressors are discriminated, known, acknowledged, as such, is the common law, also known as rule of law, also known as due process of law, also known as the law of the land, also known in Latin as legem terrae.
These are not opinions, these are facts demonstrated as facts in times and places factually.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 19, 2020:
1. Anarchism is a contentious (duplicitous) word having at least 2 opposing meanings therefore:
a. A social phenomenon in which no one enforces their arbitrary RULE on anyone else; synonymous with freedom and liberty
b. Everyone enforces their arbitrary RULE on everyone else all the time; synonymous with lawlessness
2.
a. Anywhere, anytime, any number of people are not enforcing their arbitrary RULE on anyone else.
b. Anywhere, anytime, any number of people are enforcing their arbitrary Rule on everyone else.
c. Mixtures of a and b anyplace, anytime, as groups of people aggressively enforce arbitrary RULE and groups of people avoid or defend against enforcement of arbitrary RULE
3.
Defensive society (not "my version") requires a means by which those who aggressively RULE by criminal means are accurately accounted as such and those who do the accurate accounting do so in fact. A competitive example of said means by which aggressors are discriminated, known, acknowledged, as such, is the common law, also known as rule of law, also known as due process of law, also known as the law of the land, also known in Latin as legem terrae.
These are not opinions, these are facts demonstrated as facts in times and places factually.
Free to Choose Network: Free To Choose Under 2 Minutes - Prologue
[youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 18, 2020:
I want to see this and comment on it. Nothing was offered other than introduction in this first message. As a comment I can say that Milton Freedman was from the Chicago Monetarist School and at odds with some of those at the Austrian School of Economics; namely Murray Rothbard.
So a way of introduction I can offer a scale from most Statist (most dictatorial, top down, monopoly, no competition) to least Statist, or most free market in liberty competition to raise the tide that lifts all boats.
Most Statist:
Milton Freidman
Middle:
Murray Rothbard
Most Free Market
Lysander Spooner
From that persective (that scale) I will watch and comment on the messages from the Chicago School of Monetarism.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 18, 2020:
I want to see this and comment on it. Nothing was offered other than introduction in this first message. As a comment I can say that Milton Freedman was from the Chicago Monetarist School and at odds with some of those at the Austrian School of Economics; namely Murray Rothbard.
So a way of introduction I can offer a scale from most Statist (most dictatorial, top down, monopoly, no competition) to least Statist, or most free market in liberty competition to raise the tide that lifts all boats.
Most Statist:
Milton Freidman
Middle:
Murray Rothbard
Most Free Market
Lysander Spooner
From that persective (that scale) I will watch and comment on the messages from the Chicago School of Monetarism.
They tend to jam and snap. 🤣
Josf-Kelley comments on May 16, 2020:
No cloths pin trigger?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 16, 2020:
No cloths pin trigger?
Music 🎶 Question
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
Paul Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rlDTK6QI-w
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
Paul Simon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rlDTK6QI-w
"Q" Sent Me!
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DDXG-dHugc
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DDXG-dHugc
Looks like there will be an interest rate increase to 15% because of Viroud as well as more tax on ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DDXG-dHugc
Josf-Kelley comments on May 15, 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DDXG-dHugc
Very True
[patheos.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 14, 2020:
True for those who think and act as described: individuals. Not true for those who don't think and act as described: individuals. If Jesus based CRISTianity is anything it is the Golden Rule: see Mathew 7:12.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 14, 2020:
True for those who think and act as described: individuals. Not true for those who don't think and act as described: individuals. If Jesus based CRISTianity is anything it is the Golden Rule: see Mathew 7:12.
"In 1787, when our national charter was created, it represented the highest degree of libertarian ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 12, 2020:
"In 1787, when our national charter was created, it represented the highest degree of libertarian thinking that the people were willing to accept and live by. Since then, by amendment and interpretation, the Constitution could have moved either of two ways: toward even more limitations on government (and hence toward still greater individual freedom), or toward fewer restrictions on the political instrument. Of course we know that the movement has been in the latter direction."
That is PURE BULLSHIT.
The move from "our" federal charter to "our" national charter was not a move to "the highest degree of libertarian thinking...bla, bla, bla.."
The move was a crime scene. There was no legal, lawful, moral, or other than criminal standing to annihilate the existing LIBERTARIAN Federal Constitution.
Keep it up and people will continue to become even more stupid and even more servile.
Below is a quote from Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal 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."
1787
George Mason
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"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 ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 12, 2020:
"In 1787, when our national charter was created, it represented the highest degree of libertarian thinking that the people were willing to accept and live by. Since then, by amendment and interpretation, the Constitution could have moved either of two ways: toward even more limitations on government (and hence toward still greater individual freedom), or toward fewer restrictions on the political instrument. Of course we know that the movement has been in the latter direction."
That is PURE BULLSHIT.
The move from "our" federal charter to "our" national charter was not a move to "the highest degree of libertarian thinking...bla, bla, bla.."
The move was a crime scene. There was no legal, lawful, moral, or other than criminal standing to annihilate the existing LIBERTARIAN Federal Constitution.
Keep it up and people will continue to become even more stupid and even more servile.
Below is a quote from Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal 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."
1787
George Mason
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
"But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"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 ...
Bill Gates has stated in a Ted Talk that we need to perfect the vaccines so we can reduce the world ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
Be aware of an origin of this "vaccine" population control effort. Henry Kissinger wrote a paper awhile ago, and the logic or reason for "good vaccine" policy was stated as a method by which more children survive so that fewer parents plan on having as many children as possible to increase their odds of having at least one child survive.
That is the logic or reason for "good vaccine" policy according to the paper by Henry Kissinger.
More children survive.
