US state secession: are differences irreconcilable?

[Bill Ryan]

This proposal is gaining traction now, especially after the indictment of President Trump a few days ago. It's all about a number of American states seceding from the Union.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first to use the phrase, back in February. This was published in Newsweek on 20 Feb:

https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449
(https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Wants 'National Divorce' of Red and Blue States

I'll not copy the article here, but it featured this useful summary tweet:

https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1627665203398688768
1627665203398688768
The slightly curtailed text reads:
We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.

[Ernie Nemeth]

If there is such a movement, I hope it will involve its neighbor to the north...Alberta would be happy to join the red states for sure. Eastern Canada might as well. British Columbia, most of Ontario and all of Quebec would likely be lost.
The entire world power structure would change if USA divorced, leaving America as a regional power while China would rise to dominance as the only remaining super-power.
Scary stuff.

Also, Texas has been mulling the idea of leaving the union altogether. That would be a devastating blow to the red states in such a scenario.

[Bill Ryan]

Some more interesting articles to read:


What Would a National Divorce Look Like?
https://governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like



Take Threats of ‘National Divorce’ Seriously
https://nytimes.com/2023/03/05/opinion/national-divorce-civil-war.html



66 MILLION Americans want a 'national divorce': New poll shows growing number back Marjorie Taylor Greene's call for a split between blue and red states
https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11873063/66-MILLION-Marjorie-Taylor-Greenes-call-national-divorce-blue-red-states.html

[JackMcThorn]

This is not a very new, Texas has toyed with the idea since the original civil war 1861 until as recently as the 199os.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements


The U.S. Constitution does not specifically address the secession of states, and the issue was a topic of debate after the American Revolutionary War until the Civil War, when the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that states strictly cannot unilaterally secede except through revolution or the expressed consent of the other states.

What is new is 'getting that consent from other states' and the idea of a divorce rather than another civil war. Seems like america is in shambles; what we used to call a soup sandwich. [a mess]

It would really take a small miracle for 'a national divorce' to actually happen, is my best guess.

[ExomatrixTV]

https://erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fa40be2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6554x3983+0+0/resize/1680x1020!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferepublic-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7a%2F75%2Fdfec343541e2916c6437b7431750%2Findelibly-map.jpg (https://www.governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like)


source (https://www.governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like)

Arizona may turn red (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116381-Arizona-Audits-Anyone&highlight=Arizona) ...

[thepainterdoug]

Bill I have to say from what i see, the differences are irreconcilable and it's quite alarming. How do you get thru to people who are asking ,accusing and saying the same about you?

My son tells me he asks his dem lib friend, what about the border? , drugs, crime, child exploitation the gas prices, inflation etc and he snaps back, well better than if Trump was in office !!. WHAT? TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE AND IT WAS SIMPLY NOT TRUE! It defies all logic and common sense
Its nothing short of infuriating!! There is no making sense of it! LANGUAGE RENDERED MEANINGLESS.

So I dont know what it would look like but short of an "other worldly intervention", its a national divorce or the unthinkable, neighbors bearing arms and shooting it out
Completely bizarre.

[Bill Ryan]

Bill I have to say from what i see, the differences are irreconcilable and it's quite alarming.Yes, I'm not an American, but it seems as plain as day that the Great Divide is now impossible to repair. One half is being demonized (rightly or wrongly) by the other, on a 24/7 basis with no end in sight.

Chris Martenson did a livestream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STsHMxJenFo) about this just yesterday. His livestreams are often chaotic and not always worth watching, but near the end of this video he presents this grid, which are counselor John Gottman's four sets of criteria for evaluating whether a marriage can be saved.

https://projectavalon.net/contempt.jpg


Gottman insists that the presence of contempt is the most important factor. (Examples of contempt: Disrespect, Mockery/sarcasm, Insulting, and Eye-rolling/scoffing.)

A marriage is irreconcilable, he states, when mutual contempt is ever-present. The reason for this is that constructive dialog is simply no longer possible.

If we apply this to the US political landscape — it's over.

[T Smith]

My son tells me he asks his dem lib friend, what about the border? , drugs, crime, child exploitation the gas prices, inflation etc and he snaps back, well better than if Trump was in office !!. WHAT?

That's the program speaking. Trump Derangement Syndrome. Of course we all know this, but consider this--which I've actually said to people like your son's friend:

[INPUT] What about the very real possibility of nuclear war and NYC and everyone you love incinerating?

[OUTPUT] well better than if Trump was in office !!

I am continually amazed by just how powerful and controlling the program is

[ExomatrixTV]

The Tunnel Vision Tribalism of the Democrats are literary on a different level ... deliberately abandoning all common sense! (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?119992-The-Psychology-of-Totalitarianism)

Sure, there is also tribalism with Republicans, but to what degree and how myopic? ... and those who claim "it is all the same" haven't studied the "group psychology (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?119992-The-Psychology-of-Totalitarianism)" of democrats deeply enough.

ps. Am Dutch 🇳🇱 (can not vote in the USA) was a long time classic liberal, upholding basic principles & common sense that nowadays will be labeled as "far right" which is just a way to censor (shut down) critical thinking by the alt-left who hijacked the party with lots of help from WEF (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) minions.


There are also WEF (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) tentacles within the "Deep State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state)" part of the Republican Party who are "Never Trumpers" also known as "Rino's" & "Neo-Cons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)" betraying the party from within.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[shaberon]

This is not a very new, Texas has toyed with the idea since the original civil war 1861 until as recently as the 199os.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements


The U.S. Constitution does not specifically address the secession of states, and the issue was a topic of debate after the American Revolutionary War until the Civil War, when the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that states strictly cannot unilaterally secede except through revolution or the expressed consent of the other states.

What is new is 'getting that consent from other states' and the idea of a divorce rather than another civil war. Seems like america is in shambles; what we used to call a soup sandwich. [a mess]

It would really take a small miracle for 'a national divorce' to actually happen, is my best guess.



The thing is, that around here, particularly in states that were defeated by the Union Army, we were co-erced to add to our State Constitutions a clause that says "we will not secede". Texas does not have such a clause. I am not sure how widespread it is. But for example I am pretty sure that in Georgia you can't just go through with it. In most states to forcefully pass an Amendment you have to get 2/3 of the popular vote. It could actually be done, but it would work a lot differently in different places.

Something like that is fine with me, carve it up.

[mijatoca]

This proposal is gaining traction now, especially after the indictment of President Trump a few days ago. It's all about a number of American states seceding from the Union.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first to use the phrase, back in February. This was published in Newsweek on 20 Feb:

https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449
(https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Wants 'National Divorce' of Red and Blue States

I'll not copy the article here, but it featured this useful summary tweet:

https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1627665203398688768
1627665203398688768
The slightly curtailed text reads:
We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.


Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist. You appear to promote GOP Lunatics. MTG?

OK let's extrapolate things if what she (MTG) proposes, takes shape.
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

[Bill Ryan]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist.

Yes, I can correct you. You're absolutely wrong.

I've never once supported (or even been interested in) QAnon. As I posted several times a while back, the QAnon messages changed authorship as many as 5 or 6 times even in the first year as the initiators lost control over the entire thing.

I'm no MAGA hothead. The world would be a better (and safer, fairer, more equitable) place if the entire USA fell to its global knees. The US is no longer the leader of the Free World.

Regarding my personal principles, I posted this here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120830-Residual-Unresolved-Leftism-in-the-conspiracy-community&p=1549772&viewfull=1#post1549772) a few days ago. As a thought experiment, I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum. I'm:


pro-environment
anti-imperialism
anti-war (yes, really; but war is sometimes necessary as a last resort when the weak and corrupt global legal system fails)
anti-greed
pro-Christian (although I'm not a Christian myself; I'm more of a Buddhist)
anti-capitalism
pro-family
pro-education
pro-tradition
pro-national culture
pro-health sovereignty
anti-recreational drugs
pro-equality of opportunity
anti-personal surveillance
anti-big business
anti-big pharma
anti-big banking
anti-big agro
anti-globalisation
anti-hunting for sport
anti-censorship... etc etc etc.




1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

That's why some people are discussing a 'National Divorce'. You have perfectly represented why no meaningful dialog is possible. :)

[arwen]

This is a discussion for Americans for sure.

Mike Adams explores the idea further in 15 minutes, explaining what the irreconcilable differences are, and exploring what a national divorce would look like:

bmCkgAiUawla/

[mijatoca]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist.

Yes, I can correct you. You're absolutely wrong.

I've never once supported (or even been interested in) QAnon. As I posted several times a while back, the QAnon messages changed authorship as many as 5 or 6 times even in the first year as the initiators lost control over the entire thing.

I'm no MAGA hothead. The world would be a better (and safer, fairer, more equitable) place if the entire USA fell to its global knees. The US is no longer the leader of the Free World.

Regarding my personal principles, I posted this here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120830-Residual-Unresolved-Leftism-in-the-conspiracy-community&p=1549772&viewfull=1#post1549772) a few days ago. As a thought experiment, I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum. I'm:


pro-environment
anti-imperialism
anti-war (yes, really; but war is sometimes necessary as a last resort when the weak and corrupt global legal system fails)
anti-greed
pro-Christian (although I'm not a Christian myself; I'm more of a Buddhist)
anti-capitalism
pro-family
pro-education
pro-tradition
pro-national culture
pro-health sovereignty
anti-recreational drugs
pro-equality of opportunity
anti-personal surveillance
anti-big business
anti-big pharma
anti-big banking
anti-big agro
anti-globalisation
anti-hunting for sport
anti-censorship... etc etc etc.




1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

That's why some people are discussing a 'National Divorce'. You have perfectly represented why no meaningful dialog is possible. :)

Sorry Bill, that doesn't wash. You are promoting views of an idiot and liar. Don't backtrack. Why not promote someone of intellect?

[Bill Ryan]

Why not promote someone of intellect?You mean like Joe Biden? :)

There are very few politicians of intellect anywhere. However, this is one: :)


Мое сообщение для всех вас (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120845-------------------------------------------------)

[arwen]

Why not promote someone of intellect?You mean like Joe Biden? :)

There are very few politicians of intellect anywhere. However, this is one: :)


Мое сообщение для всех вас (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120845-------------------------------------------------)


I missed that! Epic troll! :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

[mijatoca]

I agree Bill. They are very few. But there are.

[mijatoca]

Ever hear Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. and btw he is a class A felon). She talks without pause for thought collection. Her brain is like an AI. Very impressive to watch.

[T Smith]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist. You appear to promote GOP Lunatics. MTG?

OK let's extrapolate things if what she (MTG) proposes, takes shape.
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.


Sorry Bill, that doesn't wash. You are promoting views of an idiot and liar. Don't backtrack. Why not promote someone of intellect?

The sentiment of these posts perfectly exemplifies—and supports—the premise of this thread. This is 100% what it’s all about.

Mijatoca, may I inquire if you are aware that you have, though your sentiments, either inadvertently or otherwise, reduced over 100 million people in America (perhaps more) to cultists and GOP lunatics, many of whom have never even heard of QAnon or are even registered GOP party members? In your view, then, are all these millions and millions of Americans but insane idiots and liars who need be dismissed entirely, with views irreconcilable with your own?

Sounds exactly like the topic of this thread.

Also, I would point out to you, while I have no idea how Bill Ryan feels about MTG’s politics personally (although many of his bullet points suggests he may align with some of her views, but not all), nothing in his post suggests to me he is “promoting” her. It appears to me he is merely (and aptly) observing and reporting on an alarming dynamic of public sentiment, represented by an elected representative of people—real people—in the State of Georgia. But if merely acknowledging the problem (or the wretched person espousing the problem) equates to promoting it—or going further, casting contempt and aspersions on the messenger of the problem—I assume your position may be to ignore and dismiss? As if “those people”—literally half the country or more—don’t exist? Or, at most, if they do exist, hold them in utter contempt and dismiss them as lunatics?

How you answer these questions will illustrate to me whether the issue at hand constitutes irreconcilable differences.

[Ewan]

Sorry Bill, that doesn't wash. You are promoting views of an idiot and liar. Don't backtrack. Why not promote someone of intellect?

Bill is perfectly capable of speaking for himself but sharing information pertinent to the thread does not equate to supporting (or promoting) that information. It simply means it was relevant.

[jaybee]

.

Something that has to be factored into the picture, IMO... is that the Globalists who want to weaken and basically destroy America and the West as we know it - to create a Dictatorship / Technocracy / One World Government ...have taken over so much of American politics + institutions that a 'divorce' could be a way to try and stop further encroachment - the Globalist Elite have full time adherents in both parties but are focusing on the Democrat Party particularly at the moment so that extreme groups like Antifa and BLM and mentally ill people like in the Trans movement.... can be weaponized to cause more division - (that's the way it looks to me anyway...)

Consequently the 'Blue' States may have gone passed the point of no return - the 'Red States' may have some hope of holding on to the Constitution and Rule of Law... ?

For what I've seen of Marjorie Taylor Greene... she seems like a brave, honest person -

I happen to see this the other day where she talks to Tucker Carlson and she is one of the very few politicians who seem to give a damn about the Jan6th political prisoners being held without trial...

Shocking details of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s visit to Jan. 6 defendants in prison(2:56)

h0Aj5NHDx-g


2 Apr 2023
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., joins ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ to share details about the prison conditions that January 6 defendants are being held in.

[DNA]

https://erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fa40be2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6554x3983+0+0/resize/1680x1020!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferepublic-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7a%2F75%2Fdfec343541e2916c6437b7431750%2Findelibly-map.jpg (https://www.governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like)


source (https://www.governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like)

Arizona may turn red (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116381-Arizona-Audits-Anyone&highlight=Arizona) ...

I would argue that half the blue states are only blue because of voter manipulation and fraud.

[DNA]

This proposal is gaining traction now, especially after the indictment of President Trump a few days ago. It's all about a number of American states seceding from the Union.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first to use the phrase, back in February. This was published in Newsweek on 20 Feb:

https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449
(https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Wants 'National Divorce' of Red and Blue States

I'll not copy the article here, but it featured this useful summary tweet:

https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1627665203398688768
1627665203398688768
The slightly curtailed text reads:
We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done.


Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist. You appear to promote GOP Lunatics. MTG?

OK let's extrapolate things if what she (MTG) proposes, takes shape.
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

Dude, mijatoca, you've been here for ten years and you have read like no posts what so ever.
You don't post often and I can see it is probably because you are too busy watching CNN getting your brain washed and programmed.
I wish we could help you but first you have to help yourself.
Read Hillary Clinton's email drops via wikileaks.
Check out Dr. John Colemans committee of 300, the speaking to promote the book is on Rumble.

[ExomatrixTV]

I agree Bill. They are very few. But there are.

Most who are worthy of our attention left the Democratic Party (like: Tulsi Gabbard (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108976-Tulsi-Gabbard) & Matt Taibbi (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120654-Why-We-Don-t-Trust-Mainstream-Media-The-Munk-Debates)) ... study the "Walk Away (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=walkaway)" movement ... 100,000s left and for good reason!

And I wonder if you have listened to what they have to say, why they left.


Same for Jimmy Dore (https://www.youtube.com/@thejimmydoreshow/videos) & Dave Rubin (https://www.youtube.com/@RubinReport/videos).

1643029365356150788
cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳


related:

JiEeDjZgAVg


All The Neo-liberal Stooges Are Running Scared Now And For Good Reason:

duhYPgdEMW8

[Ratszinger]

If there is such a movement, I hope it will involve its neighbor to the north...Alberta would be happy to join the red states for sure. Eastern Canada might as well. British Columbia, most of Ontario and all of Quebec would likely be lost.
The entire world power structure would change if USA divorced, leaving America as a regional power while China would rise to dominance as the only remaining super-power.
Scary stuff.

Also, Texas has been mulling the idea of leaving the union altogether. That would be a devastating blow to the red states in such a scenario.

The U.S. has been like north and south Vietnam or North and south Korea since the civil war as many in the south call the northerners Yankees to this day and northerners call the southerners names like "Redneck" among others. It's obviously much deeper than this and from the stand point of many the red and blue are already separating as I know here in Oklahoma we have had many new neighbors move in from CA and every last one of them said they know Trump won California because all you saw up and down the sate was Trump support yet the dems took it all. I know a couple right down the street that sold their CA home and with the profits they made from that sale moved here and bought seven homes and rented six and live in the other while the renters pay most all their expenses as well as their own and we got new neighbors on the other end of the block and guess where they are from? I see people from blue states leaving in hords and in Illinois the entire state is red with the exception of the very organized crime syndicate making it blue via Chicago! Many there feel they are not represnted and want Chicago off their map and I know that was the case in the 80's when the wife and I lived there. I'm not saying there are not dems there but the majorty of that state land mass is red. Here in OK of course it's the the brightest red of all with FL anymore a close second.

[ozmirage]

NATIONAL DIVORCE? SECESSION ?
This is a STUNNING victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

That millions of Americans can be indoctrinated to be PIG IGNORANT of their basic laws, and thus seek to destroy the union.

What "basic law"?
That governments are instituted among men to secure endowed rights... and nothing more without consent of the governed. (See : Declaration of Independence)

If you are upset because government appears to be trespassing your rights, via socialist democracy, the law says you GAVE CONSENT. Otherwise the government couldn't tax, regulate or otherwise trespass upon your rights.
Don't be embarrassed. We're all victims of the WGPM.

The original reason for the "UNITED" states, was to unite in defense of rights to life, liberty, and private property rights from all enemies, foreign & domestic. . . Fight the bad guys.
Ah, but the bad guys weren't stupid - they infiltrated the government and perverted it.
It no longer secures rights from predators, but protects predators, while persecuting their prey who dared to fight back.

