PDA

View Full Version : Republican Form of Government



ozmirage
22nd April 2016, 06:16
The one thing Americans have that is unique among all other nations is the republican form of government. Ironically, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define it nor its source. I certainly couldn't before I began to research law and history.

Contrary to popular belief (or mythology) it's not synonymous with 'republic' nor is it a 'constitutional republic.'

What are its attributes?
Under the republican form, the people have endowed rights (liberties, etc) and absolute ownership of themselves, their labor and that which they acquired by their harmless labor.
In American law, governments are instituted to secure those endowed rights, and can only govern (rule) those who consent to be governed. Those who did not consent, are not governed. All that government may do is help secure their rights (adjudicate disputes, prosecute criminals, and defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

However, those who consent, transfer to the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form of government, and are subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, in exchange for privileges and immunities (ex: 'civil rights').

=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=
Restating the situation, concisely - - -
RFOG:
{source: Declaration of Independence}

[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government)
. . .
DFOG:
{source: compact / constitution}

[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership
[] Subject of the government, by consent
(Owes mandatory civic duties, etc)

. . .
When reading any American law ask yourself:
● Is this law securing the rights of an injured party?
● Is this law imposed upon only those who gave consent?
● Is this law internal to the administration of the government?
. . .


Here are THREE definitions that describe aspects associated with the REPUBLICAN FORM
...

COMMONWEALTH - ...It generally designates, when so employed, a republican form of government, - one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a class or the will of the monarch...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 278

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

GOVERNMENT (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, Sixth Edition, P. 695
...
Restating, in the references to a “republican form” we can see the following characteristics of it:
[] People directly exercise sovereignty (over themselves and their private property, absolutely owned)
[] People are not subjects of a sovereign (citizens are subjects, by definition)
[] The welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration

RELATED TO SOVEREIGN PEOPLE (non-citizen Nationals)


"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

“Free inhabitants” = sovereigns___


“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.”
- - - Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

. . .
Under the subsection: CONSTITUTION
Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635



What rights and what powers? __


"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Note: PEOPLE (sovereigns) have rights and powers (endowed by our Creator).
Citizens (subjects) have privileges and immunities (granted by the government).

Citizens are NOT sovereigns


CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or SUBMITTED themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... 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)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
(Note: there is only one country with a "republican form" of government)

Article 4, Section 2 - State citizens
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Recapping:

People have rights and powers. (Endowments or inherent rights)
Citizens have privileges and immunities. (often mislabeled as "rights" - i.e. "civil rights")

The source of the republican form is the Declaration of Independence wherein it declares all men (or Americans in our case) are endowed with rights by our Creator. These rights were not grants of government, so they cannot be dependent upon the constitutional government, nor any vote. And only by consent of the governed, may the government rule. This is why no other nation, after 1776, instituted a "republican form."
No other nation asserted that their people were sovereigns, superior to the governments instituted to serve them.

Even the French Revolution did not elevate the French to individual sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man…
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

It is a tribute to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, that so few Americans know of their magnificent heritage and birthright that the founding generation fought and died to bestow upon their posterity.


= = =

More information already posted here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself

ozmirage
23rd April 2016, 18:33
THE UNEXPECTED
==\==\==
It was wholly unexpected but America took to the bitter medicine solution

The “peaceful” counter revolution to the socialist revolution of 1933 consisted of:

[] Wholesale withdrawal from FICA and citizenship - crippling the tax revenue stream and power of consent. The Collapse / Repeal of national socialism / Socialist InSecurity. The End of the “State of Emergency,” and the repeal of all laws and executive orders authorized under said emergency.

[] 97% reduction in Federal Budget. Downsizing of all government - federal, state and local. Beyond securing rights, adjudicating disputes, the government could do little more - no armies of subjects to command - no vast budgets. Governments could no longer borrow. Period. A government that borrows is admitting that it wants to take MORE from the people than they are willing to give.

[] Infrastructure sold off / donated to Americans who accepted the responsibility to build, operate and maintain it.

[] The repeal of the 14th amendment, ending “citizenship at birth,” and the public debt was voided for fraud. In addition, usury was abolished, and no court could be used to enforce contracts for usury. This voided all government bonds and notes, including the Federal Reserve note, which ceased to be fungible on private debts. This also abolished insurance underwriters who used gambling and usury.

[] Restoration of gold and silver coin. However, due to their scarcity, alternative mediums of exchange were recognized, such as private promissory notes (Liberty money). Laws were enacted to severely punish counterfeiters, etc., etc. Local commerce was especially receptive to alternative mediums of exchange, such as private promissory notes or other means to account for trade that do not rely on scarce precious metal coin. Foreign trade is mostly barter and three party trades since no international currency was sufficiently trusted for equitable trade.

[] Cessation of all hostilities on foreign soil. Repatriation of all military personnel and material from foreign bases. End of all foreign aid / bribery. Sell off assets to private parties. Private people are no longer prohibited from possessing military grade items.

[] Cease participating in the United Nations and politely ask them to move their headquarters to another nation.

[] No franchise for recipients. No recipient of public funds can vote in any election for a period no less than two years from last disbursement (Beggars can’t be choosers). However, with the end of ‘voluntary’ socialism, there are few recipients affected.

[] No privilege of limited liability (i.e., investors, board members and officers of corporations, etc, are 100% liable) - eliminates the need for regulations and bureaucracy to administer and enforce. Deregulation of healthcare, medicine and medical materials.

[] Wealth is not prosperity. Prosperity is the creation, trade, and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Anything that impedes that is contrary to good sense.

CONSEQUENCES:::
__ Wholesale emigration of “illegal” immigrants who no longer can get socialist freebies, undercut “legal” workers, nor participate in the private promissory note economies.
__ 80 to 90 million “potential” laborers desperately seeking means to discharge their private notes, and maintain their honor - or else.
__ No public funded pensions, resulting in a resurgence of private charities to fill the gap.
__ Intolerance of predators caused an initial high death rate, followed by a general shift from predatory behavior.

shaberon
23rd April 2016, 21:11
[] Wholesale withdrawal from FICA and citizenship - crippling the tax revenue stream and power of consent. The Collapse / Repeal of national socialism / Socialist InSecurity. The End of the “State of Emergency,” and the repeal of all laws and executive orders authorized under said emergency.




I believe we should enumerate the precise, tangible steps needed to achieve this, along with the proper terms to protect one's self from presumptuous authorities. On any contact with enforcement, bear in mind they have superior numbers, handcuffs, jails, and weapons, to which any fact of law will vanish in the rush of injury or trespass they may commit. Primarily when traveling upon public roads with an unregistered vehicle, that will attract a lot of attention, and if you don't choose your words wisely, you'll have a face full of pavement.

Such as: the return of the Social Security card to its owner, cancellation of account, disassociation of one's name from the number. Does this make the IRS forget you? How should one accept work with a corporation that will sally forth with those withholding certificates?

Cancel voter registration.

Cancel state-issued ID and obtain passport designating one's status as American national and informing Secretary of State of this change. Get rid of any type of licenses and insurance.

Discharge debts and cancel interest-bearing accounts; banks, 401k and the like. One may continue to circulate FRNs and use them to purchase money orders--I think. Silver dollars a good choice, also look for local currencies and scrips.

Birth certificate--is this important and what should one do?

Inhabit private property, not residential property.

Is this accurate? Seems more a matter of removing things, than taking an oath or doing a bunch of patriotic grandstanding. You will still be paying taxes, mostly just sales taxes. Concerning doctors and hospitals, I try to stay away, but if you wind up there...well, I'm not sure how they can collect from you besides a judgement.

ozmirage
23rd April 2016, 22:58
[] Wholesale withdrawal from FICA and citizenship - crippling the tax revenue stream and power of consent. The Collapse / Repeal of national socialism / Socialist InSecurity. The End of the “State of Emergency,” and the repeal of all laws and executive orders authorized under said emergency.


I believe we should enumerate the precise, tangible steps needed to achieve this,
[Already covered in this post: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1056039&viewfull=1#post1056039 ]

along with the proper terms to protect one's self from presumptuous authorities.
[There are some bad apples, but in general, good public servants are no risk]

On any contact with enforcement, bear in mind they have superior numbers, handcuffs, jails, and weapons, to which any fact of law will vanish in the rush of injury or trespass they may commit. Primarily when traveling upon public roads with an unregistered vehicle, that will attract a lot of attention, and if you don't choose your words wisely, you'll have a face full of pavement.
[Establishing that the vehicle is PRIVATE PROPERTY is key. One respondent went so far as to get an ex parte ruling that his car was his private property. He posted the court order on the side of his vehicle. When stopped, he directs the Officer to read the ruling and reminds him of the penalties for contempt of a court order.]


Such as: the return of the Social Security card to its owner, cancellation of account, disassociation of one's name from the number.
[It's THEIR record for THEIR use, not yours. If you cease participating, it doesn't matter.]

Does this make the IRS forget you?
[Anecdote: I left Socsec in 1993. A friend with access to credit databanks found that every year the Eye Are Us does a check on what was once "my" number.]

How should one accept work with a corporation that will sally forth with those withholding certificates?
[Being an employee without enumeration, etc, is the hardest task, since most employers are misled by accountants to comply or die. Best advice is to be a business. However, this might be useful: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=173066&page=3 Regarding the "TACO BELL" incident.]

Cancel voter registration.

Cancel state-issued ID
[If the state issues ID to non-resident inhabitants, it's not a disability]

and obtain passport designating one's status as American national and informing Secretary of State of this change. Get rid of any type of licenses and insurance.
[No need to change passport. All passports state that they're for citizens / nationals of the United States of America.]