Parents are not having many children because they face the loss of so many children due to preventable sickness.
The problem with that "good vaccine" policy reasoning is that the "germ theory" is flawed. The causes of child mortality rates being high INCLUDE the misdiagnoses from flawed "germ theory" and the mistreatment of so-called vaccination/inoculation.
When the bodies pile up (billions of dollars in damages paid out of the Public Fund) due to "good vaccine" policy, and no one is held accountable for those injuries and deaths, something rotten is afoot.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
Be aware of an origin of this "vaccine" population control effort. Henry Kissinger wrote a paper awhile ago, and the logic or reason for "good vaccine" policy was stated as a method by which more children survive so that fewer parents plan on having as many children as possible to increase their odds of having at least one child survive.
That is the logic or reason for "good vaccine" policy according to the paper by Henry Kissinger.
More children survive.
Parents are not having many children because they face the loss of so many children due to preventable sickness.
The problem with that "good vaccine" policy reasoning is that the "germ theory" is flawed. The causes of child mortality rates being high INCLUDE the misdiagnoses from flawed "germ theory" and the mistreatment of so-called vaccination/inoculation.
When the bodies pile up (billions of dollars in damages paid out of the Public Fund) due to "good vaccine" policy, and no one is held accountable for those injuries and deaths, something rotten is afoot.
Very interesting article about the Sars-Cov2 virus by a data specialist, and the comments are also ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
"The shape is textbook normal – and I mean ‘normal’ mathematically: as in, it’s an epidemic bell curve, and it’s a great ‘fit’. Forget trying to spot the hockey-stick impact of lockdown: this curve is basically identical to Free Sweden’s; and if the lockdown hypothesis were true, Stockholm would by now be a morgue and Greater Tokyo (population 38 million) a necropolis. (When I complain about people fearfully embracing their incarceration I can no longer even use the phrase ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, and that makes me angry.)"
Good find.
Boom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5VYqJqrtI=youtu.be
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
"The shape is textbook normal – and I mean ‘normal’ mathematically: as in, it’s an epidemic bell curve, and it’s a great ‘fit’. Forget trying to spot the hockey-stick impact of lockdown: this curve is basically identical to Free Sweden’s; and if the lockdown hypothesis were true, Stockholm would by now be a morgue and Greater Tokyo (population 38 million) a necropolis. (When I complain about people fearfully embracing their incarceration I can no longer even use the phrase ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, and that makes me angry.)"
Good find.
Boom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5VYqJqrtI=youtu.be
[youtube.com]
Be aware. Are you aware?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
As to so-called "Quantum Syntax Grammar":
See for example:
http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/WIWD/12-798.pdf
Note: .gov
There is more to this than that which appears on the surface.
However, the fact that the law of the land was, is, and will be the people represented through their trial juries is the same thing in English as it is in "Quantum Syntax Grammar."
The label can be representative of the thing labeled, and the label can MISS represent the thing labeled.
Why?
If the law of the land is as the data shows, data such as the Bill of Rights, and the example Declaration of Independence (original draft), then The People decide what is the law, what is a fact, and they do so while they deliberate as jurors in a Court of Law (common law, law of the land, legem terrae).
If that is true, that the law of the land in English is the law of the land, and in Latin it is legem terrae, and The People decide what is the law as they deliberate as jurors, then who needs "Quantum Syntax Grammar" to spell out that fact as a fact? Just go right ahead and "vote" in a jury, do it, find out what it is in fact, on your own authority using whatever language works when you deliberate the data during the trial. If "Quantum Syntax Grammar" helps during deliberation, then it does, if you study and learn Latin, the same advantage over English may be realized during that trial, or not. The point is to point out that the labels are not the things.
The law is not the word in English "The Law," no more than the law is the "Quantum Syntax Grammar" version of "The Law" in English or Legem Terrae in Latin.
The counterfeit MISS represented symbol (label) for The Law is any of a million falsehoods that can be people parroting (unknowingly, out of ignorance) a falsehood, or people do know they are MISS representing some THING with a false word.
Case in point:
Federation means Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (exemplified in America between 1774 and 1789), and that is a fact that matters.
Nation-State is not a Federation, so why would someone MISS represent a Federation (the thing is a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association) by labeling a Nation-State with the MISS label "Federation."?
If that person in that video is authoritatively explaining how things went bad and how things can be made better, and his key point is MISS representative LANGUAGE, then why does he fail to see the Bait and Switch that happened in 1789? Taking out a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, Free Market Government Services, Higher and Higher Quality Government while Costs of Government Lower and Lower over time, because of Free Market Forces Forcing adaptation, improvement, as people choose better for worse money, insurance, medical care, science, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
As to so-called "Quantum Syntax Grammar":
See for example:
http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/WIWD/12-798.pdf
Note: .gov
There is more to this than that which appears on the surface.
However, the fact that the law of the land was, is, and will be the people represented through their trial juries is the same thing in English as it is in "Quantum Syntax Grammar."
The label can be representative of the thing labeled, and the label can MISS represent the thing labeled.
Why?
If the law of the land is as the data shows, data such as the Bill of Rights, and the example Declaration of Independence (original draft), then The People decide what is the law, what is a fact, and they do so while they deliberate as jurors in a Court of Law (common law, law of the land, legem terrae).
If that is true, that the law of the land in English is the law of the land, and in Latin it is legem terrae, and The People decide what is the law as they deliberate as jurors, then who needs "Quantum Syntax Grammar" to spell out that fact as a fact? Just go right ahead and "vote" in a jury, do it, find out what it is in fact, on your own authority using whatever language works when you deliberate the data during the trial. If "Quantum Syntax Grammar" helps during deliberation, then it does, if you study and learn Latin, the same advantage over English may be realized during that trial, or not. The point is to point out that the labels are not the things.
