What I'm doing, and why

Ladies and gentlemen of the nation, people of all races, colors, sects, religions, and ideals. This morning, I go forth to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. The right thing is never easy to do, nor is it ever simple to contemplate, particularly in matters where the government can take that liberty. But it is still the right thing to do, and conscience compels me to do it.

We talk in this nation glowingly of liberty and rights, but we have forgotten their foundation. We speak of things that we know little of, like parrots. There were four major rights in the beginning, from which all other rights flowed... the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property, together with the ability to defend all of the above.

No person was free unless he had all of those things. We are born free, we were guaranteed to live free. In many constitution these rights are enshrined, for instance, in the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.Inalienable rights of man. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Inalienable means that we have no right to transfer it, control it, regulate it, register it. We have no power to allow the government to control it, nor does the government have the legitimate authority to do so.

I believe in the rights of all people, and my studies of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers both, the continental congress, and the Declaration of Independence and the British Common Law upon which it was founded all point to the same thing.

We are not a democracy, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. All of the founding papers spoke of true democracy as the destroyer of freedom. We are a constitutional representative republic, with all that entails. As a republic, we have the voice of the people, the vote, to speak to our representative s. If those representative s fail to represent us, we have the right to remove them by the vote. If that system of voting is subverted, there is another right, the second amendment having been enshrined so all able-bodied persons capable of bearing arms could not only be the voice of their own discontent, but the arm to restrain the government from precipitate action.

Together with the great powers entrusted to the government, were specific guarantees. The greatest of these for liberty were the right to keep and bear, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from establishing a religion or religious obligation upon the people, and freedom from the people themselves removing or altering the rights of themselves, or others within the republic.

In any free nation the right to have, exercise, and express civil rights is the same as the right to have, exercise, and express religious rights. The government cannot license the exercise of a civil right, cannot contain it or constrain it, else they are exercising the powers of ownership that were reserved to the people themselves.

Those very powers of ownership, the powers to control those rights, belong in the hands of the people, as a rightful safeguard against tyranny.

Across the centuries, much has been lost, and the excuse that the political right lies in the majority has been advanced, and that the majority's rights exceed that of the minority, but think about it a moment. if the majority's view of 'right' is the only view of right and wrong, is it not within the power of the majority to enslave and to despoil the minority, if they believed that such would advantage them? Could they not then winnow their ranks until no person save the very few were parts of those in power? Is this not tyranny, the bellum omnia in omnia spoken of by the ancients, the war of all against all?

Is it not a more frightful means of destruction of all the constitution stood for, freedom, and liberty, for ourselves and our posterity?

Hence the great gift our nation gave to us, the republican principle. No law could levy itself unequally upon any. If there were any advantage conferred by law, that advantage must be enjoyed by all. If the law conferred any penalty, the penalty must be borne by all.

Otherwise, what happens? False and designing men will make mock of the constitution, and enable laws, to separate the society, one part against another, to enflame them in disputes, to steal property from one and give it to another, and to place under the people under the heel of the law, that very law which should rightfully serve the legitimate interests of the people, and restrain their baser impulses.

It is law that keeps us safe, and free. Without law there is no freedom, for in that state of anarchy, the stronger may easily oppress the weaker, until it fractures and becomes the slaves of those stronger yet. It is in this interest that the republican principle was created, the separation of powers, the checks and balances, and the powers of the people themselves being limited to laws that affect all equally.

It is in that interest that I challenge the Sex Offender Registry. For the law to stand, the rule of law must be maintained and preserved. If that rule of law has fallen, and there is no recourse to laws that are void under the constitution, if there is no right to safety, to preservation of liberty and property, to life itself, then the law has turned itself against the people for whom it was created.

I try the law to prove a far more important law.

Because these rights were preserved to ourselves and our posterity, and that government enshrined that liberty in its foundational documents, our nation was in error from the beginning. No slaves could be kept under that principle. No discrimination by means of law could be legal. No status could be made that separated one part of the people from the other, save through the criminal courts, for the duration of the just sentence, which could not thereafter be altered or redefined, save for a new crime.

No crimes could be levied against a free citizen, save for both the actus and the mens rea, the criminal act, and the criminal mind. No act can be criminal that is within the rights, and preserves the rights of others. No act can assume, nor create any 'greater rights' in any group of citizens than another.

It is the purpose of the courts to dispense justice, and justice can never be just if the nation can alter that judgement to increase the penalty, and the removal of rights is a removal of a property that has no assignable monetary value.

It is necessary in the rule of law for there to be separations from society, when society has been wronged. Indeed, the courts themselves were created to judge the wounds to society, not to the individual victim. Equally, the protection the police assign is to the society, not to the victim. We have no individual right to police protection, nor can we sue the police, even for knowing and deliberate failure to protect, and even.. if the police or law denies you the ability to protect yourself.

At that point, there is no protection, no ability to seek safety, to preserve life or liberty, and any such law must fall.

More heinous yet, however, is a law that simultaneously not only denies the rights of self-protection, but also holds up a citizen or class of citizens to public scrutiny as monsters, simultaneously denying them, and the states, the inherent right to justice.

Justice is balanced, justice is based in truth, and not in emotion. It must consider both the wound to the society, and the nature of the perpetrated act, balancing law with reasonableness and right.

The registry fails this test. Upon the registry, you can be sentenced to a single year, and then spend the rest of your life as a registrant. Even if you are removed from the registry, or even given a full pardon, which by the law eliminated the onus of the crime, moving to another state, for any reason, suddenly somehow reinstates it, and allows the new state to determine what rights you are denied. We are tried, not for the acts we do, but for the acts we may, or may not commit. We are tried, not for a criminal mind, and a criminal act, but tried for the fear which people view us due to the status that the government has imposed upon us, without our assent, calling it a civil matter.

Consider this however. No civil matter can be made, save with consent. If there is coercion involved, there is not consent. If there is fraud involved, in either party, there is not consent. If the person is not free to deny consent, then there is not consent. This is contrary, as well, to the rule of law.

