Gullible, aren't we all?

[jetgraphics]

When has government, in the last 90 years, devoted itself to the
primary jobs described in the Declaration of Independence?
[] Job #1 : Secure rights to life, liberty and private property, and
[] Job #2 : Govern those who consent.

Government makes nothing but more government.
Government gives nothing but what was first taken from someone else.

From my perspective, government has sought more power and taken
resources unto itself. It has entered into abominable contracts with
usurers, and built an impossible to pay national debt. It has tricked
millions into consenting to be socialist serfs, via FICA / Social
Security. It has granted sweeping powers to lawyers, bankers, and
bureaucrats, who rule us, from their petty thrones. It has debased the
money system, first, by allowing usury, second, by repudiating their
notes, third, by tricking the American people to underwrite those
notes to make them "legal tender" in violation of "lawful money",
fourth, by debasing the remaining fractional coin.

I don't believe BHO will be any different that those who came before
him. The renewal of the "temporary" State of Emergency, first declared
in 1933, will be proof of that fact.

It's an easy prediction to make - that nothing BHO will do, will
fundamentally change America's course to oblivion.
If you believe otherwise, you are too gullible.
Of course, I may be in error, and BHO will tell us THE TRUTH.

If you want to know what the "founding generation" thought about
government's authority, consider this from the 1776 Virginia
Constitution.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the
people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having
sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment
to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or
deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent,
or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to
which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.

All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses
without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public
good.

Did you know you gave consent to be ruled, taxed, and dispossessed?
Did you know you surrendered your birthright to be sovereign, free,
and independent?

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or
expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign,
are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by
his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they
are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the
people,... directly,.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant
supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

America's "self government" didn't mean democracy - but that each
individual was sovereign - with independent and supreme authority over
his person, property and in possession of natural and personal
liberty.

But "they" never told you that volunteering to be a citizen was
submission to the state. A sovereign and a subject are mutually
exclusive. No monarch is a citizen of his domain.

""... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the
term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted
from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the
King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

OH REALLY?
How did sovereign people become subject citizens?

That's what we were indoctrinated to squander away.
Gullible, aren't we all?

[Glass]

good summary there jetgraphics.

You and I both know there is a whole lot more out there. For interested people, The Law of Merchants By William Avery is a very good read.

Here is a link: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...fMerchants.htm (originally posted by JCarvingblock)

People need to comprehed that how they got us was to get everyone using a privelage or benefit they claim to have provided. The most common ones are:
1) The franchise called "the person"
2) The use of that franchise which results in an excise for the benefit. This is measured as a percentage of the overall benefit usually measured by income received
3) The benefit of limited liability. I can pay a fine or spread my losses around to other people through insurance claims etc
4) The benefit of benefits. I am talking about social security, tax deductions, driver licenses etc
5) The benefit or privelage (can't tell which) of using private credit notes (FRN's), promisory notes, bills of exchange. Basically anything related to mercatile activity.

Once you participate they have the conditions of contract (statute law/law merchant) in their favour. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights have been waived by your participation whether you know it or not.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Glass

good summary there jetgraphics.

You and I both know there is a whole lot more out there. For interested people, The Law of Merchants By William Avery is a very good read.

Here is a link: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...fMerchants.htm (originally posted by JCarvingblock)

People need to comprehed that how they got us was to get everyone using a privelage or benefit they claim to have provided. The most common ones are:
1) The franchise called "the person"
2) The use of that franchise which results in an excise for the benefit. This is measured as a percentage of the overall benefit usually measured by income received
3) The benefit of limited liability. I can pay a fine or spread my losses around to other people through insurance claims etc
4) The benefit of benefits. I am talking about social security, tax deductions, driver licenses etc
5) The benefit or privelage (can't tell which) of using private credit notes (FRN's), promisory notes, bills of exchange. Basically anything related to mercatile activity.

Once you participate they have the conditions of contract (statute law/law merchant) in their favour. Your 4th and 5th Amendment rights have been waived by your participation whether you know it or not.

Very True.
Limited liability and usury are both abominations, subject to regulation and taxation.
It is immoral to transfer the cost for restitution from guilty parties to innocent parties.
And usury, charging a fee, in money, for the use / loan of money is nothing less than a scam to legally steal.

Adam Smith (author of "The Wealth of Nations") was an apologist for usurers, and was responsible for corrupting capitalism.

[JohnStuartMill]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

When has government, in the last 90 years, devoted itself to the
primary jobs described in the Declaration of Independence?

The declaration of independence is not now, nor has it ever been, a US legal document.

[Saul Mine]

The basic problem is that people demand a government to take over their responsibilities. Do you need someone to "secure rights to life, liberty and private property, and govern those who consent"? Human nature wants to force government onto those who do not consent. People will tolerate freedom for about 250 years, and then they demand a government. They don't even care if it's a good or bad government, as long as it can force compliance with its orders. It's not all downhill from there, but it always eventually collapses.