Discharge debts and cancel interest-bearing accounts; banks, 401k and the like. One may continue to circulate FRNs and use them to purchase money orders--I think. Silver dollars a good choice, also look for local currencies and scrips.

Birth certificate--is this important and what should one do?
[It's a convenience, not a disability.]

Inhabit private property, not residential property.

Is this accurate? Seems more a matter of removing things, than taking an oath or doing a bunch of patriotic grandstanding. You will still be paying taxes, mostly just sales taxes.
[Once one has a "foreign domicile" one might contact the State department under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and see about getting a state sales tax exemption. http://www.state.gov/ofm/tax/sales/]

Concerning doctors and hospitals, I try to stay away, but if you wind up there...well, I'm not sure how they can collect from you besides a judgement.
[If your state has anti-peonage statutes, and you're under the limit, you're judgment proof for the most part.]


Even if one cannot take all the steps necessary to withdraw consent, badgering the public servants with questions should be a "wake up" call.


Reference:
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976

28 USC § 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

(An American national, free inhabitant, non-citizen of a State of the U.S., nor under the laws of any third country appears to fit the definition.)

Being "foreign" is no disability.


FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

People = state, regarding the republican form


Under the subsection: CONSTITUTION
Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635

American people, in a state, are "foreign" to the Federal government (unless they consented to be U.S. citizens, etc, etc.).


There are anti-peonage statutes, where the government cannot involuntarily pauperize someone. In the Georgia State constitution, Art 1, Sec 1, Para 26, there is a constitutional exemption of 1600 dollars.


"Exemptions from levy and sale.
The General Assembly shall protect by law from levy and sale by virtue of any process under the laws of this state a portion of the property of each person in an amount of not less than $1,600.00 and shall have authority to define to whom any such additional exemptions shall be allowed; to specify the amount of such exemptions; to provide for the manner of exempting such property and for the sale, alienation, and encumbrance thereof; and to provide for the waiver of said exemptions by the debtor."
Neighboring states also have such exemptions.

If I buy my land for $21 (silver) and my house for $21 (silver) and my automobile for $21, and so on for 72 more purchases, my private property is EXEMPT for the most part, and I am judgment proof.

Anti-peonage laws are important, because servant government cannot compel one to be a pauper at law. That's another reason why FICA is 100% voluntary.
This is why WITHDRAWING CONSENT is vital to restoring one's legal status as a freeman - and if an inhabitant - a sovereign American national.

shaberon
24th April 2016, 03:59
Awesome. What about any other word games we would be best to handle with kid gloves?

For example, if you tell a judge, policeman, etc....that you understand him--you stand under him, no longer sovereign but as a subject.

If you agree you are a person, you are a persona, "mask", filling a state office, thereby a servant.

Just wanting to prevent verbal submissions that produce further complications--such as hiring an attorney, whose job it is to "turn" property from one set of hands to another.

ozmirage
24th April 2016, 04:58
Awesome. What about any other word games we would be best to handle with kid gloves?

For example, if you tell a judge, policeman, etc....that you understand him--you stand under him, no longer sovereign but as a subject.
[No data in support of that conclusion, to my knowledge.]

If you agree you are a person, you are a persona, "mask", filling a state office, thereby a servant.
[Agree about WHAT? A person or "their person?"]

Just wanting to prevent verbal submissions that produce further complications--such as hiring an attorney, whose job it is to "turn" property from one set of hands to another.
What if's can go on forever.

Boiled down, after withdrawing consent, the only legitimate reason to GO TO government is to get help securing rights. And the only legitimate reason for the government to COME TO you is to secure rights of an injured party.

As to the other 'crimes' involving consent (malum prohibitum), one should check the original statutes to verify that such laws cannot apply to you, since you retained all your endowed / inherent / private rights, and no statute can be construed to violate them unless securing the rights of an injured party.

Generally excluded from "governing" statutes:

Sovereigns (by the use of 'person' or 'any person')
Private property absolutely owned
Natural liberty
Personal liberty
Natural rights


Even if not explicitly listed in the statute, one can still be excluded.

SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1375

MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.979

If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience.

(This exclusion is in addition to exemptions, exclusions, and clauses based on the law not violating endowed rights and liberties of the sovereign people.)

Hurrah for the republican form of government.

shaberon
24th April 2016, 06:59
Well for example, when I have endowed liberty to travel upon public roadways, I still find in my state statute:

G.S. 20
-
7

§ 20
-
7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a)
License Required.

To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be
licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and
must carry the license while driving the vehicle. The Division issues regular drivers licenses
under this Article and issues commercial drivers licenses under Article 2C.

Can I interpret "must" as "shall" which may mean "may", or am I simply--not a person? Is that what you mean by, sovereigns are excluded by the use of "person" or "any person"? I was trying to say, don't agree with a policeman who asks if, or suggests that you are a person. It is a legal term referring to the subject/object of these statutes, and does not mean a sovereign human being, even when expressed as "natural person".

Black's definition PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

Man would seem to indicate any type of human being, but then it refers to entitled rights and duties, and certainly the statute would conflict with the endowed right of liberty.

ozmirage
24th April 2016, 07:09
Well for example, when I have endowed liberty to travel upon public roadways, I still find in my state statute:

G.S. 20
-
7

§ 20
-
7. Issuance and renewal of drivers licenses.
(a)
License Required.

To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be
licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and
must carry the license while driving the vehicle. The Division issues regular drivers licenses
under this Article and issues commercial drivers licenses under Article 2C.

Can I interpret "must" as "shall" which may mean "may", or am I simply--not a person? Is that what you mean by, sovereigns are excluded by the use of "person" or "any person"? I was trying to say, don't agree with a policeman who asks if, or suggests that you are a person. It is a legal term referring to the subject/object of these statutes, and does not mean a sovereign human being, even when expressed as "natural person".

Black's definition PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

Man would seem to indicate any type of human being, but then it refers to entitled rights and duties, and certainly the statute would conflict with the endowed right of liberty.

DRIVER'S LICENSE - The certificate or license issued by a state which authorizes a person to operate a motor vehicle. Generally, a written and driving examination is required for obtaining such.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 495

TRAFFIC - Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1495

Title 18 USC Sec. 31 : When used in this chapter the term - ... “MOTOR VEHICLE” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo...
- - - Title 18 USC Sec. 31

"used for commercial purposes"
(Due to Federal funding for roads and highways, federal definitions do apply.)

Ever notice that tractor trailers often have a sign : "No Riders".
Why not "No Passengers"?
Because they ARE licensed to carry passengers. Riders are not passengers.
A "passenger auto" is a commercial vehicle, hauling passengers for hire.

There are no licensing requirements for those who ride automobiles that are not motor vehicles.

And only 'residents' can get licenses. Generally, non-residents do not need licenses.


" PERSONAL LIBERTY largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

Traveling by automobile is not synonymous with driving a motor vehicle.


"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

Just another example of "Term Warfare."

Ewan
24th April 2016, 14:55
I was surprised to see that out of 6 votes (including mine) that 4 people thought A) was the answer.

I guess in a perfect world it would be, but I rather think the point is that any rights are granted and if you should dare look into them too deeply you'll find they're all smoke and mirrors anyway. You are born into a controlled system with no real rights whatsoever.

Though arguably, as some long term detainess have discovered, freedom is in the mind.

ozmirage
24th April 2016, 23:40
I was surprised to see that out of 6 votes (including mine) that 4 people thought A) was the answer.

I guess in a perfect world it would be, but I rather think the point is that any rights are granted and if you should dare look into them too deeply you'll find they're all smoke and mirrors anyway. You are born into a controlled system with no real rights whatsoever.

Though arguably, as some long term detainess have discovered, freedom is in the mind.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, certain rights ARE endowed / inherent / sacred.
HOWEVER
The exercise of those rights may require stiff defense.

To illustrate:
You meet a hungry lion in the jungle.
Q: Whose right to life is superior?
A: The one who can best defend it.

In American law, governments were instituted among men to secure those endowed rights, so that people triumph over 'hungry lions' (predatory people).
I can't say anything that conclusive about other nations' governments.

Also, there's the problem of infiltration by predators into government. Then what was created to benefit the harmless people, changes into a tormentor of the harmless people.

shaberon
24th April 2016, 23:47
Well, it's not so much what we think as an opinion--it's what was declared to be a fact, that rights are inherent and natural--only in America. It may not even be true in a scientific sense, but it's what was said at the time, and written into the supreme law of the land, and that still stands.

Even in the thread title, it's not about "a Republic", those are everywhere, and say nothing about the form of government. Here, all the free people are as monarchs without subjects. But most of us are not free, having surrendered to "term warfare" and "free money"--those are the U. S. citizens. Sadly, I'm one; if I cannot satisfactorily establish my freedom, then my last resort will be to go become a subject of someone else. The smoke and mirrors is so heavy, I'd say about 99.9% of what's available on the internet about American freedom is still quite misleading--ozmirage is one of the few who stays directly on point about it. I never questioned whether I was a "person" until a few weeks ago, but if I want to be one of the free people, I can't be a person.

I may be operating a motor vehicle commercially when I go buy things, but if I cease being a person doing so, then the licensing statutes do not apply.

If we succeed in uplifting America from bondage, perhaps other populations can follow suit. When surrendering, Cornwallis threatened us with one world government headed by the British empire as being inevitable; conquest or consent were the choices according to E. M. House. I say, release the third choice: sovereign individuals who have private property. From all recorded history, the issues are essentially about property and its control.

ozmirage
25th April 2016, 00:02
THERE WAS ONCE A NATION ...