The law is not the word in English "The Law," no more than the law is the "Quantum Syntax Grammar" version of "The Law" in English or Legem Terrae in Latin.
The counterfeit MISS represented symbol (label) for The Law is any of a million falsehoods that can be people parroting (unknowingly, out of ignorance) a falsehood, or people do know they are MISS representing some THING with a false word.
Case in point:
Federation means Voluntary Mutual Defense Association (exemplified in America between 1774 and 1789), and that is a fact that matters.
Nation-State is not a Federation, so why would someone MISS represent a Federation (the thing is a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association) by labeling a Nation-State with the MISS label "Federation."?
If that person in that video is authoritatively explaining how things went bad and how things can be made better, and his key point is MISS representative LANGUAGE, then why does he fail to see the Bait and Switch that happened in 1789? Taking out a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, Free Market Government Services, Higher and Higher Quality Government while Costs of Government Lower and Lower over time, because of Free Market Forces Forcing adaptation, improvement, as people choose better for worse money, insurance, medical care, science, ...
Blaze: Elon Musk sues Fremont County over its lockdown orders (more strict than Cali's).
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
"Musk announced on Twitter that he will file a lawsuit against Alameda County, the county in which Tesla HQ resides, for "acting contrary" to "our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense!""
Josf-Kelley comments on May 10, 2020:
"Musk announced on Twitter that he will file a lawsuit against Alameda County, the county in which Tesla HQ resides, for "acting contrary" to "our Constitutional freedoms & just plain common sense!""
[youtube.com]
Be aware. Are you aware?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
Time 15:50...or so
The speaker speaks about the end of the Constitution of 1789 being dated at 1999.
That is clearly false from a principled viewpoint, meaning a viewpoint other than the viewpoint claimed by the criminals. The criminals use words to deceive.
Remember at the start of this presentation the man mentions Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was one of the group of people who were opposing the move from a Federation to a Nation-State. Another member of that group (belonging to that group because he too was against the move from a Federation to a Nation-State) was George Mason.
June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen."
June 04, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
How will they do it George Mason, how will these people turn the Federation (voluntary association of free market government services under the common law) into a Dictatorial Nation-State?
George Mason, 1788:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
Time 15:50...or so
The speaker speaks about the end of the Constitution of 1789 being dated at 1999.
That is clearly false from a principled viewpoint, meaning a viewpoint other than the viewpoint claimed by the criminals. The criminals use words to deceive.
Remember at the start of this presentation the man mentions Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was one of the group of people who were opposing the move from a Federation to a Nation-State. Another member of that group (belonging to that group because he too was against the move from a Federation to a Nation-State) was George Mason.
June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen."
June 04, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
How will they do it George Mason, how will these people turn the Federation (voluntary association of free market government services under the common law) into a Dictatorial Nation-State?
George Mason, 1788:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the ...
[youtube.com]
Be aware. Are you aware?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
Time 13:00 or so...
As expected (I am taking my time listening to this presentation) the speaker ignores the original Federal Government between 1775 and 1789. That time period is extremely important: vital knowledge. So why is that time period so routinely ignored? Is it ignorance? Or is it willful censorship of vital knowledge?
Edit 1:
At least the speaker mentions Patrick Henry as one of those in opposition to the Con Con Con Job of 1789, but again the speaker (so far) makes no mention of the existing Federal Government leading up to the Con-Con in Philidephia in 1787.
There were 12 relatively organic Constitutions in 12 states, one state had no constitution, and many states had bills of rights between 1774 and 1789. There was an existing Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a voluntary association for mutual defense UNDER the common law, with trial by jury (trial by the country, not trial by the government) in what was (and is) known as a Court of Law; not Court of Equity, Court of Admiralty, Court of Exchequer, or any other Summary Justice Court where the "government" dictates dictatorial decisions.
Why is this glossed over as if it wasn't a fact that matters?
Edit 2:
Then the speaker claims that the Bill of Rights prevented dictatorial powers dictated by the dictator upon the dictator's victims (my words not his), but that is false. The speaker then jumps ahead to 1999.
There is a very clear series of events that show how the dictators took over America and it happened in 1787 through 1789, not 1999.
Shays's Rebellion proved that the Federation was one: Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, as the President presiding over the Association of Sovereign people in Sovereign States did not have the power to conspript a National Army of slaves (conscription is a dictatorial power executed by dicatotors upon slaves) to crush the Last Battle of the Revolutionary War (Shays's Rebellion) in Massachussets.
Clearly the original Federation was a Federation, not a Nation-State Dictatorship at the time the criminals (British Tories) in Massachussetts turned Massachussetts into a Dictatorship, causing the Rebellion in Massachussetts, with standard dictatorial proceedures: counterfeit central banking fraud, exise taxes, national debt, asset siezures, Summary Justice Courts (Equity, Admiralty, Fraudulent Debt Collection Agency) and Central Control crushing competition Nation-wide (Massachussets was a Nation-State).
The last battle of the revolutionary war was lost by the Rebels in Massachussets, but proof of the legitimacy of a truely Federal Association (voluntary) was proven as some of the slaves who rebelled in Massachussetts were able to escape to find sanctuary in Vermont (another ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
Time 13:00 or so...
As expected (I am taking my time listening to this presentation) the speaker ignores the original Federal Government between 1775 and 1789. That time period is extremely important: vital knowledge. So why is that time period so routinely ignored? Is it ignorance? Or is it willful censorship of vital knowledge?
