Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "Hoplophobics"? My chief resource claims to have "19,500,236 words in 1062 dictionaries indexed" and only ONE of these defined that word, and you claim to be an ignorant individual? Hell, I thought it was a fear of Hopalong Cassidy.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Human Rights ''Alan Dershowitz in his book, Shouting Fire, has a chapter on the origin of human rights. Dershowitz says human rights is the belief that human beings are so worthwhile that regardless of age, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of social status, or regardless of how much wealth you have, every human being is of great worth and has certain rights that can’t be exploited or trampled upon. Now the question comes, “Why should we believe that?” The first possibility, Dershowitz says, is that we believe that God created human beings and therefore they are sacred; they are made in the image of God. The second possibility is, “Maybe we find this in nature.” If we look out at nature, do we see that human beings as individuals are valuable? “No,” Dershowitz says, because all you see out there is the strong eating the weak. That’s how you got here; it’s called evolution. To believe in human rights is to say everything else in nature is wrong, but why would it be wrong unless you believe in God or a supernatural standard by which to judge? How can you judge that nature is unnatural? Where did you get your idea? The third possibility is that human beings form human rights ourselves. Legislative majorities create human rights. They’re not discovered, they’re legislated. Morality is something man creates, so we created it. Society, through a legislative majority, decided human rights make society work better and therefore it is more practical to believe in human rights. So man creates human rights, but Dershowitz says that will never work. What the argument is advocating is a belief, for example, that genocide is only wrong because man says it is. Therefore if 51% want to vote to take away the rights of 49% and destroy them, nobody can say, “How dare you!” because genocide is wrong only because man says its wrong and now a majority doesn’t say it’s wrong. By this argument, the whole value of rights is to say to the majority “you have to honor the rights of others.” Human rights are discovered. They can’t be created. They don’t come from nature, they aren’t created, they just exist. So if one doesn’t believe in God why does one believe in human rights? The answer would be, “They’re just there. We don’t know why they are there—they probably shouldn’t be there—but they’re there.” So, do human rights prove there is a God? No. The point of the argument is that human rights make sense. If there is no God, human rights don’t make much sense, since one doesn’t know where they came from. If this is true, then a belief in God makes more sense than non-belief. One can’t “prove” God, one can only show that in issue after issue, the existence of God makes more sense than the absence of one. If there is a God, then the idea of justice and injustice and the idea of genocide being wrong make sense. If there is no God, it takes a leap of faith to say, “I don’t know why it’s wrong; I just feel it’s wrong.” It’s a bigger leap of faith to believe in human rights if one doesn’t believe in God than if one does. It is a leap of faith to say somehow human beings are valuable if there is no God, than if there is. So why would one say they do not believe in God? Why is it so hard to believe in God? The reasons would probably be linked to personal, social, and possibly some intellectual reasons. All of the above arguments only takes one through the realm of possibility. It only goes to prove that it is more likely that God does exist rather than not exist. It does not mean one can’t be certain.''~ by Steve Elwart http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/fixnews/545-rights
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    A lightening bolt of clear common sense lacking in hoplophobics. I voted because it was worthy of a vote.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 44 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    "No one collective of people can function harmoniously without a guiding principle." How about: Don't hurt or kill people, and don't take their stuff. No 2nd Amendment needed. Owning a gun doesn't in itself trespass against anyone's person or property. Same goes for hammers. If society would adopt the above guiding principle and apply it universally, they would discover that the creation of Constitutions and governments violate that principle and would forego them if they wished to be consistent. Taxing (forcefully taking property from a person without his consent) violates the principle.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 44 weeks ago Page fmoghul