There was once a nation, founded on the ideal of self government. Not a participatory democratic form, mind you. But that each individual governed himself - as a sovereign - master of his own domain. (See: Republican Form of Government)

Of course, when beset by predators, it helps to cooperate and unite in mutual defense. A subset of civic minded folks offered their services to “help” secure rights - you know - prosecute deliberate trespass and adjudicate accidental trespass.

This subset was drawn from not more than 3 to 5% of the populace, who had successfully revolted against their former sovereign. These “public servants” stepped down in status, accepted mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberty (voting and holding office). Not only were they oathbound to the compact (constitution), but they were held to a higher standard of behavior. Service is a privilege, not a right, and the sovereign people, the real masters, had the right to refuse service from those they disapproved of. (See: indirect Democratic form of government)

To insure that only genuine patriots served, volunteers had to register their property, pay taxes, serve in the militia between the ages of 17 and 45 (or 50), and surrender their liberty and life, in defense of the country and the people. This made sense. If one is to decide on who and how the public funds are to be used to secure rights, ante up your share and your hide. Cowards need not apply.

America’s governments were thus instituted with two delegations of power : to secure rights (endowed by our Creator) and to govern those who consent (subjects).

Frankly, legislatures didn’t have much to do, after enacting the laws that secured rights, as in prosecute deliberate injury to person or property, and adjudicate civil cases. And with a small budget, limited taxing powers (remember, no government instituted to secure rights can tax rights), and few subjects to rule, government work was no way to get rich.

After only two generations, those selfless “patriots” realized that they had a “raw deal,” and decided to change the percentages in their favor. They ended the stringent prerequisites for voting, and extended suffrage to any warm blooded male, regardless. This had several "beneficial" consequences:


__ 1. It reduced the odds for being called up for militia duty, as more were now bound to serve;
__ 2. It increased the number of consenting subjects and taxpayers, that the “democratically elected” government could govern, rule, regulate, restrict, and skin alive;
__ 3. It fostered partisanship, and the rise of “tax and bribe” politics; and
__ 4. It shifted the character of a candidate from “public servant” to “panderer.”

This transition from the original Republican form to the Democratic form resulted in dissatisfaction that led up to the divisive "Civil War." Ironically, the "Rebels" could have withdrawn consent from the democratic form, and restored their status as sovereign Americans served by government. But they were too far removed from the Founding generation, and had forgotten their heritage. (Or that under the republican form, “sovereigns without subjects” cannot own chattel slaves. Slave owners had to pay a TAX, because it was a privilege granted by the democratic form.)

It is ironic that Abraham Lincoln expressed the core of American republicanism (republican form) in a speech.
*****************

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's Consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
_________
Few Americans today understand what a republican form really means, and are ignorant of the consequences of consent to be governed that surrenders rights.

But consider this fact - the Declaration of Independence states that all men are endowed with the RIGHT to life and liberty - YET - in 1777, militia duty was mandatory on all male citizens (17-45 (or 50), which clearly violated their rights to life and liberty. Of course, citizenship was a voluntary assertion as was the imposed civic duties and loss of rights.

Those Americans who did not consent to be citizens, retained their birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence. Thus we see that the generation who wished to secede, were foolish and misled by those who would rather rule via the indirect democratic form, than be servants to the sovereign American people - the real beneficiaries of the UNION.
....

Another reference about citizenship and the drop in status from mandatory civic duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.”

Few Americans today recognize the risk they take in being misled to volunteer into democratic citizenship. Giving consent to be governed is just like volunteering on a suicide mission. It’s too late to object, “Hey, this could get me killed!”


= = = = = = =
REPUBLIC, REPUBLICAN FORM
=\\==\\==\\=
REPUBLIC

REPUBLIC (colloquial) - A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
- - - American Heritage Dictionary

REPUBLIC - That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302

Characteristics of a republic:
[] Whole body of citizens indirectly exercise “collective sovereignty” *(oxymoron)
[] Governed by elected officers and officials
*(No minority has “sovereignty” when outvoted by the majority)

REPUBLICAN FORM

GOVERNMENT (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, Sixth Edition, P. 695

Characteristics of a republican form:
[] Individual sovereignty, directly exercised
[] Government instituted to secure endowed rights, not govern
(Source : Declaration of Independence, 1776)

DEMOCRATIC FORM

DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

Characteristics of the democratic form:
[] Whole body of citizens indirectly exercise “collective sovereignty” *(oxymoron)
[] Governed by elected officers and officials
*(No minority has “sovereignty” when outvoted by the majority)
. . .
Which means that “a republic” and “democratic form” are synonymous!
. . .

ozmirage
25th April 2016, 20:22
SHORT FORM
=\=\=\=

Republican form soundbite:
What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, don't trespass.

Democratic form soundbite:
If you consent, shut up, sit down, and obey.

ozmirage
26th April 2016, 04:35
You can't dominate someone who's self sufficient. You can only dominate when you have something that someone else needs.
- - - Anonymous

“If America could be, once again, a nation of self-reliant farmers, craftsmen, hunters, ranchers, and artists, then the rich would have little power to dominate others. Neither to serve nor to rule: That was the American dream.”
- - - Edward Abbey

Sounds like it fits well with the republican form : "Sovereigns without subjects"

Free people tend toward a lifestyle of prosperity, autonomy, self reliance, and resistance to disasters.

ozmirage
26th April 2016, 07:37
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IMPOSSIBLE
=\=\=\=\=
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.
Civil disobedience is also a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole.
And civil disobedience is often defined as nonviolent resistance.

However, in a republican form of government, governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot govern those who did not consent. The servant government cannot make demands, impose obedience, nor punish those who did not consent to be governed. Ergo, there can be no civil disobedience in the republican form.

Only those who consent to be governed, and transfer to the (indirect) democratic form of government can be disobedient. And since consent is a prerequisite, disobedience is contrary to reason as a remedy. Simply withdraw consent, and leave the democratic form.

Of course, the (m)asses who are unaware of how and when they gave consent, may be misled to presume that their only viable option is anarchy, civil disobedience, or worse - a slave rebellion. But that is another issue, entirely.

The following link is to a science fiction story that highlights some aspects of the benefits of the republican form and liberty money, but erroneously links it to civil disobedience.


And Then There Were None
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

shaberon
26th April 2016, 18:30
Did not the republican form of government create a Treasury Department? And this operated an Independent Treasury System?

And this was later removed and replaced by the Department of the Treasury? With offices that bear similar names to their predecessors? It all being a thin disguise covering the fact that they are servants of the I. M. F. instead of the American people. Thereby leaving us *without* a national treasury soever.

ozmirage
27th April 2016, 01:07
Did not the republican form of government create a Treasury Department?
[no]
And this operated an Independent Treasury System?
[no]
And this was later removed and replaced by the Department of the Treasury? With offices that bear similar names to their predecessors? It all being a thin disguise covering the fact that they are servants of the I. M. F. instead of the American people. Thereby leaving us *without* a national treasury soever.
[as long as the government guarantees a republican form to the sovereign people, it can do whatever it wants to itself]

There are no offices nor officers in the republican form of government. Only "sovereigns without subjects."
The constitutionally limited indirect democratic form has offices and officers.

Hierarchy :

Sovereign people
Servant government and officers
Subject citizens

. . .
Whether deliberate or not, Americans were misled to assume they retained sovereign prerogatives and endowed rights when they shifted to the democratic form. By observation, one can plainly see that elected officials are not beholden to those who elected them, nor bound by campaign promises. Citizens were not the "bosses."

shaberon
27th April 2016, 07:13
Allright. More accurate to say: lawful money was once issued by the Treasury Department of the servant government, and this has been replaced by the Department of the Treasury which became allegiant to the I. M. F.?

Lawful money appears to have been phased out in stages. The original FRN's were still redeemable for a few years. Not only are they now just debt, but there is not even a treasury operated by the servant government.

ozmirage
27th April 2016, 08:47
Allright. More accurate to say: lawful money was once issued by the Treasury Department of the servant government, and this has been replaced by the Department of the Treasury which became allegiant to the I. M. F.?
[no]

Lawful money appears to have been phased out in stages.
[no]

The original FRN's were still redeemable for a few years. Not only are they now just debt, but there is not even a treasury operated by the servant government.
[no]

Let's get some definitions in place, so we're clear.


LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.

"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
"Eagles each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792

FYI: Silver was demonetized in the Coinage Act of 1873 ("The Crime of 1873"). But that only applied to the Federal government. Silver dollars still circulated.

U.S. MINT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mint

The United States Mint primarily produces circulating coinage for the United States to conduct its trade and commerce. The Mint was created by Congress with the Coinage Act of 1792, and originally placed within the Department of State.

It converted precious metals into standard coin for anyone's account with no seigniorage charge beyond the refining costs.

It was placed under the auspices of the Treasurer of the United States in 1981. Legal tender coins of today are minted solely for the Treasury's account.

Originally, coins were not "issued" by government, but coined from bullion brought to the mint by private parties.

Since 1965, counterfeit coins (non silver) have been coined. They are solely on the account of the Treasury and do not alienate title.
. . .


REAL MONEY - Money which has real metallic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1264

MONEY - In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, 79, 81.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1005

NOTE - An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. An instrument that is a promise to pay other than a certificate of deposit. U.C.C. 3-104(2)(d)
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1060

FIAT MONEY. Paper currency not backed by gold or silver.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. P.623

TENDER - An offer of money ... Legal tender is 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.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1467

[Note: FRNs are legal tender on the obligated party of those notes - the Federal government. . . AND the 320 million enumerated socialists.]