Further, no civil matter could provide any criminal penalty, and simply separating and creating a criminal act for a failure to consent to a civil matter is not within the civil law either. It is a violation of both the original, fundamental contracts with which our states, and our nation was founded, but also of justice itself.

If a law denies the rights of life, liberty, property, and the ability to defend them, applies to only a small group, gives them disadvantages that can be altered at any time, at a whim, without that group's permission or review, then it can never be just. It is only a tool of punishment, and one used only by the greatest tyrants in history.

That is why I go before the court of law. That is why this law must be tried, and why this law must fall. If this law is not tried, and does not fall, there is no longer recourse, no longer a republic, and it is the duty of all of mankind, all patriots, all citizens, to respond to the danger and return the law to its proper place, as a servant of man, and not as a tyrant, by whatever means necessary, from the trial of the law upon a man's own body, or trial of the law by the right of restoring it the service of mankind, by the force of arms.

As is, was, and will remain your right.

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.
– John Locke
Read more!

Alea Iacta Est.

We each of us, have our own journeys, our own trials, our own inner barriers which must be overcome. Tonight, perhaps, the true depth of those trials of conscience hit home.

When a man crosses his Rubicon, and the battles are inevitable, when a man looks into his heart and realizes the dangers that lie in believing, but still chooses to believe, that time, that moment, changes something in him.

The battle will be long, but win or lose, worth it.

I salute you all, of whom I have grown so proud.

Would that I had years to spend with the future, with learning and speaking with each of you, but that is not to be. Each moment of our lives, we sit, and wait, but for what do we wait? Do we wait for a savior to come, to rescue each of us? Is it not said that God helps those who help themselves?

I may not be able to communicate for quite some time. The die, after all, is cast, the game begun, for better, or for worse, for truth or ill. The challenge must be thrown down to achieve a better tomorrow. It is not done in haste, and never could be, but to be true to myself, I could never turn my back on this challenge, not when it has been presented me in such trappings.
I love my nation, my fellow citizens, too much to turn my back on the suffering there.
And so the die is cast... and for better or worse, the game will be played, the Rubicon crossed, and I cannot look back.

People may ask what I mean by saying things such as this, but the law must be tried. There are laws, and there are foundations to law. When the law expands outwards from its foundations, beyond the scope for which it was proposed, the law itself is doomed to fall. It is the duty of men, especially men of conviction and men of conscience, to try the law in the venues available to them, afore more precipitous action is taken. It is my intent, my duty, and my obligation to break the law, in order to uphold the more foundational law.

The doctrine of stare decisis is a curious thing, once a belief that the doctrine must not always be relied upon, but only where based from the foundational principles, to become 'settled law' which must not be examined today. However, today I intend to unsettle the law, to rip up the flagstones and determine if the foundation is still sound.

I intend to break a law, a federal law, and a state law that cannot exist under the constitution. In the Idaho State Constitution, as in many constitutions within the States, there are certain inalienable rights. These rights are supported by others, and by specific limitations placed not only upon the governments, but upon the people. The Constitution states that the federal government must guarantee a republican form of government to the states. This republican form of government was guaranteed to attempt to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and to guard that great and arduous task, we preserved the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, under the Magna Carta, and the rights under the writs of William and Mary of Orange.

These rights were enshrined long before the constitution to all, regardless of race, of class, and intended to end tyranny. Slavery itself was in debate, as the end goal of tyranny itself.
If you have rights, inalienable rights, and you are denied the exercise of those rights, do you still have them?

There is a phrase written in many state constitutions, in varying forms, and with varying measures, it reads as: . All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
It occurs in varying forms, in one case stating the fruits of their labors, in another happiness, or in another going so far as to state the right to keep and bear arms as being directly reserved to the people as an inalienable right.

Such it was considered, after all, in the beginning, and that right to self-defense even got the soldiers in Rowe's Wharf's massacre an innocent verdict, for reasons of self-defense.
The trials of Zenger, Throckmorton, and Bushell are nearly forgotten now, but they also bear a strong and striking purpose in the foundation of the nation. They were talked about as to the nature of the jury, and the very nature of sedition. The greatest defense against sedition is the truth, as it was with Zenger, and Throckmorton.

And the truth is that the American People, and their congressmen and senators, their executives and judges, have for decades, nearly a century, been lied to.

The Federalist Papers are not merely one view of the constitution, they were the view of the constitution by the founders of the constitution, those very federalists, and in response to strong attacks by the antifederalists. The antifederalists brought up opposition to the constitutional plan, problems that may lie within aspects of the plan, and flaws that were perceived, the federalists explained how the plan itself was intended to work to prevent such problems.
They are an explanation of the purpose, the intent, and the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Until a man is willing to stand up for his rights, they are not rights. Until he is willing to insist upon them, they cannot be so called. Until he is willing to exercise them in his own defense, no matter what the law may say, they do not exist.

Men fear the government, but so too the government fears its citizens. Why else would there be so active, so prominent, an attempt to remove the rights of the citizens that were enshrined for their own defense?

And not just defense against the 'Indians' or against each other, but against tyranny from all sources?

If tyranny is allowed to exist, men will ever be only tyrants or slaves. When the law can levy its burden upon one man more heavily than another, or act upon the rights of a group, it can be used to the advantage of others, and the detriment of any group.

So I break the law to sustain the law. I have accepted in full that burden, and do so actively, knowingly, and with the only remorse being for the necessity.

When a nation has fallen so far that the only recourses are trying the law upon your own person, or rebellion, where do we stand?

Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.

— Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

— Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

– Samuel Adams

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

– Samuel Adams.

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

– Samuel Adams

All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.

– Samuel Adams

Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.

– Samuel Adams

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety

to us, as in our own hands?

– Patrick Henry
The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

– John Quincy Adams

The power of the legislative being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.

– John Locke

[F]or nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds that way.

– John Locke

There is no further recourse through the voting booth. False and designing men have arranged to make those electronic polls far more easy to rig than even paper ballots, or votes counted 'in secret' behind a screen by the touch of a hand upon another. There is no oversight, and no recourse there. Indeed, the courts themselves may no longer be a recourse. As of this moment men can be dragged from the streets, arrested, and made to disappear, for supposed crimes, dragged beyond the walls of the nation, tortured into compliance and tried for the crimes they 'admit to' to end the torture.