Sigh.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
Destroy the republican form of government, and eradicate that dangerous idea from the minds of the sheeple.


THE REAL REMEDY - 97% OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW CONSENT FROM THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY AND RESTORE ENDOWED RIGHTS.
That's all.
With the government's revenue cut by 97% and its authority to govern reduced to 3%, while all the sovereign people's endowed rights are not taxed, regulated, nor trespassed, no matter who is elected, there's very little mischief they can get into. It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

[thepainterdoug]

Mijatoca each one of us is a complexity of beliefs, attitudes and views that are unfortunately most often applied in broad brush.
You're kinda crazy; MTGreen, may not be my kinda crazy,; Kamila H. But is 100% of these two people one or the other? No

How do you feel about J Trudeau? From my view, I don't see anyway he is loving, caring or concerned for the people of Canada Being a graduate of Klaus Schwab's young global leaders, I see him with those applicable motives of power ,control and $$$,and a one world government that the people of Canada , (provided they are transparently informed), do not want share or have choice over.
Does Trudeau have some good qualities? Im sure many would say yes. I never met him

On a personal level, I am anti war. It is probably my biggest issue because I see most all war as able to be avoided for it not big money and defense players wanting war for power and profit. They are not necessary wars, Iraq being a perfect recent example and your mentioned Madelene Albright, condoning over a million babies being murdered as "an acceptable cost".
Yet would I see cause for war in some cases? Yes. A legitimate cause, one driven by a true unsolvable issue after all options were exhausted in an open forum.

My stance is simple as it applies to this thread, I am for the Constitution of the USA and its bill of rights etc.( Broad Brush ) Anyone that chooses to live here should also be, or why not move out to your favorite socialist or communist country where you don't have to fight to convert it to communism, you already have it!
Cuba, N Korea, Venezuela, C China are ready made for someone who wants the state to run their lives and control their freedom.

I feel the USA , its constitution etc, is the best of all bad systems because it's the nature of human beings that is the problem.

[mountain_jim]

Ever hear Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. and btw he is a class A felon). She talks without pause for thought collection. Her brain is like an AI. Very impressive to watch.

Are you promoting her and her views? That manifestation of evil?



The most prominent memory of Albright that I have in my mind is from an interview she gave to CBS 60 Minutes in 1996.

In that now-iconic interview, veteran journalist Lesley Stahl questioned Albright – then the US ambassador to the United Nations – on the catastrophic effect the rigorous US sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had on the Iraqi population.

“We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

With this response, Albright showed that she sees innocent Iraqi children as nothing more than disposable fodder in a conflict between the US administration and the Iraqi leadership.

She demonstrated, with no room left for any doubt, that she had no humanity – that she cannot and shall never be described as “a force for goodness, grace, and decency”.

[norman]

Divorce = admission of defeat

Was it adultery or was it pre groomed rape ?

I say catch the groomer and rapist and counsel the victim.

MTG must be off her rocker, or worse. Fox ditto.

[T Smith]

NATIONAL DIVORCE? SECESSION ?
This is a STUNNING victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

The fact that it's being talked about is what seems pertinent to me. From apathy to sitting up and noticing somethin' ain't right. As far as I'm concerned, that's a start. Can we turn it around and save the Republic, or awaken from reality that our government is protecting the rights of predators instead of individual rights and liberties? Stay tuned. The question remains unanswered....



LOR=#006400]THE REAL REMEDY - 97% OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW CONSENT FROM THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY AND RESTORE ENDOWED RIGHTS.[/COLOR]
That's all.
With the government's revenue cut by 97% and its authority to govern reduced to 3%, while all the sovereign people's endowed rights are not taxed, regulated, nor trespassed, no matter who is elected, there's very little mischief they can get into. It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Sure. That would remedy, in theory. A Ghandi-like resistance. But in practice, there would be civil war first.

[Bill Ryan]

Divorce = admission of defeat

Or sometimes, it's a new start and the best thing for both partners.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I would say that a divorce is the best solution for America but not for the world.

If it was an even 50 - 50 split then it would make sense to avoid bloodshed. But it is not. It is not even 30 - 70 in terms of population. The news and social media make it seem as though this is a deep divide right down the middle but it is not. It is a manipulated statistic. Even those that have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine will awaken when the receipts pile up and those responsible are brought to justice.

The only question remaining is can the republic survive long enough for the truth to finally surface?

[norman]

Divorce = admission of defeat

Or sometimes, it's a new start and the best thing for both partners.

"Best" huh ?

Not between red and blue.

Between The Republic of the United States of America and the US Corp', I could agree, as long as it's the Republic that gets to keep the house and assets for the sake of the kids.

[Ewan]

Ever hear Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Bill Clinton. and btw he is a class A felon). She talks without pause for thought collection. Her brain is like an AI. Very impressive to watch.

Very creepy to watch if you asked me. Tony Blair was like that, they're like salesmen with no qualms about saying whatever they sense the audience need to hear. That's precisely why they don't pause for thought collection, everything they are saying is just hot air.

Speakers who pause for thought collection are far more likely gathering memories and thought processes to present in the most understandable way. They don't want to make mistakes. Though you have to examine what is being said, whilst watching the speaker also, to get a sense of their veracity.

[Ewan]

In the case of a divorce the split states could get very messy.

[Bruce G Charlton]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist.

Yes, I can correct you. You're absolutely wrong.

I've never once supported (or even been interested in) QAnon. As I posted several times a while back, the QAnon messages changed authorship as many as 5 or 6 times even in the first year as the initiators lost control over the entire thing.

I'm no MAGA hothead. The world would be a better (and safer, fairer, more equitable) place if the entire USA fell to its global knees. The US is no longer the leader of the Free World.

Regarding my personal principles, I posted this here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120830-Residual-Unresolved-Leftism-in-the-conspiracy-community&p=1549772&viewfull=1#post1549772) a few days ago. As a thought experiment, I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum. I'm:


pro-environment
anti-imperialism
anti-war (yes, really; but war is sometimes necessary as a last resort when the weak and corrupt global legal system fails)
anti-greed
pro-Christian (although I'm not a Christian myself; I'm more of a Buddhist)
anti-capitalism
pro-family
pro-education
pro-tradition
pro-national culture
pro-health sovereignty
anti-recreational drugs
pro-equality of opportunity
anti-personal surveillance
anti-big business
anti-big pharma
anti-big banking
anti-big agro
anti-globalisation
anti-hunting for sport
anti-censorship... etc etc etc.




1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

That's why some people are discussing a 'National Divorce'. You have perfectly represented why no meaningful dialog is possible. :)

@Bill " I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum"

The thing is that - just stated as a list of secular principles - all can be found somewhere within the scope of mainstream public discourse.

If that was all there was to you, it would not matter what you called yourself or what anyone called you; because you would be located comfortably with The System.

It is your underlying and motivating Spiritual principles that make you stand outside of, and opposed to, The System!

That is a point I often recur to - politics is all 'System stuff', so long as the material realm and this mortal life are the whole story.

The only real opposition to The System is from those who are rooted outside it - which could be called Spiritually - but it must be a truly motivating spirituality which is more powerful that the System inducements.

After all, nearly every New Age 'spiritual' person I have read, heard or met gets his/ her ruling-convictions from the mainstream - indeed extra leftist - media (New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, BBC etc). Spirituality is of no use to anybody - and indeed a hypocritical sham - when it is so feeble as to be overwhelmed by whatever happens to be the latest and current Globalist Totalitarian System-imperative.

Nearly all the mainstream churches, of apparently all religions, broke their deepest 'principles' and closed for months (and without a known endpoint) in early 2020, revealing that institutional religion is within The System. So individuals who wish to operate from outside The System cannot rely upon any powerful institution to back them - we each must find our source of truth and the strength to hold-to-it.

[safara]

I have always in the past seen the "Divide and conquer" tacticts used by political parties only really ramped up towards election times. And then they subside and we all just get on with stuff.

But in the last 10 years or so the rhetoric, delivery and invasiveness has been so overwhelming that many have been so totally lead down a path to the point that they have lost all critical thought, and simply follow what they are now told by their chosen side.

Regardless of election times, this is what people now are. It governs their day to day conversations. They look for their angle in everything to try and prove this or that. It is now a full time thing being shoved at us, and many now know nothing else. Full time this side or that side

The connectivity and immediacy of the systems enabled by the internet play a huge part in this. Shut it down?

Can things be fixed? Bring back some thought, consideration for others, learn to live together?

Prolly gone too far now. Hence divorce is on the cards.

[Ratszinger]

I have always in the past seen the "Divide and conquer" tacticts used by political parties only really ramped up towards election times. And then they subside and we all just get on with stuff.

But in the last 10 years or so the rhetoric, delivery and invasiveness has been so overwhelming that many have been so totally lead down a path to the point that they have lost all critical thought, and simply follow what they are now told by their chosen side.

Regardless of election times, this is what people now are. It governs their day to day conversations. They look for their angle in everything to try and prove this or that. It is now a full time thing being shoved at us, and many now know nothing else. Full time this side or that side

The connectivity and immediacy of the systems enabled by the internet play a huge part in this. Shut it down?

Can things be fixed? Bring back some thought, consideration for others, learn to live together?

Prolly gone too far now. Hence divorce is on the cards.

So long as the USA is a multi-cultural country as it is at this writing we are safe really. Think about all this talk of WWIII and realize that Chinese elite have their sons, daughters, cousins and other relatives here in our schools. Russia does too and so does Europe as a whole, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Irag, and even Iranian Americans that are here now that keep all these countries from destroying this one even if they do gang up on us. But hey, when we start seeing all the elite that sent their relatives here to go to school yanking them out and ordering them all home around the same time to where we all start noticing it it's time to round up those relatives and detain them in my opinion because once they leave the countries they are from will have no more vested interest in this one, it's schools or land or anything else but again this is all contrary to the Chinese ways of war. They are not going to destroy it but take it over from within as they are currently doing and take it all intact. As their manual has taught them is how they will go about it.

All of us here know dang well they own Biden and family and have them and more of our elected all by the short and curly hairs. The elected kissing their back side will do whatever they want in the way of any kind of favor and for life to hide their deviant behavior because to them it's the lesser of the two evils to be a slave to the Chinese and others that own them. This is how Biden got owned and his son, his brother and all others involved. It's probably spread to others we don't even know about yet in all systems of government. They currently work on bringing the FED to it's knees now to put the U.S. into a third world country status and apparently that is working because when the trucks stop running and the food shortages begin all these wandering immigrants will then begin to be a real problem for others competing for food and other people will be a real problem for them and each other.

Let us pray that we don't end up like Argentina where it has been reported that men hunt other men to cook and eat not because they are enemies! We think it could never happen here but then again, no one knows what they'd do to feed their childre until that moment comes and traumatic as what they do may be to them they'll do what is needed and shield their children from truth and do it. We're prepping for a shortage and not just of food but credit cards working, having any credit at all, and cash money. I guess we saw the tip of the iceberg here lately with egg prices but even that is going up again and I noticed that my sandwich at Subway was much more expensive than it was a year ago when I last ate there. Not sure I can afford to pay that for a meatball sub! Not sure I should have paid that for a steak sub but it was just meatball and it's a $15 sandwich after taxes! Used to be they had specials for $5! I'm afraid those days are gone my friends.

[Ewan]

like Argentina where it has been reported that men hunt other men to cook and eat


Can you PM me a link?
Everything I find is related to the 1972 air crash or even older -
The “Slaughter of the Turks” occurred between 1904 and 1909 and its death toll, according to the records of the officer who investigated it, amounted to some 130 victims, and it was Patagonian tribesman that were responsible.

:focus:

[mijatoca]

Hi DNA. I don't watch any news outlet. I'd rather stick a fork in my leg than listen to Wolf Blitzer.
When you write "I wish we could help you", who do you mean "we"? I must assume you feel comfortable here as a collective. I emphasize "collective", you know, like a hive mind? Why even discuss anything?

[ozmirage]

NATIONAL DIVORCE? SECESSION ?
This is a STUNNING victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

The fact that it's being talked about is what seems pertinent to me. From apathy to sitting up and noticing somethin' ain't right. As far as I'm concerned, that's a start. Can we turn it around and save the Republic, or awaken from reality that our government is protecting the rights of predators instead of individual rights and liberties? Stay tuned. The question remains unanswered....
"Talked about" is a smoke screen. And a republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican from.
No news outlet ever mentions the REPUBLICAN FORM. Or the endowed rights of the people (Not citizens) that would be at risk from dissolution of the UNION.
IN SHORT, IT'S ALL PROPAGANDA aimed at destroying the UNION.
(P.S. - in 1777, the Articles of Confederation created a PERPETUAL UNION. But no one seems to have read that charter. And, no, it was not replaced by the USCON. Its terms were incorporated, by reference, into the USCON, via Art 6.)




LOR=#006400]THE REAL REMEDY - 97% OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW CONSENT FROM THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY AND RESTORE ENDOWED RIGHTS.[/COLOR]
That's all.
With the government's revenue cut by 97% and its authority to govern reduced to 3%, while all the sovereign people's endowed rights are not taxed, regulated, nor trespassed, no matter who is elected, there's very little mischief they can get into. It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Sure. That would remedy, in theory. A Ghandi-like resistance. But in practice, there would be civil war first.INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.
A "CIVIL" war is based on parties breaching a "civil" compact (such as one that formed a government). The public servants have a duty to the sovereign people, but not vice versa.

In reality, if a substantial portion withdrew consent, and returned to the REPUBLICAN FORM, the remaining partisans would be the USURERS (bankers, etc) versus the COLLECTIVISTS (socialists / communists).
Frankly, if 97% withdrew consent, the remaining 3% who stayed to serve would not be likely to be of either faction, since there would be no way to "get rich" nor "rule others."
(Those "Founders" were real clever. Unfortunately, once their generation died off, in the 1820s, the new kids decided to emulate European democrazies. Bad move.)

[mijatoca]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist.

Yes, I can correct you. You're absolutely wrong.

I've never once supported (or even been interested in) QAnon. As I posted several times a while back, the QAnon messages changed authorship as many as 5 or 6 times even in the first year as the initiators lost control over the entire thing.

I'm no MAGA hothead. The world would be a better (and safer, fairer, more equitable) place if the entire USA fell to its global knees. The US is no longer the leader of the Free World.

Regarding my personal principles, I posted this here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120830-Residual-Unresolved-Leftism-in-the-conspiracy-community&p=1549772&viewfull=1#post1549772) a few days ago. As a thought experiment, I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum. I'm:


pro-environment
anti-imperialism
anti-war (yes, really; but war is sometimes necessary as a last resort when the weak and corrupt global legal system fails)
anti-greed
pro-Christian (although I'm not a Christian myself; I'm more of a Buddhist)
anti-capitalism
pro-family
pro-education
pro-tradition
pro-national culture
pro-health sovereignty
anti-recreational drugs
pro-equality of opportunity
anti-personal surveillance
anti-big business
anti-big pharma
anti-big banking
anti-big agro
anti-globalisation
anti-hunting for sport
anti-censorship... etc etc etc.




1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

That's why some people are discussing a 'National Divorce'. You have perfectly represented why no meaningful dialog is possible. :)

I apologize Bill for my broad characterization of you. I just get triggered when I read some of of your right leaning posts and others here that want to own the libs by dismissing them as commies. It's so lame and lazy. I don't like our Prime Minister JT. Entitled little dick. His Dad I did like. Took no **** and drove the bus his way. Politicians and politics are just a game. I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

[Bill Ryan]

...your right leaning posts...I'm not "right leaning". :)

Why do you think I am? That's a serious question. That's such a superficial label.


I abhor multinational corporations and their anti-human values.
I'm critical of capitalism in general.
I care very deeply about the environment. (We're in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction right now.)
I abhor hunting for sport. (I'm almost incapable of killing a fly.)
I abhor the deep inequalities that are prevalent in the world. (I've spent time in Africa and India, and I now live in Ecuador. I know what real poverty is.)
I've never owned a gun.
I'm very much anti-war, unless it's genuinely justified, which it can sometimes be. (Every military intervention by the US in recent decades has been a psychopathic, destructive, colonialist, neocon adventure).

Way too many people are trapped in the very simplistic Left-Right dichotomy, which in my strong opinion is nearly meaningless.

We have to start thinking about this in a way that recognizes the true complexity of the various permutations of political views. I'm really a Libertarian, in the sense that the term was understood quite a few years ago. But very few political parties anywhere in the world now represent true Libertarianism.

Do see this interesting thread:


The "Right-Left" dichotomy: false, simplistic, & manipulative. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111305-The-Right-Left-dichotomy-false-simplistic-manipulative.)

[ozmirage]

It's a common mistake to assume banks and corporations are capitalism. They call themselves "capitalists" after all.
But that's not correct.
Capitalism, as defined, is the private ownership of the means of production - starting with land, resources, your labor and that which you produce.
HOWEVER, the so-called capitalists are creatures of government, allowed to exist and engage in abominations (usury) and have privileges (limited liability) which are inequitable and unjust.
Stockholders are immune from prosecution for the evils done by their corporations in the pursuit of gain.
In fact, pseudo capitalists prey upon real capitalism, the owners of private property.

A farmer who owns his farm is enjoying capitalism.
A farmer in debt to a bank ("capitalist") is a victim.

[T Smith]

INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.