"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305

All duly enumerated American socialists cannot object to the tender of the notes that THEY are obligated parties to. (thanks to FICA)

Recapping:

● Lawful money = gold / silver coin (aka real money)
● Money = lawful money or currency (i.e., certificates which are receipts for real money in the vault)
● Notes are not money, by law, nor are they “fiat” because they’re debt (negative value)

Holding a note in your hand does not give it face value. It may be legal tender at face value to an obligated party on said note, but that does not give it value.

If you emit an IOU, “I, John Doe, owe the bearer one dollar,” what value does it have? Did you give a dollar to the note holder? No. You gave nothing of value - only a promise to pay in the future. Not fiat. Minus one dollar.

Until the note is extinguished by redemption, it is a minus value.
• Fiat currency is not debt, is not minus, and is not redeemable.
• Notes are not fiat, being redeemable, in lawful money.
Repudiated notes of a bankrupted government underwritten by 320 million human resources, via FICA, are still not fiat.

BUT if you are an obligated party on said note, beware when the creditor comes after you and yours!

The Great Confiscation: Gold ownership was illegal in the USA from 1933 to 1975
http://goldcoin.org/numismatics/the-great-confiscation-gold-ownership-was-illegal-in-the-usa-from-1933-to-1975/165/

On March 6 of 1933, the President set in motion a chain of events that ended the international gold standard once and for all. First, he closed the nation’s banks and prohibited them from paying out or exporting gold coins and bullion, using emergency powers granted by the Trading with the Enemy Act that had been enacted during World War I.
From 1933 forward, private possession and ownership of gold was illegal for U.S. citizens. Any refusal to return one’s gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison.

http://bestamericangold.com/confiscation/


__"The private ownership of gold is a privilege, not a right. Congress revoked the privilege of private ownership in 1933 and restored it in 1974. Congress could easily revoke the privilege again. In fact, at no time during this century has the U.S. government recognized the right of private gold ownership. The Trading With The Enemy Act, which President Roosevelt invoked in 1933 to restrict private gold transactions, remains law. The government could reactivate the machinery, which The Trading With The Enemy Act established, to implement gold confiscation."
- - - Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 297, 320 (1982)


__“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Abolition occurred in 1933.

Via the STATE OF EMERGENCY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).

As previously posted (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1058523&viewfull=1#post1058523), the Sec'y of Treasury, aka "U.S. governor" is not paid by the U.S. but is delegated sweeping powers for the duration of this emergency. He's paid by the fiduciary agent of the "Fund" and the "Bank" - the Federal Reserve Corporation - which is also the fiduciary agent for the U.N., an institution wholly infiltrated by collectivists.

If you didn't quite notice it, your consent to the EMERGENCY is found in your assertion of :

[] U.S. citizenship - placing you in the jurisdiction of the foreign corporation (U.S. government)
[] FICA (only available to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents)
[] Bank signature card, whereupon you agree to abide by the rules of the bank, thus the Federal Reserve banking system, and thus the U.S. governor of the "Bank," the Secretary of Treasury.

Pursuant to Title 12 USC sec. 95b, the Sec'y of Treasury now "owns" you and yours.

(P.S. - if you're engaged in contracts for usury with foreign financial powers, you're "Trading with the Enemy." And immoral, to boot. All religions denounce usury. Ezekiel 18:13 KJV lists it as a capital offense. Ergo, no one with an interest bearing bank account can demand Divine Justice on his behalf. He's a dead man walking. Government truly does "Trust in God." )

shaberon
28th April 2016, 22:08
The images are too big to link if they're readable, but the notes might be worth looking up if you are curious. They were issued by FR New York, FR Chicago, etc., for several years before centralized issue sometime in the 20s.

Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable at the Treasury or any Federal Reserve branch for lawful money. They all say this. That's how they gained public confidence initially. After about 20 years of not many people redeeming them and forgetting why it should not have been allowed, they blossomed into their fully worthless stature.

ozmirage
29th April 2016, 20:57
The images are too big to link if they're readable, but the notes might be worth looking up if you are curious. They were issued by FR New York, FR Chicago, etc., for several years before centralized issue sometime in the 20s.

[1] Prior to 1933, Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable at the Treasury or any Federal Reserve branch for lawful money. They all say this. That's how they gained public confidence initially. [2] After about 20 years of not many people redeeming them and forgetting why it should not have been allowed, they blossomed into their fully worthless stature.
[1] That was pursuant to the law, as codified in Title 12 USC Sec. 411. Any note is a promise to pay in the future.
[2] No. They were repudiated in 1933, in House Joint Resolution 192, June 1933, and again, in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. This was all due to the bankruptcy of the USGUBMINT. (State of emergency)
In addition, FDR "liberated" all privately owned gold money, and criminalized the possession of lawful money by "free" Americans.

http://goldcoin.org/numismatics/the-great-confiscation-gold-ownership-was-illegal-in-the-usa-from-1933-to-1975/165/

On March 6 of 1933, the President set in motion a chain of events that ended the international gold standard once and for all. First, he closed the nation’s banks and prohibited them from paying out or exporting gold coins and bullion, using emergency powers granted by the Trading with the Enemy Act that had been enacted during World War I.
From 1933 forward, private possession and ownership of gold was illegal for U.S. citizens. Any refusal to return one’s gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison. These exceptional measures were aimed at preventing the general public from storing gold. The solution was simple: make it illegal to directly own gold.
If the preceding was too complex, let me put is simply:
In 1933, Congress went broke, FDR stole all the people's lawful money (gold coin), and then added insult to injury, by offering them pauperization, via FICA, in 1935. With that "tax and bribe" program - 100% voluntary no less - Americans CONSENTED to the "Emergency Rules" that changed their rights into government privileges.

This is the kind of stuff that when you read it in the law, you pee yourself or fall to your knees.

shaberon
30th April 2016, 03:24
A Joint Resolution is no law (although it can stop an emergency); is there a law that still stands which embodies its meaning? It is not the 1933 Emergency which was snuffed in 1977. Presidents do generally renew an Emergency each year, as they expire yearly due to the 1977 Act.

For example: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/18/notice-continuation-national-emergency-respect-persons-who-commit

It renewed the 9/11 Emergency, which dies if they don't keep pushing it. Also must be published in the Federal Register, which scores over 2,000 hits for "national emergency" in the past year. Must be a busy job giving all those orders to handle mostly manufactured crises.

I understand about the FICA situation, and this is something that kids need to be aware of. For someone like me, should I choose to withdraw, that basically just gives them 30 years worth of FRN payments with nothing in return (not that a return is guaranteed).

The gold went to the IMF at $20/oz, and then when they wanted to double their money, they valuated it at a higher rate. Did nothing for the average American, but gave them more to subjugate other countries.

ozmirage
30th April 2016, 07:05
[1] A Joint Resolution is no law (although it can stop an emergency);
[2] is there a law that still stands which embodies its meaning?
[3] It is not the 1933 Emergency which was snuffed in 1977. Presidents do generally renew an Emergency each year, as they expire yearly due to the 1977 Act.

For example: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/18/notice-continuation-national-emergency-respect-persons-who-commit

It renewed the 9/11 Emergency, which dies if they don't keep pushing it. Also must be published in the Federal Register, which scores over 2,000 hits for "national emergency" in the past year. Must be a busy job giving all those orders to handle mostly manufactured crises.

I understand about the FICA situation, and this is something that kids need to be aware of. For someone like me, should I choose to withdraw, that basically just gives them 30 years worth of FRN payments with
[4] nothing in return (not that a return is guaranteed).

[5] The gold went to the IMF at $20/oz, and then when they wanted to double their money, they valuated it at a higher rate. Did nothing for the average American, but gave them more to subjugate other countries.
[1] YES - AND - NO.


RESOLUTION - A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution.
Joint Resolution - A resolution adopted by both houses of congress or a legislature. When such a resolution has been approved by the president or passed with his approval, it has the effect of law.
Resolution ... is mere expression of opinion or mind of council concerning some matter of administration, within its official cognizance, ... it is not a law, and in substance there is no difference between resolution, order and motion.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1310

“A concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not a law.”
- - - Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705,707

“Absent an enacting clause an act is a nullity and of no force and effect as law.”
Joiner v. State, 155 SE 2d 8 - 223 Ga. 367 (1967)

A resolution is not law and is not restrained by the limitations of the constitution, in that it is an opinion with regard to the government. Internal to the government, it has the effect of law. But it is not constitutional law, with general applicability to the people.

= = = =
[2] YES. 12 USC SEC. 95a, b

[3] Not correct. The 1933 Emergency (bankruptcy) is still in force and effect. The government has not complied with Art. 1 Sec. 8, Sec. 10 since 1933. "Dollar bills" are not dollars, but worthless debt underwritten by 320 million "contributors". And in the Coinage Act of 1965, further debased fractional coins, to eliminate all connections with lawful money. (Oh, and CONgress reduced the penalty for counterfeiting - JUST IN CASE the sheeple demanded their hides)

[4] To some, restoring sovereignty, freedom, and independence is not NOTHING. And fur lined gold chains are still chains.

[5] To whom the gold went is not the issue. The issue is that the servant robbed the master. Correction, servant of the servant, who was tricked into being a servant. And this is entirely legal, since the laws on the books are still in harmony with the republican form, and anyone with due diligence, can find that out for themselves.

shaberon
1st May 2016, 06:03
12 USC SEC. 95b continues the emergency powers, pursuant to the authority of 12 95a.