Edit 1:
At least the speaker mentions Patrick Henry as one of those in opposition to the Con Con Con Job of 1789, but again the speaker (so far) makes no mention of the existing Federal Government leading up to the Con-Con in Philidephia in 1787.
There were 12 relatively organic Constitutions in 12 states, one state had no constitution, and many states had bills of rights between 1774 and 1789. There was an existing Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was a voluntary association for mutual defense UNDER the common law, with trial by jury (trial by the country, not trial by the government) in what was (and is) known as a Court of Law; not Court of Equity, Court of Admiralty, Court of Exchequer, or any other Summary Justice Court where the "government" dictates dictatorial decisions.
Why is this glossed over as if it wasn't a fact that matters?
Edit 2:
Then the speaker claims that the Bill of Rights prevented dictatorial powers dictated by the dictator upon the dictator's victims (my words not his), but that is false. The speaker then jumps ahead to 1999.
There is a very clear series of events that show how the dictators took over America and it happened in 1787 through 1789, not 1999.
Shays's Rebellion proved that the Federation was one: Voluntary Mutual Defense Association, as the President presiding over the Association of Sovereign people in Sovereign States did not have the power to conspript a National Army of slaves (conscription is a dictatorial power executed by dicatotors upon slaves) to crush the Last Battle of the Revolutionary War (Shays's Rebellion) in Massachussets.
Clearly the original Federation was a Federation, not a Nation-State Dictatorship at the time the criminals (British Tories) in Massachussetts turned Massachussetts into a Dictatorship, causing the Rebellion in Massachussetts, with standard dictatorial proceedures: counterfeit central banking fraud, exise taxes, national debt, asset siezures, Summary Justice Courts (Equity, Admiralty, Fraudulent Debt Collection Agency) and Central Control crushing competition Nation-wide (Massachussets was a Nation-State).
The last battle of the revolutionary war was lost by the Rebels in Massachussets, but proof of the legitimacy of a truely Federal Association (voluntary) was proven as some of the slaves who rebelled in Massachussetts were able to escape to find sanctuary in Vermont (another ...
Trump's Federalist approach to the virus is working-
[thefederalist.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
The Papers called "federalist" are wrong. I don't know why they call themselves "federalist."
"Trump’s many critics have seemed confused over the past two months over whether they would prefer him to take national control over the fight against the virus or to take a federalist approach in which he empowers the states."
The Nation proves that it is no longer a Federation of States: it is one Monopoly Nation-State, with ONE dictator in charge. If the dictator in charge grants, gifts, awards, empowers, transfers, imparts, delegates, a "privilege" to a number of "States," then said dictator could be claimed as a "benevolent dictator" running the dictatorship Monopoly Nation-State.
Evidence is overwhelming:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 9, 2020:
The Papers called "federalist" are wrong. I don't know why they call themselves "federalist."
"Trump’s many critics have seemed confused over the past two months over whether they would prefer him to take national control over the fight against the virus or to take a federalist approach in which he empowers the states."
The Nation proves that it is no longer a Federation of States: it is one Monopoly Nation-State, with ONE dictator in charge. If the dictator in charge grants, gifts, awards, empowers, transfers, imparts, delegates, a "privilege" to a number of "States," then said dictator could be claimed as a "benevolent dictator" running the dictatorship Monopoly Nation-State.
Evidence is overwhelming:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the ...
[youtube.com]
Be aware. Are you aware?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 8, 2020:
A pack of lies grows exponentially. Why give it credit?
Josf-Kelley comments on May 8, 2020:
A pack of lies grows exponentially. Why give it credit?
America was founded by people who did not accept the existing corrupt Authority.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 8, 2020:
"The solution to a corrupt system has to lie outside the system."
Which system?
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 8, 2020:
"The solution to a corrupt system has to lie outside the system."
Which system?
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity ...
CIA & MI6 reveal evidence on Chinese Corona virus cover up.
[dailytelegraph.com.au]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 3, 2020:
"t states that to the “endangerment of other countries” the Chinese government covered-up news of the virus by silencing or “disappearing” doctors who spoke out, destroying evidence of it in laboratories and refusing to provide live samples to international scientists who were working on a vaccine."
Josf-Kelley comments on May 3, 2020:
"t states that to the “endangerment of other countries” the Chinese government covered-up news of the virus by silencing or “disappearing” doctors who spoke out, destroying evidence of it in laboratories and refusing to provide live samples to international scientists who were working on a vaccine."
TYRANNY! ANTI Individuals & ANTI Small Businesses LOCKDOWN A Targeted ATTACK on OUR INDEPENDENCE - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
"Both women were charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which comes with a maximum potential penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine."
That is an example of Summary Justice. That won't happen in a Court of Law.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
"Both women were charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which comes with a maximum potential penalty of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine."
That is an example of Summary Justice. That won't happen in a Court of Law.
MUST SEE: How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health - [youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
Any individual who willfully causes death or lesser injury (or greater) to innocent people is called a criminal. In a world without law, which is a world run by criminal gangs, the best able to profit by consuming innocent people quickest get the gold ring.
Once people have had enough of life without law, people may start demanding law power.
That would be nice.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
Any individual who willfully causes death or lesser injury (or greater) to innocent people is called a criminal. In a world without law, which is a world run by criminal gangs, the best able to profit by consuming innocent people quickest get the gold ring.
Once people have had enough of life without law, people may start demanding law power.
That would be nice.
What is government's proper role in reopening the food economy?
[reason.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
I got to "(under a 1950 law)" and decided not to read any further.
As to:
"What is government's proper role in reopening the food economy?"
The actual government (not what is currently passing - by treasonous fraud - as government) is only there for our employment, as we volunteer to finance our mutual defense.
If someone is damaged by someone else, then the government is useful to people, otherwise why call it government?