Yes, but the mere fact of withdrawing consent will lead to violence first. I don't see how you "skip" over that stage. We are seeing the beginning of that now, with protestors (those who are basically exercising a form of non-consent) being held in jail, without charge. We see it with the conviction of Douglas Mackey, who is facing 10 years prison time for exercising harmless free speech, a so-called inalienable right. These are actions of non-consent, for all intents and purposes, or at least the beginning stages of non-consent. And imprisonment is an act of violence in itself. So violence is already being committed.

If/when people begin to withdraw consent in droves, either by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to observe government mandates, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of government altogether--or whatever have you--i.e, the proverbial "jumping from the pirate ship" and swimming for dry land--it will only result in blood-thirsty pirates on deck arming themselves to the teeth with harpoons, taking aim and fire at whoever and whatever is swimming to shore. They will justify their violence via self-righteous propaganda, indoctrination, demonization, and brianwashing, and by inducing on the masses a state of mass hysteria, irrational fear, and mass formation.

But, sure. In theory, if everybody jumped ship all at once and declared themselves sovereign via the tenants of common law, they couldn't get us all, but it just doesn't work that way. The more non-compliant the people become the more vicious and violent they will respond in direct proportion to the increasing divergence. At some point, after it's obvious to all violence is being waged against the people by the so-called public servants who are supposed to be serving them, people will start to fight back. Violence is inevitable.

I'm not calling for it; I'm just describing human nature.

[mijatoca]

...your right leaning posts...I'm not "right leaning". :)

Why do you think I am? That's a serious question. That's such a superficial label.


I abhor multinational corporations and their anti-human values.
I'm critical of capitalism in general.
I care very deeply about the environment. (We're in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction right now.)
I abhor hunting for sport. (I'm almost incapable of killing a fly.)
I abhor the deep inequalities that are prevalent in the world. (I've spent time in Africa and India, and I now live in Ecuador. I know what real poverty is.)
I've never owned a gun.
I'm very much anti-war, unless it's genuinely justified, which it can sometimes be. (Every military intervention by the US in recent decades has been a psychopathic, destructive, colonialist, neocon adventure).

Way too many people are trapped in the very simplistic Left-Right dichotomy, which in my strong opinion is nearly meaningless.

We have to start thinking about this in a way that recognizes the true complexity of the various permutations of political views. I'm really a Libertarian, in the sense that the term was understood quite a few years ago. But very few political parties anywhere in the world now represent true Libertarianism.

Do see this interesting thread:


The "Right-Left" dichotomy: false, simplistic, & manipulative. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111305-The-Right-Left-dichotomy-false-simplistic-manipulative.)


To answer your question why I think you are right leaning.
The first time was when you cited something from Project Veritas.
The second time was when you predicted Trump would win the 2020 election.
The third time was this thread and MTG. She just irritates me so much!
Maybe that's petty on my part. Guilty as charged. You just seem to take GOP talking points to heart.

Sincerely, Mike

[DNA]

Hi DNA. I don't watch any news outlet. I'd rather stick a fork in my leg than listen to Wolf Blitzer.
When you write "I wish we could help you", who do you mean "we"? I must assume you feel comfortable here as a collective. I emphasize "collective", you know, like a hive mind? Why even discuss anything?

Artificial hives have been created all over the earth for the minds of men.
Some people see through that bu11**** and I believe that is what Avalon is.
An organic hive of folks who refused the artificial hives of the beekeepers.
You have not left your artificial hive.
MGT seems crazy to you.
That's because you don't agree that the current attack on the Western cultures of the world is multipronged.
Attacking what it is to be a family.
What it is to be a traditional man or woman.
What it is to be a child joyously ignorant of sex of the traditional kind much less that of the fringe.
This multipronged attack on our children includes men dressed in the most sexualizing of women's clothing then immatating sex dancing designed to stimulate sexual thoughts in men when performed by women.

Drag queen story hour has been initiated in libraries, schools and other instutitions. This is a concerted effort to sexualize children and create gender dysphoria.

The sexualizing is what MGT is talking about.
Predator pedophiles dressed in the worst clothes possible to represent womanhood.

Technically the gender dysphoria being supposedly created is the worst of what is going on.
Carving young people up via prebuscent drugs and surgery.

In all honesty I don't t really think you care about any of this information.

I think you're here to troll.
You remind me of Fred/Gracy.

[T Smith]

I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

[mijatoca]

Hi DNA. I don't watch any news outlet. I'd rather stick a fork in my leg than listen to Wolf Blitzer.
When you write "I wish we could help you", who do you mean "we"? I must assume you feel comfortable here as a collective. I emphasize "collective", you know, like a hive mind? Why even discuss anything?

Artificial hives have been created all over the earth for the minds of men.
Some people see through that bu11**** and I believe that is what Avalon is.
An organic hive of folks who refused the artificial hives of the beekeepers.
You have not left your artificial hive.
MGT seems crazy to you.
That's because you don't agree that the current attack on the Western cultures of the world is multipronged.
Attacking what it is to be a family.
What it is to be a traditional man or woman.
What it is to be a child joyously ignorant of sex of the traditional kind much less that of the fringe.
This multipronged attack on our children includes men dressed in the most sexualizing of women's clothing then immatating sex dancing designed to stimulate sexual thoughts in men when performed by women.

Drag queen story hour has been initiated in libraries, schools and other instutitions. This is a concerted effort to sexualize children and create gender dysphoria.

The sexualizing is what MGT is talking about.
Predator pedophiles dressed in the worst clothes possible to represent womanhood.

Technically the gender dysphoria being supposedly created is the worst of what is going on.
Carving young people up via prebuscent drugs and surgery.

In all honesty I don't t really think you care about any of this information.

I think you're here to troll.
You remind me of Fred/Gracy.

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.

[mijatoca]

I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

I's not fascinating to me. Quite simple actually you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

[Bill Ryan]

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.Mike, in a very brief one-sentence summary, DNA's post was largely about the US Democrat-promoted corruption of sexuality and the erosion of family values.


What are your own views about this?
Do you think that this issue properly lies somewhere in the "Left-Right spectrum" of politics?

[mijatoca]

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.Mike, in a very brief one-sentence summary, DNA's post was largely about the US Democrat-promoted corruption of sexuality and the erosion of family values.


What are your own views about this?
Do you think that this issue properly lies somewhere in the "Left-Right spectrum" of politics?


Very good question Bill. Sorry if I have to start with a question.
The taliking points about the "corruption of sexuality" is a relatively new phenonium. Right or wrong, which party brings this up the most?
You think LGBT is something that just erupted on this planet? Been here a while. JUST NEVER AKNOWLEGED to the point it is now. What difference does it make to your life? WTF does it matter in the grand scheme. How many lives are lost to the effects of this topic? I don't know, but I do know that the leading causes of death amongst children in the US is gun violence. Sorry Bill, can you cite me a thread you opened about that?

[Bill Ryan]

you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOPI have to say, from those words it doesn't actually look like it. :)

You seem easily triggered, seem confused about what is right and wrong, seem to have many stereotypical views, seem to have anger issues (do you? :flower:), and it's a little hard to see who and what you feel compassion for.

If you think that those Avalon members (self included!), who you feel are "right-leaning", somehow lack compassion, you're completely mistaken. As I mentioned earlier, I've spent quite a bit of time in Africa and India and I know what poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity all are.

It may be worth considering people on an individual basis regarding what their values and principles are, rather than pigeonholing them (and 350 million North Americans!) into two simplistically labeled groups.

But regarding the question posed on this thread, I confess to knowing little about MTG. I'm not an American! But whatever you think of her personally, her proposition seems to me to be valid and worth a forum discussion.

And as several have pointed out (maybe the subtle irony was missed!!) the way this very thread is becoming polarized — at your instigation, not anyone else's — seems to add justification to the idea of truly irreconcilable differences between people with different views.

The contempt and ridicule started with your own words here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=1550670#post1550670): (I'm not a Christian in the sense that you seem to regard the "right-leaning", or else I'd surely have been offended)
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.
If this was a debating competition, I'd make the argument to the audience that you have totally proven the point that you were claiming to oppose.

[mijatoca]

you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOPI have to say, from those words it doesn't actually look like it. :)

You seem easily triggered, seem confused about what is right and wrong, seem to have many stereotypical views, seem to have anger issues (do you? :flower:), and it's a little hard to see who and what you feel compassion for.

If you think that those Avalon members (self included!), who you feel are "right-leaning", somehow lack compassion, you're completely mistaken. As I mentioned earlier, I've spent quite a bit of time in Africa and India and I know what poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity all are.

It may be worth considering people on an individual basis regarding what their values and principles are, rather than pigeonholing them (and 350 million North Americans!) into two simplistically labeled groups.

But regarding the question posed on this thread, I confess to knowing little about MTG. I'm not an American! But whatever you think of her personally, her proposition seems to me to be valid and worth a forum discussion.

And as several have pointed out (maybe the subtle irony was missed!!) the way this very thread is becoming polarized — at your instigation, not anyone else's — seems to add justification to the idea of truly irreconcilable differences between people with different views.

The contempt and ridicule started with your own words here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=1550670#post1550670): (I'm not a Christian in the sense that you seem to regard the "right-leaning", or else I'd surely have been offended)
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.
If this was a debating competition, I'd make the argument to the audience that you have totally proven the point that you were claiming to oppose.

Ok, I think I've lost my purpose here. I'll exit this thread. All the best to you Bill! (and your dog (I love dogs. Maybe agree on that))

[thepainterdoug]

mijotoca said / I apologize Politicians and politics are just a game. I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.gize Bill for my broad characterization of you. I just get triggered when I read some of of your right leaning posts and others here that want to own the libs by dismissing them as commies. It's so lame and lazy. I don't like our Prime Minister JT. Entitled little dick. His Dad I did like. Took no **** and drove the bus his way.


M/ I dont see myself as a right winger although Im sure you have assessed me as one. I grew up as a teen in the late 60ies and always voted DEM.
I have never to this day voted for a republican. I abstained my vote during the 2016 election, but in reflection, thrilled to see Trump, who I never cared about one way or another, win. And his record of no war, easing tensions with Rocket man and Putin , energy independence and a controlled border spoke volumes to me.
Look at Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibi. Matt was the editor of Rolling Stone magazine, the hippie mag I used to read. Matt today in interest of sanity has moved away from this insane radical left, as Greenwald and others have. So they, along with myself look like right wing, yet I am a liberal at heart

A real liberal. I have deep empathy for those who are less fortunate, but giving things away and trying to make everyone and everything even and equal, is a lie.
I am part of P Avalon for almost 10 years. I would never have thought of this site as a meeting place for so called right wing conservative people.
I just think things have so radically changed on the left, and smart people not bound by party or titles, have read the play and adjusted.

[Bill Ryan]

Ok, I think I've lost my purpose here. I'll exit this thread. All the best you Bill! (and your dog (I love dogs. Maybe agree on that))Thanks for your very kind thought, which I know was sincere. :flower:

And I'll embarrass you by thanking you publicly for your very generous $$ donation to Avalon a couple of hours ago, which was equally sincerely appreciated. That was extremely kind of you to have done that.

[T Smith]

I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

I's not fascinating to me. Quite simple actually you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

My apologies, Mijatoca, if I offended you. I didn't intend it that way. You're entitled to your views; I'm just honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around it and understanding it. That's on me...

Carry on,

Kind Regards,

T Smith

[ozmirage]

INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.

Yes, but the mere fact of withdrawing consent will lead to violence first. I don't see how you "skip" over that stage. We are seeing the beginning of that now, with protestors (those who are basically exercising a form of non-consent) being held in jail, without charge. We see it with the conviction of Douglas Mackey, who is facing 10 years prison time for exercising harmless free speech, a so-called inalienable right. These are actions of non-consent, for all intents and purposes, or at least the beginning stages of non-consent. And imprisonment is an act of violence in itself. So violence is already being committed.

If/when people begin to withdraw consent in droves, either by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to observe government mandates, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of government altogether--or whatever have you--i.e, the proverbial "jumping from the pirate ship" and swimming for dry land--it will only result in blood-thirsty pirates on deck arming themselves to the teeth with harpoons, taking aim and fire at whoever and whatever is swimming to shore. They will justify their violence via self-righteous propaganda, indoctrination, demonization, and brianwashing, and by inducing on the masses a state of mass hysteria, irrational fear, and mass formation.

But, sure. In theory, if everybody jumped ship all at once and declared themselves sovereign via the tenants of common law, they couldn't get us all, but it just doesn't work that way. The more non-compliant the people become the more vicious and violent they will respond in direct proportion to the increasing divergence. At some point, after it's obvious to all violence is being waged against the people by the so-called public servants who are supposed to be serving them, people will start to fight back. Violence is inevitable.

I'm not calling for it; I'm just describing human nature.
If you could show some evidence in support of your conclusions, I might be persuaded.

I realize that 99.99999% of Americans presume they're CITIZENS and "Must" sign up with socialist insecurity, so dealing with that unknown is daunting... and that's the exact reaction that the Ministry of Propaganda wants - FEAR.

BUT if you ask the government DIRECTLY, most cases, they'll answer truthfully.
And thus there is NO reason to presume that recriminations would follow. In fact, the CONgress was more afraid of the people, back in 1965, when they changed the punishment for counterfeiting from death to just incarceration... Because they enacted counterfeiting in the Coinage Act of 1965. Yup. They "follow" the CONstitution. NOT!
- - -
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

Read the law for yourself . . .
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20PDFs/Social%20Security%20Act%20of%201935%20Vol%201.pdf

- - -
If you can find ANY aspect of withdrawing consent from socialism that incurs a violent reaction, please point it out.
BUT do not lump in any case where someone who WAS a CONSENTING CITIZEN / SUBJECT / SERF, was slapped down for failure to obey.
- - -
Part of the reluctance is the indoctrination that America is a DEMOCRACY, where a majority can override (or persecute) a minority.
In THAT case, YES, any minority that doesn't cooperate will be [censored].

WHICH is why I repeatedly stress that one must shift back to the REPUBLICAN FORM - which is guaranteed by the USCON, as well as stated in EVERY state constitution.
You can't have one foot in their democrazy and one foot in the republican form.
The bulk of "New Paytriots" are misled by the propaganda ministry to think they can be "sovereign citizens" (an oxymoron).
Either you're a sovereign (not participating in the democracy) or you're a subject (participating in the democracy).

Who says Americans are SOVEREIGN?
The supreme Court... and the law.
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

" 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...

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

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

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
The USCON also conforms to this. People have rights and powers (Amendments 9 & 10).
Citizens only have privileges and immunities. (technically, "civil rights" and "political rights" are actually privileges, aka "civil liberties" and "political liberties.")

Who says Citizens are not sovereigns?
Would you believe George Washington - - -
“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.

"... 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
{Inside joke - there is only ONE nation on Earth with a republican form, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant.}
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States

ONLY citizens are obligated to train, fight, and die on command. All other Americans can volunteer.

SO, if you're a consenting subject, YES, you can be prosecuted for failure to obey or perform the obligations that come with mandatory civic duties.
BUT
Try and find ONE LAW that abrogates, trespasses or impairs any endowed right of the sovereign people.

(Trick question - the law already has "trap doors" that open if any law can accidentally violate the rights of the sovereign people.)

Still unconvinced?
(Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922):
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1

So withdrawing consent to restore all those inherent / sacred / endowed rights is not an "act of war" nor violation of some law or grounds for recriminations. Frankly, it reverses the government's treatment of you. Instead of your master, from whom you must get permissions (licenses) and pay tribute, it becomes your faithful servant, delegated power to secure your endowment.

Cowering in fear of restoring your birthright is so tragic, but evidence of the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

[ozmirage]

Do not believe me - ask THEM.
Ask them if they have the power to deny natural and personal liberty - don't ask about civil or political liberty - they can deny those privileges.
Ask them if they have the power to tax private property - don't ask if they can tax real estate - they do have the power to tax estate.
Ask them what the consequences for trespass by a public servant are.
Look up the laws, yourself.
....
And one may wonder what Mr. Bierce was referring to in this:
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................................


“The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, was a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.

[ozmirage]

WHO would prefer that Americans do not restore their endowed / inherent / sacred rights to LIFE (and thus any and all means to support and defend that life), LIBERTY (natural and personal), ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission or payment to another), INHERENT POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.
- - -

WHO would prefer that Americans remain consenting subjects / citizens / bankrupts / socialist serfs?
- - -

WHO would prefer that Americans remain "status criminals" excepted from all "constitutional" protections?
- - -
Probably the same people who want to sever the UNION, and make it easier to "harvest" the sheeple.

To be frank, EVERY other nation on Earth would love to see America's republican form of government eradicated.
Correction - every other national government (and the people who control them) would love to see America's republican form of government eradicated.
WHY?
SIMPLE - if Americans restored their status, regained prosperity, and became an example of what can be accomplished, it would inspire the world to [.... the rest is censored by order of the Ministry of Truth and Proper Propaganda, M.T.P.P.]

[T Smith]

INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.

Yes, but the mere fact of withdrawing consent will lead to violence first. I don't see how you "skip" over that stage. We are seeing the beginning of that now, with protestors (those who are basically exercising a form of non-consent) being held in jail, without charge. We see it with the conviction of Douglas Mackey, who is facing 10 years prison time for exercising harmless free speech, a so-called inalienable right. These are actions of non-consent, for all intents and purposes, or at least the beginning stages of non-consent. And imprisonment is an act of violence in itself. So violence is already being committed.