    I have voted this piece as a must read. Not that you are already aware of it but to keep it uppermost in everyones mind. Though everyone here dispariages the Constitution, or disowns it, the fact of reality is that this piece of raggedy paper is the paper this nation struggels to operate under (despite the crooked crooks in washington). To point out its errors does not cause me disallusionment but you do have to recognize the forgone conclusion that this is the document the majority of Americans are holding on to for dear life. (The Human Condition has rared its serpent head as the "Tea Party, demonstrating a disatisfaction with the way government is currently operating). Despite all its flaws, the Constitution, it can be fixed. No one collective of people can function harmoniously without a guiding principle. Anyone in their right mind realizes this or we would be in a world of chaos, not that we probably aren't now). Bite me, kick me, drag me through the dirt, abuse me if you must. I am here to learn and learn I will "...the human capacity to start new things calls our natural limits into question" (Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 1958, Chicago Press). I call our government into question for the abuse of the Constitution, call them into question to discover the flaws they suck out of it, forcing it to say things it does not say, making it a bag of hallow bones. I call into question that the framers ment this document to stand as written without change for ever and ever. "...[H]uman beings are merely an animal species governed by laws of nature or history, in the service of which individuals are entirely despenciable." (ibid). The human condition is a condition no one has the power to alter, it will do as it does. Persons are despensible to the Human Condition, the human condition is a part of nature and worms its way into history because of humaness. fmoghul has boldly stepped into the 2nd amendment and I deeply respect him for providing the documentation of the wrongness of disarming Americans to make us victims to the government whims and the criminal rage, and to all the hoplophobes who moronacally believe that the absence of guns will stop criminal activity. Stupidity recognizes no cognitive skill, ignores educational background; it is stupidity that must be enlightened, if possible, but some stupid people will always be stupid people. I rest. Glock27
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Everyone make your way to the fire exits slowly...ha! With all of the bankster accounting, accurate numbers take some serious sussing. Even Wikipedia seems to have older numbers (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimated_ownership_of_treasury_securi...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    I probably need to rework that part, one way or another: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401/The_Biggest_Holders_of_US_Government_Debt http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/its-official-fed-now-second-largest-hol...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Hi golefevre, I will confess that I wrote the majority of this quite a while ago. I certainly could have made a mistake with the 40% figure, but it would be more interesting if I didn't. :> In other words, China and Japan have drastically reduced the amount of US debt that they hold (at least as a percentage of the total debt), while the Fed has stepped in to buy up the surplus. So even when suckers can no longer be found, the Fed is there to buy up the loans that they themselves hand out. This should make the entire scam obvious to all, but I'm guessing it won't.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Not sure about that 40% number for China and Japan. I think they (China and Japan) hold about $2 trilion, about 12.5%. By far, the biggest holder of US bonds is the Fed, about $6-6.5 trillion and also worth mentioning is how this is one of their biggest "tools" for manipulating markets and interest rates.
  • DP_Thinker's picture
    DP_Thinker 5 years 44 weeks ago
    Magic 'Money'
    Page tzo
    Great post! A great book on this subject is by Murray Rothbard - "The Mystery of Banking" One other item to note is that this is the process in which "inflation" takes place. The historical definition of inflation was to inflate the money supply. This in turn directly impacts prices. The more "money" sloshing around the higher prices go. And the banks are the first ones to receive that new money enabling them to keep up with inflation much easier than say ma and pa construction worker...
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I see little difference between the Jarawas and American citizens in relationship to freedom and liberty. Americans are being suppressed at every turne and corner. There are no freedoms only permissions which can be taken away at the whim of a dim witted legislature who has been seated far too long for his own good..
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    I've been thinking of this too: http://strike-the-root.com/private-property-vs-your-stuff Rothbard's theory was that land becomes owned when a man mixes his labor in it. This rather dry description does not bring out the essence of the matter. If a man comes into some land via inheritance or by winning the lottery, and the very next day he loses it (e.g. eminent domain), he will relinquish it without a fuss: "Easy come, easy go." However the more he invests time and money into it, the harder he will fight to stay on. This is only natural; people won't easily walk away from something they have invested half their life into. The market will favor such people aquiring modest-sized plots of ground (absent government). Why? Because the larger it is, the harder to mix your labor with it. The harder to keep squatters off. The fewer neighbors you will have to help you defend your claims, and (since you are being a pig about grabbing land) the less likely they will be to do it. The land owners who manage to hold on to their land will have modest-sized plots so their connections to their neighbors will be more frequent and easier and more numerous, and so their "mixing of labor" will be more intense. Such people will be very hard to push off the land.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    The hallmark of the state to treat people as property or animals. truly is sickening.