Who is damaging people in the case where some people order other people to stop earning their way in life?
I'd like to know the facts that matter in the case, just in case there is an actual demand for the law power: government.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
I got to "(under a 1950 law)" and decided not to read any further.
As to:
"What is government's proper role in reopening the food economy?"
The actual government (not what is currently passing - by treasonous fraud - as government) is only there for our employment, as we volunteer to finance our mutual defense.
If someone is damaged by someone else, then the government is useful to people, otherwise why call it government?
Who is damaging people in the case where some people order other people to stop earning their way in life?
I'd like to know the facts that matter in the case, just in case there is an actual demand for the law power: government.
Those who would destroy our lives with lies, will themselves be destroyed by the truth!
...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
It (life supported by lies) is worse than that, as explained in so many ways, and so many examples, throughout history. Is it, or is it not, true:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 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," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
It (life supported by lies) is worse than that, as explained in so many ways, and so many examples, throughout history. Is it, or is it not, true:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 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," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
Next News Network: EXCLUSIVE: Drs.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
How bad is the level of ignorance in America concerning the law? I'm not talking about Statutes written by legislators, or routines of behavior currently perpetrated by so-called Law Enforcement Officers, which include all personnel who are employed by any executive (execute = enforce) department at any level from town, to city, to county, to state, or to Nation-State (it is not a federal government, not since 1789), and I am not talking about Summary Justice, or Equity Court, Admiralty Court, or any court other than a Court of Law court decision, claiming to be an official lawful decision, so as to then know what is or is not law. I am asking about the level of ignorance in America concerning the law of the land, the common law, with private prosecutors, private defendants, non-government - independent - grand juries, and independent trial juries: that law.
Why would someone assume that someone must be arrested before trial? A trial by jury is an opportunity offered to everyone facing an accuser (private prosecutor) in a Court of Law, where the people as a whole are represented by randomly selected jurors taken from that whole, that Public, and those jurors determine any fact at issue, such as facts of guilt, facts of what is or is not lawful, and facts of what is or is not a just judgment, remedy, restitution, or punishment if the presumed to be innocent accused is proven to be guilty. The accused does not have to prove innocence. The accused defendant can explain precisely why the accused defendant is not guilty of harming anyone, not on purpose, not by accident, and not as a pretend authority who claims to have the God power to decide who has to die in order for other's to live.
Of course the problem with the law is that the level of ignorance can become so ubiquitous that the "authorities" get away with playing God, and the people believe that such power is lawful, and people forget that it is their duty to reason things out reasonably, instead of following blindly the lies told by the counterfeit authorities.
So...who agrees that an independent grand jury ought to be formed in defense of all the people so far injured by Snake-Oil salesmen selling their junk science "vaccinations" and if those independent grand jurors agree that there is probable cause on behalf of the victims to offer Bill Gates, or "Dr." Fauci, their chance to defend themselves before a lawful trial jury, then the grand jury writes up a presentment (indictment) and that is delivered to the defendants for their appearance in a Court of Law, which is then a Public Trial, complete with Trial Transcripts, so as to finally find out what is fact and what is fiction in this case, according to the law?
Arresting someone before asking for their appearance in a Court of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on May 2, 2020:
How bad is the level of ignorance in America concerning the law? I'm not talking about Statutes written by legislators, or routines of behavior currently perpetrated by so-called Law Enforcement Officers, which include all personnel who are employed by any executive (execute = enforce) department at any level from town, to city, to county, to state, or to Nation-State (it is not a federal government, not since 1789), and I am not talking about Summary Justice, or Equity Court, Admiralty Court, or any court other than a Court of Law court decision, claiming to be an official lawful decision, so as to then know what is or is not law. I am asking about the level of ignorance in America concerning the law of the land, the common law, with private prosecutors, private defendants, non-government - independent - grand juries, and independent trial juries: that law.
Why would someone assume that someone must be arrested before trial? A trial by jury is an opportunity offered to everyone facing an accuser (private prosecutor) in a Court of Law, where the people as a whole are represented by randomly selected jurors taken from that whole, that Public, and those jurors determine any fact at issue, such as facts of guilt, facts of what is or is not lawful, and facts of what is or is not a just judgment, remedy, restitution, or punishment if the presumed to be innocent accused is proven to be guilty. The accused does not have to prove innocence. The accused defendant can explain precisely why the accused defendant is not guilty of harming anyone, not on purpose, not by accident, and not as a pretend authority who claims to have the God power to decide who has to die in order for other's to live.
Of course the problem with the law is that the level of ignorance can become so ubiquitous that the "authorities" get away with playing God, and the people believe that such power is lawful, and people forget that it is their duty to reason things out reasonably, instead of following blindly the lies told by the counterfeit authorities.
So...who agrees that an independent grand jury ought to be formed in defense of all the people so far injured by Snake-Oil salesmen selling their junk science "vaccinations" and if those independent grand jurors agree that there is probable cause on behalf of the victims to offer Bill Gates, or "Dr." Fauci, their chance to defend themselves before a lawful trial jury, then the grand jury writes up a presentment (indictment) and that is delivered to the defendants for their appearance in a Court of Law, which is then a Public Trial, complete with Trial Transcripts, so as to finally find out what is fact and what is fiction in this case, according to the law?
Arresting someone before asking for their appearance in a Court of ...
Gavin Newsom is Patrick Bateman
Josf-Kelley comments on May 1, 2020:
If someone is going climb on top of the pile of murder victims to then claim authority to rule the criminal dictatorship, then it stands to reason that the job qualification is psychopath.