And if they happen to die, it was for the good of the nation.

From your past you'll see the patterns that are coming to your future, in the present. Courage, patriotism, it's all well and good when it's just ideals, but so few are willing to stand up to the law, to stand up for things simply because.. it is the right thing to do. They worry about family, selves, jail time. But injustice is injustice, and I cannot remain free so long as an injust act remains. No man can be free that does not equally strive for the freedom of others. I'd considered running away, leaving this nation and its laws behind, but I cannot be so cowardly, after all, it is rank and arrant cowardice to flee when others make war against you.

Usurpation of the rule of law, destruction of its level and equity, decimation of the court and judicial systems, all are symptoms of the real problem. We do not, many of us, know our rights, or our limitations in a republic. The truth is the greatest power is in us ourselves. We are the masters of our future, so long as we do not deny that right to self-mastery to any other. The rulers forget that the greatest duty is to the people, not to their own power base or the lobbyists or anything else. The duty of the Representatives are to their constituents, and the duty of the senate is to the states, and if they fail at that duty, then they must be removed, and tried. Every ruler is bound in mastery to his people he rules. He is made a servant in chains of propriety, and shackles of service... as Cincinnatus once said, the more I lead, the more I serve.

When you look out the window, you dont' see the real tyranny, it lies hidden. They come in the night, the nacht und nebel, the night and fog. They take away people and they are never heard from again, nor seen, nor spoken of. It is as though they no longer exist.

Such placement of the rule of law under the thumb of the civil magistrate, the legislator, or the executive is naught but treason. Does it matter what they call it, if your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone, your right to a public hearing, gone, your right to hear the accusations against you... gone? If they refuse under national security to reveal the charges and evidence against you, can you defend yourself?

If the law does not apply equally, to kings and emperors as well as serfs and prisoners, if it levies its load more firmly upon the back of any one man than any other, society suffers, bleeds, and dies.

I've applied for help from the ACLU, from the Rutherford Institute, from the Cato institute. I have no money for attorneys, nor means by which to fight this through a civil suit. I have little enough of anything, and if the only asset I have is my life, then that is the asset I shall spend. I've grown to love life again, but what they are offering is not life... it is a never-ending slavery, torture, and subjugation.

Think about this... what happens when a man cannot leave his state without the rules changing, and when he arrives to a new state... they can change the punishment as they see fit, without ever seeing the evidence, the case, the punishment, the crime, or even the judge and jury's notes? Is that just? Can it not be extended however to regulate any other crime, and are you innocent of all crimes? I'm quite certain in that volume of federal codes there is some felony of which you are guilty... and therefore your rights are as empty as my own.

But the law must be tried, before it is set aside to repair and restore the constitution. Failure in this measure is not an option. The law must be tried to the best knowledge of man, and wholly and solely on constitutional issues. No defense attorney in the world is willing to do such.

As of this moment, this is my last recourse.

And if this recourse fails, the final recourse, the one to be avoided at all costs, save when there is no other occurs. Restoration of that constitution by rebellion.
How much more precious than a pence is your life, and rights? How much more valuable can it be than the very things that allow you to be free, that maintain that freedom? Indeed, at this date I cannot guarantee, as I have said, that I shall not simply disappear, a victim of extraordinary rendition. However, if such happens, the recourse is ended.

Under the law, in Idaho, I no longer have a recourse for the restoration of rights, and therefore, the only recourse I have is to challenge the law upon my own body.
May God have mercy upon my soul, and upon those who still yet refuse to help me.

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.

– William Blackstone

"It is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

-- John of Salisbury: Policratus

"If the king ceases to govern the kingdom, and begins to act as a tyrant, to destroy justice, to overthrow peace, and to break his faith, the man who has taken the oath is free from it, and the people are entitled to depose the king and to set up another, inasmuch as he has broken the principle upon which their mutual obligation depended."

-- Manegold

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of "emergency". It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And "emergency" became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains

. — Herbert Hoover.

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.

– John Locke

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

– Samuel Adams

Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism,--tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Did they contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of the throne? Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference? Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted, our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and our wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, without our feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation which God has given us?

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would take the authority to make your child a slave simply because you had nourished him in his infancy?

It is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for the defense of our property a surrender of those inestimable privileges to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone gives value to that very property.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us! —remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If we 1ove wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense.
Read more!

Unalienable rights, attainder, and law.

How often have you heard from a person, “They did (x) so they have no rights?” Have you really thought about this statement much? Have you said it?

Many people do not know what rights are, or what it means for a right to be inalienable. To explore this, we must look at the term itself. Inalienable and unalienable were used interchangeably by the founding fathers, and the root of the term is a contrary (in or un) and 'alienable', or to make foreign. The term 'alienation' was a specific legal term in property law, following the premise from the 1760s that rights themselves were matters of property. Alienation was a transfer of power over property between parties, as one person would 'alienate' the property from themselves, and the other would fully assume control.

If a man has 'unalienable' rights, and under the law cannot transfer, or have transferred by civil court those rights into the hands of another, what does this mean? Men (used as the term denoting all mankind, i.e. Homo Sapiens and all decendents) have specific rights to live, granted not by government fiat, but by the fact that they are alive. If a man cannot transfer those rights, and others cannot thus legally transfer them, then how can they lose those rights?

We live within a constitutional representative republic based in those rights, not a democracy. The purpose was to limit the power of the government against the people, and the power of the people against each other. It was designed to prevent the needs of the few being outweighed by the needs of the many, or the needs of the many being outweighed by the needs of the few. It did not matter if the tyrants were the majority, or the minority, the government or the people, tyranny was tyranny regardless of the form.

If your rights may be alienated and transferred to the government, who is to say if that government, or the people themselves, may be brought to a point where they deny you your right? Are you going to establish your right to protest the government when you are disarmed, and disabled, in a prison cell without the writ of habeas corpus, or even anyone other than the government knowing you are there?