  • TheHomeEconomist's picture
    TheHomeEconomist 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I was disgusted by this article. These people are treated like animals in a zoo, or perhaps museum artifacts, not living human beings! The degree to which you deny an individual his liberty is the degree to which you deny him his humanity!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Notice to the PRINCIPAL or AGENT is Notice to the other.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a "constitution" does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity." ~ Lysander Spooner, excerpted from his letter to [CONGRESSMAN] Thomas F. Baynard This is why consent, either express, implied or tacit[1], is deemed necessary to derive "just powers[2]" [authority] over a man. Even a professor should be able to see that what Lysander stated is true. The other thing to consider, Glock27, is whether or not the U.S. Constitution has been successful at protecting our natural rights. "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816) Again, I use Lysander's common-sense-opinion, on that question, as my own. "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." ~ Lysander Spooner __________________________________________________________________ [1] In the cases of implied or tacit consent, the individual has but to rebut it to take the effect of it away. Rebut. In pleading and evidence, to defeat, refute, or take away the effect of something. When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces [presents, brings forward, offers, introduces] evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to "rebut it." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 1267 [Bracketed information added] I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. [2] "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." I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS.
  • deeperpolitics's picture
    deeperpolitics 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    My own response consists of a compilation of material to put things into a completely different perspective. It is titled: Gun confiscation legislation, Staged shootings, Banking fraud, Economic collapse, and Martial law http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/gun-confiscation-legislation-staged-shoot...
  • Michael_Young's picture
    Michael_Young 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Guest
    It is necessary to think on this aspect and also the drivers are doing their business and thinking about every other alternative to save money. government-grant
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former [the ploughman] will decide it as well, and often better than the latter [a professor], because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (c.1788) Remember, Glock27: A CONSTITUTION. In American Law. [is] The written instrument agreed upon by the people [voluntary members] of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void.” (Source: Cooley, Const. Lim. 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st (c.1891)], page 259) As such, it is legitimate; but that's all that it is, and nothing more! It is not the “supreme law of the land”, it is the supreme law over those who wish to govern!! This is why those individuals wishing to govern, intentionally misinterpret it, illegally amend it, and unlawfully ignore it (when they can get away with it)...they hate the Constitution, (“its only a goddamned piece of paper”), because it has restricted their authority for so long; “any act or ordinance of any such department or officer...in opposition to [it]...is null and void”. They began chipping away at it almost from the moment of its creation. They have used, over and over and over and over again, the glaring error making “all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States...the supreme law of the land”; which explains why they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the so-called Bricker Amendment. “The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment.” ~ Bricker Amendment by Justin Raimondo
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This Makes a great deal of sense. For over two-hundred years this Nation has operated under the ruse that the Constitution is in fact the "Law of the Land", the majority, although academically ignorant as I just presume it to be truth and therefore we "tacitly" conceed until someone comes along and begins to point out the errors which exist. Then there are those who simply plod through this life without question, probably much like our ancestors did until a few got tired of how they were being treated by the British Government at the time. I think these men and women wanted to be free of the oppression they were experiancing; it wasn't a military coue, or one man wanting to be Monarch (although John Adams seemed to desire this), they wanted to be free and constructed something they felt others also wanted (except for a few[a minority presumably]). I think these men were honestly looking to have a free society, but recognized that some order must needs to apply or there would be nothing but chaos and conflict. They unified the separate land masses claimed by such groups as the 13 colonies. From that point forward people must have "Tacitly agreed" to conduct ourselves under those guiding principles. My question now is "Does this extend legitimacy to the Constitution"? If it does, what needs to be fixed to make it operate in a proper manner as a guiding document? I have remained committed to the idea of "What can be done to alter the situation and improve upon it". What is the solution?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I disagree with the contextual idea that it was a sexy photo. She was a work of beautiful art so unique to women across the world. This was not sexy but sheer beauty looking at the lines, shades, pose, contrast, the sweeping lines that carry you off into a stream of warm, happy feelings.