Josf-Kelley comments on May 1, 2020:
If someone is going climb on top of the pile of murder victims to then claim authority to rule the criminal dictatorship, then it stands to reason that the job qualification is psychopath.
Serious question.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 29, 2020:
I won't be pretending my vote counts, for the pedophile or the guy that allows the Nazi Party to enforce mask wearing.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 29, 2020:
I won't be pretending my vote counts, for the pedophile or the guy that allows the Nazi Party to enforce mask wearing.
voiceofeurope. "Japan Begins Mass Trading Exodus From China."
[twitter.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
This is more of that Wow stuff, like all the oil tankers full and no where to unload, and all the meat packers killing livestock and dumping them in mass graves.
There is to be expected a serious of unfortunate events as the World Monopoly Power struggles to maintain their power based upon deception.
The tide may have turned.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
This is more of that Wow stuff, like all the oil tankers full and no where to unload, and all the meat packers killing livestock and dumping them in mass graves.
There is to be expected a serious of unfortunate events as the World Monopoly Power struggles to maintain their power based upon deception.
The tide may have turned.
Dr.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
Wuhan Virus Treasonous Fraud
Where are the indictments? No law in America? Gone is justice: justice delayed is justice denied.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
Wuhan Virus Treasonous Fraud
Where are the indictments? No law in America? Gone is justice: justice delayed is justice denied.
funny monday meme
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
I'm going to save that one.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
I'm going to save that one.
CAPTION THIS :
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
If I close my eyes they can't see me, but I can't close my eyes, so I'll hide under my bed to be safe at home base.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
If I close my eyes they can't see me, but I can't close my eyes, so I'll hide under my bed to be safe at home base.
American businesses are rebelling against Covid-19 closures...
[redstate.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
"Eliot Rabin, a New York City businessman owns a boutique in Upper East Side is defying the shutdown orders and opening his store. “I’m opening my doors come hell or high water,”
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
"Eliot Rabin, a New York City businessman owns a boutique in Upper East Side is defying the shutdown orders and opening his store. “I’m opening my doors come hell or high water,”
Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason Behind the Lock-Downs? – OffGuardian
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
Two examples of this scam were Polio and AIDS/HIV.
The routine is already established, this new version is an upgraded carbon copy.
Like the Prince from Africa asking for the MARK to open a bank account, so that the Prince from Africa can deposit millions of dollars for safekeeping by the MARK, the money placed in the bank by the MARK to start the account is stolen by the Prince from Africa.
There isn't just one Prince from Africa, just like there isn't just one Snake-Oil Salesman. It is a con, it is a routine. The routine can be fit for a new occasion, adaptable, and improved, but it is the same con.
The Polio Treasonous Fraud was pesticides made of arsenic and lead, used to kill a particularly troublesome moth pestilence, and that made people sick, where their nervous system was destroyed by the poisons. When they stopped using the poison, people stopped getting sick by the poison. The Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman arrive on the scene with a fraudulent Rt-Pcr test that amazingly finds a "virus" in the samples of RNA taken from the Polio victims. What is actually found is evidence of a suspected viral microorganism in the RNA sequences, but that is only found if the test material is "amplified" (40 times in this Wohan virus test) to ensure the possibility of maybe finding that evidence of those specific strings of RNA. Too much "amplification" and every single test will test positive.
So...a fake virus affords the team of Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman the opportunity to make a killing on the affected (infected with blind belief in falsehood without question) population. As the cause of the sickness begins to dilute and as fewer and fewer people are injured, the "vaccine" is forced on people by this Fraud (causing injuries) and since the actual cause of the sickness is already nearly gone the Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman take credit for Wining the War on Viruses once again.
Actual facts don't matter, and actual facts are actually avoided, such as using the method to factually find the cause of the symptoms. That would be like the MARK asking the African Prince for the money up front to open the bank account.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 27, 2020:
Two examples of this scam were Polio and AIDS/HIV.
The routine is already established, this new version is an upgraded carbon copy.
Like the Prince from Africa asking for the MARK to open a bank account, so that the Prince from Africa can deposit millions of dollars for safekeeping by the MARK, the money placed in the bank by the MARK to start the account is stolen by the Prince from Africa.
There isn't just one Prince from Africa, just like there isn't just one Snake-Oil Salesman. It is a con, it is a routine. The routine can be fit for a new occasion, adaptable, and improved, but it is the same con.
The Polio Treasonous Fraud was pesticides made of arsenic and lead, used to kill a particularly troublesome moth pestilence, and that made people sick, where their nervous system was destroyed by the poisons. When they stopped using the poison, people stopped getting sick by the poison. The Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman arrive on the scene with a fraudulent Rt-Pcr test that amazingly finds a "virus" in the samples of RNA taken from the Polio victims. What is actually found is evidence of a suspected viral microorganism in the RNA sequences, but that is only found if the test material is "amplified" (40 times in this Wohan virus test) to ensure the possibility of maybe finding that evidence of those specific strings of RNA. Too much "amplification" and every single test will test positive.
So...a fake virus affords the team of Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman the opportunity to make a killing on the affected (infected with blind belief in falsehood without question) population. As the cause of the sickness begins to dilute and as fewer and fewer people are injured, the "vaccine" is forced on people by this Fraud (causing injuries) and since the actual cause of the sickness is already nearly gone the Mad Doctors, Quacks, and Snake-Oil Salesman take credit for Wining the War on Viruses once again.
Actual facts don't matter, and actual facts are actually avoided, such as using the method to factually find the cause of the symptoms. That would be like the MARK asking the African Prince for the money up front to open the bank account.
Samuel Little
Serial Killer
Samuel Little was born on June 7, 1940, in Reynolds, Georgia, to a...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 26, 2020:
If a dog goes mad and finds 100 children in a playground, and then moves to another playground where another 100 children are not yet dismembered, the deaths of those children fall under the term actus reus, meaning a fact, not a willful decision.