If/when people begin to withdraw consent in droves, either by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to observe government mandates, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of government altogether--or whatever have you--i.e, the proverbial "jumping from the pirate ship" and swimming for dry land--it will only result in blood-thirsty pirates on deck arming themselves to the teeth with harpoons, taking aim and fire at whoever and whatever is swimming to shore. They will justify their violence via self-righteous propaganda, indoctrination, demonization, and brianwashing, and by inducing on the masses a state of mass hysteria, irrational fear, and mass formation.

But, sure. In theory, if everybody jumped ship all at once and declared themselves sovereign via the tenants of common law, they couldn't get us all, but it just doesn't work that way. The more non-compliant the people become the more vicious and violent they will respond in direct proportion to the increasing divergence. At some point, after it's obvious to all violence is being waged against the people by the so-called public servants who are supposed to be serving them, people will start to fight back. Violence is inevitable.

I'm not calling for it; I'm just describing human nature.
If you could show some evidence in support of your conclusions, I might be persuaded.

I realize that 99.99999% of Americans presume they're CITIZENS and "Must" sign up with socialist insecurity, so dealing with that unknown is daunting... and that's the exact reaction that the Ministry of Propaganda wants - FEAR.

BUT if you ask the government DIRECTLY, most cases, they'll answer truthfully.
And thus there is NO reason to presume that recriminations would follow. In fact, the CONgress was more afraid of the people, back in 1965, when they changed the punishment for counterfeiting from death to just incarceration... Because they enacted counterfeiting in the Coinage Act of 1965. Yup. They "follow" the CONstitution. NOT!
- - -
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

Read the law for yourself . . .
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Downey%20PDFs/Social%20Security%20Act%20of%201935%20Vol%201.pdf

- - -
If you can find ANY aspect of withdrawing consent from socialism that incurs a violent reaction, please point it out.
BUT do not lump in any case where someone who WAS a CONSENTING CITIZEN / SUBJECT / SERF, was slapped down for failure to obey.
- - -
Part of the reluctance is the indoctrination that America is a DEMOCRACY, where a majority can override (or persecute) a minority.
In THAT case, YES, any minority that doesn't cooperate will be [censored].

WHICH is why I repeatedly stress that one must shift back to the REPUBLICAN FORM - which is guaranteed by the USCON, as well as stated in EVERY state constitution.
You can't have one foot in their democrazy and one foot in the republican form.
The bulk of "New Paytriots" are misled by the propaganda ministry to think they can be "sovereign citizens" (an oxymoron).
Either you're a sovereign (not participating in the democracy) or you're a subject (participating in the democracy).

Who says Americans are SOVEREIGN?
The supreme Court... and the law.
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

" 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...

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

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

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
The USCON also conforms to this. People have rights and powers (Amendments 9 & 10).
Citizens only have privileges and immunities. (technically, "civil rights" and "political rights" are actually privileges, aka "civil liberties" and "political liberties.")

Who says Citizens are not sovereigns?
Would you believe George Washington - - -
“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.

"... 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
{Inside joke - there is only ONE nation on Earth with a republican form, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant.}
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States

ONLY citizens are obligated to train, fight, and die on command. All other Americans can volunteer.

SO, if you're a consenting subject, YES, you can be prosecuted for failure to obey or perform the obligations that come with mandatory civic duties.
BUT
Try and find ONE LAW that abrogates, trespasses or impairs any endowed right of the sovereign people.

(Trick question - the law already has "trap doors" that open if any law can accidentally violate the rights of the sovereign people.)

Still unconvinced?
(Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922):
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1

So withdrawing consent to restore all those inherent / sacred / endowed rights is not an "act of war" nor violation of some law or grounds for recriminations. Frankly, it reverses the government's treatment of you. Instead of your master, from whom you must get permissions (licenses) and pay tribute, it becomes your faithful servant, delegated power to secure your endowment.

Cowering in fear of restoring your birthright is so tragic, but evidence of the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

Hi Ozmirage,

I appreciate your arguments, and am also somewhat versed on the points you're making. I assume you've probably studied and read They Own It All, Including You, (https://www.amazon.com/They-Own-All-Including-You/dp/1439233616/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QCHJMAJFJHJI&keywords=they+own+it+all+including+you&qid=1680658860&sprefix=They+own+it+%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-1) by Ronald MacDonald and Robert Rowen, and similar analysis of admiralty law, and I would guess you are far more knowledgeable about this topic than I am; my point is, all aside (and even given the law you cite is somehow applicable) my contention is we are living in a lawless time where the criminal class, who so happen to be the ruling class, observe no laws at all that do not serve their purposes. Whether 99% of the masses are aware of them and their endowed rights or not.

So for example, even given The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States (for sake of argument), that does not mean a judge would agree or uphold that law. In other words, I would submit we are living under tyrannical rule where the ruling class in all three branches of government arbitrarily interpret and apply the law as they deem fit...not as the law is written. That's the very definition of tyranny. If today's spectacle in NYC doesn't illustrate that point, I'm not sure what will...

BTW, I'm certain, given your posts, you are aware the income tax is completely unconstitutional. Call me a coward, but I'm fairly certain if I refuse to pay my taxes I will lose my home and wind up in the clink, even provided representation by the most knowledgeable and clever legal team who may nonetheless be 100% correct in my defense. That's violence. We are living in a world where judges and juries even believe the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is no longer relevant... do you really expect them to uphold a law that essentially says we serfs aren't mere subjects of the government? Even though it isn't so according to common law?

But if I'm wrong about this, please let me know. Please give me examples of when/how someone has successfully advanced the arguments you cite in court. I would love to not have to pay my income taxes :)

[ozmirage]

But if I'm wrong about this, please let me know. Please give me examples of when/how someone has successfully advanced the arguments you cite in court. I would love to not have to pay my income taxes
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
- - - Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)
IF YOU ARE A TAXPAYER - PAY UP.
BUT
IF YOU ARE A NONTAXPAYER, YOU OWE NO TAXES.

The question most fail to ask : what makes one a "taxpayer" obligated to pay taxes.

Here's a clue:
“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and PRIVILEGES which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.”
- - - F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.

‘When a court refers to an income tax being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the PRIVILEGE of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.'
- - - John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, ‘Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax' (C.R.S. Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)).

‘The terms ‘excise tax' and ‘privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.'
- - - American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880

‘Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate PRIVILEGES.’ ‘…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of a PRIVILEGE…’
- - - U.S. Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
For the record, I have been a nontaxpayer, since 1993.
I do not exercise any revenue taxable privileges, subject to an excise tax, income or otherwise. I am not a "tax protester."

Does the government recognize (endowed) rights are untaxable?
‘The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…’ And ‘It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his owns hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.’’
- - - U.S. Supreme Court, Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

‘Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.’
- - - Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the POWER TO TAX A RIGHT, this would enable the state to DESTROY RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
- - - McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
- - - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943).
So WHAT DID THE NEW PAYTRIOTS DO WRONG?
#1 MISTAKE - kept exercising privileges associated with citizenship, socialism, and usury. They were misled to claim all manner of bizarre things and assert nonsense, in support of their beliefs.

#2 MISTAKE - claiming that wages are not income.

#3 MISTAKE - arguing that filing a form 1040, signed under penalty of perjury, is a violation of the privilege to not be compelled to testify against oneself.

Anecdote:
❏ All the people I personally know who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common: SSN and an open, interest bearing bank account.
❏ All the people I personally know who were left alone, also had two things in common: NO SSN and NO interest bearing bank account.
If you know of any "Tax protestor" cases where the accused / convicted DID NOT HAVE AN ACCOUNT WITH FICA, please let us know.
(Without a SSN/TIN, one cannot open an interest bearing personal bank account, so that automatically excludes the existence of one.)
...
The Bottom Line : In America, socialism is 100% voluntary, but presented as 100% compulsory. That is the basis for the confusion - few know how and when they volunteered.

Outside of the obligations of socialism, the "income tax" on wages as if they were income, goes away.

more PROOF:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
TITLE VIII-TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811)
(( THIS is how "wages" are taxed as "income" while not being income ))

Title 26 USC § 3101. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))
IF YOU ARE NOT A PARTICIPANT IN NATIONAL SOCIALISM (FICA), YOUR WAGES ARE NOT TAXED AS INCOME.
(Few know that FICA/SocSec is NOT insurance, there is no "trust fund," and Congress is under NO OBLIGATION to pay benefits. It was always a scam to enact a new tax in the midst of the Great Depression, in order to service the debt.)

As many already know, the first income tax was enacted in 1861, under Lincoln’s administration. But what many do not know, is what that law specifically taxed and what it did NOT tax.
The Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292
Sec. 49
And be it further enacted, that, from and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual INCOME of every PERSON RESIDING in the United States, whether such INCOME is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three per centum on the amount of the excess of such income above eight hundred dollars....

Upon the income, rents, or dividends accruing upon any property, securities, or stocks owned in the United States by an citizen of the United States residing abroad, there shall be levied, collected and paid a tax of five per centum...
: : : : : : : :
It is a common mistake to presume "United States" must refer to the united States of America. However, that is not always the case - especially when dealing with malum prohibitum and taxes.
Another "trap door" is "person" - which according to the supreme Court, excludes the SOVEREIGN. So the taxing statute does not apply to any sovereign American's exercise of rights.

Researchers who have focused on the income tax also know that wages are not income, but are a “source of income.” For example, an agent may claim 10% of his client’s wages, thus the client’s wages are his source of income.

BUT the privilege is always the basis for the tax. Always look for what privilege is involved: citizenship, socialism, usury, licensed activity, etc., etc.

LAST WORD
Most folks think that signing the signature card to open a bank account is a harmless action.
That is a BIG MISTAKE.
The short answer: you agree to abide by the RULES of the BANK (Federal Reserve, World Bank, IMF, US Governor of the Bank and Fund ,etc, etc).

And I stumbled across this gem, on an application for a VISA card from an OMAHA bank:
Rule 6: You agree to provide annual financial statements in the form we request.
- - - WWWWWWHAT - - - - - -
Do you ever recall being asked to file an annual financial statement?
By a bank?
Hint: Form 1040.
D'Oh.
Remember, Title 26, income tax and federal rules on the income tax are under the purview of the Secretary of Treasury aka US Governor of the Bank and Fund.
YOU AGREED TO PROVIDE THE FORM AND PAY THE TAX.
And you can be prosecuted for "willful failure to file".
D'Oh x 2
===
IMF references:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/22/7/XV/286a

(Acting) Sec’y of Treasury (2021) = Andy Baukol aka “U.S. Governor”

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/unitedstates/overview#3
The U.S. secretary of the treasury is the United States' governor for the World Bank.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/int-monetary-fund/Pages/imf.aspx
The Secretary of the Treasury serves as the U.S. Governor to the IMF, and the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF is one of 24 directors who exercise voting rights over the strategic direction of the institution.
Title 22 USC Sec 286a
(d) Compensation for services
(1) No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States for services as a Governor, executive director, councillor, alternate, or associate.
If the President appoints someone to an official office required by law, and that position requires him to control you with powers pre-approved by Congress implemented by a Treaty, don't you think his salary would be paid by his employer? Title 22 US Code, Section 286a(d)(1) prohibits your U.S. government from paying the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund.

You're under authority of a foreign [bleeped] !

[ozmirage]

BTW, I'm certain, given your posts, you are aware the income tax is completely unconstitutional
That is a mistake, promulgated by the disinformation arm of the propaganda ministry.
New Paytriots are susceptible to this nonsense.
- - -

As early as 1777, citizens owed a duty and a portion of their property to the government. The first income tax was in 1861, and it was constitutional. But it only applied to subject citizens in a limited jurisdiction.
- - -

Remember, the founders pledged their LIVES, their FORTUNES, and their SACRED HONOR (obedience) to the new government instituted to secure rights.
All subsequent citizens are presumed to make the same pledge.
So what FORTUNE (property) can you claim is yours if you already pledged it ALL to the State?

[ozmirage]

my contention is we are living in a lawless time where the criminal class, who so happen to be the ruling class, observe no laws at all that do not serve their purposes. Whether 99% of the masses are aware of them and their endowed rights or not.

We are living in a world where judges and juries even believe the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is no longer relevant... do you really expect them to uphold a law that essentially says we serfs aren't mere subjects of the government? Even though it isn't so according to common law?

Your observations of "Lawlessness" is derived from the fact that most Americans are STATUS CRIMINALS.

Due to FICA / Socialism, all enumerated Americans are paupers and vagabonds, thus treated no different that fugitives from justice. This has been part of the law since 1777.


STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is VAGRANCY. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p.1410

VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on CHARITY and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a PUBLIC CHARGE through his own laziness.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1549

[EXCEPTED CLASSES]

"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, PAUPERS, VAGABONDS and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
When you appear before a court as a "resident" and enumerated "pauper" you're guilty until proven innocent. You're EXCEPTED from the rights, powers, privileges and immunities that inhabitants and or citizens possess.

WHEN did this happen?
1933
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt

War and Emergency Powers Acts
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. sec. 95a and b).

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
Welcome to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America.

<< * You're currently living under the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America. * No constitutional money * No endowed rights * No private property * Full compliance with the ten planks of the communist manifesto * by your consent * >>

[ozmirage]

It may be ironic, but the PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC has not violated the rights of anyone I know who are under the republican form of government. Hence, there are no grounds to grouse about tyranny, oppression or repression.
- - -
But if you're an enumerated U.S. citizen / U.S. resident, all bets are off, and the creditor's agent will give you a "trim" if and when it needs more funny munny.

[ozmirage]

The idea of a national divorce is due to a giant lie... or disinformation....

Most Americans presume they’re part of a democracy, and government “represents” them, and we fought the Revolutionary War because of taxation without representation (in Parliament). Furthermore, most are misled to assume that VOTING is how “we, the people” exercise consent. And lastly, government, once empowered by a majority, can do whatever, tax whatever, and you can’t do a thing to stop it.

To the average American, there appears to be NOTHING you can do to lawfully impede the juggernaut of government, as it swallows revenue, abolishes liberty (“for our own good”), and gets deeper into debt. And that is EXACTLY what “they” want us to believe.

To avoid the boredom of long legal citations (and associated blood squirting from one’s eyes), let’s boil down American law into the simplest format.

Job #1 : Secure endowed rights
Job #2 : Govern those who consent
CAVEAT - consent waives job #1
THAT'S All, folks.
If government is not securing your rights to life, liberty, property, etc, but trespassing, repressing or oppressing you, it's empowered by YOUR CONSENT.

[T Smith]

As early as 1777, citizens owed a duty and a portion of their property to the government. The first income tax was in 1861, and it was constitutional. But it only applied to subject citizens in a limited jurisdiction.

My understanding is the "income tax", specifically a tax on "labor income" (as opposed to property) was not constitutional until the 16th amendment to the Constitution was supposedly ratified in 1913.

But there are legal questions about whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified, which required 36 of the 48 states at the time to submit approval. Some legal scholars claim Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee were fraudulantly counted, and as a result, the 16th Amendment is really null and void. If anyone is interested, they can research the claim (https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm) for themselves.

Whether this claim is valid or not, I have no idea. But I wouldn't doubt it, given the propensity for corruption and fraud and to bend the law according to the whims of the power agenda. Such shenanigans of government seem to be the rule, rather than the exception.

[ozmirage]

The socialist propaganda has infected our minds with the idea that everybody owes their FAIR SHARE of taxes to the STATE.

That is part of the BIG LIE.

NO endowed right is subject to taxation. If one does not exercise a taxable privilege, one owes NOTHING TO THE STATE.
". . . There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. HIS RIGHTS ARE SUCH AS EXISTED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND (*COMMON LAW) LONG ANTECEDENT TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
- - - Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
Though the case is about a citizen, it extends to all people.

THE INDIVIDUAL OWES NOTHING TO THE STATE, THE PUBLIC, SO LONG AS HE DOES NOT TRESPASS UPON THEIR RIGHTS.
NO FAIR SHARE.

All the controversy over "red" and "blue" states is resolved by simply withdrawing consent, and ceasing all the privileges that impose duties, taxes, and regulations.


ADDENDUM:
Contrary to popular opinion, the USA isn't a "constitutional republic". The republican form existed LONG ANTECEDENT TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE ("U.S. Constitution").
The USCON only promised to continue securing the republican form, wherein all men are born equal and have Creator endowed rights... unless they consent otherwise.

[ozmirage]

As early as 1777, citizens owed a duty and a portion of their property to the government. The first income tax was in 1861, and it was constitutional. But it only applied to subject citizens in a limited jurisdiction.

My understanding is the "income tax", specifically a tax on "labor income" (as opposed to property) was not constitutional until the 16th amendment to the Constitution was supposedly ratified in 1913.
Nope.
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th amendment
Congress always had the power to tax incomes, as shown in the 1861 statute. The amendment changed the requirement for apportionment, assumed to be applicable for all "direct taxes."


Point : there are two classes of income taxes : _ corporate (flat rate) on the privileged entities and _ individual (graduated) based on participation in socialist insecurity, another privilege.




But there are legal questions about whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified, which required 36 of the 48 states at the time to submit approval. Some legal scholars claim Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee were fraudulantly counted, and as a result, the 16th Amendment is really null and void. If anyone is interested, they can research the claim (https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm) for themselves.

Whether this claim is valid or not, I have no idea. But I wouldn't doubt it, given the propensity for corruption and fraud and to bend the law according to the whims of the power agenda. Such shenanigans of government seem to be the rule, rather than the exception.I previously posted several rulings that explain that there is not a tax on "income." There's a tax on a privilege, of which the amount of the tax is based on the income from that privilege.
The propaganda ministry, as well as the disinformation ministry, keep us believing non-truths.

