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!

What are rights?

Our nation is one founded in, and centered in, the existence of rights. But what are rights? How do they express themselves? The exploration of this topic, is, and must be, an exploration of history, human philosophy, and morality. Each person has his or her own interpretation of rights, therefore, to explore this thinking, we must look at the people's own ideals of rights.

The first question to explore is what one is meaning by saying 'rights'. In our imprecise, and often variable language, phonemic shifts create different meanings often from the same word. We hear about our civil rights, and our human rights, but these words mean little without an exploration of the core term.

Rights, by their nature, are difficult to quantify, they're almost as difficult to conceptualize. The works of John Locke, Blackstone, and many others must be perused, and the interpretation of those works by the various common law courts over the centuries. It is the concept of rights, and right, that give us the system of laws that exist worldwide. The expressions, and experiences of those laws are different, but it requries a 'right' in the minds of the creators to make the very law itself.

Rights is simplest explained as a plural of 'right'. But what is a right? This leads us back to the same conundrum we started with. It is a circular definition, a definition that defines itself. We, as a people, find ourselves hanging with the Sword of Damoclese suspended over us.

To start with, there are individual rights, and collective rights. Individual rights are permissive, collective rights are prohibitive, by nature. In explanation, collective rights are the myriad shift between people exercising individual rights, and setting limitations on those individual rights by force of law. The Locke approach was one of reason, an approach of logic. To quote:

“Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.”

But what is liberty? To quote an online dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

n. pl. lib·er·ties

1.

a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Idiom:

at liberty

1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.

2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Locke view was that the people were sovereign, rather than the government, that the people established power, and that power was ceded to the government, and could be returned ot the hands of the people. The Locke view also involved an explicit right of revolution, a right with which to trump tyrannical government.

“whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

John Locke had a very strong influence on the nature as well as the principles behind the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. He further had even stronger influences as the Several States under the Articles of Confederation formed the new Constitution.

With great irony, John Locke was also absolutely against public schooling, and strongly encouraged the parents to home school their children, and to instill there, in them, the strongest love of liberty and respect for the people themselves, as the public schooling system, under governmental control, was the surest tool to educate people into the acceptance of tyranny.

Let us examine, for instance, our 'Bill of Rights'. The first amendment has been expounded upon strongly, the freedom of the press (not the news services, but the press itself, the freedom to print and publish whatever is wished, so long as it not be libelous or malicious) the freedom of speech (so long as it not be slanderous or malicious) and the freedom of religion.

The second amendment was to guard the first and all others. With the potential of the creation of a standing military (a system by which the Government had long exercised total control of the people) the founding fathers wished to prevent the power of the Government from exceeding that of the people, and many state governments already had this provision, due to that individual power. It was recognized that these rights, according to the Boston Journal of the Times:

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.

John Adams, indeed, was a defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, stating:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence.

Noah Webster:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Our rights are simple things... the right to property, the right to life, the right to health, the right to liberty, and the right to property.

To guard our property, to guard our lives, to guard our health, the right to self-defense ensues. To guard our families, that self-defense permeates outward, to guard our nation, and our world. The rights of others to not be imposed upon by our rights limits those very rights. The right to health was not a right to health care, but a right to pursue the dictates of our health as we saw fit, including, should we be so inclined, to choose not to treat our own bodies, and to die without that treatment. The right to property was the right to ownership of the works of our hands, or the lands to which we had title and deed.

It is a conundrum, a problem of epic proportions, when the rights of any individual, or any society, are valued over the rights of any other individual or society. When such a situation exists, it is inevitable that the privileged society will crush those under them. It is an open invitation to slavery and tyranny to allow any people, any government, to limit the rights of others, for when those rights are limited by law, they will limit all rights, and ultimately all liberties. The very few who stand in the positions of power will end up with the power that was ceded from the people.

But can a law limit rights? Can any law trample upon the liberties of man? Has any law such authority, such power, as to limit the rights and commitant liberties of man? What is a 'due burden'? Whilst the payment of taxes is needful for the community, state, and the continuance of government, what is the burdens that are truly due?

Read well what was written by Patrick Henry, so long ago, about the congress and public liberty:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Measure yourselves carefully with that sentiment.