[New2This]

"cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected"

Well, there's the loophole right there. Our elected officials, whom supposedly represent the will of the people, make any damn law or policy they so desire. The failure of the immense opposition to the $700 Billion bailout this past year, and subsequent addition of $180 billion more added as pork when it passed proves that.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by JohnStuartMill

The declaration of independence is not now, nor has it ever been, a US legal document.

In the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Statute #1 is the Declaration of Independence. You will find no "constitutional" law that violates its basic premise : job #1 - secure rights, job #2 - govern those who consent.

However, pursuant to the second statute, Articles of Confederation, there are "excepted" classes - paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.

Enrollment into national socialism makes one a pauper... by consent.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by New2This

"cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected"

Well, there's the loophole right there. Our elected officials, whom supposedly represent the will of the people, make any damn law or policy they so desire. The failure of the immense opposition to the $700 Billion bailout this past year, and subsequent addition of $180 billion more added as pork when it passed proves that.

The definition for constituent is one who gives consent, similar to "power of attorney" to his elected official.

However, those who do not exercise political liberty (citizenship) are not so obligated.

The Counter Revolution is based on saying "NO" to voluntary servitude.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Saul Mine

The basic problem is that people demand a government to take over their responsibilities. Do you need someone to "secure rights to life, liberty and private property, and govern those who consent"? Human nature wants to force government onto those who do not consent. People will tolerate freedom for about 250 years, and then they demand a government. They don't even care if it's a good or bad government, as long as it can force compliance with its orders. It's not all downhill from there, but it always eventually collapses.

Do not confuse democracy with a republican form of government.

Since 1935, Americans have been indoctrinated to become good Socialists, under "collectivism". The illusion of majority consent (policy) underlies its authority.

Socialists and usurers have formed an unholy alliance to dominate us. Never forget that socialists are pirates, and usurers have been denounced since time immemorial (Ezekiel 18:13 KJV - death sentence for usurers!).

What we have been programmed to "believe" is capitalism (stock corporations and finance) is the enemy of capitalism - the private ownership and enjoyment of the fruits of that ownership.

"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent."

Even a monarchy is based on this principle - 'cause the monarch has all the property rights. Only by consent, do his subjects have any 'privileges'.

BTW - Americans are not unique in their subjugation by ignorance. Consider that the British Commonwealth is subject to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commonwealth

Elizabeth II is also the monarch, separately, of sixteen members of the Commonwealth, collectively called the Commonwealth realms.

The most populous members are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Jamaica.

Though most Canadians will tell you that they're an independent nation, in the movie "Fly Away Home", the Canadian game warden spills the beans. In a classroom lecture, he tells the children, "These are the Queen's geese..."

Only in the United States of America are the people sovereign. But swiftly are we enrolled into subjugation via citizenship and pauperization by socialism. Americans, once restored to sovereignty, are the most dangerous threat to the world's emperors and rulers. Because other subjects can look at them and hope for a better life. It's no surprise that America was targeted for destruction from Day One. A world of sovereign people is anathema to the parasites and plunderers.

FINAL GRIPE:
Though many Americans are enthralled with knighthood, and don't realize the depravity of Americans who accept 'honors' from the Queen, let's remember this tidbit: has Queen Elizabeth II ever accepted a title or honor from any other monarch (except their surrender to Her Majesty)?

(!)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm

(In)Famous American "Knights" of Her Majesty
[] RONALD REAGAN
[] GEORGE HW BUSH
[] BILL GATES
[] ALAN GREENSPAN

others of note:
Douglas Fairbanks Jr.
Rudi Guiliani
Billy Graham
J Edgar Hoover
Bob Hope (born in England but a US citizen)
Henry Kissinger
Andre Previn
Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.
Steven Spielberg

Gullible, are we not?

[JohnStuartMill]

Originally Posted by Saul Mine

Do you need someone to "secure rights to life, liberty and private property, and govern those who consent"?

Right now? No. In 1812 and 1941? Kinda.

[jetgraphics]

The Romans used the fasces to teach their children "the facts of life".
Hand a stick to a child and ask him to break it. Easy. Keep adding sticks until the child cannot break them. That's the awesome power of cooperation. Even weak individuals become a mighty force, when working together. (Now you know the meaning of a bundle of sticks with an axehead attached.)

Mutual respect for property rights without a means to help defend them from attack is futile. Ultimately, we are all "the law" and must take it into our own hands, lest we become tricked into helping pirates steal other men's property under the guise of patriotism.

Ultimately, all wars are either piracy or defense against pirates. To figure out which side is which, look who keeps other people's property in the end. Then you will know if the "JOLLY ROGER" flies over your "Ship of State".

[mozkill]

From my perspective, government has sought more power and taken
resources unto itself. It has entered into abominable contracts with
usurers, and built an impossible to pay national debt. It has tricked
millions into consenting to be socialist serfs, via FICA / Social
Security. It has granted sweeping powers to lawyers, bankers, and
bureaucrats, who rule us, from their petty thrones. It has debased the
money system, first, by allowing usury, second, by repudiating their
notes, third, by tricking the American people to underwrite those
notes to make them "legal tender" in violation of "lawful money",
fourth, by debasing the remaining fractional coin.