BTW- the 16th amendment didn't legalize the income tax. As posted before, income taxes existed in 1861.
The major change was in 1935, and the socialist insecurity act that imposed a tax on wages as if they were income.
Most new paytriots failed to leave socialist insecurity when they "fought" with the eye are us. . . and lost.

[ozmirage]

Due to apathy, ignorance and arrogance, most Americans do not bother reading their own laws. This is how predators infiltrated government and perverted it from its original mission.

If I told you what you will find in the law, you wouldn't believe me. Shucks, if I went back in time to 1990, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either. But if you do go to the courthouse, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends"... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

I am not infallible, and the more eyes on the law, the better.
I suspect you will find the breadcrumbs that lead to the same conclusion that "something" very very bad has happened, and will get worse, as long as "we consent ."

You may also discover why Patrick Henry said, "I smelt a rat" when asked why he wouldn't attend the Constitutional Convention. Or why the anti-Federalists were correct in their fear of the Federalists and their "CON"stitution.

Suggested reading:
_ Declaration of Independence (1776), especially what "all men" have and what "the founders" did.

_ Articles of Confederation (1777), especially the first four articles. Will cause you to ask many embarrassing questions. Note : free inhabitants & free citizens. No mention of free inhabitants in the USCON.

_ USCONstitution (1787, 1789), pay attention to the delegated powers and note that no new powers were granted under the constitution, than were already delegated under the Articles. Also note that all engagements *(mutual promises) made under the Articles were binding under the USCON.

_ Your State Constitution. Pay attention to the section that restates the self evident truths of the Declaration. That's the foundation of the republican form of government that all states are obligated to secure. Also note protections for _ private property _ inhabitants _ and the difference between residences and domiciles.


Homework assignment for those who are just starting to "read law for themselves."
...
Determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:
1. national v. citizen
2. sovereign v. subject
3. individual v. person
4. inhabitant v. resident
5. domicile v. residence
6. natural liberty v. civil liberty
7. personal liberty v. political liberty
8. private property v. estate (real and personal property)
9. absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

Don't just rely on one authority, check multiple sources. If they disagree, figure out why.
Sometimes it's just simple error. Sometimes it's skullduggery - like the LAW OF NATIONS.

Re: Vattel's "Law of Nations"
There ARE at least two different translations floating about.
The better version is by Charles G. Fenwick (1758)
Joseph Chitty (1883) is a hatchet job for the lawyers, with deliberate obfuscations. (See: Book 1, Chap. XIX, sec.213 for an especially heinous hatchet job)

And though Congress is delegated power to prosecute "Offenses against the Law of Nations", it was not a direct reference to that book.
It is a reference to International Law, also known as the Law of Nations. "Paytriots" are often misled to assume it means the book, which was written before there was a republican form of government, and individual sovereignty.

[T Smith]

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550889&viewfull=1#post1550889
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550891&viewfull=1#post1550891
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550892&viewfull=1#post1550892
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550894&viewfull=1#post1550894
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550896&viewfull=1#post1550896

Be all that as it may, my underlying point is laws and precedent are irrelevant, to bottom line it, if they are arbitrarily applied or ignored. We could unpack what is and should be and why we are where we are ad infinitum and bemoan the ignorance of Americans until the cows come home, but that would derail the topic at hand.

How all this relates to the National Divorce (and I'd be happy to go into greater depth will you on all of this in a new thread specifically dedicated to the topic) is half the people seem okay with the politicalization of the law and half do not.

Dangerous times.

[Baby Steps]

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist. You appear to promote GOP Lunatics. MTG?

OK let's extrapolate things if what she (MTG) proposes, takes shape.
1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

This is a terrible comment. Bill is not aligning himself with any particular political angle and using that Q anon tar brush is apart from typifying leftish intellectual laziness incorrect as Bill has disagreed with the q stuff consistently .

Looking at the USA from outside sone kind of split is unlikely to proceed without severe strife. Suppose it does, the two (?) entities resulting will be much weaker collectively than what we have now.

As the world looks on with alarm as the usa inflicts tyranny and chaos around the world, many of us will see this weakening as a positive thing. As the two new administrations establish themselves , defence cuts and winding down all the foreign bases will be inevitable .

The blue bit will then have to confront its federal deficit and collapsing currency. Conditions in market street San Francisco foretell the future .

As we see boom
conditions in Texas and Florida many more will try to move there but will find functioning borders to deal with.

I really hope atwoods book ‘the handmaids tale’ is not what we see

[ozmirage]

Be all that as it may, my underlying point is laws and precedent are irrelevant, to bottom line it, if they are arbitrarily applied or ignored.
No, they are not.
If you don't know the law, you won't know what was going on.
Case in point - socialist insecurity. All participants become paupers at law - eligible for public charity- making them status criminals. As an excepted class, the government is absolved of certain constitutional limitations.



We could unpack what is and should be and why we are where we are ad infinitum and bemoan the ignorance of Americans until the cows come home, but that would derail the topic at hand.
The topic of secession is based on a corruption, foul and obscene, that one needs to know EXACTLY what is at risk.

How all this relates to the National Divorce (and I'd be happy to go into greater depth will you on all of this in a new thread specifically dedicated to the topic) is half the people seem okay with the politicalization of the law and half do not.

Dangerous times.
How did a nation, whose governments were instituted to secure the endowed rights of the sovereign people become a bankrupt, socialist democracy, engaged in "tax and bribery," incessantly robbing its people of their prosperity?


MICRO HISTORY OF THE USA - - -

IN the beginning, governments were instituted to secure endowed rights (YAY).
And the bigger the union, the better. (OK)
BUT, after the 1820s, the folks began a switcheroo to the democratic form (European inspired), and shifted gears. (Uh oh)
After the unCivil War, the UNION was preserved, but most folks had no clue as to what that union was doing. For example, read the "Cross of Gold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech)" speech, where William Jennings Bryan rips those who wanted a gold standard. The people were with him, but the bankers (the true Lords of America) said nay, and got their gold standard in the Coinage Act of 1873. (Boo Hiss). The resulting reduction in lawful money caused a huge economic crisis for the last quarter of the 19th century, (though bankers got filthy richer) and was instrumental in "persuading" Congress to allow the Federal Reserve Act to be passed. (Boo Hiss)
By 1933 (20 years), the usury based money system bankrupted the idiots on Capitol Hill, and who proceeded to declare a STATE OF EMERGENCY to hide their error.
Long story short - the gubmint gave sweeping powers to the agent for the creditor (Sec'y of Treasury), and to placate the victims, enacted national socialism, via FICA.

One of the side effects was to convert folks into status criminals via pauperization (One of the excepted classes). In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes", posted earlier, which directly links the appearance of lawlessness and oppression. (And why the Articles of Confederation disappeared from the "approved" curriculum)
SEE:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1550892&viewfull=1#post1550892

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights (and note the year!)

" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)
Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)
Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
" An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)
Translation: taking custody of the person and property of a drunkard (impaired person) is not unconstitutional.

LOSING YOUR CHILDREN
" ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person."
McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)
Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State.
Did you "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth?
Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.
And how a judge can “grant” custody of YOUR children to whomever he rules.

(And also explains why we have a "homeless" crisis, when there are laws that prosecuted vagrants. The court is now operated by vagrants, so they dropped enforcing the law !)

. . .
SO "OUR CONSENT" VIA ENROLLMENT INTO FICA, IS OUR BANE.
Yes, they used fraud to trick us, but until we denounce the fraud and withdraw consent, we're [expletive deleted]. It's like waking up on a pirate ship. As long as you stay aboard, you're presumed to be a pirate. The only remedy is to GET OFF THE SHIP.

THAT IS WHY SECESSION IS NOT THE REMEDY.
Divide and conquer is the strategy of our enemies.

And the disinformation agents are very busy smearing our honored dead. But this excerpt clearly shows that ABE LINCOLN knew what a republican form of government was about.
"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

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic). And no endowed right can be subject to taxation, regulation or infringement. Why? Because all men have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. Taxing a right would allow the government to diminish it by ever greater taxation.

But once consent is given, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
It's too late to object. Mandatory civic duties void all endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property.

I can't say about other people, but if I was informed that my birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence was surrendered by trickery, I would not be happy, and would seek to remedy the situation.

But I cannot fathom how shattering the UNION would better secure my endowed rights from predators, foreign or domestic.

If enough Americans withdrew consent, it would hasten the collapse of the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic. . . or so one could hope. At least the laws on the books still support and guarantee the republican form for the few folks that still have their endowed rights intact. But in "divorce" I would not expect that to be the case.


FOR MORE INFO ON THE "ORIGINAL RECIPE"
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120856-Recipe-for-a-novel-government&p=1550345&viewfull=1#post1550345

[mountain_jim]

I think you're here to troll.
You remind me of Fred/Gracy.


I was thinking this very thing since the beginning of the thread, perhaps because this account had lane near dormant for so many years..

[shaberon]

But I cannot fathom how shattering the UNION would better secure my endowed rights from predators, foreign or domestic.



Copy it like the CSA (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp)?

The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government...


Who also made this unusual remark:


The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden...


Or, at the very least, the State would be a country? If each has their own Constitution protecting private property and so on, how does federation or not matter?

[ozmirage]

But I cannot fathom how shattering the UNION would better secure my endowed rights from predators, foreign or domestic.
Copy it like the CSA (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp)?
The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government...
Who also made this unusual remark:
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden...
Or, at the very least, the State would be a country? If each has their own Constitution protecting private property and so on, how does federation or not matter?
A bigger union can usually defeat a smaller union, so no, the division into the USA and the CSA would be a big mistake. (Coincidentally, the Brits were covertly aiding the CSA, hoping America would fracture, and they could weasel in. But what can you expect of a nation that fought and won TWO WARS to maintain their drug trade in China.)

Slavery does not exist under the republican form. It only existed under the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form, as a taxable government privilege. That’s the reason why the Confederate states didn’t simply withdraw consent and return to the republican form to address their grievances with the Union. They could not retain slavery and be “sovereigns without subjects.”

Remember, the TRUE BENEFICIARIES of government in America are the sovereign people, not the subject citizens. The State governments were created to secure the rights of the sovereign people, and the Federal government was created to serve the States, and indirectly serve the sovereign people (to whom the republican form was promised).
....
For a state (and its subject citizens) to "secede" is akin to the servants running off with Master's property and leaving all the doors and windows open, inviting attack. Frankly, there is no such thing as "State's Rights," since governments only have delegated powers, and the citizens only have government privileges, having surrendered their endowed rights.
The only parties with "rights" are the sovereign people who are neither signatories to any compact, nor participants in the governments. So they certainly weren't the complaining parties seeking secession.
And if you read the Articles of Confederation, it's clear that the union is perpetual.

Though southern state citizens had a gripe with the federal government, there were no violations of the promised republican form, securing the endowed rights of the sovereign people.
ABE LINCOLN WAS RIGHT.

[ozmirage]

PARABLE
The Ocean Liner of Democracy

In the beginning, the republican form was like a large ocean liner, where the passengers were the sovereign people, and the ship's crew were the citizens, and the elected officials "ran" the ship. But the function of the ocean liner was to transport the passengers (sovereign people).

Over time, more and more passengers were misled to presume they were crew, and became involved in endless squabbles over ship's duties, pay, and who should be "captain."

Suddenly, the passenger cabins were empty, and hardly anyone paid attention. If there were no passengers, what was the purpose of the great ship? Where was it going?

Eventually, the lost ship met with calamity and sank beneath the waves.
: : : The End. : : :

Moral of the Story - The Ship of State (government) was instituted to secure passage (secure rights) for those who were NOT crew members (who had waived rights in order to be citizens). In America's case, it was never designed to be "all-crew" and no passengers.
Without passengers, what destination makes sense?

[ExomatrixTV]

This is a discussion for Americans for sure.

Mike Adams explores the idea further in 15 minutes, explaining what the irreconcilable differences are, and exploring what a national divorce would look like:

bmCkgAiUawla/


:bump: Even Mike Adams admitted he was a Liberal once ... I wonder how many (smart) Liberals left the left for being exactly that: smarter!


Mike also mentions the totally insane Restrict Act S686 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120882-The-Restrict-Act-S686-with-Bipartisan--Deep-State--Support)

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[T Smith]

:bump: Even Mike Adams admitted he was a Liberal once ... I wonder how many (smart) Liberals left the left for being exactly that: smarter!


Mike also mentions the totally insane Restrict Act S686 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120882-The-Restrict-Act-S686-with-Bipartisan--Deep-State--Support)

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

How apropos. Check this out:

1643631031554121735

[Kryztian]

Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the first to use the phrase, back in February. This was published in Newsweek on 20 Feb:

https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449
(https://newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-wants-nations-divorce-red-blue-states-1782449)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Wants 'National Divorce' of Red and Blue States


https://erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fa40be2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6554x3983+0+0/resize/1680x1020!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferepublic-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7a%2F75%2Fdfec343541e2916c6437b7431750%2Findelibly-map.jpg (https://www.governing.com/context/what-would-a-national-divorce-look-like)


Well I certainly hope Marjorie Taylor Greene enjoys living in the Blue State of Georgia. Maybe she'll finally get "woken up." :heh:

There is lots of conflict within states too. There are red areas of blue states that want to separate like Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)). There are blue cities in red states that also want a divorce. There are big states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania that constantly fluctuate between the two.

Regardless of this fact, the divorce will never happen, because the United States of America is too powerful a resource for world's warlord/extortionist class. It would loose much of it's diplomatic and military power which are necessary to bully, corrupt and wage war against the smaller nations of the world. Of course, they love the idea that blue and red are constantly blaming each other for the world's problems so that they can go about their business of raping, pillaging and extorting the wealth of nations. While the rest of us are busy fighting epic battles over pronouns, prayer in school, transgender bathrooms, etc. they can more easily create a system of world war, environmental degradation and slavery.

[Pris]

"Re: A US National Divorce: are differences irreconcilable?"

I don't think so. The globalists certainly want us to think so. They just want everyone to keep at each other's throats. So much of the "divide" is propaganda, fake.
The globalist's motto is Ordo Ab Chao.
5th generation warfare and asymmetric warfare.
They're pushing the illusion that America has fallen so far, there is no hope.
But, that illusion is beginning to fall apart.
The populist movement is growing stronger.
The United States has always been strong because it has remained united, not divided.
The United States stands for freedom and is literally fighting for world freedom right now.
The United States is the last stand.

[shaberon]

A bigger union can usually defeat a smaller union, so no, the division into the USA and the CSA would be a big mistake. (Coincidentally, the Brits were covertly aiding the CSA, hoping America would fracture, and they could weasel in. But what can you expect of a nation that fought and won TWO WARS to maintain their drug trade in China.)


I expect Britain to keep expanding the Bank of England since 1694.




Slavery does not exist under the republican form. It only existed under the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form, as a taxable government privilege. That’s the reason why the Confederate states didn’t simply withdraw consent and return to the republican form to address their grievances with the Union. They could not retain slavery and be “sovereigns without subjects.”


So, the United States, by retaining slavery, were not sovereigns without subjects?

A man cannot rule another man without consent, but he can own him.

Women are not men either.




The State governments were created to secure the rights of the sovereign people, and the Federal government was created to serve the States, and indirectly serve the sovereign people (to whom the republican form was promised).


Did not these newly-formed states--independent countries until further notice--presume everyone there was a citizen?

There was of course no early discussion about "federal citizens" since that idea had not come up yet.

No one fought to be a sovereign or citizen of the United States, because there was no such thing, not even a plan for it. That was a secession from the British Empire, largest in the world, who with all her might should have easily trounced those puny rascals, but, it didn't work for some reason.





For a state (and its subject citizens) to "secede" is akin to the servants running off with Master's property and leaving all the doors and windows open, inviting attack. Frankly, there is no such thing as "State's Rights," since governments only have delegated powers, and the citizens only have government privileges, having surrendered their endowed rights.


Yes, the British of course counter-attacked in 1812...not sure how we got out of that one. America had recently seceded from there. That is exactly how they see it, you have Master's (Crown's) property, it should still belong to them no matter what actually happened.

Around 1860 was more an issue of "State's Power". The idea was to ask the federal military to leave, but, they refused.

They had that idea due to whether the federal government was really "serving the states". This was discussed for about twenty years before shots were fired.

The War of 1812 and the career of Andrew Jackson had prevented Big Bank from functioning, shortly thereafter, 1840ish, probably some of the weakest most unmemorable presidents ever and something went wrong. Kind of like it is now.


The part that I find particularly horrid about what is being presented now is the assumption of a split to Democrat and Republican states because I don't want either one, both of those are something I am trying to get rid of.

The "area" has no easy answer because this is not a nation, because it is not a culture.

At the point of the Declaration of Independence it probably was fairly WASPish. Considering the natives were savages, it is like they never really existed. By now you can wind up in prison if there is a chance there was some way you might have hurt someone's feelings. None of them agree on anything, but, what you are supposed to do, is shut up.

If the State government exists to secure endowed rights and protect private property, the rationale of a federation eludes me. Seems like it would easily slip in the wrong hands and make rapprochement with the UK or something.

[ozmirage]

A bigger union can usually defeat a smaller union, so no, the division into the USA and the CSA would be a big mistake. (Coincidentally, the Brits were covertly aiding the CSA, hoping America would fracture, and they could weasel in. But what can you expect of a nation that fought and won TWO WARS to maintain their drug trade in China.)

I expect Britain to keep expanding the Bank of England since 1694.
Do you mean that the Bank of England will keep expanding its client base? :-)


Slavery does not exist under the republican form. It only existed under the constitutionally limited indirect democratic form, as a taxable government privilege. That’s the reason why the Confederate states didn’t simply withdraw consent and return to the republican form to address their grievances with the Union. They could not retain slavery and be “sovereigns without subjects.”