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Is it stolen money when a majority of the population votes in agreement with whatever the issue is being asked for? If legislators proclaim x number of dollars will come out of the pockets of the public is seems clear then that it is theft.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Compassion in a free society. Sometimes when I hear this I believe it is a dream, the Utopia many long for. I am not 100% convinced that enough people will honestly step forward, considering the radically, changing values of this Nation of people. Movie producers orient their wares toward corrupting the moral values of Americans, T.V. programing takes the same river of corrupting youth to adult in having strong values and virtue, corperations join the melee with sexually salacious advertisment and sponsor value corrupting programs. Given this peel of humanity it makes one wonder if a compassionate free society isnt being idealistic on such a concept. Please do not take me wrong; I believe what you have presented is a good and proper thought, but I am not convinced of its actual performable in this current state-of-affairs. I also know and understand that the United States Federal Government is corrupt, ignorant, stupid, idiotic, cognitively impaired, selfish, self-interested, self-aggrandizing bunch of misfits and cannot be trusted to perform anything beyond an "F" standard. When they get their stubby, greedy, sticky, dirty hands into anything it seems to always go to hell in a hand basket. This nation has experienced centuries of sexually depraved legislators, deviant, self-centered and what ever else can be attached to them. They have clearly demonstrated that they have no ability to operate a government for the good of the people they are suppose to be protecting. I simply do not have the faith in all of humanity to do the moral and virtuious thing. Their are a small hand full, but I don't believe there are enough to perform what is honestly needed in helping those whose misfortune was to be born with a defect or to become crippled in such a manner that their ability to care for themselves is gone. Yes, I believe every human being has a moral and ethical obligation to provide some level of assistance. Each person must, of their own volition, decide exactly how much and what they are wiling to contribute. My perspective is that everyone should be morally and ethically obligated to contribute to something. I believe George Sorous should contribute an equal amount to charity as he does to organizations that promote his ideology. (That's me). I have a son who is afflicted with inadequate social skills and some physical impairment. My wife and I are fortunate in that the Community Mental Health assists him in being able to live his own life away from home and he has a job (at Pizza Hut) paying minimum wage for the past 12 years with no raise, and he gets SSI benefits, (on his own he manages to roam about the city and fair grounds to collect returnable bottles and cans for additional income. Where he learned this level of responsibility I don't know, but annually he collects $300 to $500). Without the SSI benefits he would be at home (and unhappy) for we could never afford to pay what is necessary for him to have an independent life he is leading now. He would have to live with us. What is happenning with him is not a government or responsibility. But because the benefit is there I avail myself to it so he can live as free as he reasonably can. Jim. It is a wonderful idea which I deeply respect and wish could be a true fact, but given the Human Condition, I fear that it is not something that would happen even in a free society. Exactly how could such a concept enacted for there is a limited number of good hearted people to step up and provide the assistance needed, then there are so many causes how could we ever possibly address them all. When I look at Hollywood and see all the liberals giving piles of money to social progressive, facsist, communist ideologies when it could, to me, be better used in other ways. Exactly how much money does one person really need. Last year Joe Biden donated $5000 to some charity. Whoopie. I donate that much each year just to try and escape the taxes, and it never seems to be enough he. I am being financially raped by the IRS. My motive however, is more centered around avoiding the government from getting Imy money. I put my money where I where I believe it will do the most good, provide the most help. I wonder if I would continue to do the same if I did not have to pay taxes? You have a good heart Jim, and I accept what you say, and want to believe that a free society would be compassionate, but there are just too many examples out their to anecdotally say differently. If anyone can shed light upon my darkness I would love to hear (read) it to clear my negative position toward humanity.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Heroic!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "We-ists", I like that! I have to admit I was surprised when I read about that interpretation of legal tender. It's not just Wikipedia either. However now that I think about it, it may be just like so many other things in government. The "law" or "constitution" may say one thing, but the reality may be something else entirely. It's a house of mirrors... The alternative platform already exists in several forms (despite some attacks like the 1MDC and e-gold fiasco). The problem is getting people to use it. But I'm guessing what will happen is that most people will go blithely along until the dollar crashes, and THEN start looking for alternatives. Oh, well...