A willful decision is mens rea, which is Latin for guilty of mind.
In any case 200 children are dismembered.
The mad dog then moves to the third playground.
To me it is a crime to allow the mad dog to move to each new playground, and the blood of those children are on the hands of those who could have done something.
This is not news. And if someone is going to blame a jury, or someone is going to blame the common law and trial by jury, for the errors associated with a NOT GUILTY verdict in this case, then someone ought to show how they arrive at that conclusion given the FACT that government agents routinely lie (a treasonous crime) to juries and without inculpatory evidence that would, in fact, prove at least the actus resus (a matter of fact if not a matter of guilt of mind) accountability for those deaths charged to that killer.
A mad dog is a killer, but who would allow that killer to freely move from child to child dismembering them as if nothing or no one could stop the killing, on a fraudulent legal technicality?
It is routine for the guilty to be set free by murderers in government, for whatever reason, or for criminal insanity on the part of the murderers in government, and who then is going to step in and stop it, so as not to pass on that responsibility, and accountability, to someone else?
Following is offered in common law history (not fake government history):
Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.
Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.
Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?
Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.
Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.
Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 26, 2020:
If a dog goes mad and finds 100 children in a playground, and then moves to another playground where another 100 children are not yet dismembered, the deaths of those children fall under the term actus reus, meaning a fact, not a willful decision.
A willful decision is mens rea, which is Latin for guilty of mind.
In any case 200 children are dismembered.
The mad dog then moves to the third playground.
To me it is a crime to allow the mad dog to move to each new playground, and the blood of those children are on the hands of those who could have done something.
This is not news. And if someone is going to blame a jury, or someone is going to blame the common law and trial by jury, for the errors associated with a NOT GUILTY verdict in this case, then someone ought to show how they arrive at that conclusion given the FACT that government agents routinely lie (a treasonous crime) to juries and without inculpatory evidence that would, in fact, prove at least the actus resus (a matter of fact if not a matter of guilt of mind) accountability for those deaths charged to that killer.
A mad dog is a killer, but who would allow that killer to freely move from child to child dismembering them as if nothing or no one could stop the killing, on a fraudulent legal technicality?
It is routine for the guilty to be set free by murderers in government, for whatever reason, or for criminal insanity on the part of the murderers in government, and who then is going to step in and stop it, so as not to pass on that responsibility, and accountability, to someone else?
Following is offered in common law history (not fake government history):
Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.
Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.
Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?
Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.
Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.
Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath...
UK Mother ‘Named and Shamed’ on Facebook For Not Clapping For the NHS
[summit.news]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
That is an infamous crime during the Stalin Regime, but in that case it was the first to stop clapping that was erased from the gene pool.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
That is an infamous crime during the Stalin Regime, but in that case it was the first to stop clapping that was erased from the gene pool.
World history was written in an environment of scarcity.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
This is as you say a process that is already working, a damand already leading to attempts to meet that demand with a supply. The obvious problem is the construction of the process by which fraud is accurately discriminated from false, inaccurate, and accurate data.
So...there is a demand for a process by which fraud is accurately divorced from data that is not fraud, and therefore attempts will be made to supply that demanded process.
What do you have in mind? What process do you think will work to separate and isolate fraud so as to protect and serve potential victims, keeping victims insulated from harm by fraud?
Also, why death?
Exile can afford all those who want fraud to get it or add to it as much as they want, so long as the non-fraud network is not hacked, invaded, and frauds are again allowed to run amok in that formerly insulated, protected, secure, playground?
An example may help someone having trouble seeing this with a story line:
People who grew up with Television logged hours of exposure to advertisements that were often subliminal and fraudulent. Then in the age of the World Wide Web a phenomenon occurred for a shot period of time where the new generation found the "fast forward" buttons, and the media that was free from exposure to fraudulent advertisements, if they cared to do so, and then fraudulent advertisements began to retake that lost power with examples known as "demonetization."
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
This is as you say a process that is already working, a damand already leading to attempts to meet that demand with a supply. The obvious problem is the construction of the process by which fraud is accurately discriminated from false, inaccurate, and accurate data.
So...there is a demand for a process by which fraud is accurately divorced from data that is not fraud, and therefore attempts will be made to supply that demanded process.
What do you have in mind? What process do you think will work to separate and isolate fraud so as to protect and serve potential victims, keeping victims insulated from harm by fraud?
Also, why death?
Exile can afford all those who want fraud to get it or add to it as much as they want, so long as the non-fraud network is not hacked, invaded, and frauds are again allowed to run amok in that formerly insulated, protected, secure, playground?
An example may help someone having trouble seeing this with a story line:
People who grew up with Television logged hours of exposure to advertisements that were often subliminal and fraudulent. Then in the age of the World Wide Web a phenomenon occurred for a shot period of time where the new generation found the "fast forward" buttons, and the media that was free from exposure to fraudulent advertisements, if they cared to do so, and then fraudulent advertisements began to retake that lost power with examples known as "demonetization."
MAKE AMERICA FREE AGAIN & LETS GO BACK TO WORK!!
The Still Report: Stanford Prof The Data is in, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
That is Bill Still from Money Masters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB-pdPaQNKA
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
That is Bill Still from Money Masters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB-pdPaQNKA
My dogma ate my homework.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
If people are indoctrinated (brainwash, mind control, false advertising, filled with lies, contradictions, leading to cognitive dissonance, depression, powerlessness, hopelessness, misdirection, division, etc.) as claimed by John Taylor Gatto and many others, including the perpetrators themselves, then people can be lead to a state of trustlessness, or they can trust that there is no hope.