12 USC SEC. 95a no longer includes "national emergency" as a trigger, only "time of war".

It is true that the emergency lasted for many years, but all emergencies were given an expiration date (this particular one, two years from the general 1976 limitation that it was exempted from). They could theoretically be renewed forever, as so far the 9/11 emergency has been. That is why I am having a hard time seeing how the 1933 emergency can exist, unless we find it popping up every year in the Federal Register.

ozmirage
1st May 2016, 19:04
12 USC SEC. 95b continues the emergency powers, pursuant to the authority of 12 95a.

12 USC SEC. 95a no longer includes "national emergency" as a trigger, only "time of war".

It is true that the emergency lasted for many years, but all emergencies were given an expiration date (this particular one, two years from the general 1976 limitation that it was exempted from). They could theoretically be renewed forever, as so far the 9/11 emergency has been. That is why I am having a hard time seeing how the 1933 emergency can exist, unless we find it popping up every year in the Federal Register.
If I may point out, the fact that the Sec'y of Treasury / U.S. Gov of "the Bank" and "the Fund," basically runs America's faux monetary system - and skims bodacious interest in the process - and is NOT paid by the U.S. government - one would think America is a "conquered nation." (No, let's ignore that, shall we?)
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1060472&viewfull=1#post1060472
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89658-Things-That-May-Make-You-Pee-Yourself&p=1058523&viewfull=1#post1058523

Since 1945, have you noticed that CONgress has NOT bothered to "declare" a state of war, all the while authorizing American military unWars in Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

Based on this link, there hasn't been a time America wasn't in a "time of war."
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa06.html
And we're certainly not "defending freedom" nor "fighting communism" since America has been "voluntary" communist and a bankrupt state since 1933. (Via abolition of private property)

Yes, we ARE in a perpetual "temporary" State of Emergency, and the government has ignored the U.S. Constitution, since 1933.
__ NO lawful money
__ NO declared wars since 1945
__ NO way to ever pay off the public debt
__ And CONgress borrows MORE than it pays in debt service - something that Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing in the private sector.

$438.9 billion deficit (2015)
$267 billion net interest (2015)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?89905-Money-Madness&p=1059108&viewfull=1#post1059108
1.38 Trillion dollar bills in circulation
0.267 Trillion dollar bills (net interest) 2015 Budget
0.267 / 1.38 = 0.1934
Roughly 19% of the total money token supply is siphoned off by usurers.

I think it is safe to say that America is on the downward slide into oblivion. . . by consent of the governed.

A Voice from the Mountains
1st May 2016, 19:26
Thanks for posting all of this ozmirage.

At one point in our history, at least in some of the states/colonies, lawyers were illegal. It's not hard to see why. Twist a few words around in some new legislation and all of a sudden we go from "inalienable," "God-given rights" to "privileges allowed by the government." The laws should be simple and in a language that everyone can understand. The US Constitution is not only the oldest constitution still in use but also the shortest.

Most people today think that the US was set up as a democracy and don't even know the difference between a republic and a democracy. Hint: the modern Republican and Democratic parties have nothing to do with it, they are both so far off the mark.

ozmirage
1st May 2016, 19:27
Thanks for posting all of this ozmirage.

At one point in our history, at least in some of the states/colonies, lawyers were illegal. It's not hard to see why. Twist a few words around in some new legislation and all of a sudden we go from "inalienable," "God-given rights" to "privileges allowed by the government."

Most people today think that the US was set up as a democracy and don't even know the difference between a republic and a democracy. Hint: the modern Republican and Democratic parties have nothing to do with it, they are both so far off the mark.

A republic is not synonymous with a republican form.
Covered here:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90212-Republican-Form-of-Government&p=1063674&viewfull=1#post1063674

A Voice from the Mountains
1st May 2016, 19:28
I don't need the legalese, let's just stick with inalienable natural rights. :p

I was editing my post above to add a couple of things when you responded.

ozmirage
1st May 2016, 19:35
I don't need the legalese, let's just stick with inalienable natural rights. :p

I was editing my post above to add a couple of things when you responded.
O.K.
Remember, under the republican form, American people are sovereigns without subjects. But under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy, American citizens are subjects, having surrendered endowed (inalienable) rights.

. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)

This is why it is important to make the distinction between a republic and a republican form.

ozmirage
2nd May 2016, 21:48
SIMPLIFICATION
In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government. If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government. If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.

shaberon
4th May 2016, 04:22
krysstal.com missed the swipe we took at the Dominican Republic, and asserts that Jews are semites (maybe 10% are), but...that is a pretty hefty toll for some undeclared wars.

The conclusion I'm coming to, is even though the 1933 Emergency itself, is over, the fact that all the actions (prior and future) taken by Presidents/Secretaries of the Treasury, were approved and confirmed by law while it was active...does not un-approve or de-confirm them just because the authorizing condition is inactive; it basically prevents them from adding new measures, without a new state of war. Not much need to declare war when the powers you want, are running fine, and you can carpet bomb civilian populations as a covert action.

It will all just sit in place unless 12 95b is changed. If it was "merely" Emergency Powers, it would fade without renewal, but since it is cast into a law which has no language about "and these actions shall be rescinded when the time of emergency passes", it continues to bind.

ozmirage
4th May 2016, 15:58
The conclusion I'm coming to, is even though the 1933 Emergency itself, is over, the fact that all the actions (prior and future) taken by Presidents/Secretaries of the Treasury, were approved and confirmed by law while it was active...does not un-approve or de-confirm them just because the authorizing condition is inactive...
It will all just sit in place unless 12 95b is changed. If it was "merely" Emergency Powers, it would fade without renewal, but since it is cast into a law which has no language about "and these actions shall be rescinded when the time of emergency passes", it continues to bind.
The EMERGENCY is not over.
The government went bust, in 1933, and ceased redeeming its notes, pursuant to 12 USC Sec. 411.
The bankruptcy is still in force and effect.
"Dollar bills" are only legal tender because of 320 million human resources / contributors on the debt. (dratted consent!)
Without the Emergency, they could not ignore the USCON Art. 1, Sec. 8, Sec. 10.

The day that enough Americans withdraw consent from FICA, is the day that ends their bankrupt regime. . . as their notes cease to be fungible, and objected to by the free people.

It won't end well, either.

shaberon
5th May 2016, 22:27
Where does it say in the Federal Register that this Emergency has been renewed annually? I'm having trouble finding it.

ozmirage
6th May 2016, 09:45
Where does it say in the Federal Register that this Emergency has been renewed annually? I'm having trouble finding it.
Where does it say in the law that any emergency must be renewed annually?

The very fact that the government ceased dealing in lawful money is proof of the existence of the emergency.

If they wish to void Art. 1, Sec. 8 and Sec. 10, it should be done by amendment - not subterfuge.

. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States
As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b)

genevieve
6th May 2016, 14:49
Speaking of 12 U.S.C. 95(a) and (b): I was told a few days ago that on April 27, 2016 it was changed to
50 U.S.C. 4305(b)(2). Haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but am posting this just in case.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

ozmirage
6th May 2016, 15:10
Speaking of 12 U.S.C. 95(a) and (b): I was told a few days ago that on April 27, 2016 it was changed to
50 U.S.C. 4305(b)(2). Haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but am posting this just in case.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve
Looks like they dropped the reference to the Secretary of Treasury ...
LOL
Too many people were scrutinizing 12 USC Sec. 95 a, b.
. . .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/4305

(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution,
-and-
the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities,

Translation: you subjects cannot "hoard" gold, currency, nor securities (worthless IOUs).

HOARD - A supply or store of something held or hidden for future use.



(3) As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Well, ain't that sweet.

The U.S. is a foreign corporation.


FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
. . .
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

Which of the 50 states united are subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign corporation?

shaberon
15th May 2016, 06:46
Where does it say in the law that any emergency must be renewed annually?


That would be the National Emergencies Act; codified at 50 USC 1601-1651.

In that the "Trading with the Enemy" powers were exempted from the initial sweep of the NEA, they wee addressed by Public Law 95-223, which I believe is also codified in that same area.

mgray
15th May 2016, 10:16
Not sure if this is off-topic now but seems to be what the poll question asked.

Under the Bill of Rights within the US Constitution preamble it is accepted that people have inalienable rights that no government can take away.

Much of the early amendments to the Constitution are curtailing government's ability to violate those rights. Such as free speech.

We do not have the right to free speech as granted in the Constitution, conversely the government does not have the right to take away our free speech, which is a right of all.

ozmirage
15th May 2016, 20:52
Not sure if this is off-topic now but seems to be what the poll question asked.

Under the Bill of Rights within the US Constitution preamble it is accepted that people have inalienable rights that no government can take away.
[Not correct - you are confusing it with the Declaration of Independence]

Much of the early amendments to the Constitution are curtailing government's ability to violate those rights. Such as free speech.
[But only for its citizens]

We do not have the right to free speech as granted in the Constitution, conversely the government does not have the right to take away our free speech, which is a right of all.
Endowed rights existed BEFORE the USCON.
They are not "constitutional" rights (aka "privileges").
American governments were instituted to secure those endowed rights.


“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.”
- - - Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

CONSTITUTION, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635

Sound bite format:

❏ RFOG: Sovereign, with all endowed rights (ex: natural rights, natural liberty).
❏ DFOG: Subject, with only government privileges (ex: civil rights, political liberties)

RESTATEMENT

REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.

Under the republican form of government, the American is endowed with (natural) rights, (natural and personal) liberties, absolute ownership (private property), and government was instituted to secure those endowed rights... unless he consents to be governed under the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form of government. Then all bets are off, for if he consents, then he waives endowed rights in exchange for government’s privileges and immunities, and voluntarily accepts mandatory civic duties that would otherwise violate endowed rights, liberties, and powers.

ozmirage
20th May 2016, 04:41
The apparent impotence of Americans in face of foreign invasion, government infiltration by predatory perverts and socialist slavery under a benevolent totalitarian police state is due to their indoctrination.