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Here’s the Fifth Amendment in pertinent part: “Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Notice that the amendment does not say: “Nor shall any citizen … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It says person." ~ Jacob Hornberger Yes, it does say "person", Jacob. But notice, too, that it does not say: "Nor shall any man ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It says person. person In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ~ John Bouvier's 1856 A Law Dictionary This word "person" and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition. A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations. ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910 "A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested…", that "status or condition" is citizen.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language tacit adj. ...4. Law happening without contract but by operation of law ~ Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (c.1980), page 1447 Unfortunately, we will spend hours bitching, to each other, that there is no such thing as "tacit consent", but not a single moment actually rebutting the presumption. Why? Because we don't really want to give up our citizenship status, we just want to complain about "the duties which it imposes".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 45 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Only in fantasy land, does the Fifth Amendment protect anyone. Back here on Earth, the rulers do what they please.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 45 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Good one, Jim. Our old enemy, the I.R.S., is indeed the root of all evil, as Frank Chodorov instructed. Putting everyone on a tight budget obviously changes the mindset of the givers.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    Left a P.M. Sauverans2. I can only handly one thought exploding on me at a time. Remember. I am a neophite here. Error, Error! Grunts (slaves, surfs), obey. Interesting. I was never aware of that. Ha! How about that.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    "Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody..." I may have to disagree with that. CONSTITUTION. In American Law. The written instrument agreed upon by the people [by those who choose to be members] of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void. Cooley, Const. Lim. 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st (c.1891)], page 259 It is, at least believed, by the majority of individuals belonging to this political association, to be binding on those swearing to "support" it. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. The Military Oaths The Commissioning Oath "I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) The Enlistment Oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). Note, however, that these individuals DO NOT swear to "obey" it, which is good, because virtually none of them ever have or ever do.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Glock27, Gave you the following on July 31, 2012. "...you want to be bound by a Constitution that said something like this, "...ALL TREATIES MADE or WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND... Supremacy clause [of your Constitution]. ...all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the “supreme law of the land” and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provisions of a State constitution or law." ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005 Look closely at Article VI.2 of your Constitution, then take a look at this article about the Bricker Amendment. Here is the the Bricker Amendment in its entirety, if you'd like to read it. Aside from that, I believe Lysander Spooner may have said it best. And, keep in mind, this essay, No Treason ,was written in 1869, ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE YEARS AGO; it has only gotten worse since then. "Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 45 weeks ago
    Newt's Letter
    Page Jim Davies
    For years I have hammered at my federal and state legislators over issues which concern me and unfortunately I am addicted to do so up to this moment and Jim, you are absolutely, 100% accurate regarding the canned replys. At first you get this first blush of "A-h-h-h! I have done something. When you receive about the 30th response it clicks. They say the same thing about everything you write. Hayek is late, Surfdom is pretty much here already. I can't break the habit of writing to them, only my letters are not as polite as they once were, These letters I get little to no response from and I have to believe that my name appears on some subversive list, they probably know I have orderd books on how to make bombs, improvized explosives, resistance, sabatoge and a sundry of other texts formable for guerilla conflict. Little do they know I have these texts for 1) curiosity and 2) to assist myself in learning skills to use in the coming storm to assist in protecting my properties and life. The current progrom of the U.S. government is to enslave the populace. My greatest dispair is that the citizens have not awaken and when or if they do it will be too late. Right now the nation is captured by Patriotism. I am a patriot of the Constitution if and only if it is followed as prescribed. I have read it and pondered parts and try to study it. To me it seems to be a rather reasonable document to use and follow for a mass of people. There are parts which may be questionable, but I don't know what they are. I read some history, trying to get the best possible true renditions. Anyway. Great article. The problem with it is, if it were nationally publicized more than half the country or better would think "Kook", "Nut case". "radical". or some other deragatory term. I try to teach my grandkids that the U.S. government is an enemy to them, and that their legislatures will ignore them but they are too young to care. All they are interested in are friends and getting laid, having girlfriends. It is so sad. If anyone can share the bad parts of the Consstitution I would be very happy to hear. There is so much reading and so little time to accumulate the knowledge necessary.