So, the United States, by retaining slavery, were not sovereigns without subjects?
The "constitutional governments" in the united States of America allowed slavery as a revenue taxable privilege.
The sovereign people did not own slaves.
If they did, then they'd be TAXED for the privilege, and cease to be sovereigns.


Women are not men either.
In common usage, a masculine noun includes the feminine. Whereas a feminine noun excludes the masculine.
Ex: Actor / actress
Hunter / huntress



The State governments were created to secure the rights of the sovereign people, and the Federal government was created to serve the States, and indirectly serve the sovereign people (to whom the republican form was promised).Did not these newly-formed states--independent countries until further notice--presume everyone there was a citizen?
The "newly independent" countries formed a perpetual union via the Articles of Confederation 1777.
No state presumed everyone was a citizen. Earliest constitutions had strict prerequisites for citizen/electors. He had to be a property owner (of some substance), a tax payer, as well as registering his property as estate (surrendering absolute ownership), and accepting mandatory civic duties (militia duty) that amounted to surrendering the endowed rights to life and liberty.
*For evidence of the "other status" see: Art.IV of Confederation, 1777.



There was of course no early discussion about "federal citizens" since that idea had not come up yet.Any citizen, state or federal, was a subject of a sovereign (government).
Doesn't matter.



No one fought to be a sovereign or citizen of the United States, because there was no such thing, not even a plan for it. That was a secession from the British Empire, largest in the world, who with all her might should have easily trounced those puny rascals, but, it didn't work for some reason.
The Declaration is quite clear - if you pay attention.
"ALL MEN" are born equal - and have Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, private property, etc.
BUT
"Those who consent to be governed" have pledged their LIVES, their FORTUNES, and their SACRED HONOR.

So we have two groups mentioned : the superset of all men, and the subset of those who consented to be governed in order to serve the government instituted to secure endowed rights.
THINKING CAP MODE ON
If "all men" are created equal - and - no one can be HIGHER in status, then everyone is born at the HIGHEST STATUS. Every other status is a step DOWN.
Thomas Jefferson pulled a 'fast one' and NO OTHER NATION since has dared to declare that their people were born at the highest status and governments were their servants.
(See French Revolution and their equivalent declaration)
see:https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120856-Recipe-for-a-novel-government&p=1550345&viewfull=1#post1550345



For a state (and its subject citizens) to "secede" is akin to the servants running off with Master's property and leaving all the doors and windows open, inviting attack. Frankly, there is no such thing as "State's Rights," since governments only have delegated powers, and the citizens only have government privileges, having surrendered their endowed rights. Yes, the British of course counter-attacked in 1812...not sure how we got out of that one. Remember who the Brits were fighting in that period?
"Emperor" Napoleon.
And was preceded by the Louisiana Purchase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
The point - once the Battle of Waterloo was over, the allies were tired of fighting. And with his capitulation, there was no expectation of further problems from Americans who were "buddy buddy" with Napoleon and the French... and many French refugees who had emigrated to the USA.

America had recently seceded from there. That is exactly how they see it, you have Master's (Crown's) property, it should still belong to them no matter what actually happened.
Read the Treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, if you're curious
TREATY OF PARIS 1783 states:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
. . .

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

Governments were agents for the sovereign people, so surrender to the agent is surrender to them.




Around 1860 was more an issue of "State's Power". The idea was to ask the federal military to leave, but, they refused.
If you recall, the Federal forces were on FEDERAL property (forts, etc) granted to them by consent of the States, for the purpose of securing rights, etc, etc.
The Confederates FIRED first.
Again, no servant government or its subjects had any authority to void the perpetual union instituted for the benefit of the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.



They had that idea due to whether the federal government was really "serving the states". This was discussed for about twenty years before shots were fired.
State governments do not have "rights" - only delegated powers.
To do what?
1. Secure endowed rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.

The Confusocrats seeking democracy to overshadow the republican form, made a wonderful amount of smoke to hide their goals. Lots and lots of double talk - to conflate "people" with "citizens".



The War of 1812 and the career of Andrew Jackson had prevented Big Bank from functioning, shortly thereafter, 1840ish, probably some of the weakest most unmemorable presidents ever and something went wrong. Kind of like it is now.I think you have confused several things with other things.
AJ did not end the dominance of European banks (and their agents) in the USA.

And he was no "hero" of republicanism, either. He was a scoundrel who ignored the supreme Court, and expelled the Cherokee from their own lands, so that his cronies could get rich on the gold strikes on their land.



The part that I find particularly horrid about what is being presented now is the assumption of a split to Democrat and Republican states because I don't want either one, both of those are something I am trying to get rid of.
The Demopublicans and Republicrats are opposite wings of the same Leftist Vulture. No real difference between "Tax and bribe," and "Bribe and Tax."



The "area" has no easy answer because this is not a nation, because it is not a culture.

At the point of the Declaration of Independence it probably was fairly WASPish. Considering the natives were savages, it is like they never really existed. By now you can wind up in prison if there is a chance there was some way you might have hurt someone's feelings. None of them agree on anything, but, what you are supposed to do, is shut up.

If the State government exists to secure endowed rights and protect private property, the rationale of a federation eludes me. Seems like it would easily slip in the wrong hands and make rapprochement with the UK or something.OMG, no monarch wants a bunch of sovereign Americans mucking about their kingdom, stirring up the subjects with "republicanism" and "individual sovereignty." (And why Canada can't simply "join up" with the USA, being a dominion of the Crown)

If you read each document in sequence, the federation is more clear.

READER’S DIGEST OF LAW (AMERICAN)
...
Law simplified into one sentence:
"All law is for the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent."

★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects private property ownership.
★ Government recognizes and explicitly protects natural rights, natural liberty and personal liberty from trespass.

Declaration of Independence (1776):
=> Job #1 = secure rights (endowed by our Creator)
=> Job #2 = govern those who consent
. . . (Caveat - consent waives job #1)
=> All Americans are created equal before the law - no one has higher status. This is also the source of the Republican form of government and the sovereignty of the American national / free inhabitant.

PEOPLE : Have powers and are endowed with rights such as life, liberty (natural and personal), and absolute ownership of their private property. Americans are free to live, own, travel, work, and do not need permission (license) from servant government.

CITIZENS : Granted privileges and immunities, to exercise civil and political liberties, in exchange for surrendering endowed rights by consent. As subjects, they are not free to live, own, travel, work, and do need permission (license) from their master, the government.

GOVERNMENTS : Created by compact to secure rights - they do not have rights - they have delegated powers. They do not grant rights - they bestow privileges and immunities on those who consent to be governed.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1777) :
=> Created a perpetual UNION of member states and their governments
=> Delegated certain powers to the United States, in Congress assembled

USCON (1787) :
=> The United States, in Congress assembled, was reorganized into three branches, allegedly to balance power, but required the State officers to swear an oath to the supremacy of the U.S. constitution.
=> People have rights and powers (protected by government)
=> Citizens have privileges and immunities (granted by government)

In other words, the institution of government was to secure rights, via prosecution of deliberate trespass and adjudication of accidental trespass. And govern (i.e., rule, regulate, restrict) only those who consent.
★ Anything more is suspect.
★ Anything less is unacceptable.

Offended by the current bankrupt socialist democratic benevolent totalitarian police state that your consent empowers?
• Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy exists.
• After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.


OMITTED :
Though States are forbidden to accept anything but gold and silver coin in tender in payment of debt, sovereign people are not so limited.
See coupon (cash value = 1/20 cent)
If one discharges an obligation via coupon, it is obviously not coin. Nor is it a revenue taxable privilege (no sales tax!).

The whole "hard money standard" was a gift to the banksters, as was the related power of administering bankruptcies (and breaking contracts).
At the time, there were no domestic sources of bullion, hence the country had to buy / borrow all its money from European banksters.


Addendum

Pre-1820 Obligations
. . .
Massachusetts
Constitution of 1780, Section III. House of Representatives
IV. Every male person, being twenty-one years of age, and resident in any particular town in this Commonwealth for the space of one year having a freehold estate within the same town, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to vote....

New York
Constitution of 1777
VII. That every male inhabitant of full age, who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of this State for six months immediately preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for representatives; if, during the time aforesaid, he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, within the said county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State shall be entitled to vote.

New Jersey
Constitution of 1776
All inhabitants of this colony of full age, who are worth fifty pounds and have resided within the county in which they claim to vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote.

Militia duty:
“AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress;
at thirty, a senator; and
at thirty-five, he may be chosen president.
He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty- five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.”
- - - From Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856 ed.


“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... ]
* PROPERTY OWNER * TAX PAYER * MILITIA MAN *


This means that the "We, the People of the United States," were not the people of the united States of America, but the subject citizens who rewrote the compact for the United States, in Congress assembled. Remember, not all Americans could vote and ratify the USCON in 1789.

[shaberon]

The United States has always been strong because it has remained united, not divided.
The United States stands for freedom and is literally fighting for world freedom right now.
The United States is the last stand.



Can you explain how these conclusions are drawn?

If my state separated from a union with another one, that would not put me at anyone's throat.

I see the federal entity as a type of foreign invader.

The industrial output of the entire country can be exceeded by a single Chinese city.

We definitely have millions of nationalists who would never agree to a fragmentation, so, they have inertia on their side. It seems to me the freedom idea was true around 1776. Unfortunately it has lost most of its justification. About twenty years ago I spent some time with math trying to figure out how the national debt could ever be taken care of. It looked impossible to me then, and, of course, much worse now. If I was stuck trying to pay the taxes where we live on my own, in order to do it I would have to work:


One week


Every month. The entity prefers this type of extortion, so, sooner or later, one's "ownership" can be found to be illusory.

What is even more amiable is that being a local tax, it is easy to see we get nothing in return. I'm not using any services or stuff from them. So I am just a bit hesitant about seeing anything special around here, perhaps it is even regressive or modestly eugenicized.

[jaybee]

.

In Britain in 2016 I voted to leave the EU - the basic foundation for that decision was that the bigger the organization, the smaller the influence of individuals - - - - the bigger and more centralized the organization the easier it is to infiltrate, dominate and influence the individual to conform (to whatever) - so using the same premise on the USA, the more independent the individual states are the more creative and diverse they can be - while the more power the national government has the dangers of corruption on a massive scale is possible as we see now, for example, with the voter fraud and collusion to stop Trump taking office again, no matter what the majority of the electorate want...

The whole thing about Globalism/One World Government... is centralizing power and handing control to a small group of (very wealthy) 'elites' and their followers, so logically (IMO) the way to go is smaller - less centralization -

[Ewan]

Considering the natives were savages,

I assume this was said for dramatic effect, or somewhat toungue-in-cheek but you need to clarify this for the sake of hundred's of visitors and bots who can misinterpret and be left with the wrong impression. Please.

[anasazi]

Lunatics? We grow your food, pump your oil, refine your gasoline, raise your beef, poultry, and produce, sell electricity--I could go on. Now we even make those poison batteries that the coastal elites think are environmentally friendly but use children to mine the minerals and take thousands of gallons of water to put out when they spontaneously ignite. But we are lunatics. And now with no real border control, we import your child labor for companies like Ben & Jerry's to exploit and enough fentanyl to kill every citizen in this country. When I lived in Vermont, most people wouldn't even pick apples--those workers had to be imported--much less work at a dairy. And those who do work are not happy with half their incomes going to taxes for others to exploit. Texas is quite capable of taking its own contributions to the US and creating its own economy. What does CA produce except arsenic wine and tainted greens--it can't even manage its own water system or its forests. What does NY produce except economic misery? It can't even admit to killing people in nursing homes--but instead wants to "get Trump" with some old hooker from twenty years ago--real class there. Seriously, if QAnon is all you have to insult us, then please continue calling us lunatics. Just remember that we are the ones trucking in the goods these coastal elites consume. To be honest, I spent most of my life escaping "Texas" and running with so called coastal elites: trust fund kids who thought they were better than everyone because they went to some private school that taught them what to think, and not how. Today, I am grateful for the real world values that Texas and other states we align with espouse. Maybe you enjoy feeling superior, but the truth is that you can't even produce your own toilet paper without states like Texas to do it--while your states experiment with paying people to live in tents and shoot dope. And you call us lunatics for reading alternative sources of information. If you want a national divorce, your states are going to back to the dark ages, because we aren't paying alimony and Wall Street won't save you.

[Pris]

The United States has always been strong because it has remained united, not divided.
The United States stands for freedom and is literally fighting for world freedom right now.
The United States is the last stand.



Can you explain how these conclusions are drawn?

If my state separated from a union with another one, that would not put me at anyone's throat.

I see the federal entity as a type of foreign invader.

The industrial output of the entire country can be exceeded by a single Chinese city.

We definitely have millions of nationalists who would never agree to a fragmentation, so, they have inertia on their side. It seems to me the freedom idea was true around 1776. Unfortunately it has lost most of its justification. About twenty years ago I spent some time with math trying to figure out how the national debt could ever be taken care of. It looked impossible to me then, and, of course, much worse now. If I was stuck trying to pay the taxes where we live on my own, in order to do it I would have to work:


One week


Every month. The entity prefers this type of extortion, so, sooner or later, one's "ownership" can be found to be illusory.

What is even more amiable is that being a local tax, it is easy to see we get nothing in return. I'm not using any services or stuff from them. So I am just a bit hesitant about seeing anything special around here, perhaps it is even regressive or modestly eugenicized.

My... conclusions? I like to think that my conclusions have wiggle room. It's about life experience. I like to observe, question everything, and think things through.

I think that the process of ATTEMPTING to separate from the Union is already putting everyone at each other's throats. Too many "good" people love The United States to "give up" a single state. Besides, there is truth to the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall."

What we're seeing right now is a worldwide decline. I think this decline needs to happen up to a certain point. This is about experiencing something firsthand. It's to scare people on purpose. It's the only way to shake and wake people up.

People have to learn the hard way what to recoil from. It's quite the task to break through the programming perpetrated against the masses by a global psyop that's been undermining everything for many decades if not longer. You need to fight a psyop with a psyop. It takes time to expose something this big. People can only handle things in small bites. Most will never even realize they are the target of multiple psyops. For those who don't, all that matters is that they get steered in the right direction.

The "federal entity" needs to be reigned back down and diminished, and it doesn't help it's been taken over by globalists. It was always meant to be entirely controlled by the people, but the people fell asleep at the wheel.

National debt? You mean the one the globalists created with their fiat currency scam? Since it's a scam, I'd say that makes it null and void. It's all a game. Change the game.

[Ernie Nemeth]

It must be obvious to most by now that the object of the entire Un/WEF agenda is to destroy western culture by subversion and the undermining of its institutions using subterfuge and radicalized agents of deception.
Although the fleecing of the working class has always been a priority, in recent years the focus has turned to dismantling the culture of the western world. This is being accomplished first by having placed agents in positions of influence both in business and government throughout the western world.
With those agents in place, it was possible to coordinate a multi-pronged attack on anything 'normal', 'traditional', 'obvious', 'good', 'establishment', etc. NGOs such as Antifa and BLM were created to begin the splintering of society based on old wounds and radical ideologies. With the bloated numbers of illegal immigrants facilitated by NGOs, cartels and criminal organizations in every country in the western world, racial tensions were already at the flash-over point. Add to this the slanted 'news' coverage, social media bias, across the board censorship of anything contrary or rational, and the stage was set for a conflagration.
This was a coordinated attack, and not one bit of it was organic or grassroots. Instead, it was supported by goons, goofs, radicals, fanatics, crazed fringe lunatics, perverts and freaks.
Its goal is to subvert the traditional norms of western culture by shock and awe and bewilderment.
Like a circus side show the western world has been distracted, confused, and terrorized.

[Pris]

It must be obvious to most by now that the object of the entire Un/WEF agenda is to destroy western culture by subversion and the undermining of its institutions using subterfuge and radicalized agents of deception.
Although the fleecing of the working class has always been a priority, in recent years the focus has turned to dismantling the culture of the western world. This is being accomplished first by having placed agents in positions of influence both in business and government throughout the western world.
With those agents in place, it was possible to coordinate a multi-pronged attack on anything 'normal', 'traditional', 'obvious', 'good', 'establishment', etc. NGOs such as Antifa and BLM were created to begin the splintering of society based on old wounds and radical ideologies. With the bloated numbers of illegal immigrants facilitated by NGOs, cartels and criminal organizations in every country in the western world, racial tensions were already at the flash-over point. Add to this the slanted 'news' coverage, social media bias, across the board censorship of anything contrary or rational, and the stage was set for a conflagration.
This was a coordinated attack, and not one bit of it was organic or grassroots. Instead, it was supported by goons, goofs, radicals, fanatics, crazed fringe lunatics, perverts and freaks.
Its goal is to subvert the traditional norms of western culture by shock and awe and bewilderment.
Like a circus side show the western world has been distracted, confused, and terrorized.

That's got it all in a nutshell (pun intended). Well said.

[ExomatrixTV]

Democrats Panic As Rep May Switch To GOP Giving GOP Supermajority In NC And Ban Abortion:

Lz23XgzAK5g

[ozmirage]

It was never "left" versus "right."
It was the folks with Creator endowed rights against those who wish to take them (predators).
Governments were originally instituted to secure those endowed rights. Unfortunately, predators infiltrated them, and here we are...

[shaberon]

Considering the natives were savages,

I assume this was said for dramatic effect, or somewhat toungue-in-cheek but you need to clarify this for the sake of hundred's of visitors and bots who can misinterpret and be left with the wrong impression. Please.