Not knowing of their birthright of the republican form - a heritage that is worth defending, they are cowed into submission, squabbling over entitlements and benefits tossed from the public treasury under the socialist democratic form they have embraced and voted for.

But if Americans were restored to freedom and sovereignty under the republican form of government, where their endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership were secured by servant government, things would be far far different.

In that America, what’s yours is yours. What’s mine is mine. Don’t trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another - lest you suffer grave punishment. Such a simple system does not require governance, a bloated government, nor an impossible to repay public debt. It only requires you to withdraw consent from socialism, usury, and submission to the servant government.

● > Beyond securing rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against enemies, foreign or domestic), government can do no more.
● > No more public charity (entitlements, socialism, etc) to penalize the productive and reward the nonproductive.
● > No more limited liability, nor administrative regulatory overhead to burden our workers and industries.
● > No more usury, which voids the public debt for fraud, and wipes out the federal reserve note (dollar bill) as a medium of exchange.
● > No taxes can be levied on endowed rights - only privileges. And if most Americans cease exercising government privileges, most of the revenue is gone.

A government reduced by 99%, billionaires becoming zero-aires, elimination of all socialist benefits, effectively eradicates 83+ years of the glorious socialist paradise. And best of all, if the sovereign people issue their own private liberty money, usurers will be utterly ruined.

Of course, that is politically incorrect, and devastating to the powers that be.
Sigh.

genevieve
20th May 2016, 18:35
ozmirage--

Harmon Taylor is interviewed in this vid. He was part of the team challenging jurisdiction of the Denver, Colorado, court to try Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.

The challenge was based on the extradition of the case from Oklahoma to Colorado since the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts jurisdiction to the community in which the crime is committed.

Taylor's appeal was thrown out and was said to be frivolous and ludicrous, et al. Over time Taylor came to the conclusion that the court was correct because the Constitution had never been legitimately put into place, which topic he discusses in this vid.

He also talks about the change of currency bringing about the foundational choice of law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvQNFMwbLeI


Here's another interview with Taylor that I'm only 30 minutes into, but it seems to go into more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2ik5imw2U
(Skip the first 10 minutes' dithery intro.)


I think my bottom-line questions are:

1. If the original organic Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights are not something we can quote and rely on to assert our natural rights, how do we/how can we protect ourselves?

2. If Common Law is the default law, does it need to be recognized by the corporate U.S. in order to be used?

3. How are we able to hold "their" feet to the fire of Common Law?


I would very much appreciate getting your take on this--and anyone else's take who cares to share. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it and maybe haven't done a swell job of describing the vid or phrasing my questions, but I'm hopeful that clarity might be gained.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve


P.S. Thanks for this thread. I'm learning. :waving:

ozmirage
20th May 2016, 19:01
I think my bottom-line questions are:

1. If the original organic Constitution for the united States of America and the Bill of Rights are not something we can quote and rely on to assert our natural rights, how do we/how can we protect ourselves?

2. If Common Law is the default law, does it need to be recognized by the corporate U.S. in order to be used?

3. How are we able to hold "their" feet to the fire of Common Law?

I'd steer clear of patriot mythology and stick to concrete law and authorities.

The endowed (natural) rights come from the Creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Governments in America, are instituted to secure those endowed rights.

GREAT!

EXCEPT, if one CONSENTS to be governed, all those endowments are surrendered / waived.

WHY?

Because mandatory civic duties involve abrogating rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of property.

It was much more clear before the 1820s. In the state constitutions, they spelled out that to be a voter / elector (exercising political liberty) one had to be a property owner and pay taxes, as well as be obligated to perform other civic duties (militia duty, jury duty, etc).

This idea that a voluntary citizen had no endowed rights was slowly erased after the 1820s. And the elimination of stringent prerequisites for voting in the democratic form allowed for a dilution of the quality of citizenship. In place of endowed rights, people were led to believe that they only had CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (really government privileges).

The patriot mythologists / fabulists have concocted a vast array of explanations, buzz words, and excuses to explain the situation as they perceive it. But they all ignore the effect of consent to be governed (as a citizen).

. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

If he is not lying, he's clearly stating that if one is a CITIZEN, one has
NO RIGHTS,
NO LIBERTIES,
NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

All one has are government granted privileges and immunities (i.e. civil and political rights).

What MORE can you lose?
Descend to status criminal, via FICA?


REFERENCES:
Another reference about citizenship and the drop in status from mandatory civic duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft."
Citizens do not have endowed rights to life nor liberty.


" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
There are many many references that support this, but these two cover the gamut of endowments.

Sacred Rights:
[] absolute ownership of private property
[] right to life
[] right to liberty (natural and personal)
[] right to privacy
[] right to a good reputation
[] not subject to majority vote (democracy)

In short, you do not demand 'constitutional rights' but endowed rights, as promised by the constitutional guarantee of the REPUBLICAN FORM of government, and the Declaration of Independence.

But if there is evidence that one is a consenting subject / citizen, all bets are off.

ozmirage
22nd May 2016, 19:36
SOCIALISM = DEATH

The cultural shift to socialist expectations for support have decimated the growth in population. Instead of relying on one’s own children, socialism tricks the people into assuming everyone else’s children will support you. Net result - less children.

And as population declines, the growing recipient population will eventually be left to its own devices, suffer and die miserably.

Worse, the indigenous population will be displaced by the influx of invaders from nations who did not curb their population growth. The native people will become strangers in their own lands, dispossessed and destitute.

Thus the glorious socialist state is consumed by its own folly.
The future belongs to the descendants, not the socialists.

SUGGESTED REMEDY

Assuming that the socialist safety net is unlikely to prevail, one should consider alternative means for one’s support in old age. Returning to the republican form is a good start - and cuts back on government imposed burdens.
If one lacks (extended) family, that does not bode well.
If one is alone, then one should endeavor to establish an autonomous habitat that can supply one’s necessities, goods, and / or services, to trade with others.
. . . .
Traditional Means:
__ Rooming house / tenants
__ Permaculture landscaping (edible plants, etc)
__ Landlord for rental properties, mobile home park, marina, etc.
__ Adoption by a rich patron / extended family

If you don’t have it, can’t make it, you will do without it.

ozmirage
29th May 2016, 08:05
IN DEFENSE OF THE REPUBLICAN FORM

The threat to sovereignty, freedom and independence, and the endowments of one’s Creator require the people to make a stand against those enemies, foreign or domestic, who would trespass your life, liberty, and property for their own gain.

ozmirage
31st May 2016, 07:17
In Honor of Memorial Day- - -
Thanks for the Republican form of government,
Where endowed rights are superior to constitutional rights (privileges),
Where governments are instituted to secure endowed rights, and
Where governments only govern those who consent; who knowingly waive their endowments, accept mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberties.

ozmirage
26th June 2016, 08:57
WHAT IF - - -
What if America never forgot the republican form, and most Americans never consented to be subject citizens?

With endowed rights intact, any American landowner had natural liberty and dominion over his private property, not subject to any ad valorem taxes.

And having not given consent to be governed, was not bound to obedience to the regulatory laws. His only restriction was to not trespass upon the rights and liberties of his fellow Americans.

Imagine governments limited to securing rights and little else. Without millions to rule, nor the massive revenue streams, servant government was unable to get into mischief. And such frugal governments were quite efficient in their prosecutions of criminals, unwilling to expend public funds recklessly. For if they failed in their duties, they might find themselves subject to the ire of the sovereign people, for whom all government exists.

What would your life be like if you had a small plot of land, a home, no income taxes, no property taxes, and liberty to do what you wish, without needing permission, license, or obedience to the State? Would you seek prosperity - be prodigiously productive - generating surplus goods and services? Or would you slack off, and just work enough to ‘get by,’ without concern for the future?

ozmirage
9th July 2016, 02:46
IF ONLY AMERICANS KNEW I would not worry about the imminent collapse and reformation of servant government.

Know what?
• __ The republican form of government (aka “sovereignty of the people”)
• __ Absolute ownership of private property, domiciled as an inhabitant
• __ Natural and personal liberty
• __ Endowed rights (by one’s Creator) are superior to granted privileges
• __ Governments are instituted to secure endowed rights and only govern those who consent
• __ Governments instituted to secure rights cannot tax those rights
• __ Sovereign people can create their own medium of exchange
• __ Limited liability, bureaucracy, usury, scarce money, compulsory charity, and bankruptcy laws are sources of corruption and havens for predators - oppose them we must.

When sufficient number of Americans withdraw consent, the socialist democratic form will collapse - ending all public funded pensions and entitlements. The “dollar bill” will cease to be legal tender. As tax revenues plummet and obligated parties diminish, government will downsize, having few to govern, and few to pay for it.

Infrastructure will be transferred / sold.
All unWars will end, foreign bases closed and repatriation of all American personnel and materials will be the order of the day.

Intolerance of predators shall be the watchword of government, once again. Tolerance of evil is unmerciful to the next victim.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>
If you’re a victim of disinformation and / or indoctrination, do not be too harsh on yourself. Most Americans are victims of the world’s greatest propaganda ministry.

If you’re frustrated with the socialist democratic form of totalitarianism and “voluntary” slavery, you’re not alone. However, it is important to study facts and ignore the mythology promulgated by agents of discord and disinformation.