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Of 'Legal Tender' the COED [Concise Oxford English Dictionary (c.1934)] says (under "tender"): 'currency that cannot be refused in payment of debt.'" That is correct. However, so is this, "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.". "This statute [31 USC 5103] means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." (Source: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender...) This definition from A Law Dictionary, [Black's] Second Edition (c.1910), page 1143 will make the necessary distinction clearer. —Legal tender. That kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.— That statute [31 USC 5103] "compels [only] a creditor", it does not compel a "private business, a person or an organization...[to accept them] for payment for goods and/or services". So, Paul Bonneau, I believe you are free to create A Dual-Currency Community, if you want to...unless, of course, you are a voluntary member of a subsidiary STATE, that has a law which says otherwise.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 46 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    This matter is settled by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source of the meaning of words and phrases in the English language. Mine is the 1934 Concise Edition, whose virtues even include a correct definition of inflation ("abnormal increase of the currency, eg by the issue of inconvertible legal-tender notes") in the nick of time before Keynes wrote his pernicious _General Theory_ and fully eight years after he put out his highly premature _The End of Laissez Faire_ - see http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Machan/Keynes_and_his_Ideology_of_Pl... Of "Legal Tender" the COED says (under "tender"): "currency that cannot be refused in payment of debt." So what the lie-fabricator at his desk in Mendacity Central (Treasury Division) did was to craft a particularly cunning one: it may be quite true that there's no statute to require acceptance of tendered pennies or $100 bills, or even, in so many words, "dollars" (ie, Federal Reserve Notes) in general; all it needs is the statute that declares those things to be "legal tender." The law compelling their acceptance (in some form) is then achieved by reference to outside sources which define the meaning of the term "legal tender." That statute is 31 USC 5103. Wikipedia, unfortunately, then picked up his lie and repeated it, and Paul reasonably relied on that normally reliable source. Anyone who knows how to correct Wikipedia entries now has a chance to get to work.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Suverans2, thanks for highlighting the article (welcome back old friend)... Is America the World’s Largest Sponsor of Terrorism? Posted on August 6, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog American Officials Admit that the U.S. Is a Huge Sponsor of Terrorism The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – *Lt. General William Odom* - noted: Because the United States itself has a *long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world* [where does one's oath make any difference here? I'll get to that!]. Odom also said: By any measure the US has long used terrorism. **In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation**. (audio here). The Washington Post reported in 2010: The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.... Read on dear reader: http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/us-largest-sponsor-of-terrorism.html And http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/governments-have-admitte... carrying out false flag operations.... But more to the point: --"And, so, to the woman who says, "My husband [and or friend] is a good man!" and words [ OATHS to back that up] to that effect I must reluctantly answer, *"It does not matter." Other than DO NOT support or join the institution in the first place* [emphasis added]-- Joining the equivalent of the Crips (gang) in order to change it--via an OATH (amendments) AND CONSTITUTIONS--is INDEED (as evidenced by history) a hopeless/futile task... ---It's Not Personal; It's Institutional---Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5439/Its-Not-Personal-Its-Institutional "Thoreau wrote, Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?… The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.…In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men (sociopath behavior) can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well... --*Many consider service to "their country" to be an automatic virtue*, but it is a dehumanizing vice whenever it involves the abandonment of conscience. The **military demands this abandonment**[emphasis added]. And few activities can be as dehumanizing as patrolling foreign streets in the role of an occupying force".... Grappling with the Banality of Evil Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5491/Grappling-with-the-Banality-of-Evil What if nobody turned up? [Many don't because of personal oaths]. However, too many do succumb to the Siren's Song [The priests and the soldiers] August 6, 2012 Robert Higgs on 'Warfare, Welfare, and the State' Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 6, 2012 06:14 PM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/117408.