Read more!

What is equality?

The bullets fly ahead, the shells destroy our town,
as into the dreary dust, our blood to mud is ground,
the dreams of generations past, ground into dust,
how can we not now fight this fight, when we know we must?

Our nation is an old one, it is a nation of dreams, hopes, of prosperity, when things are going well, and of solidarity, when they are not.

But what has come to our nation now? As a human being, eyes opened looking toward the future, I see that there is little solidarity. There is much blame, in fact, blame for fear, blame for hate, blame for this and that, all apparently reasonable, all apparently logical, but all based in emotion and blinded thinking.

Our nation clamors for equality, but what does this mean? Is equality having equal things? Is it 'equal opportunity', whatever that vague term means? Is it equality in creation, or equality in means?

We stand as a nation divided, divided by its own petty visions of inequality, but what does that mean? What is it to be unequal?

It is my contention that equality does not come from what you have. It does not come from the opportunities presented to you. It does not come from anything external to humans, but from that very state of humanity, a state which was granted, by accident or design, and wrought into our very being.

We cry out about inequality, but can anyone truly be equal, or unequal to anyone else? To imply absolute equality implies a state beyond totalitarianism, a denial of opinion, of will... but such subversive arguments often lead to far more horrific acts with their own consequences for 'equality'. To explore equality and inequality... we must explore ourselves.

Let us look at how we enforce anything. For any law, we create restrictions. Those restrictions are bound by the 'will of society', which is represented by the makers of those laws, and the interpretation of the courts. We enforce via restriction, via punishment... but is that equal? Do we have equal representation, rich and poor, within that court system? The statistics would scream most certainly not... so is the law yet equal? If the restrictions of a man cannot enforce equality, for the ability of some to remove said restrictions, what then?

Is equality in your money? Ultimately money can be gained and lost, but what does this say about equality? If equality comes from equal money, is money even needed?

Is equality in the education? Not entirely, though an education can help one to understand their equality.

Equality... is in the capability to make choices. The capability to grow, to learn, to bring one's self to understanding. To question and explore is the right of equality. Such a right cannot be trammeled by law without destroying the equality itself. Equality is not being offered equal opportunity, but being able to embrace the opportunities that life presents without the impositions of your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, or even your own past.

Humans have the right to equality, a right built in to something deeper than blood or bone, something intrinsic, and epherimal in the human existence. Some call this invisible something a soul. Some call it a gestalt. Some call it simply... humanity.

Some humans will always question others about their differences, and ignore the similarities. That is their path, and their failure of learning. Some will attempt to correct this by restraining all humans from such folly... but again, such is a failure of the humanity. By restricting some choices, one restricts others. By restricting some from learning, we restrict all from learning.

Education is part of equality, but far more important is the ability to think, explore, conceive ideas, to learn. Equality is the right not to be restricted arbitrarily by the will of others, in public property and public thought. It is the right to associate freely. It is the right to speak, to understand, to write, to communicate without restrictions so long as that speech is not libelous or slanderous.

It is the right to make the opportunities to buy your own home, to own your own property, to have a family by mutual consent, to raise that family, without arbitrary imposition. It is the right to have law that is not arbitrary, not constantly being redefined, rewritten. It is the very right to be free of legislative attainder, to be free of retroactive law, of any stripe, the right to defend one's self, the right to privacy from the invasion of your home by any person, save by due process of law with a writ of warrant upheld by probable cause, with due affirmation of that probable cause.

It is the right to have that for which you have worked kept safe from seizure, to keep it from the grasping hands of others save, again, by due process of law, and the hearing before the court and jury. It is the right of the person, and of the people, to all of the rights within the Bill of Rights.

These rights are not simply something that was tacked on, something that the government created. They pre-existed the very government, as did others, unspoken of in the Constitution for their very nature being so obvious as to not need speaking. The right to sit in your front yard and stare up at the clouds, for instance, the right to travel on public roads, the right to the use of the public waterways for transportation. The right to walk to and from that church that the first amendment guarantees as the right of religion, the right to self-defense that was encoded in the right to keep and bear arms.