Are you going to establish your innocence when they have the power to torture, and send you off for torture? Are you going to be remembered for your mewling confession under torture? The right to effective resistance is one of the fundamental rights. Society, itself, has means of dealing with the few who choose to commit crime, and harm others. The whole of society when armed in the cause of liberty can stop any force brought to bear against it. An unarmed society, however, when others who are less willing to abide by law maintain arms, is a society of victims; it is equally capable of being victimized from those outside of that society, as by its own government which believes should protect it.

Rights are for all classes. Attainder was the establishment of new classes by 'taint', that had easy identification, and removal of the rights of that class by edict, punishable by the courts of law without trial. Attainder (attaindere) literally means a taint. Should our government, or the people thereof be able to establish classes with 'less' rights than any other citizen outside of the bounds of the penitentiary or punishment by jury trial... what is to prevent them from other classes, including the class of the whole?

If your unalienable rights are alienated by writ.... so is control over your life, your body, and your beliefs. Think about it.

Read more!

The nature of slavery.

I think sometimes people have forgotten what slavery is, in modern definition, and in the ancient. In many cases, the modern definition agrees with the ancient, as it does with the founding fathers.

There is more to the definition of slavery, by International Law. These laws were pioneered by the United States, as was the Declaration of Human Rights.

The Anti-Slavery Society's copy of the 1926 act.

(1) Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
(2) The slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.

This was expanded in 1930, and again in 1956.
1930 forced labor convention
The 1930 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention included the use of forced labor for racial, social, national or religious discrimination.

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour:

(a) As a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system;
(b) As a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development;
(c) As a means of labour discipline;
(d) As a punishment for having participated in strikes;
(e) As a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination.

1956 SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION ON THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, THE SLAVE TRADE, AND INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES SIMILAR TO SLAVERY

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

(a) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

(b) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

(c) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

(d) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.

The 1956 definition was finally ratified by the U.S. in 1957, thus giving it the force of law, and adding its definition (and all prior definitions) to the definition within the 13th amendment.

The laws of firearm control have long been used to attempt to maintain slavery, as has the manipulation of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm
as per

http://www.carnellknowledge.com/interesting-facts-about-democrats-and-republicans/ :

After The Civil Rights Act was passed Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.

The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

These are verifiable, however, I don't know what all they left out on the other side of the equation, or what was taken out of context.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat – either in the House or the Senate – voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote. "Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void."

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

And yet... somehow the parties both have drifted. The original term 'republican' was those that believed a constitutional republic (designed to safeguard the rights of the people, against each other and the government) and 'conservative', i.e. the conservators of rights were the people.

The term 'democrat' was for those that believed the power of the people should be less fettered, and the term 'liberal' was akin to 'libertarian', i.e. the government had no business in people's lives.

How far we've drifted. With the work of tireless minorities, tireless activists in both parties, the parties have grown so utterly polarized that they are moving together on the far end. Extreme social programs arise, as do extreme punishments and responses. The 'left' and 'ultra-liberals' have no bearing on liberty, and the 'ultra-right' and the 'ultra-conservatives' have no bearing on rights.

Frankly, in either direction, they have lost the entire point of their power, the rights and liberties of the people, the powers of the state, and the limitations upon those powers were all needed for rights and liberties to exist.

Slavery? If they'd followed the original constitution, it would have ended in 1808 with the ban on the importation of new slaves, and the requirement that at that date they would have to make some tough decisions on the practice. Those provisions on slavery (the 3/4 a person clauses) were included at the insistence of slaveowners, to give the south a larger vote with its lower population.

Ultimately, a great many of the founding fathers believed slavery to be wrong, even as they practiced it. All men have their own blind spots, as I have my own. I believe any person enslaved, abused, or controlled is wrong. They can be stopped if they are in commission of a crime, held for the punishment of crime, after a full and fair trial, or even executed for that crime, but once the judgment is ended, it is ended.

To do otherwise is its own form of slavery.

"What, then, is life to me? it is aimless and worthless, and worse than worthless. Those birds, perched on yon swinging boughs, in friendly conclave, sounding forth their merry notes in seeming worship of the rising sun, though liable to the sportsman's fowling-piece, are still my superiors. They live free, though they may die slaves. They fly where they list by day, and retire in freedom at night. But what is freedom to me, or I to it? I am a slave, -- born a slave, an abject slave, -- even before I made part of this breathing world, the scourge was platted for my back; the fetters were forged for my limbs. How mean a thing am I. That accursed and crawling snake, that miserable reptile, that has just glided into its slimy home, is freer and better off than I. He escaped my blow, and is safe. But here am I, a man, -- yes, a man! -- with thoughts and wishes, with powers and faculties as far as angel's flight above that hated reptile, -- yet he is my superior, and scorns to own me as his master, or to stop to take my blows. When he saw my uplifted arm, he darted beyond my reach, and turned to give me battle. I dare not do as much as that. I neither run nor fight, but do meanly stand, answering each heavy blow of a cruel master with doleful wails and piteous cries. I am galled with irons; but even these are more tolerable than the consciousness, the galling consciousness of cowardice and indecision. Can it be that I dare not run away? Perish the thought, I dare do any thing which may be done by another. When that young man struggled with the waves for life, and others stood back appalled in helpless horror, did I not plunge in, forgetful of life, to save his? The raging bull from whom all others fled, pale with fright, did I not keep at bay with a single pitchfork? Could a coward do that? No, -- no, -- I wrong myself, -- I am no coward. Liberty I will have, or die in the attempt to gain it. This working that others may in idleness! This cringing submission to insolence and curses! This living under the constant dread and apprehension of being sold and transferred, like a mere brute, is too much for me. I will stand it no longer. What others have done, I will do. These trusty legs, or these sinewy arms shall place me among the free. Tom escaped; so can I. The North Star will not be less kind to me than to him. I will follow it. I will at least make the trial. I have nothing to lose. If I am caught, I shall only be a slave. If I am shot, I shall only lose a life which is a burden and a curse. If I get clear, (as something tells me I shall,) liberty, the inalienable birth-right of every man, precious and priceless, will be mine. My resolution is fixed. I shall be free."