The Counter Revolutionary Checklist:
● <> Republican form of government vs socialist democratic form
● <> Endowed Rights vs granted privileges
● <> Absolute ownership of private property
● <> Liberty money (freely created) vs lawful money
● <> Withdraw consent from “Voluntary” Socialism
● <> Shun usury in all its forms
● <> Intolerant of predators and parasites
● <> No limited liability, nor group privileges superior to individual rights

The Counter Revolutionary advocates respect for the person, liberty and property rights of others. What’s yours is yours. Our birthrights are endowments of our Creator, not dependent upon governments instituted to secure those rights. And that we who do not consent to be governed, retain our endowed natural and sacred rights, liberties, prerogatives and absolute ownership rights, which are not subject to democratic vote.

The opposition seeks to rule without consent, take without consequence, plunder without fear, and demands our gratitude for its benevolence - allowing us to regrow our skin before skinning us alive - repeatedly.

Suggestions:
[] Read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and then the U.S. Constitution, in that order. Note the delegations of power and for what purpose. Pay attention to the distinction between ‘people’ and ‘citizens.’
[] Note that those who do not consent to be governed, are not.
[] Verify your state’s constitution and statutes still respect the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property, within the boundaries of the united States of America. Verify that no servant government can trespass upon the natural rights, liberties (personal and natural), or absolute ownership of the sovereign people, except in pursuit of justice or by consent of the governed.


I hope I am wrong, but it appears that the "DARK DAYS" are nigh.
Prepare prepare prepare.

Wise Ant Saith : store a two year supply and hide it and yourselves from the Gestapo Grasshoppers and Locusts, who will be battling for control of the garden.

ozmirage
9th July 2016, 17:47
MORAL CONUNDRUM

Survival is the basis for all morality - dead things have no morals. Morality determines laws.
There are two systems of law to choose from:
1) Law of the Jungle versus
2) Law of LoveIn the former, predators are good, prey are “good to eat,” and prey who fight back are “bad.” In the latter, harmless productive people are “good,” and harmful destructive people are “bad.” Civilization tends to grow when harmless productive people are dominant over the harmful destructive people.

We have two major ideological groups:
[] Harmful predatory people, abiding by the law of the jungle, and
[] Harmless productive people, abiding by the law of love (civilization)
Supposedly protected by:
[] Government (cooperative union of the many, instituted to secure rights)
. . .
However, there is a problem. Without predators, there is no reason for government to exist. So if a government successfully eradicates predation, it eradicates its own reason to exist. So it is in the best interests of a government to not succeed, lest it destroy itself. Which makes government into an ally of predators and thus an enemy of the victims. Worse, is when the predators infiltrate the government, and pervert law into protecting predators and persecuting prey. Not good.
. . .
The Founders’ Remedy - RFOG

To institute a government that was to be a servant to the sovereign people, was one remedy.

All concentrations of power tend toward corruption and tyranny, so dilute power.

Therefore, American governments were to be limited in resources (revenue) and power (consent of the governed), whose offices were to be filled by civic minded people who complied with stringent prerequisites, exhibited unselfish civic virtue, served in the militia, paid taxes, owned property, and were held to a higher standard of behavior than the free and sovereign people.

Unfortunately, that did not last more than two generations, before it was corrupted into the populist democratic form. By eliminating the onerous prerequisites for political liberty, the public servants now could tax and rule the (m)asses, under the illusion of “consent of the governed.”

The circle is complete, the sheeple are corralled, and can be repeatedly skinned alive - for their own good - and the shepherds can demand their gratitude for allowing them to regrow their skin before doing it again. But some are evidently not too pleased with this situation.

Again, Americans are facing a conflict, not realizing that those who are manipulating the sheeple are not readily apparent to the "players."

We know that government will feign incompetence and inefficiency as an excuse to leverage more revenues, more power, and abolish more liberty. As long as sheeple obey and pay, government is pleased.

Predators are among us, in various forms and disguises. In fact, it is common knowledge that the most vocal opponents of immorality, evil and vice are often covert practitioners. In short, they’re hiding their evil by mingling with the innocent as camouflage.

And it is more likely that predators will use innocent but useful idiots to do their fighting and conquering. It’s no fun being shot at!

Based on the mass media, we should expect the conflict between: the “left versus right”, “rich versus poor”, “unions versus corporations,” and “old versus young”. The left wing denounces the “greedy capitalist”. The right wing denounces the “spendthrift collectivist”. Racially based agitators are even in the highest public offices. Any group that can be used to foment a schism is fair game - illegal aliens, homosexuals, perversions, racial subgroups, and religions.

But they’re just ideological cannon fodder.

Who are on the roster for known predators?
[] Usurers - masters of money madness
[] Collectivists - slavers and thieves, using government as their instrumentality
[] Islam - A political system of totalitarianism masquerading as a religion

These three “teams” are almost mutually exclusive.
• Islam forbids usury, and is opposed to all other religions and governments.
• Collectivists abhor religions that teach “Thou shalt not steal” and are ideologically opposed to usurers (“capitalist bankers and corporations”).
• Usurers don’t care about religion or politics as long as they can “control” the money system, and take their skim via perpetual debt.

My “Skeptic” button is being pressed by the way people are being led to “join up” with various predatory groups, and not cooperate in the mutual defense of property rights from ALL predators.

I think “they” are planning a conflagration, and want YOU to take sides, and fight on “their” behalf.

Best Advice - if they have a war, don’t participate. You may have to establish yourself in a rural location, where you’re not likely to be of any strategic value, and wait it out.

In the end, one cannot use evil to defeat evil, lest evil is the victor.


“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

What is the essence of the Republican Form of Government?
A form where people have:
[] Creator endowed rights and liberties (natural rights, natural and personal liberties, absolute ownership, etc.);
[] That governments are instituted to secure (not tax, infringe or impair);
[] Governing (ruling) only those who consent to be governed.

Since endowed rights are antecedent to the creation of government, they are not subject to the vote nor a democratic majority. The individual is sovereign unless he consents otherwise.

This is what must be preserved.

ozmirage
9th July 2016, 21:03
Returning to the Republican Form
=\=\=\=
Are you “really” expatriating?

There is a widely held belief that returning to one's status as an American national is expatriation. Restoring status as an American national free inhabitant domiciled in the uSA is not expatriation.



EXPATRIATE -
v.tr.
1. To send into exile: They were expatriated because of their political beliefs.
2. To remove (oneself) from residence in one's native land.
v.intr.
1. To give up residence in one's homeland.
2. To renounce allegiance to one's homeland.
n.
1. One who has taken up residence in a foreign country.
2. One who has renounced one's native land.
= = = =


EXPATRIATION - The voluntary act of abandoning or renouncing one's country, and becoming the citizen or subject of another.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed, p.576

= = = =

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed with rights that government was instituted to secure, and can only govern by consent. Infants cannot consent, ergo, they cannot be citizens at birth, subject to mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights.


“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

It follows that the federal government as a foreign corporation is foreign to the "states" - the geographical United States of America, the state governments and the sovereign people under the republican form.


"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

= = = = =


"All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [14th Amendment, Section 1.]
= = = = =
Were you born as one of "their PERSONS"?
Subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign corporation?

It would appear that such sovereign people domiciled in the uSA were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and were not “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

CONFUSION OF TERMS?
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html


Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State".

DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country.
. . . end of excerpt . . .

An American national, free inhabitant, domiciled within the united States of America IS A FOREIGN NATIONAL with respect to the United States / Federal government. Furthermore, he is endowed with rights to be in HIS own country, and needs no passport to travel within his own country.

FYI : Title 8 is not a positive law title, and one needs to review the STATUTE to see exactly what the law is.


POSITIVE LAW - Existing law created by legally valid procedures; (...law set by political superiors to political inferiors.) Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1954 ed.). p.155

Non-positive law may not be legally valid, as codified. Always check the statute.

http://www.potomacpublishing.com/techdata/html/help/!ssl!/webhelp/United_States_Code/Positive_Law_Titles.htm

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976

28 USC § 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

(An American national, free inhabitant, non-citizen of a State of the U.S.A., nor under the laws of any third country appears to fit the definition.)

(FYI: Title 28 is positive law)

= = = =

NATIONAL - A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101.
The term "national" as used in the phrase "national of the United States" is broader than the term "citizen". Brassert v. Biddle, D.C.Conn., 59 F.Supp. 457, 462.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1024

NATIONALITY. That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. See also Naturalization.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1025

CITIZENSHIP - The status of being a citizen. There are four ways to acquire citizenship: by birth in the United States, by birth in U.S. territories, by birth outside the U.S. to U.S. parents, and by naturalization.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 244

CITIZEN - One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
U.S.Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.
"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 244

NATURALIZATION - The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Individual naturalization must follow certain steps: (a) petition for naturalization by a person of lawful age who has been a lawful resident of the United States for 5 years; (b) investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether the applicant can speak and write the English language, has a knowledge of the fundamentals of American government and history, is attached to the principles of the Constitution and is of good moral character; (c) hearing before a U.S. District Court or certain State courts of record; and (d) after a lapse of at least 30 days a second appearance in court when the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE is administered.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1026

ozmirage
10th July 2016, 14:46
STATUS COLLAPSUS
=\\==\\==\\==\\=
The insane money system is at the breaking point. The Constitution is so bypassed, that calling for public servants to abide by it is a joke. "Voluntary" socialism has transformed America into "Takers" versus "Taken." And the wholly corrupted government still demands our obedience and support. So why would such "honorable" statesmen embrace immigrants who are anti-American, anti-freedom?