Fair enough.

My personal use of the English language is based on phrases such as "supremacy has to stop" from at least ca. 1880, long before me. I believe this to be our main failing point, still, in a way more related to the Multi-polar thread.


The presumed mentality of most oppressors of native cultures anywhere is that they are less than human, and, this same attitude has also been printed regarding different European nationalities.

I believe in Perfect Equilibrium to the extent that, it means the more supremacy you believe in, the more hell you go to. That is what I would say defines moment-to-moment existence.

I cribbed the "savages" remark a bit first-person, but, no, not really meant that way.

[shaberon]

People have to learn the hard way what to recoil from. It's quite the task to break through the programming perpetrated against the masses by a global psyop that's been undermining everything for many decades if not longer. You need to fight a psyop with a psyop. It takes time to expose something this big. People can only handle things in small bites. Most will never even realize they are the target of multiple psyops. For those who don't, all that matters is that they get steered in the right direction.


Tend to agree this strategy.

Something like a web of Hypnosis.

Not really that hard once you start noticing it.



The "federal entity" needs to be reigned back down and diminished, and it doesn't help it's been taken over by globalists. It was always meant to be entirely controlled by the people, but the people fell asleep at the wheel.


Are you suggesting this happened considerably before and was a contributing factor to what is called the American Civil War? Or something else??




National debt? You mean the one the globalists created with their fiat currency scam? Since it's a scam, I'd say that makes it null and void. It's all a game. Change the game.



Is this most efficiently done by what Ozmirage says about relinquishing Social Security and the like? Or?

[shaberon]

Do you mean that the Bank of England will keep expanding its client base? :-)


No matter how many fictitious companies exist in a post office box.





The sovereign people did not own slaves.
If they did, then they'd be TAXED for the privilege, and cease to be sovereigns.


Interesting. I shall have to look into this. You are suggesting that slave owning has the same consequence of an interest-bearing account. Even if you had never been "in the system", if you do either, you immediately surrender to it.




The "newly independent" countries formed a perpetual union via the Articles of Confederation 1777.
No state presumed everyone was a citizen. Earliest constitutions had strict prerequisites for citizen/electors. He had to be a property owner (of some substance), a tax payer, as well as registering his property as estate (surrendering absolute ownership), and accepting mandatory civic duties (militia duty) that amounted to surrendering the endowed rights to life and liberty.
*For evidence of the "other status" see: Art.IV of Confederation, 1777.






Yes but the Articles were not perpetual so their use of the word does not apply. Here are some things that were going on when the Articles ended (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-reasons-why-americas-first-constitution-failed):




8. States had their own money systems.

9. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts. The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.



When the United States Constitution replaced the Articles, nothing in it expressly stated that the Union is perpetual.


The Constitution as originally adopted assumes that there is citizenship of the United States, and of the States, but does not explicitly provide a rule that tells whether anyone is a citizen of either...Nowhere, however, does the original Constitution lay down a clear and comprehensive rule about either kind of citizenship.


So far, everything I have found does make a presumption of citizenship, such as the first Supreme Court (https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html) decisions:


The decision in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), demonstrates the Court's early understanding that all persons born in the United States were U.S. citizens

In the case of Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), the Court faced the question of whether a man born in New York State in 1776 was a U.S. citizen and therefore able to inherit real property. In doing so, the Court resolved complicated questions of how citizenship had been acquired during the Revolutionary War. The court found that those present on U.S. soil at the Declaration of Independence or born thereafter were presumed to be citizens, but the presumption of citizenship was rebutted upon a showing of intent to remain a British subject.




In the example of Marquis de Lafayette:

Maryland's legislature honored him by making him and his male heirs "natural born Citizens" of the state, which made him a natural-born citizen of the United States after the 1789 ratification of the Constitution. Lafayette later boasted that he had become an American citizen before the concept of French citizenship existed. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia also granted him citizenship.





According to Maxey (https://www.amphilsoc.org/publications/citizenship-and-american-revolution-resolute-torys-abiding-status):


What was the status of a resident of New Jersey or Pennsylvania on July 5, 1776 or for several months, even years, after the Declaration of Independence? When did a person living in one of the rebellious colonies cease to be the subject of George III and become a citizen of a newly constituted American state? Well into the 19th century, uncertainty persisted regarding citizenship acquired (or lost) during the Revolution. Turning to original sources, David W. Maxey brings into clear focus a family dispute over inheritance rights and the task the United States Supreme Court faced in determining the status of Daniel Coxe—either as a citizen of New Jersey entitled to inherit, or as an alien barred from doing so. Having heard the arguments of opposing counsel on two separate occasions, the Supreme Court announced its decision in 1808. Twenty years later, the Court measurably diverged from the rationale supporting that decision.


They are arguing property laws based on citizen vs. alien. The main objective was usually adding new people through the process of naturalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law_in_the_American_Colonies):


Following the American Revolution, under the Articles of Confederation each colony could independently pass its own naturalization laws, yet each state’s authority to naturalize alien residents conferred the same rights of citizenship within the colonies under the principle of comity.



which, i. e., the British process was restrictive. Everyone here was a British subject, and, the transition appears straight to "citizen" as the synonym of the same without the British government. Former subjects are now citizens. I have not found anything that represents a specialized non-citizen argument. Out of those millions of people who must have lived as former British subjects, where does anyone say something about "I am now not a citizen because that would voluntarily diminish my status..." etc., so far this does not appear to have any evidence. Even just a biography of someone saying "I am not a citizen, I don't vote so I don't get sucked in to the governed class". There seems to be no awareness of this, whereas the Supreme Court appears to presume you a citizen unless you perhaps were born in England and remained loyal.







The Declaration is quite clear - if you pay attention.
"ALL MEN" are born equal - and have Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, private property, etc.
BUT
"Those who consent to be governed" have pledged their LIVES, their FORTUNES, and their SACRED HONOR.

So we have two groups mentioned : the superset of all men, and the subset of those who consented to be governed in order to serve the government instituted to secure endowed rights.
THINKING CAP MODE ON
If "all men" are created equal - and - no one can be HIGHER in status, then everyone is born at the HIGHEST STATUS. Every other status is a step DOWN.
Thomas Jefferson pulled a 'fast one' and NO OTHER NATION since has dared to declare that their people were born at the highest status and governments were their servants.



National Archives (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration#:~:text=Unlike%20the%20other%20founding%20documents,fight%20for%20freedom%20and%20equali ty.):


Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding


And so this use of "consent of the governed" might as well be fiction.

The way Jefferson used "consent of the governed" was flawed in that it was limited to propertied white men only. Whereas Milton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed) rather applied it to kings:


The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else, but what is only derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people, to the common good of them all, in whom the power yet remains fundamentally, and cannot be taken from them, without a violation of their natural birthright.


And, of course, the Declaration goes on to "alter or abolish" a form of government. Therefor, "consent" has no legal meaning, only a philosophical one, which means if I at any time so decide. It is my personal will that matters, not any legal status.


Or, we could put it this way. I understand that American National really is a legal status, as of 1940, mostly applied to Samoans as an attempt to segregate them. I do not see how this is connected to the "two classes" that Jefferson may have suggested, with the respect to one of which, I cannot find historical evidence.





TREATY OF PARIS 1783 states:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
. . .

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


Again, no servant government or its subjects had any authority to void the perpetual union instituted for the benefit of the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.


The whole Kingdom of England has belonged to the Pope in perpetuity since the 1300s, in which case His Britannic Majesty would not have been able to relinquish that territory, either.


Even if the Articles or the "perpetuity" were still in force, I do not see why it could not be broken.



AJ did not end the dominance of European banks (and their agents) in the USA.

And he was no "hero" of republicanism, either. He was a scoundrel who ignored the supreme Court, and expelled the Cherokee from their own lands, so that his cronies could get rich on the gold strikes on their land.


Those Cherokee were Iroquoian invaders who exterminated the Moon Eyed People. Although I do not mean anything derogatory towards Native Americans, it is true most of them fought most of the time and a lot of it had to do with lack of a property transferrence system. Same thing with Ukraine.


He could not have ended their dominance, but, he did effectively end a commercialized central bank which did not come back until the Federal Reserve. At his time we can take a confession from the Government (https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page9_text.html):


By the 1830s the Bank had become a volatile political issue. Some, especially in the trans-Appalachian West, were suspicious of banks because they distrusted the paper money issued by them and because banks controlled credit and loans. To them, the Bank of the United States was the worst of them all: a greedy monopoly dominated by the rich American and foreign interests.


And, without even needing to accuse them of propaganda, its cycle from the Federal Reserve (https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/second-bank-of-the-us):


By 1815, the United States found itself heavily in debt, much like it had been at the end of the Revolutionary War thirty years earlier.


It mentions the individuals forming a corporation on a twenty-year charter and their backers:


Congress received a petition signed by 150 businessmen from New York City, urging the legislative body to create a second national bank.


It was approved by President Madison and:


The first president of the Bank was William Jones, a political appointee and a former secretary of the Navy who had gone bankrupt. Under Jones’s leadership, the Bank first extended too much credit and then reversed that trend too quickly. The result was a financial panic that drove the economy into a steep recession.


During the tenure of his replacement:


Another depression, characterized by deflation and high unemployment, ensued. Although the economic slump was part of a worldwide downturn, the Bank’s policies magnified the contraction in the United States. Public opinion started turning against the Bank as many believed it contributed to the recession.


Among other things, Jackson:


...felt that the Bank put too much power in the hands of too few private citizens -- power that could be used to the detriment of the government. The Bank also lacked an effective system of regulation. In other words, it was too far outside the jurisdiction of Congress, the president, and voters.


And, for the Bank's last move against him:


Biddle’s move backfired: in the end, it helped to support Jackson’s claim that the Bank had been created to serve the interests of the wealthy, not to meet the nation’s financial needs.

More damaging was the removal of federal deposits in 1833, resulting not only in a reduction in the Bank’s size but also in its ability to influence the nation’s currency and credit. In April 1834, the House of Representatives voted against rechartering the Bank and confirmed that federal deposits should remain in state banks. These developments, coupled with Jackson’s determination to do away with the Bank and the widespread defeat of the pro-Bank Whig Party in the 1834 congressional elections, sealed the Bank’s fate.



It was gone, but no, I don't suppose he necessarily cleaned up Wall Street. Fwiw, the Pro Bank Whig Party is composed from the Anti Masonic Party. This is generally opposed to Franklin and the Founders, who were mostly Masons, and becomes what we call the Republican Party today.




OMG, no monarch wants a bunch of sovereign Americans mucking about their kingdom, stirring up the subjects with "republicanism" and "individual sovereignty." (And why Canada can't simply "join up" with the USA, being a dominion of the Crown)


No, they don't. Actually, at the time, no one cared about the Bavarian Illuminati--what these governments were terrified of was Thomas Paine.

However, I am not convinced I am not a Monarchist, similar to Milton. He popularized Lucifer as "the Devil", mostly thought of as representing Oliver Cromwell, who was certainly anti-monarchist and paved the way for the Bank of England, which has not been shut down or re-booted. Jackson got rid of one of its arms for about seventy-five years, one of the largest reprieves known to man.

Saying that I have been naively tricked into signing my life away certainly does not represent that Government protecting me from financial predatorship. At times, Monarchs have fixed these imbalances. So it is not that the Monarchial form of government inherently favors banks--just that they are easily corruptable so we have more bad examples. Sharia law is against usury; there are other kinds of governments which may be against it other than the potential American one. If someone were to declare Sharia Town independent from the federal union, would I use my federal will to attack them and get that land back? No, probably not. I would say "good luck".

[T Smith]

It was never "left" versus "right."
It was the folks with Creator endowed rights against those who wish to take them (predators).

I think everyone here at Avalon is well aware of this already.

The issue is, while "predators" have co-opted both the left and right to suit their purposes, I would say the left, or in this case the Democrats, are much, much more tribal than the right. Those on the left are more likely to follow the party line, in lockstep, to the ends of the earth (and off it), than their Republican counterparts. This might be due to ideological differences inherent to party politics--e.g. embracing a propensity of collectivism vs. a propensity of individualism--I don't know. But it's a hard pattern to deny. That's why the Democrat party is more unified and more prone to "lose its way" once it is infiltrated and co-opted by bad actors.

So I would argue it is easier to co-opt the left than it is the right, and at present we are seeing the problem of those whose taking our Creator endowed rights manifest more on the left and in the Democrat party.

[Ratszinger]

The left side of the aisle and the right side of the aisle are tools for the same entity, the same power. This 'Controller' sometimes punches with the left, sometimes the right but they all answer to the same single power at the top without exception. Without exception this power watches it's family very closely and selects certain of the most deviant that it sees as they grow. The power loves to find people with serious dirty laundry to hide because having that proof makes them all very easy to control. Take Bill Clinton for example. This power saw him early on and marked him for service. Same with Obama. Both had serious dirt, serious offenses to society at large and were caught by the power. Both knew when caught they were in deeper than they could ever hope to be and that they would not be able to get out of this one. Then the deal comes and it's made. Favors are at the power's disposal now and they among others are loyal to a fault to the power because they all are leveraged with their own dirt. The power may have changed hands in the time since Epstein's death. This may explain the sudden aggression unlike we saw ever before and before Epstein's book changed hands. A new kid is in town and it has caused a gang war on the world stage as new channels of control are established and old ones are eliminated that are either no longer useful or just time to retire them.

[Nasu]

Sometimes a divorce is the only sane solution.

Sometimes the differences are irreconcilable and further debate or discussion is not helpful. Ultimately the divorce needs to sort out the assets and do their very best to stay amicable for the sake of the children and other members of the family.

A divorce can be a good thing, in the same way that staying in a disruptive or abusive relationship can be a bad thing. If the states are less united than they were, now is as good a time as any to face it squarely and look deeply at what would be better for the populous, to remain together and salve the wounds, remain together but divided and at each others throats or to peacefully separate and remain friends?

Remember, most states are single, not united, not a big problem really in the bigger view of things.

I heard a good one the other day that reminds me of this situation: It's funny but since my divorce I've shed all of my bad habits and wrong opinions......x....... N

[ExomatrixTV]

If a large part of all Avalonians (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=posts&pp=999) assume it is not about "left vs right" ... you have to agree at least who of the "2 sides" are less insane and more grounded in reality (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1551109&viewfull=1#post1551109).

Now the whole: "2 sides being 2 wings of the same bird" rhetoric is also very well-known to almost all of us here, and The Deep State part of both sides are also known to most of us too.

But The Deep State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States) does not have control over everybody in both sides >> see among others this forum thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120744-Robert-F.-Kennedy-jr.-May-Run-for-Presidency-Challenging-Joe-Biden-2024) ...

It is super-duper obvious to me that The Deep State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States) has much more power over Democrats than Republicans ... and please let me remind you I am Dutch 🇳🇱 >>> I do not vote in the USA.


Let's say just for speculation/estimation purpose only: ±2/3 (66,6%) of Democrats are in control by The Deep State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States) versus ±1/3 of (33,3%) The Republicans are in control by the Deep State.

In theory even if the Republicans win the ±2/3 of Democrats conspire with the ±1/3 of the Republicans to PUSH WEF (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) Agenda 2030 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111148-The-Great-Reset) ANYWAY, and they call it a: "Majority Vote" which is how a "Democratic System" works ... but they also are looking for ways to bypass/subdue The U.S. Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States) that suppose to protect all US citizens from their government abusing their powers (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120882-The-Restrict-Act-S686-with-Bipartisan--Deep-State--Support)!

Here is just one recent (of many) perfect example of the Deep State Bi-Partisan minions have a different agenda (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118748-Top-10-Creepiest-Most-Dystopian-Things-Pushed-By-The-World-Economic-Forum) what "We The People (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution)" never asked for and is a blatant attempt to grant unlimited powers to themselves:


The Restrict Act S686 with Bipartisan (Deep State) Support (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120882-The-Restrict-Act-S686-with-Bipartisan--Deep-State--Support) (over the top control-freaks showing their true faces!).


--o-O-o--

By the way, important disclaimer from me here:

I never assumed there are "only 2 choices" ... but how the US political system works is that it is set up in such a way that a real competitive Third Option (or more) is nearly impossible to have enough momentum to succeed ... The whole (rigged) USA system made sure of that, though many different barriers to prevent that from happening ... one of them is of course the totally corrupt Mass Brainwashing Media! ... Really sad!

https://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/user/27474914.f5b631e7.160x160o.f6c78faaf102@2x.png (https://whynotnews.eu/)

cheers,
John Kuhles (https://whynotnews.eu/) aka 'ExomatrixTV'
April 8th, 2023 🦜🦋🌳

[ozmirage]

snipped


I'll make this easy.
Let’s debunk the propaganda ministry’s claims regarding the DECLARATION & the Articles of CONFEDERATION, which will void most of all the other objections / claims.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS LAW

https://nccs.net/1998-06-the-declaration-of-independence-part-of-american-law
(Do a site search on Professor John Eidsmoe if the page can’t be found)
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)”

= = =
Enabling Act of JUNE 16, 1906

Sec. 505 - Delegates to Meet and Form Constitution. Sec. 3
... The constitution shall be REPUBLICAN in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...
= = =
And all states have a section that restates the promised republican form of government wherein all men are created equal with Creator endowed rights.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1 - Sec. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
Section 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
POINT : DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL LAW IN THE USA. IT is the origin of the Republican form of government.

= = = = =
PERPETUAL UNION

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the UNION SHALL BE PERPETUAL; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
- - - - - - - -
Article VI, US CON

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
ENGAGEMENT - a promise, obligation, or other condition that binds.