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Perhaps an oath similar to the one below is what every member of your government should be required to make. "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Life, Liberty and Justly Acquired Property of the Citizens of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "Free individuals", are those not affiliated with, (connected to), any governments, as a result we do not "rely" on members of the U.S. military, period.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Heh. This story made my day. He's gonna go to jail any way so what the hell?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 46 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Speaking of "government...demise"... "All governments must have citizens in order to exist.   If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. It is, after all, his innate human right to rule over everything within the lower realm of imaginary creations.   Isn't it amazing just how powerful we are as sovereign human beings?" ~ Excerpted from A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo [Emphasis added] I DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    "A very simple reason, it's too profitable politically and economically to legalize it." Correct, Glock27. It is "illegal", but not "unlawful". "...the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter [legal] goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former [lawful] usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 885 [Bracketed information added] It is "illegal", but not "unlawful", because there is more profit in keeping it "illegal". "And Judah said unto his brethren, 'What profit is it...'" There is nothing "immoral" or "unethical", i.e. bad, or wrong, about growing, selling, or using the herb called marijuana, therefor it is not "unlawful". One, or more, of these acts , however, may be "illegal" according to the "positive", private law of certain corporations, corporations like the "United States", for example. 28 USC § 3002 - Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal corporation... (Source: http://tinyurl.com/2u23xv [Emphasis added]) So, if one consents to being a member (citizen) of one of these corporations, and thus "subject" to their positive, private law, growing, selling and/or using marijuana may be "legally prohibited" for that "person[1]". I DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. _____________________________________________________________________ [1] A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "...and the duties which it imposes"; "...and the duties which it imposes"; "...and the duties which it imposes"
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 46 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry, calinb, but no. I will not ignore the title of Paul's essay, for he put it there on purpose and a title serves the purpose of characterizing what follows - in this case, quite accurately. Paul asserted that libertarians are fault-ridden. He did so in his title, and he did so in the text. My article offered a counterpoint to both. Of course it's possible to find fault with libertarians, and in his article he finds quite a lot. But like it or not, the single hope for liberty does rest with us, and fallible though we are, my perspective is one of optimism and pride and excitement that we have such a priceless opportunity. He's right about one thing: the need to accentuate the positive, not just to pour scorn on the follies of statism. I have done that more than most, I think, by writing _A Vision of Liberty_ (see http://TakeLifeBack.com/trilib ) and other glimpses of what the coming free society will be like, but I also think it necessary to demolish the mythology by which our statist neighbors imagine that the present world is as good as it can get. Falsehood needs to be identified and torn down, before a true and rational structure can be erected in its place. A particularly disappointing phrase comes in "Nothing Special", on which I didn't comment above: Paul shares his view that "I don’t think there will ever be a libertarian paradise, or some kind of utopia. Humans don’t have it in them..." Possibly that was just a slip of Paul's keyboard, but if it means what it seems to say - that freedom is incompatible with human nature - it reveals a gross, breathtaking misunderstanding of Para One, Lesson One of what the freedom philosophy is all about. I hope you don't share it.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    The war on Mary Jane or Doobie is not going to come to a conclusion. It will always be illegal, why? A very simple reason, it's too profitable politically and economically to legalize it. Christian organizations will be outraged and stampeed the effort, but what little good that will do since there is a sincere effort on the governments part to stamp out the christian religion because it has been such a thorn it its side for over 250 years. Due to the expensive blackmarket rate for the stuff, I choose to cultivate my own and even if I have to say so it was rather nice stuff and I even had some anecdotal responses from friends who agreed with me. I don't cultivate anymore because there is such a hard hitting drug enforcement in my area with aircraft fly overs and helocopters searching for even just one or two plants. The consequences if caught were simply too high. My wife would have been caught up in it even though she never knew and we would loose the house through confiscation. My state rolled over for the medical use of it and you can get a permit to raise no more than 12 plants a season. Hell. You have to raise more than that to assure you can get 12 good plants. The theme for this site is liberty and freedom. Just see how much liberty and freedom you have and go out an plant a dozen or so plants of Mary Jane and see what it gets you. Freedom and liberty is bullshit. Every last one of us are slaves or surfs to this tyranny. It is rather ironic I think. I can buy all the liquor I want and it's perfectly legal. The only reason I don't like it is because of the hang over the next day. Mary Jane dosen't treat you that way, or at least not in my experiannces. The only thing I hate about Mary Jane (I use Mary Jane because I can spell the other word) is that it contributes heavily to my heavyness No. The herb will never get released. The political usefulness of it is too strong of a motive for legislators to consider legalizing it. They are simply too stupid to recognize that they could make a boat load of money of taxes on it. A prime example of pure, unadultrated stupidity. I am buzzing now and am too lazy to go back and review what I have written so please forgive my random gramatical structure and crappy spelling.