To misquote Cicero:“America delenda est!” America must be destroyed!
Why?
Only America has a republican form of government, despite the vast majority being ignorant of it.
In the republican form, the people are the sovereigns, with endowed rights that government was instituted to secure. And only by consent, can the government rule (govern). In all other countries, the people are subjects of their sovereign governments, whether they're monarchies, democracies, or totalitarian police states.
Such a nation and people cannot be allowed to survive, thrive and prosper. It would trigger a world wide revolution and topple the Powers That Be.
. . .
The Revolution of 1776 was speedily hampered by the USCON (1787) which granted power to the usurers (bankers) via scarce precious metal coin. Money madness forced many changes to the original plan of the Founders. Desperate for "yellow metal," Americans were more than willing to compromise their moral consciences. Americans were chivvied into "Manifest destiny" and conquering the continent, as well as expanding into the Pacific Ocean, absorbing the Kingdom of Hawaii, and taking over Spanish conquests (Philippines). The final conquest was accomplished in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, allowing for completion in less than 20 years (1913-1933). The State of Emergency, confiscation of lawful money, and pauperization of the American people, allowed for the imposition of national socialism (via "voluntary" FICA). So we have 320 million "human resources" pledged as collateral on an impossible to pay public debt, interest charges that are larger than the cost of World War Two, an overhead of red tape, taxation, and bureaucracy that strangles prosperity, a government filled with parasites, predators and scoundrels who laugh at the "little people" and fear the day they rise up - so they repeatedly push for complete disarmament of the once free people.

Yes, we're being manipulated into a unCivil War, so that there's an excuse to impose martial law, and dispense with existing law. Better yet, the Powers That Be want to thin the herd. . . us.
Why else place mutually antagonistic populations in close proximity?

Under the Republican Form of Government, Americans are endowed with rights by their Creator, that government was instituted to secure - not infringe, tax, or trespass. They are sovereign, free and independent. Such a people are anathema to any who demand submission, subjugation, and strict obedience - on pain of death.

You can restore your status as a free (or sovereign) American under the RFOG, but that won't change the fact that the perpetually indebted socialist democratic form is heading for the crapper. So you need to PREPARE, as the Wise Ant saith. Have a secure bug out location if your own domicile is inadequate. Have supplies tucked away, hidden from Gestapo Grasshoppers and Lunatic Locusts, who will be battling for control of the garden. Then hunker down for a “cold” winter that will follow upon the destruction.

Let us hope that the republican form won't be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

ozmirage
26th July 2016, 19:19
SOUNDBITE EXPLICATION
OXYMORONS R US
>>>|||<<<

Republican Form Versus Democratic Form
(of Government)
(America’s Unique Version)
● RFOG: “What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, don’t trespass, or else my ally, the government will punish you.”
● DFOG: “You volunteered to be governed. So shut up, sit down, and obey!”- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Restating the situation, concisely - - -
RFOG SOUNDBITES:
{source: Declaration of Independence}
The American national, free inhabitant has endowed
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership; and is a
[] Sovereign, served by government
(Owes nothing to the government). . .
DFOG SOUNDBITES:
{source: compact / constitution}
The American citizen / resident has government granted
[] Civil rights
[] Civil liberty
[] Political liberty
[] Qualified ownership; and is a
[] Subject of the government, by consent
(Owes mandatory civic duties, etc). . .
EXCEPTED CLASSES:
{Status criminals}
<> Fugitives from justice
<> Paupers (recipients of public charity)
<> Vagabonds (vagrants, wanderers, homeless)
CAVEAT: “Resident” is often redefined to be synonymous with vagabond.. . .
When reading any American law ask yourself:

● Is this law securing the rights of an injured party?
● Is this law imposed upon only those who gave consent?
● Is this law internal to the administration of the government?
● Is this law only pertaining to status criminals?
. . .
He who consents cannot complain!
. . .

ozmirage
17th August 2016, 08:04
FOUNDERS’ IDEAL

As victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry and careful indoctrination by government approved pedagogues, it is reasonable that few Americans should know of the truth about America's founding.

I know I had no clue, despite a traditional education, college and post graduate studies, as to the true nature of America's government. Only after reading the law (statutes) at the local county courthouse law library, did the scales lift from my eyes.

Though not explicitly mentioned in any "approved" history course, our Founding Fathers HATED the English Parliamentary Democracy, and deliberately sought an alternative to the vices and foibles of democrazy... where a majority could vote to dispossess a minority with impunity.

The Post Revolutionary Republicanism was centered on limiting corruption and greed. Virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives. Revolutionaries took a lesson from ancient Rome, they knew it was necessary to avoid the luxury that had destroyed the Empire.

A virtuous citizen was one that ignored monetary compensation and made a commitment to resist and eradicate corruption. The Republic was sacred; therefore, it is necessary to serve the state in a truly representative way, ignoring self-interest and individual will. Republicanism required the service of those who were willing to give up their own interests for a common good.

In short, citizenship (and public service), was a step DOWN in status, from sovereign to subject.

:>:>:>:|| THE IDEAL ||:<:<:<:
Under the Republican Form - - -
__ Americans were endowed with inherent / sacred / inalienable rights; peacefully supporting their right to life with harmless activities, exercising natural and personal liberty, and absolutely owning themselves, their labor, and the fruits of that labor, as well as the land and buildings upon their land. No government instituted to secure endowed rights could tax, regulate or otherwise infringe upon those rights.

Under the Democratic Form - - -
__ A small portion, perhaps 3%, would constitute the Citizenry, who consented to be governed, in order to serve. They would surrender endowed rights, accept mandatory civic duties, serve in the militia, pay the bulk of taxes (on privileges), be held to a higher standard of behavior, and exercise civil and political liberties, vote and hold public office. They had to be propertied, tax paying, and dutiful. And with the prospect of militia duty (18-50), cowards need not apply.
. . .
__ The government instituted to secure rights of the sovereign people (adjudicate disputes, punish criminals, defend against enemies, foreign or domestic) would not govern nor rule the sovereign people, but serve them. Only those who consented to be governed (Citizens) would be ruled / governed, and held to a higher standard of behavior. Service is not a right, but a privilege, and the sovereign people had the right to refuse the services of those they deemed immoral, disgusting, repugnant or otherwise unacceptable to them.
. . .
This was the “ideal” that the Founders hoped would insure that only unselfish civic minded militia veterans would become citizens, public servants and statesmen. And with the limited resources (revenues) and few subject citizens, there would be little opportunity to foster corruption, greed, or delve into other vices, nor foment wars of aggression and conquest.
. . .
Unfortunately, one group of predators were granted protection (usurers), and the Constitution was warped to grant them vast power and wealth. [The limitation to gold and silver coin, and the power to administer bankruptcies - due to usury! This shifted the cost from the creditor to the debtor.] The rise of the bankers in early American history is easy to trace.

Another bane of the Founders, unlimited Democracy, was unleashed in the 1820s, when States removed the strict prerequisites for voters / electors / citizens. This set the stage for the rise of partisan political parties to fight over the “spoils” of ever greater tax revenues and masses to rule / govern.

The perversion of Democracy continued unabated, and hastened by the “Progressives” (Collectivists from Europe), who advocated the transfer of power to the State. Infrastructure was taken over, at taxpayers expense, and the size and scope of government grew and grew. Where government could not directly control, it indirectly controlled via regulation and taxation. Instead of securing rights and liberties, government trampled rights and liberties, by virtue of the contrived consent of the governed, who unknowingly assumed they retained endowments, when in reality, they had surrendered them for a mess of pottage. Where once free people lived in domiciles, subjects now resided, needing permission (license) and or paid taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, treat the sick, operate a business, enter occupations, build a house, transmit, fly, cut hair, hunt, fish, marry or own a dog. The Founders would be sickened by their demeanor and slavish condition.

The coming conflagration will divide the nation into partisan groups, some on the “Left” (Collectivists), some on the “Right” (Usurers / Corporations), some on the “Take” and others “for the heck of it.” Let’s not exclude the foreign invaders who see an opportunity to enrich themselves, or promote their anti-American religious dogma.
But hardly any will fight for the republican form and the sovereignty of the American people.
Or will they?
= = = = =

ozmirage
25th August 2016, 18:38
MORALITY AND LAW
- - a handy nanosoundbite reference - -
>>>(||)<<<
● Morality is based on survival. Dead things have no morals.
● Survival by harmful acts falls under _law of the jungle.
● Sacrificing others for one’s own benefit is the rule under jungle law.
● Survival by harmless acts falls under the _law of love.
● Self sacrifice for the benefit of another is the highest expression of love.
● Governments instituted to secure rights from predation oppose jungle law.
● Thus, all law is for the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent.
● What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours, do not trespass, or my government will punish you.
● If you have Creator endowed [natural] rights, [personal and natural] liberties, absolute ownership of private property; and governments were instituted to secure them, you are sovereign under the republican form of government.
● If you have government granted civil and political rights (aka liberties) instead of endowed rights, you are a subject and not under the republican form.
● Tolerance of [predators / evil] is unmerciful to the next victim. Loving your enemies does not extend to aiding them in the victimization of innocents.
● Contradictory behavior by government may indicate infestation by predators, who will pervert government to protect predators and punish their victims who dare to fight back.
>>>(||)<<<

ozmirage
12th September 2016, 16:31
Republican Form of Government versus others
= = =<><><>= = =
● RFOG: What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, don’t trespass.
● DFOG: The democratic majority supersedes the minority, or the individual, so shut up, sit down, and obey us.
● Socialism: What’s yours is mine, what’s mine is not yours, shut up, sit down, and obey the collective State.
● Monarchy: The monarch absolutely owns everything, and you’re a subject, with only qualified ownership. So shut up, sit down, and obey.