Almost exactly my perspective also.

[Twisted Avatar]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Did you know you gave consent to be ruled, taxed, and dispossessed?
Did you know you surrendered your birthright to be sovereign, free,
and independent?
"People are supreme, not the state."

Even though I have never read these words........ I subconsciouslly knew them to be true and that Is why I pound this keyboard CONSTANTLY reminding others .

THAT NATURAL LAW SUPERCEEDS STATE LAW.

ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY UNLESS YOU WILLFULLY CONSENT.

THAT GOES FOR ANYTHING................FIREARMS, INHERITENCE, PROPERTY,POSSESIONS.

IT IS YOURS AND YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE IT REMAINS YOURS.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar

THAT NATURAL LAW SUPERCEEDS STATE LAW.

ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY UNLESS YOU WILLFULLY CONSENT.

THAT GOES FOR ANYTHING................FIREARMS, INHERITENCE, PROPERTY,POSSESIONS.

Nit picking flag on - - -
Natural law is not enforced by government. What you might rather say: "All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

Or as the Declaration of Independence puts it: governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights and (b) govern those who consent.

Law (in harmony with the law of love) protects property rights - your right to own yourself, your labor, that which you trade your labor for. Government can help you secure your rights, using its collective power to administer justice to those who deliberately injure you or your property.

If you have no property rights, there is no law, only policy. Then government is enforcing policy, not justice.

Voluntary enrollment into national socialism makes one into a pauper (eligible for charity from the public treasury), a bankrupt (not using lawful money), and a human resource, pledged as collateral on the public debt.

Form SS-5 (application for an account and number in SocSec) is only available to U.S. citizens / residents. American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled in the U.S.A. are ineligible to enroll (and would not wish to!)

Coincidentally, the 50 titles of U.S. code rarely mention inhabitants, private property, or American nationals.

[jetgraphics]

If you don't know "The Law"

To make it more clear, there are people who follow law.
The problem is that there are two major forms of law: Law of Love and
the Law of the Jungle.

We can easily determine the difference between the two laws.

Those who follow the law of love, support their lives with harmless
labor. Those who follow the law of love sacrifice themselves for others.

Those who follow the law of the jungle, support their lives with
harmful labor. Those who follow the law of the jungle sacrifice others
for themselves.

We often use the terms : good and evil.
And we call evil doers : law breakers.

But that is misleading.

Predators follow the LAW OF THE JUNGLE and thus are abiding by the
law. It's just not the same law as harmless producers follow.

Harmless productive people are "good" and harmful predatory people are
"bad" only under the Law of Love.

Under the law of the jungle, predators are "good" and prey are "good
to eat." Prey who fight back are "bad".

Communists and socialists PREY upon the productive people, and steal
their wealth. They do not like the Law of Love. But they are lawful -
under the steamy green canopy of their law.

The problem is that you have to make a choice : predator or producer.
And if you choose harmless production, should you tolerate predators?
If you do tolerate predators, is that not unmerciful to their next
victims?

Consider the government of a nation: Which law is it following?
When you can answer that, you will better understand "THE LAW".

[Mujahideen]

Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar

Even though I have never read these words........ I subconsciouslly knew them to be true and that Is why I pound this keyboard CONSTANTLY reminding others .

THAT NATURAL LAW SUPERCEEDS STATE LAW.

ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY UNLESS YOU WILLFULLY CONSENT.

THAT GOES FOR ANYTHING................FIREARMS, INHERITENCE, PROPERTY,POSSESIONS.

IT IS YOURS AND YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE IT REMAINS YOURS.

Agreed,,,

Now can you fend off the police, swat team & national guard? Thats where the problem comes in.

I only follow 'laws' for convenience

[skyvike]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

In the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Statute #1 is the Declaration of Independence. You will find no "constitutional" law that violates its basic premise : job #1 - secure rights, job #2 - govern those who consent.

However, pursuant to the second statute, Articles of Confederation, there are "excepted" classes - paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.

Enrollment into national socialism makes one a pauper... by consent.

The intent of the Law IS the Law.

The Declaration of Independence esablishes, for a candid world, INTENT.

[Bubbles]

Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar

Even though I have never read these words........ I subconsciouslly knew them to be true and that Is why I pound this keyboard CONSTANTLY reminding others .

THAT NATURAL LAW SUPERCEEDS STATE LAW.

ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE NATURAL ORDER YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY UNLESS YOU WILLFULLY CONSENT.

THAT GOES FOR ANYTHING................FIREARMS, INHERITENCE, PROPERTY,POSSESIONS.

IT IS YOURS AND YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE IT REMAINS YOURS.

"There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God."—U.S. v. Seeger - United States Supreme court

Book of acts-5:29 "Then peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."