The secret to rights, is they are rights only so long as everyone has them. If any class of citizens, for whatever reason, loses those rights, outside of a court of law, or after the sentence of that court for a just, and due penalty paid to society is completed... then they are no longer rights. Those classes invariably, inevitably expand. This was the reason for the writs of habeas corpus, quo warrantio, and ultra vires.

The first term was one of the foremost securities of the free people, the right to challenge the court to know why one is being held, and the second is related to it, to know what power the court holds you under. The third is equally important, a writ declaring the court to be outside of its guidelines, outside of its own powers.

The last two have been more and more delegated to civil contracts, however, due to the shifting and ephimeral nature of the system of laws.

Do you want real equality? It doesn't come from a government... it comes from within. It comes from due diligence, and due exercise of the rights, freedoms, priviliges and immunities of a citizen of your state, as well as the protection of the rights of others. All rights are linked. All rights must stand, or all fall together. In this, the many truly are one, and always have been.

So do we stand, equal, or tear each other down through myriad laws, myriad regulations, which destroy the rights of individuals... which are that which makes up the very society itself?
Read more!

The morning after.. wish there was a pill for this one.

This morning a lot of Americans are looking around and wondering what just happened. Like the party that got out of control, America is in the post-election hangover, while some are drinking deeply still from the wine of victory, and others sipping the bitter ale of defeat, some Americans are left just shocked, and wondering.. how did we get here?

It doesn't matter the race of the candidate, it shouldn't ever be an issue. It doesn't matter what party the candidate is raised by, that should not be an issue.. but we've grown so blind as to stumble, over and over again, into the same mistakes.

We voted for change, but can we in good conscience deal with the kinds of change we've created? When you see the economy over the next few years, think about it. Think about the type of change we've initiated, and ask if it was really change at all, or only another illusion, another card trick.

In our post-election moments, looking out at the morning sky, we have to wonder... was it really worth it? When the election period passed in a blur, did we hear any of the things that the people actually said, and did they mean a single thing that they stated? Now that the courtship is over, and the deed consummated, what are we waking up to?

Is it change? Is it more of the same? Is it something that our ancestors would have believed in and worked toward? Or are we still playing the same game, with the same players, expecting a different result?

In our party-oriented system, a vote not for either party suddenly somehow counts as a vote for the party you don't want in office, so people excuse not voting for others. As we continue the pattern, more and more we're not voting for something, we're voting against. We paint the other side as the troglodyte in the corner, we paint them in a broad brush, and ignore the flaws in our own side as being necessary to defeat the other.

But what would happen if we did not elect either party? What would happen in the world, in the system? Agreed, the probability is not likely, precisely because people feel, emotionally, that the third parties cannot win. They don't have the backing, they don't have the media attention, and the darlings of the media often win... regardless of what skeletons they may have in their closet.

This morning I feel like I've woken up in a slasher movie. A B-rated at best slasher movie. Rather than butchering the people, though, our jobs are about to be butchered brutally, our livlihoods, our checkbooks. In the name of redistributing the wealth, it's been forgotten that you cannot tax a corporation. You only end up taxing those who buy from the corporation. But fine, you might say... but what if all corporations you can buy from are being taxed? As prices go up, is it still redistributing the wealth, or is it another illusion, another shell game?

As we bail out the corporations, and bail out the citizens, where does the money come from? It comes from our own pockets, our children's pockets, and we continue to spend and spend in an orgiastic cycle of damnation that can know no end until parties with no vested interest get into office, and even then it will take years to unsnarl what has been done.

Yes, I'm cynical. I also know that the greatest measure of any politician is the lies they tell their own people, their opponents, and their supporters. Ask yourselves this, if Obama is for coal miners in Pennsylvania, why did he state, clearly, that his intent is to make sure all new coal powered plants will be shut down, ruthlessly, and bankrupted? With his proposed cap and trade system on carbon credits, will it not drive up fuel prices as those costs are passed on to the consumer? Will not electricity costs increase as the costs to the plants do?

Carbon sequestration in deep wells using carbon dioxide are all well and good, but... that only lasts until the unit is breached. It really doesn't address the underlying problems, the lack of alternative energy sources. So long as nuclear, water, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy systems are prohibited, or underdeveloped, there are no alternatives. We end up with a long-term costs increase... with no real benefits to consumers, or to companies that pay those consumers. We end up in a lose-lose scenario for both consumers and business... with only one clear winner, the federal government.