-- James Madison, The_Heroic_Slave: Part_1

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty ——so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—— and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

BECCARIA, CESARE, On Crimes and Punishment, 1764

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

COXE, TENCH, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[B]ut if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

MASON, GEORGE,, during Virginia’'s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

WEBSTER, NOAH, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution Defects, and Abuses, 1774

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

ADAMS, SAMUEL, in Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789


I have but one question for the 'Honorable' gentlemen of the house of representatives, the Senate, the Federal Government and president. If the purpose of punishment was not to make restitution for crimes that could not be ended, then what is its purpose? If it is not to deal with the pain of society, and make the individual peaceable with them, is it not attainder? Cannot any punishment thus be levied upon a citizen, if that purpose is not true? Is it not the purpose of society to heal itself, even from those who have wronged it? If those individuals are not made peaceable by the judgment, if that onus is not ended with the end of the judgment, then what is its purpose and measure, except as a measure of slavery? If retribution can be meted outside of that framework, and rights can be destroyed, is it not true that those that make the law can make anything a criminal act? If attainder is allowed upon one segment of the population, is it not suddenly available to be used for all?

Can any man be free, so long as any man is a slave? Or is the truth really that we merely are marking the time until they decide to enslave... us?


Remember how we were talking about how registries expand?
H.R. 45

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.'.

Also, the federal government cannot exempt itself from its own laws.

SEC. 801. INAPPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any department or agency of the United States, of a State, or of a political subdivision of a State, or to any official conduct of any officer or employee of such a department or agency.

(c) Elimination of Prohibition on Establishment of System of Registration- Section 926(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 701. SUBORDINATION TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

In the event of any conflict between any provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act, and any provision of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751), the provision of the Arms Export Control Act shall control.

Arms Control Export Act

One thing to remember is the Weimar government attempted to disarm the nazis early on... and then when the Nazis took control, the laws were broad enough to be used for other purposes. They didn't need to pass gun control laws at that point.

Wikipedia on history of German Firearm Control

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Germany was a constitutional government, even under the Weimar republic and Hindenberg. They had their congress. (the Reichstag), for all the good it did them.

Look back at history, and ask yourselves if anyone seeking further power for emergency reasons has ever, even once, corresponded in their use to the reasons they were claimed?

The Alien and Sedition acts:
The U.S. Government's internment of Japanese and German Americans.
The U.S. Patriot Act.
The U.S. Military Commissions Act.
The 'Enabling Act' of the German government, after the Reichstag fire.

In the German Weimar Republic, an Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was a law passed by the Reichstag with a two-thirds majority, by which the government was authorized to legislate without the consent of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for the specified time. This is to be distinguished from the provisions of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed the President to legislate by decree in times of emergency, subject to the veto of the Reichstag. An Enabling Act was supposed to be used only in times of extreme emergency. Only two Enabling Acts were ever passed:

* the first Enabling Act was in force in 1923-24, when the government used an Enabling Act to combat hyperinflation.
* the second Enabling Act, passed on March 23, 1933, was the second stepping-stone after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which Adolf Hitler obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State"). It carried a four-year sunset clause (and would also have lost force should another government have been appointed) but was renewed in 1937, 1941 and 1944. In contrast to the Enabling Act of 1923, this Act covered changes to the constitution, excepting only the existence of the Reichstag, the Reichsrat and the office of President.

the Sedition act of 1918, and the Espionage Act.


History is replete with these actions.

Make your own decisions on what these things mean... from slavery and bigotry to firearms control, and those that are proposing it. Are they really doing what they are saying that they intend to do?
Read more!

Cynicism: it's not just for breakfast anymore.

The current President Elect, our 'Candidate for change'... brought in to help with the finances one Paul Volker, from Chase-Manhattan bank. Paul Volker, if you will recall, was the one that, nigh singlehandedly, caused the last recession in 1982, when he decided to 'squeeze the inflation out of the market' by instituting massive interest rate hikes. This policy led to something that was called at the time, "The Third World Debt Crisis".

Meanwhile, in the United States, we've crippled our economic drivers, our factories, our industry. Due to high union wages, high environmental taxes, increased retirement costs, due misinvestment and misallocation of retirement benefits, we've created a class of pensioners that the companies must support by contract, even though they are no longer generating revenue. Were this done by simple trust funds, paid in from their wages, and limited to the payment from those wages, and long-term bond-backed investments, it would be a quite different thing.

We have enough oil, natural gas, iron, coal, aluminium, limestone, oil shale, titanium, gold, silver, uranium, and about any other material needed to run the country for a very, very long time, at the old rate of expansion of use. (Conservative estimates for oil were at 300-500 years, and natural gas potentially for a thousand.). We also have, and had, one of the best industrial complexes in the world... which has since moved offshore, and into foreign countries.

Our economy cannot be driven on service alone. The industrial capacity of the country, for national security reasons, must be such that we produce every critical thing that we need.

We could, properly utilizing the bread basket states alone, feed the world, with food to spare. In the interest of pandering to their lobbyists, however, grain rots in the fields, in the silos, to maintain prices. Fields are left fallow, not to regenerate them, via crop rotation, but due to the interest of controlling crops grown to maintain prices.

Our goods more and more are designed with a lifespan that is... frankly, rediculous. I have an old 1950s sunbeam mixer... that still operates. It still beats bread dough (not just batter), after over 50 years. Our mixers today? Very few of them will hold up to that kind of abuse for more than a few weeks.

We design our vehicles with non-interchangeable parts, design them so they have to go back to the factory technicians or certified techs for repair. We have outlawed small two-stroke motors used to convert bicycles into small mopeds, at 200 mpg, due to 'Inefficiency and pollution' and replaced them with 40mpg four-stroke units. We've redesigned tires, redesigned our televisions, by law banned incandescent bulbs and replaced them with flourescent lights that are filled with materials that the EPA says are toxic enough to require evacuation of parts of a building upon their breakage.