Why do they then get up in the morning?
What is a habit? Breathing, eating, sleeping, and then there is either productive activity or destructive activity, with a very slim window of opportunity to act in such a way that there is no positive or negative consequence.
If a part of the indoctrination is such that someone can believe that they "trust" in what is done by their tormentors, then that phenomenon has a label:
Stockholm Syndrome.
"feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor."
There are how many cases of missing children in the modern slavery business, now called Human Trafficking?
What if I trust the numbers published by those who are in charge of that monopoly of that market?
How about a Google Search?
"In 2019, there were 421,394 reports of missing children to the FBI's National Crime Information Center. The wide range of reasons why a child goes missing makes solving these cases complex and multifaceted."
Now, how about some less "official" information?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ggxiBWv4xYE=emb_logo
Efforts to solve these cases become complex when the perpetrators issue orders to the investigators to stop or else. Is that trust?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
If people are indoctrinated (brainwash, mind control, false advertising, filled with lies, contradictions, leading to cognitive dissonance, depression, powerlessness, hopelessness, misdirection, division, etc.) as claimed by John Taylor Gatto and many others, including the perpetrators themselves, then people can be lead to a state of trustlessness, or they can trust that there is no hope.
Why do they then get up in the morning?
What is a habit? Breathing, eating, sleeping, and then there is either productive activity or destructive activity, with a very slim window of opportunity to act in such a way that there is no positive or negative consequence.
If a part of the indoctrination is such that someone can believe that they "trust" in what is done by their tormentors, then that phenomenon has a label:
Stockholm Syndrome.
"feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor."
There are how many cases of missing children in the modern slavery business, now called Human Trafficking?
What if I trust the numbers published by those who are in charge of that monopoly of that market?
How about a Google Search?
"In 2019, there were 421,394 reports of missing children to the FBI's National Crime Information Center. The wide range of reasons why a child goes missing makes solving these cases complex and multifaceted."
Now, how about some less "official" information?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ggxiBWv4xYE=emb_logo
Efforts to solve these cases become complex when the perpetrators issue orders to the investigators to stop or else. Is that trust?
My dogma ate my homework.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
"...you talk about counterfeit trust, I don't see it that way."
That may be a consequence of many factors not the lease of which is that we are looking at two different things. If I am looking at the sun at noon, and you think I am looking a darkness in a deep cave, then of course I am not "seeing" that darkness in that cave. I can, if you want me to, lets look into that dark cave.
People use Dollars USD, Federal Reserve Notes.
Now, are you going to tell me that the value of those Federal Reserve Notes (purchasing power) depends upon trust? I'm going to suggest that it is not, rather that value is dependent upon counterfeit trust: falsehood.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford
"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 ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 25, 2020:
"...you talk about counterfeit trust, I don't see it that way."
That may be a consequence of many factors not the lease of which is that we are looking at two different things. If I am looking at the sun at noon, and you think I am looking a darkness in a deep cave, then of course I am not "seeing" that darkness in that cave. I can, if you want me to, lets look into that dark cave.
People use Dollars USD, Federal Reserve Notes.
Now, are you going to tell me that the value of those Federal Reserve Notes (purchasing power) depends upon trust? I'm going to suggest that it is not, rather that value is dependent upon counterfeit trust: falsehood.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford
"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 ...
Constitution of the Web
Life = timestamp, Netizen Birthday
Liberty = Free speech
Pursuit of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 24, 2020:
If the idea is to construct access to each other digitally (software not hardware) for every beneficial purpose known or hopefully invented (adaptation) for all and at the same time design the software so as to deter any thoughts by anyone of "gaming the system" so as to consume the precious value of innocent people and take that value from them for individual profit at the expense of the targeted victims?
If that is the general idea, then what constitutes an infringement worthy of penalty, and who decides, or how is that decision made?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 24, 2020:
If the idea is to construct access to each other digitally (software not hardware) for every beneficial purpose known or hopefully invented (adaptation) for all and at the same time design the software so as to deter any thoughts by anyone of "gaming the system" so as to consume the precious value of innocent people and take that value from them for individual profit at the expense of the targeted victims?
If that is the general idea, then what constitutes an infringement worthy of penalty, and who decides, or how is that decision made?
My dogma ate my homework.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 24, 2020:
"Ideological Mortality on the web."
OK, you may want to start over with this present effort.
If you want help constructing software designed for a specific purpose, which then reaches the goal of launching that device (such as a competitor to Facebook, Amazon, Google, IDW, etc.), then rewrite the introductory message to spell that out more clearly. I think that you are onto something fundamental, but as can be seen in the exchange already from this initial public offering (a form of currency) the data fails to communicate the intended message for obvious, less obvious, and not obvious reasons.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 24, 2020:
"Ideological Mortality on the web."
OK, you may want to start over with this present effort.
If you want help constructing software designed for a specific purpose, which then reaches the goal of launching that device (such as a competitor to Facebook, Amazon, Google, IDW, etc.), then rewrite the introductory message to spell that out more clearly. I think that you are onto something fundamental, but as can be seen in the exchange already from this initial public offering (a form of currency) the data fails to communicate the intended message for obvious, less obvious, and not obvious reasons.
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
48193 members
Jordan Peterson Group
25437 members
Ben Shapiro Group
22986 members
Joe Rogan Group
16345 members
Just Jokes and Memes
14496 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
5513 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
2269 members
Learning from Christ
2237 members
President Donald J. Trump... Latest
2066 members
Saving Western Civilisation
2055 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
897 members
COVID-19
765 members
The Great Reset
708 members
The Second Amendment Sanctuary
649 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.
327 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
43 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