Does it really matter who wins the election if the first thing that they propose to do is tax you more to pay for the programs they believe would be 'good' for you without ever asking what you want, considering your rights, privileges, and immunities under the constitution, or even going so far as to allow you to ask questions?

Is it really so much a stretch to say that at this point, we've made a huge mistake, on this morning after?

Are you really getting a change you can live with, or are you simply getting another line of bull from those who wish to keep you compliant?
Read more!

The declaration of independence

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

What does this mean? Let us look at the terms, 'Inalienable'. This term was written several times as 'unalienable', an older spelling far more common at the time.. inalienable though, means that the people cannot be separated from them, they do not come from the hands of government, nor from the hands of men, but from something innate, something precious, something powerful that cannot be taken away.. the very spirit of liberty itself, the very state of humanity.

Our 'civil rights' as we see them today, are actually inalienable rights, guaranteed by the constitution not to be trodden upon, recognized within the bill of rights, as part of that constitutional agreement, for all men, rich or poor, free man, or felon. There is a civil process to remove these rights for a time, but only for a time, and it is only by our assent, our inaction, our ignorance that they can be removed from us... and then we can take them back again, at any time.

The secret to the Bill of Rights was that there was to be no sanction for exercising those rights. People point to the second amendment as being only for the militia... but what was the militia? If we look at the statements of Madison, the bills of the time, the militia was every able-bodied citizen capable of taking up arms in the defense of himself, his community, or his country.

What was the purpose of the militia? To prevent the very things which were above listed, to prevent the military from ever growing so powerful, the federal government from ever growing so powerful, as to threaten and destroy the rights of the people again.

How then, can this be simply a state militia? If it be the national guard, how could the milita pre-exist the creation of said guard? If it be the army, how could the militia pre-exist the nation? Most do not realize the definition of militia was changed in the 1903 Dick Act, creating the National Guard.

If the purpose was simply for the state to have a national guard, then how can the Federal Government federalize them, and thus deny the states their militia? if that be the argument, the Federal Government cannot mandate to the National Guard at all.... but they do.

Let us look deeper, perhaps, at the nature of the problem. It was recognized that, over time, any force of law would create impositions upon the rights of the people. Those impositions would require some means of recognition, and the Bill of Rights was instituted to, not just limit the Federal Government, but to show a warning upon the things to watch out for when the government was moving toward tyranny.

The writ of Habeas Corpus was particularly important. THe right to a local trial by the jury of your peers, with nullification of the law, and a timely trial, was equally important. Freedom from government searches and seizures was a necessity. The right to speak, the right to worship, the right to associate, the right to assemble, all were written as preexisting rights, guaranteed not to be infringed upon via the criminal code.

But how many of these aspects of the Declaration of Independence are we in violation of today? How many still apply? Most of them do.. the names have changed, the natures have changed, but does the government not ship, once again, people off with a mock trial, or no trial at all, to places inconvenient for their defense? Does it not create debts that must be paid for out of our taxes, in clear opposition ot the will of the people? And the senate and house sit idle, figureheads for all their gruff bluster.

Do they not protect their own against conviction? Do they not protect themselves against the same follies which the citizens of the several states are charged, convicted, and imprisoned for?

How nobly they stand, in their whited sepulchers... how their robes shine and sparkle, hiding the corruption that lies beneath.

if what I write is treason.. if what I write is criminal, then it is a crime I gladly commit. It is a crime for which I pay gladly. And if what I say is treason, then long live the patriots, for there is no country that would make the truth treason that I would be subject to.

Read more!

A funeral.. or is it?

Our United States, referred to as America by the Founding Fathers, has fallen. Beaten and bruised, she lies silent, unconscious, unable to speak. What has come to this pass? How have we come to this, in this great nation?

It would be not entirely fair to say that we brought it on ourselves, as the actions, and inaction of our ancestors brought it into being. It was no less an assassin's bullet than any other, fired from stealth and preplanning. It was no bullet fired from a gun, no, it was more serious than that. As I stand, to pay my respects to the wounded, the teardrops fall from my eyes, my hopes, my dreams, and my future shattered.