Our food continues to be more and more adulterated, chemicals placed in them, and with them that are known to have deleterious health effects. Our vaccines contain the same toxins as our lights, mercury.... mercury thimerosol, in some cases, 20x the maximum allowable dose per pound of weight for an adult, into our most vulnerable population, our children. It is toxic enough that to dispose of it, one would have to move the material to Envirosafe sites, as toxic waste.

We watch with stunned horror as atrocities are committed overseas, by dictators, but close our eyes to the same atrocities done by our own government. We decry torture, but engage in it, and when called for our duplicity, outsource the torture to foreign governments.

Was it not an argument of our very own Declaration of Independence that secret trials, trials by tribunal rather than jury, moving people overseas, denying them a defense, denying them due process or remediation of grievances... was tyrannical?

Was it not an equal argument of our founding fathers that the troops of the Federal Government should never be used against their own citizens?

Was it not, ladies and gentlemen, an argument of those very same founding fathers, that no person should have their rights removed, save by the due process of law, trial by jury, and then only for the time decided by the judge and jury as due recompense for the crime against that society?

If due recompense was paid in, as Winston Churchill wrote 'The hard coinage of punishment', how can any society demand more?

Yet we do. We rail against the felon, reach out to block them reintegration, distrust them, provide no services for them when they leave the system. We provide no counseling, minimal education, minimal support groups... and then wonder, when we push them to the edge of society, at the corruption of the felon.... when we gave them no chance at all to return and be embraced back into the society that they wronged.

Criminal judgements are not about the individual. They are public law, and thus prosecuted by a public attorney, by the state, or county. It was considered worse to be imprisoned than to lose money, so less protections were made upon the courts in private matters.

Now, that selfsame private law is being usurped in an attempt to incarcerate. Regulation is a means of control. It has ever been so. The census itself is regulatory, determining the nature of a population in an area, their affluence, and their influence. The census has equally been used for atrocities. From the Jews, leading to the trials at Nuremberg, to the Japanese-Americans, leading to a presidential apology.... humanity has had a long history of using regulatory registries for purposes quite opposite to their original intent.

From the registration of firearms, to their collection and destruction, as seen in Great Britain, Australia, and Nazi Germany, registration has been utilized to make a free people substantially less than free.

When any people, any nation, makes the choice to allow their own regulation, to allow the registration of their whole, or any part, ultimately, that society and people become less free. The regimentation of laws continues, unopposed, and destroys the origin of that society. When fear becomes the motivation for law, law itself falls, and turns from a scalpel in a surgeon's hands, repairing problems, to a machete of butchery.

What is the ultimate form of control of a people? When the government uses their army, or the army of others, to subjugate the people to their will. This is why there is an absolute prohibition, and has been for over a century and a half, against the use of US troops on US soil against US civilians, and an absolute prohibition against the beginning on the use of foreign troops on US soil against US citizens.

Some may feel that what I write goes far beyond what is accurate or reasonable. This is their right. Some may perceive me as having my own agenda... and indeed I do. That agenda is the restoration of the Constitutional Republic, and the restoration of the rights of all citizens, and the placement of the control of that government back into the hands of the citizens with all due prohibitions on the powers of that government returned to place.

It is patterns, after all, that relate the past to the present. Patterns wend and wind their ways through our world, a warp and weft that can be seen with a small amount of effort. Often, even unconscious effort can create patterns, accidental patterns that lead to similar results. Patterns are a pressure, a tide, written in history that can be applied again, and again,, and unless they are recognized for what they are, cannot be stopped.

Each and every thing I've posted, I have done my best to research. Each and every thing that I have spoken, I stand behind. If what I write is treasonous, or seditious, it is because the government has deviated from the agreement in the beginning. My positions, my goals, my ideals are in line with the origins of the government, of liberty for all mankind, due diligence for their rights and immunities pre-existent to the constitution, and the restoration of constitutional government.

What I write may be shocking, it may be controversial, but it is what I believe to be the truth. Americans are educated away from a great deal. Our history books contain very little on the founding fathers, nothing on the federalist or antifederalist papers, almost nil on the constitutional convention, the origin of the bill of rights, or even the discussions of the Declaration of Independence or history behind it.

When the past is considered dead... when any government agency starts rewriting the past, the future is in jeopardy. Eastasia has, after all, always been at war with eurasia... regardless of what our memories may say.

We might be shoeless and homeless, and not able to get jobs, but after all, the government says everything is ok, so it must be imaginary.

Production of food is up... if we're not getting enough of it, it must somehow be our enemy's fault.

Orwell had a lot of things to say about these very things.. 1984, Animal Farm. The Founding Fathers had a great deal to say as well, as did John Locke.

If you disagree.. do your own research. Look at what I've had to say, and look it up. The journey will be educational either way... and even if we don't agree at the end of it, we'll both be learning.

That is growth.




Read more!

Martial law and you.

Friends, I come to you in mourning... Martial law is here, by definition and in truth. I don't know how much longer I will be allowed to write this blog, it does not really matter. There is a great deal more you need to know.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/

Heretofore, this blog has been a set of observations, each proceeding from things I've seen, things I've understood, dug through, and looked through in history.

Let me elucidate: Under martial law, the constitution is suspended, and you have no rights.

It is equally martial law if they do not call it such. It is equally martial law if they simply take your rights away and never tell you... and we are in a state of war. We are slaves to a tyrannical government, a government that was implemented and designed in the interests of a nation being governed by the people, and that government being limited from restricting the rights of others. Our liberties, our freedoms, all of them were founded prior to the government, and extended throughout that period, with the understanding that said government could not, and had no power to infringe upon those rights, those liberties which they guard, and the freedoms and immunities which pre-existed the government itself. The only means by which the government could assume tyrannical power was by its military, which was to be opposed by the militia. The Federalist 26 directly addressed this subject.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery."

This is, by its very nature, a definition of the right, and the duty, under the Constitution to secede, and/or dissolve the original contract. The rights and immunities under the constitution were not established via the constitution, or the government, they pre-existed the government.

See the Boston Journal of the Times, April 13, 1769

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.^"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-20

If, as the government argues, the second amendment was to preserve the militia to the states, how does it excuse the seizure of the National Guard to the Federal Government's control?