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I would recommend "Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth" to you, I suspect that it might be illuminating. The power of words is quite astonishing. As is simply ignoring the beast.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    This is only one of many points that convinces me that it is totally useless to chat about freedom and liberty. When people live under these conditions you cannot convince me that we are free. This merely proves that those whom are libertarian, anarchist, or voluntarist are and have become slaves to a governmental agency and a judicial branch, both of which are gradually evolving into a tyrannical group of sub-human aliens. Why it is so important for a government to need to subject its subjects to such a tyranny is beyoned my limited reasoning ability. It makes as much sense to me as a nut bag putting a puppy in a microwave and turning it on high. The ideas and philosophies presented on this site are Utopic and reflects the kind of society I would love to see evolve, but I fear it has only reach the chat phase and become nothing more. Action speaks louder than words, but what kind of action needs to be taken? I hear so much about non-aggression until you are aggressed upon. This group has been aggressed upon, maybe not individually, but collectively, the ideology each holds dearly has, is and will be continually aggressed upon by the feebel guberment, and kangaroo court. What are you willing to do to stop the aggression that is occuring because all this talk is not going to achieve anything. Can this delimmia be answered? I denegrate my humanity by writing to my legislators, unleashing the nicest kind or wrath over their idiotic actions, but I an a lone wolf baying at the full moon. Futile. My efforts fall on deaf ears and I know it, but I also know if thousands of voices were to speak up they would listen and maybe do the right thing. Look at what occurred with "Chick-fil-a". Respectfully Glock27
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Because he is a decent, respectable man. Limiting ones view to one author severely limites ones broadest possible scope of getting a gestalte picture.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 46 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Hmm...The “central bank” is not a real bank. Everything about it is permeated with government power. At the heart of the financial and monetary system of a nation that is supposed to be an exemplar of free markets is a *government money-bureau*. http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/central-banks-aren%E2%80%99t-banks/ Some context: "We Must Have Parallel Currencies"... http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul817.html Makes sense, but not the collectivist "We" part; AND BITCOIN as Paul Bonneau points out ALREADY solves the above points (and more) by providing a Direct Alternative trading platform---*WITHOUT the need to get caught up convincing and/or waiting for We-ists to get The Following Message*. *A Message to the Voting Cattle* Posted by Travis Holte on August 1, 2012 07:57 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116939.html
  • willchpr's picture
    willchpr 5 years 46 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I wonder why any serious libertarian wastes time talking about monetarist Milton Friedman when there has been such a brilliant, prolific writer and free market economist, Murray Rothbard
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 46 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    Good point and article. Sorting out legitimate land claims after thousands of years of conquest and subsequent, on-going transfers of "legal" land titles does seem an impossible task. This does not, however, change the fundamental problems associated with collective ownership. I also prefer the rational approach of trying to work out what individuals have legitimate claims on land than the irrational method of setting up collective ownership of all land.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 46 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "The answer is more decent, armed people in theaters so the rare Holmes can be taken out if need be, just as happened with other incipient massacres in the past." Exactly Paul. I just can't understand how gun control nuts don't see that if somebody else in that theater had been armed, then this tragedy would have ended differently. Ms. Wolf's diatribe listing how many people die and get hurt annually in gun related events (including accidents) was just stupid. If this nut had taken his car and run through a line of people waiting to get tickets or even crashing into the lobby killing dozens, do you think she would have gone into a diatribe listing how many people get killed and hurt by automobiles (way more than by guns including 50,000 deaths) annually? Or would be calling for car-control and lamenting the American cultural infatuation with cars? I agree Paul, Ms. Wolf can be so good challenging tyranny and then puts out this overly emotional, irrational screed. Thanks for calling her on it.