It is in times like these that men oft measure themselves, and find their being lacking. It is no different in this wounded America, so close to death. We know we've lost something, something dear, something wonderful that so long we took for granted. She stood ignored, and abused, while we turned our backs on her.

Her monies were stolen from her, the freedoms that were her clothing ripped from her. Her hands bound, her mouth gagged. She has been violated in every way a nation conceived in liberty and equality could ever be violated... but she has stood anyway, silently begging for our intervention.

But can we stand here mourning? She can be reborn, should we open our eyes. She can heal, become who she was once again, but how? Oh dear god, how?

Under our guardianship she has been brought to this state, as, in some cases, our very guardianship turned on her.

We look on a memorial of our failure.. but must we remain in failure? Must we remain lost in our guardianship? From the beginning, what were we? We were free. In our way, our purpose was to extend that freedom to all of our people, to extend that very blessing which once made our nation great.

We've lost so much, with her wounding. Must we remain inactive while she lies there bleeding? Must we not increase our vigilance over the government we placed to guard her liberty? Must we not return to the principles from which she was born?

They say that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary, but when shall we be stronger? Patrick henry's words still ring in truth today. Will it be next week, or next year? Will it be when the enemies of personal liberty stand at your door and demand your arms, when you no longer can walk down the street, and when you are arrested, and executed without a trial? The very deepest basis of freedom is attacked now, and none even dare look upon it.

My god, people! Look into your hearts, you who know what you've lost. Look to your very souls, your very being. I could enumerate the beginning of this tragedy... but deep in your hearts of hearts you know the shape of the turmoil, the assault, and the destruction.

The story starts with rich men, purchase of the media, and the creation of a central bank and the elimination of a metal standard... yes, they wanted America for her riches, and they got them. WHen they got many of those riches, they realized that to keep them, they must control the men, and women, who were gifted them from her soil.. and so they instituted credit, interest, and bills of credit... then removed the gold which they had stolen already from the backing. They provided prisons, and laws, which seemed most necessary for the public good. They made lands public lands, in the interests of the people, even while taking those lands and tearing them away from the very public that they were designed to serve.

They abandoned the contract by which they were formed, and ran roughshod over our dear, fallen America. And how can one mourn? Why should we mourn something that has not yet died? Why should we not take back what is ours, return that which is hers, and stand up strong and united to simply insist upon the contract which created, and instituted her guards, and insist that those who have falsely taken that guardianship... step down and return the principles which are her health and wellbeing.

Do we not owe her that much, at least, for her long suffering, and guardianship of us, even as we failed to guard her?


Read more!

The cost of patriotism

Patriots, broken, silent now,
where goes the ox, thus goes the plow,
where have we spent the patriot's blood,
Lost, and selfless in the flood?
By what right do your rights endure,
when you sign them away for sure,
when you make mock of the cost,
how can you know what you've lost?

When the teardrops fall away,
down through time, from day to day,
when the moments, solemn speak
of those that gave, that blood to leak?

We ask but soft to be left alone,
but you ask to build a throne,
the blood of patriots still yet leaps,
though you think the people sleep,
When the bed has grown too rough,
when they see they've had enough,
Down from power's throne must fall,
the evils made by one and all..

When the patriot's bullets fly,
who will live, and who will die?
Can you rouse yet from your sleep,
when what you've sown, you now reap?

Now you hear the patriot's song,
what was stolen, yours all along,
what was kept from your shut eyes,
withers, yet, it never dies...
Can such passions, rouse us still,
or have we finally lost our will?
When the end seems to draw near,
shall we fight, or cower in fear?

In silence springs the memory yet,
of those fallen, lest we forget,
of those who paid the final price,
that we laugh at with our avarice...

And so there comes a choice today,
submit to chains, and simply pray,
or pray, yet standing thus to fight,
drive them back into the night,
how can we ignore the plight,
of those who chained, disappear from sight?
When out loud the angels cried,
to remember the blood of those who died?


When memory mocks the pains of the past,
often their chains return at last,
when the drums of doom raise the crown
shall we fight, or just lie down?
Read more!