The nation has violated the contract which created it, a civil contract bound in tradition, and common law.

At this date, common law falls... and all men are transformed into slaves.

A strong statement? Perhaps. Look, however, at the definition of slavery in the 1956 anti-slavery compact, signed in 1957 by the US government...

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/slavetrade.htm#wp1034251


Article 1

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

( a ) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

( b ) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

( c ) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

( d ) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.


Article 7

For the purposes of the present Convention:

( a ) "Slavery" means, as defined in the Slavery Convention of 1926, the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status;

( b ) "A person of servile status" means a person in the condition or status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1 of this Convention;


Compare this to the federal reserve, a system of debt bondage by which we, as the American Citizens, are placed in a condition of debt bondage, subject to the seizure of our real property, goods, chattel, and person for the failure to pay a debt created not by our own actions, but by the policies of a government that appears inimical to our national and personal wellbeing. Our capital paid in taxes is not applied to the principle, nor the interest of the debt, but used in the creation of further debt. Should we fail to pay the taxes, paid in company scrip, redeemable only with the company itself, we face prison time and loss of all putative assets.

Is this not slavery? Do we not need a passport to leave our country, and to return? Do we not require, by law, the permission of our nation to leave and return, and our return can be barred for any or no reason, as can our leaving.

We can be transported across the seas for prison or trials, without representation.

At this point, within each and every possible measure, we are slaves, and the Federal government is in violation of every possible section of the Declaration of Independence's grievances.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
And now they move in the troops? Perhaps our nation has forgotten the statements of Patrick Henry:

"Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We are a nation of patriots, a nation of men and women engaged in the most arduous struggle of all, that struggle for liberty, for freedom from the unjust and impositional government that arbitrarily changes the law, changes the punishments of men, and changes and destroys the rule of law in the mindless seeking of power.

If we mean to be free, if we mean to maintain that freedom for which our forefathers fought and died, we must be true patriots. The war is... already begun, a war created against the citizens of the several states, a war fought on the financial front, on the power of a few men choosing to seize and assert control over a nation by deception and fraud.

We are not taught of our freedoms, nor of the foundations. We are not taught to look at those who are most despised to see how they are treated, nor are we shown, by that, what our government's innermost nature is.

The troops are come, and are training to come to your door, and to remove your means of resistance, and we still sit here idle and prattle on about this and that, as though any of it matters without our freedoms and our rights.

Our rights guard our freedoms... if rights are not equal for all, they exist for none. Any class asserted to be 'less worthy of rights' is easily expanded. Any class of persons deemed to be 'problematic' ultimately leads to an 'ultimate solution'.

If we have learned nothing from the past, should we not at least have learned that it is our most despised people that betoken our own ultimate fate?

But then... we would have to look at ourselves... and realize that we too are slaves, and we strike out at the least liked because they are unprotected, using them as the whipping boy of a government gone mad.

Ask yourselves, gentlemen and ladies, whence the powers they seized came? Ask yourselves what it means to be free... and measure it against a world that would throw you aside in an instant for the seeking of power...

Then ask yourselves what you can do about it. It is laid out in law, in tradition, and in the very arguments used to pass the Constitution, and enforcing the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Then ask yourselves if you can still sit idle, and allow those rights to be torn away from others. it matters not who they are torn from, we are as evil for sitting idly by and doing nothing as for doing the tearing ourselves.

And then look deep into your heart and ask yourself if your comfortable conditions are really comfortable, or just an illusion.

All of your stuff, all of your money, everything... is a sham. It's smoke and mirrors, created by a press and political system.. that intends, and has the power to take it away from you at a whim, and on suspicion, not via due process, not via trial by jury, but on suspicion without any possibility of court action or representation.

Is it so comfortable now?
Read more!

Do you really want to read this?

By reading this, your world may change irrevocably. By sitting down, researching, and attempting to understand the views herein posted, your nation may cease to be quite what you think it is, and become something that you would not recognize. If you are not prepared for what is herein written, not prepared to see your world, your hopes crumble... leave now. This is not a place for you. You are welcome to question, welcome to research, welcome to delve into the archives, but you must enter with both an open mind, and are likely to leave with a heart filled with anger.

I am writing about a problem that came to my attention some time ago, a problem of massive proportions, one of incredible scope. The problem is a simple one, on the face of it, but far more complex in practice. This is a problem of monies and economies. Our nation claims that the free market system has failed.. and much as I hate to say this, it has. To help you understand this, I need to delve back into the past, into a time that seems far simpler.

Money, once, was recognizable symbols of wealth, from the cow to the stone ring, to the gold and precious stones. Money was tangible, capable of being held in the hands, used to turn into jewelry, in the case of barter, eaten, or used for other things. We came forward with gold and silver as a recognizable currency, items of value torn from the earth and value-enforced by their scarcity.

There was a rate of trade, determined by supply and demand, for the value of these things in comparison to the value of goods and each other. Gold and silver, for their scarcity and purity, were valued at specific rates. Eventually, money-changers came on the scene in order to convert one money into another. For a very long time, it was unlawful for one group to charge another for changing their money, so often the coins would be shaved, the weights altered. This led to myriad schemes for detection of such chicanery, for instance, the raised rings around coins, the serrated edges, and faces placed upon the ingots.

Now we move forward... to the creation of banks. Banks were instituted to store, and hold money, in means 'safer' than hiding it in one's own home. Part of this was to prevent the theft of the money, and the threat to the home by burglars and highwaymen. Eventually, bankers discovered a great deal of the bulk of that gold never left their vaults, small amounts would shift, but rarely was there a shift of the bulk of the money. They started giving out paper certificates in place of the money, guaranteeing the money to be delivered to other banks, or private individuals. After a time, the slips were doubled in number, then increased tenfold. At a 10:1 ratio of paper money to gold reserves, the runs on the banks were inevitable. The 'real money' to balance the debt (a bill of credit from the bank) did not exist. These events were just before the creation of our Constitution, a financial collapse created by the banks' failed policies, which then lead to the backers of those banks seizing assets from those who were granted 'loans' from those banks.

In order to combat this, the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, or making anything but gold and silver legal tender. The congress was established with the power to set the weights and measures of gold coin, silver coin, and the people were allowed to determine what that tender was worth.

These were tangible assets, with a tangible exchange rate, and the value was determined by both buyer and seller. If the buyer felt that he could get a better deal elsewhere, he went elsewhere to get it. If a seller felt that the buyer was offering too little, he did not have to sell.

Another financial panic, nearly two centuries later, ended this system. Paper monies (bills of credit) were again being issued by the Bank of England, and a crash in this system created a financial panic, a fairly minor one, by the measure of what was to come. The federal reserve was instituted during this panic, in 1913, by congressmen desperate to save jobs, and thereby lives, and their country.

Paper money was legal, and a corporation was instituted to oversee it. This corporation is, and was, the federal reserve. The central 'federal reserve' is a government institution. The subsidiaries are not. There are twelve member banks, which control the Federal Reserve, which are private. These federal reserve banks help appoint the board of the federal reserve itself. They are under the control of the regulatory body which they appoint... to regulate them.

A system more designed for corruption is difficult to imagine, but let us explore it further. These member banks required outside loans in order to be instituted, and monies to drive the system. The federal reserve printed paper money, with specific backing in gold and silver. The right to turn in these bills of credit for the gold or silver was not denied. This kept the paper bills, in theory, in line with the amounts of monetization behind it. Meanwhile, speculative investment in stocks and bonds was being emplaced, and the government was encouraged to borrow monies, invested in that Federal Reserve, backed by the loans of the federal reserve. Those loans were placed by selling 'stock' at a later 'repurchase price' at a specific date, thereby 'ensuring' that the federal reserve had, at least in paper, a massive flow of funds.

Meanwhile, the world was changing, by accident, or by design. The increases in loans, in credit, resulted in boom times. A low interest rate was instituted, and political pressure was brought to bear upon the Congress, to create taxable income to help support the reserve, and their own projects. The sales of further bonds to outside entities was encouraged. Sales of monetizing loans to external nations, including the Middle East, were done via the Federal Reserve's banking system.

Eventually, the Great Depression hit, with a boost in the remonetization rate (an interest rate hike) the boom times came to an end. The cheap, and easy credit backing the boom died right alongside a massive drought that swept the bread basket states, (the dust bowl) , resulting in the asset foreclosure of a lot of homes, properties, and materials by the lending banks. This was further compounded with the amount of assets invested in that stock market that were backed by loans, by the encouragement of the banks themselves. "Have a dollar? invest in the stock market. Don't have a dollar? Call the bank and borrow one! Don't have a dime to call the bank, borrow one, the stock market is going up and up!"

The boom times fell into ash alongside the hopes and dreams of millions. It was in this financial climate that FDR instituted a new policy in the Federal Reserve, in order to remonetize the financial system to return the money to solvency. The War Powers act of 1917 gave him authorization, as the Farm Bill of 1933 declared a state of emergency.

Under Executive order 6012 declared that all gold, gold bullion, gold coins, and gold jewelry, was to be delivered within three days to the Federal Reserve, to be exchanged for legal tender, the bills of credit, or the Dollar Bill.

This state of emergency has never ended. Tracking the information of our economy, in each boom time, the interest rates were lowered, then raised, causing a recession or depression. In each case, the banks became more powerful.

It is in the interest of a bank to create a recession or depression for the following reasons:

1: The Federal Reserve is the monetizing source for the entire country. It cannot be allowed to fail, or the government itself falls.

2: The Federal reserve member banks end up with guaranteed asset forfeiture on properties with outstanding loans, due to lack of capability of payment, for the 'cost' of the bills of credit.

3: The seizure and subsequent resale of these seized assets drive further monetization of the Federal Reserve system.

4: They can blame it on failed policies of other individuals, even though the Federal Reserve system has control over other banks, and FDIC insured lendors. This perpetuates the process.

5: It can be used to implement sweeping financial changes to their advantage, by the simple claim that something was overlooked by their predecessors. The claim can be made that the changes are needed as an emergency measure, and will be only temporary.. and are later enshrined into tradition.

How many people today realize that the federal land was limited to a maximum of ten square miles under the Constitution? How much 'federal' land is there today? The Federal Government had the power to use tracts of land for military installations and bases, but there was to be only ten square miles of 'federal' land for the creation of a neutral federal capital.

This was Washington DC.

My question: Is it in the interests of the people, and the states, of the United States, to have a federal reserve system monetizing in the same method that has instituted myriad crashes, economic destruction, and ruin for millions over the centuries... and to have no oversight by the people themselves?

Is it just, or good, that the people, and the states, cannot look into the finances and systems which make our country run?

Is it just, or good, that the assets of the people can be seized, without due process of law, on suspicion by the Federal Reserve collections agency (the IRS) with no recourse to the court, no rule of law, no defenses, and are guilty until proven innocent?

And can we really blame the politicians for following the advice of the bankers, or simply blame them for being utterly ignorant about basic economic principles, and being too arrogant to ask?

As you look into your dwindling retirement, your bank account, your savings, your bonds, can you really say that anything you have has been yours? You're part of the company now, an employee, paid in company scrip. That scrip is exchangeable for food, for clothing, for rent... but is any of it yours? You live in the company compound, my friends, and that company has nothing for you but contempt.

Look at the statement of Woodrow Wilson, the signer of the Federal Reserve act...

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."


The statement of the Senator Lindberg, father of the aviator who was the first to cross the Atlantic solo in a single flight:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."

"To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."


These were the men who discussed the act, who supported it and later opposed it.

Are we really in control of our nation, or is the money that supports the government.. in control, and taking advantage of the situation? Are we still citizens of our state, or employees, unpaid employees, of the Federal reserve, living on company land, in debt slavery?

Are we really so different from the company stores, promising we can pay our way out, make a living, and then finding out that the money we were paid is worthless everyone else? Is the company scrip of actual value?

Or are we declaring ourselves to be slaves to our economic masters, even as we complain about the fact that they are our masters, bowing down to them?
Read more!