Thus the binding promise of perpetual union of the Articles is incorporated by reference, into the USCON.

More proof:
STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is VAGRANCY. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p.1410
SO prosecuting status crimes, like VAGRANCY, is constitutionally suspect, yet was enforced for decades before 1933. If not authorized by the USCON, what authorized prosecution?
"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, PAUPERS, VAGABONDS and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Note the "excepted" classes - paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives. And guess who those "free inhabitants" are, who are not citizens. The "People" with their endowed rights intact?
VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on CHARITY and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a PUBLIC CHARGE through his own laziness.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1549
(Coincidentally, states redefine “resident” to be synonymous with “vagabond”)

PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, 6th ed., p. 1128

(All participants in FICA / SocSec are eligible for charity from the public treasury, and thus are status criminals.)

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights for "excepted" classes
" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)
Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.
"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)
Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

Everyone signed up with FICA is a status criminal. Which may explain why courts no longer prosecute the homeless for vagrancy - the court itself is composed of status criminals. LOL.


IN SUMMATION :
Not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the Republican form of government, its source and origin - and that's the way the Ministry of Propaganda wants it to be.
- - -

Can't have 330+ million Americans going around with CREATOR endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.
Can't have folks exercising natural and personal liberty, and not needing permissions (licenses).
Can't have folks asserting that their endowed rights existed BEFORE the USCON, and thus disregard any "constitutional" claim to the contrary.
- - -

" 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...
- - -

YUP - can't have folks running around thinking that NO democratic majority, NO constitution, NO election can impair their ENDOWED / INHERENT / SACRED rights to life, liberty, and absolute ownership of private property.

[Pris]

The "federal entity" needs to be reigned back down and diminished, and it doesn't help it's been taken over by globalists. It was always meant to be entirely controlled by the people, but the people fell asleep at the wheel.

Are you suggesting this happened considerably before and was a contributing factor to what is called the American Civil War? Or something else??


National debt? You mean the one the globalists created with their fiat currency scam? Since it's a scam, I'd say that makes it null and void. It's all a game. Change the game.

Is this most efficiently done by what Ozmirage says about relinquishing Social Security and the like? Or?

For the most part, I'm speaking in generalities. Anywhere, anytime there is a way to wield power, there will immediately be those who will attempt to usurp that power to their personal and/or collective advantage to rule over others.

Analogy: take, "The Lord of The Rings": Sauron's Ring. There was so much power in that thing, no person could wield it -- no matter how righteous their intentions -- without becoming corrupted by it. There's the old saying: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So, to avoid what's happening today worldwide, any centralized power structure (should there be any centralized power) needs to be kept at a clearly defined minimum. The decentralized power structure (on EVERY level of society) better represents the will of the People and appears to be the best way to go forward for all nations. That keeps power and decision-making in the hands of the local populations overall. On a macro scale, it keeps all nations as independent as possible from one another. That makes it much harder for those who seek power and control over others to infiltrate and undermine any system.

It's almost impossible for me to comment on this complex subject with specific solutions when I've only just barely scratched the surface in recent years. Saying that, I'm quite impressed by the insights and massive amount of "legalese" information Ozmirage is sharing, though my attention span is about two paragraphs before my eyes start bleeding.

[shaberon]

It's almost impossible for me to comment on this complex subject with specific solutions when I've only just barely scratched the surface in recent years. Saying that, I'm quite impressed by the insights and massive amount of "legalese" information Ozmirage is sharing, though my attention span is about two paragraphs before my eyes start bleeding.




Well, let me try to say what we put together.

Once, there was a contiguous set of British Colonies, south of Canada. The colonists became upset when they were heavily taxed to pay Britain's war debts. One day the colonies shifted allegiance to a different government called States which still had Governors and created their own Constitutions. For a few years, they formed a union with the Articles of Confederation, which was found too weak to pay their own war debt. Then, they just changed this government to a different union by the Constitution.


At the time, the background of American Citizen (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1110765.pdf) did not employ too crisp of a legalese. Bouvier's 1839 was the first American law dictionary. At the time:


When the thirteen American colonies assumed their "separate
and independent station," it became necessary to decide who were
nationals of Massachusetts, of New York, etc. Who were mem-
bers of these new nations? The first state constitutions give con-
fused answers. It is their terminology that we are mostly con-
cerned with. Some of them called their nationals "subjects," some
"inhabitants," some indifferently both "citizens" and "subjects."
It is impossible to run through these constitutions noting the inter-
changeableness of "subject" and "citizen" without concluding that
in the thought of that era, they were equivalent. Hence we must
conclude that "citizen" meant merely "national," for that was the
sole meaning of "subject," in this relation. In the constitutions
framed between 1789 and 1820 the term "citizen" completely
supplanted "subjects".


The first American treaty, that of amity and commerce France, in 1778 uses the expression "subjects of the United States" frequently, while in other passages, calling for no difference "citizens of the United States".


Here is a period view of perhaps the first question on Citizenship (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0115):


[22 May 1789]

The House took up the petition of David Ramsay, who claimed that the election of William Smith of South Carolina was invalid because he had not been a citizen for seven years when elected (Ramsay to JM, 4 Apr. 1789 and n. 2).



The objection of him being a minor meant that he had not taken a militia oath. The article is somewhat longish, possibly worth going through--but because the guy was living in South Carolina:


...I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.



Cong. Register, I, 391–95. The House decided overwhelmingly in favor of Smith. Many years later JM recalled this contested election when composing his essay on sovereignty (“Sovereignty,” [1835], Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.], IX, 570).


Moreover, if we try to find out why Natural Born Citizen (https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1998&context=aulr) is used to define the President under the Constitution, we will find the answer because this same Ramsay writes an apology after his lesson:


But why, then, did the delegates not simply follow
the pattern of the congressional provisions and add a longer term of
years, say, fourteen years for the President, as compared to seven years
for Representatives and nine years for Senators? Such an option may
have seemed impractical because a “citizen of the United States” only
came into being upon declaration of independence from Great Britain
on July 4, 1776. That was just eleven years before the Convention,
and so using any duration longer than the nine years for Senators was
problematic. But, as we shall see, there is persuasive evidence that the
Article II phrase “natural born Citizen” was not arrived at by a process
of elimination, but rather, affirmatively originated by a letter written
by John Jay in late July 1787 to George Washington at the
Constitutional Convention.



See DAVID RAMSAY, A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE
CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES 7 (Charleston 1789)

(“This accounts for the use of the word resident in that paragraph of the new
constitution, which describes the qualifications of the president of the United States.
The Senators must be citizens nine years, and the representatives seven years; but it is
not said, that the president must be a citizen for fourteen years. The thing was
impossible, for independence was then not quite twelve years declared; therefore the
word resident was introduced in order to comprehend time before the declaration of
independence.”).


Ramsay's 1789 Dissertation (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/62af88a807a9130c8574a07a/1655670957827/Ramsay%2C+David%2C+A+Dissertation+on+the+Manners+of+Acquiring+the+Character+and+Privileges+of+a+Citi zen+of+the+United+States.pdf) clearly marks the citizen and non-citizen:

Negroes are inhabitants, but not citizens.


The issue about the election of the young person not having taken an oath to the State represents this difference between a State citizen and a State non-citizen:


To cement the people of America more firmly together, oaths of fidelity to the
states were respectively administered soon after the declaration of independence, to all above
a certain age. By these oaths, a compact was established
between the state and the individuals; and those who took
them acquired or confirmed their citizenship by their own
personal act. By swearing to do the duty of citizens, they,
by Law, acquired a right to the privileges and protection of
citizens. Those who refused, were ordered to depart, as
being persons unfriendly to the revolution.

Subject, Citizen, National (https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/13370/13_56YaleLJ58_November1946_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y) does crystalize over time, but only with respect to the federal entity. With respect to an Austrian refugee:


Secretary of State Marcy, in his note of September 26, 1853 concerning
the Koszta affair, appears to have raised the point that a person may
be a national of the United States, without being an American citizen.


He had lived and worked in the United States for a few years, so, he was an American National. This is like a technical reminder, not a well-discussed principle.


In MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY,
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND OPINIONS TO JUNE 30,1925, Administrative Decision No. V
(October 31, 1924) 193, the following rule was laid down:'
"The term 'American national' means a person wheresoever domiciled owing
permanent allegiance to the United States of America, and embraces not only citizens of the United States but Indians and members of other aboriginal tribes or
native peoples of the United States and of its territories and possessions."

The Nationality Act of 1940 sanctions the distinction between
American nationality, including American citizenship, and American
nationality, devoid of American citizenship.


It exists as a disenfranchisement towards Native Americans, Samoans, and so forth.



Of course the background for the American Revolutionaries was primarily in the French Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment):


Several Americans, especially Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, played a major role in bringing Enlightenment ideas to the New World and in influencing British and French thinkers.


The central doctrines of the Enlightenment were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Church.

The political philosopher Montesquieu introduced the idea of a separation of powers in a government, a concept which was enthusiastically adopted by the authors of the United States Constitution.


Which in Europe was really held not by republics but by the Enlightened Monarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism) such as:


Empress Catherine II of Russia sponsored the Russian Enlightenment. She incorporated many ideas of Enlightenment philosophers, especially Montesquieu, in her Nakaz, which was intended to revise Russian law.


The early Americans were not necessarily anti-monarchists--their grievances were with the British Parliament. There were so many American Monarchists that there was an attempt to place Washington as King.

Most of the period literature does seem to say the Sovereign is the Citizen, contrasted to an alien, a slave, or any person with lesser rights. Women did not have a right to vote. Women were not required to take an oath of militia readiness.

I am not sure how you would get thousands of people to risk their lives to become a second-class citizen who fought on behalf of someone else who enjoys a superior status.

The tax rejection method, etc., of non-citizen-ness now is probably true, but, historically, no, it is the form of disenfranchisement. State citizenship definitely had a meaning which was grandfathered into national citizenship, which just didn't have these additional challenging questions until slowly over time.

One of the major catalysts for the American Revolution was Thomas Paine, who was best friends with Nicholas Bonneville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Bonneville):

Initiated into freemasonry in 1786 during a stay in England, he wrote two books on the subject, the "Jesuits Expelled from Masonry", and "Dagger Shattered by the Masons", both in 1788, in which he accuses the Jesuits of having introduced into the symbolic degrees of freemasonry, the myths of the Templars and their doctrine of revenge, based on the "crime" of their destruction, and the four vows of the Templars included in their higher degrees. Earlier, in 1787, the leading Bavarian illuminist and freemason, Johann Joachim Christoph Bode, is said to have converted the German-speaking Bonneville to a faith that combined esoteric symbolism with radical ideas of popular sovereignty bordering on direct democracy.


Popular Sovereignty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty) is not a form of government:


Republics and popular monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy.



It is "consent of the governed", which has a wide spectrum of applications differing between Locke and Rousseau, etc., but it is not anti-monarchist. It is an idea but none of those are laws.


I discovered an intricate database that links everyone someone knew and everything someone wrote and so interestingly from the page on Bonneville (https://radicaltranslations.org/database/agents/1183/), noting he mainly worked as a translator, he translated a Letter of Thomas Paine (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YeEUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false) into French, which is what that is written in. He does decry forms of religion as vain ceremonies but does believe in spirituality as he praises the Quakers. That one is fairly interesting, about twenty pages long.


Paine and most of the Founders are usually considered Deists:


According to Thomas Paine, deism is the simple belief in God the Creator with no reference to the Bible or any other miraculous source. Instead, the deist relies solely on personal reason to guide his creed, which was eminently agreeable to many thinkers of the time.


Whereas this is more or less the European adaptation of Confucianism (https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/honorsprojects/324/):


...some of the most notable figures of the French Enlightenment, such as Pierre Bayle, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau appropriated Confucian ideals to criticize religious orthodoxy and debate about subjects such as universalism, religious tolerance, and civilization.

Voltaire, Deism, and Confucious (https://www.globethics.net/pdfs/CNKI/CJFD/WLXY201403003.pdf) article.


Once I looked into joining Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, since I heard a rumor it was an oligarchy dinner club, but it turned out that my ancestor was in a state militia--which does not qualify. But you see why I find continuity in the State, and any federation is a union subject to extreme criticism, can be altered or abolished.

My State just has a militia, there is not an office where a man can decide to blow up a wedding around the world. The colony was originally much larger, equal to three modern states. A state is supposed to be independent regarding its internal affairs. So just by separating those pieces they already are making a separation on their own. When a place relies on, for example, oil, that comes from somewhere else, and then any federation is setting the terms for you.

Sovereignty and consent of the governed and so on are normal Enlightenment discussions stemming from contact with China.

[ExomatrixTV]

When the left left the right was right

[Pris]

It's almost impossible for me to comment on this complex subject with specific solutions when I've only just barely scratched the surface in recent years. Saying that, I'm quite impressed by the insights and massive amount of "legalese" information Ozmirage is sharing, though my attention span is about two paragraphs before my eyes start bleeding.




Well, let me try to say what we put together. ... ... ... ... ...


Thanks. Much text. I won't pretend I was able to even absorb a 10th of that. I got "A"s in things like art.


https://imgs.search.brave.com/HUQVIyuNJg5tAR0fdCsLC_-kZyyIaY5rSOHDssqjXnI/rs:fit:604:453:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL3MyLnF1/aWNrbWVtZS5jb20v/aW1nLzFhLzFhYTQx/N2JjNzU4ZjdmYTI1/ZWNkN2U3YWVjZTk1/Yzk4MWJkMTE4ZjNh/NjM3ZGZkZjgzNTI2/ZGM3OGE4Nzg3MzQu/anBn

[mijatoca]

It's almost impossible for me to comment on this complex subject with specific solutions when I've only just barely scratched the surface in recent years. Saying that, I'm quite impressed by the insights and massive amount of "legalese" information Ozmirage is sharing, though my attention span is about two paragraphs before my eyes start bleeding.




Well, let me try to say what we put together. ... ... ... ... ...


Thanks. Much text. I won't pretend I was able to even absorb a 10th of that. I got "A"s in things like art.


https://imgs.search.brave.com/HUQVIyuNJg5tAR0fdCsLC_-kZyyIaY5rSOHDssqjXnI/rs:fit:604:453:1/g:ce/aHR0cDovL3MyLnF1/aWNrbWVtZS5jb20v/aW1nLzFhLzFhYTQx/N2JjNzU4ZjdmYTI1/ZWNkN2U3YWVjZTk1/Yzk4MWJkMTE4ZjNh/NjM3ZGZkZjgzNTI2/ZGM3OGE4Nzg3MzQu/anBn

:blackwidow:

[Pris]

:blackwidow:

mijatoca just unsubbed?! For what it's worth, thank you for the Black Widow.

Happy trails, mijatoca.

[shaberon]

Thanks. Much text. I won't pretend I was able to even absorb a 10th of that. I got "A"s in things like art.



You had mentioned layers of compounded psyops. We are simply categorizing these.


In terms of the U. S., we are considering what is the union that was put together, versus whether it needs to remain in its complete form.


I am giving the view of one whose heritage was colonists, subsequently Revolutionaries, which is why I am speaking as if a State that might deal with multiple voices of other States.

The spread of art is due to the Enlightenment.

One thing this is not is that famous national symbol, the Pilgrims. The Enlightenment was taking place at the same time as solemn religious beliefs such as the earth was created around 3,064 B. C. E. Without any regard to the validity or merit of any particular religious view, it is very useful to understand the flow of ideas and their consequences.


Before the Pilgrims, the French settled Fort Caroline near J-ville, and other areas in N. America. They did this since 1562-1572 it became impossible to be Huguenot (https://jeanribault.org/french-huguenot/) as for instance St. Bartholomew's massacre:

...left behind 70,000 dead Evangelical Protestant Christians, including two hundred nobles massacred. Rather than being treated like human beings, they were slaughtered like animals for sacrifice. The worse massacre of the century was all done in the name of a Holy Roman Catholic Church because it believed only it knew what a true Christian was, or wasn’t.
This holocaust of the century met the full approval of the Roman clergy. who viewed it as divine retribution on heretics.


In 1685 Louis the Sun-King encouraged by the Jesuits made Protestantism illegal throughout France.

They were followers of John Calvin, and then we get the following intrigue concerning the Jews (https://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=43):


The difference between Luther and Calvin on the Jewish question was originally, as always, theological. Luther had broken with the Catholic Church by arguing that salvation is the result not of obedience to any institution, but rather of faith in Jesus Christ. As this condition could obviously not be met by Jews, his initial good will towards them gave way to rage. There followed a recycling of the worst of the Middle Age blood libels, and hysterical calls for persecution.

In spite of his opposition to the Catholic Church, then, Luther, if anything, only added fodder to the traditional Catholic case against the Jews. Like the Church, he described the Jews as Christ killers and, like the Church, he believed that the Jewish Scriptures contained a “spiritual” meaning that could be understood only by means of the New Testament. Since the Jews followed a “literal” interpretation of these texts and refused to accept their “true” meaning, Luther viewed them as enemies of, rather than precursors to, Christianity.


...sympathy with the Jews becomes a central tenet of Calvin’s theology.


By around 1723, this gives fertile ground for French Israelism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Israelism):


French Israelism (also called Franco-Israelism) is the French nationalist belief that people of Frankish descent in general, and the Merovingian dynasty in particular, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, specifically, the descendants of the Tribe of Benjamin.

One of the earliest scholars who claimed that he could trace the ten lost tribes of Israel to France was the French Huguenot writer, Jacques Abbadie, who fled French Roman Catholic persecution and later settled in London, England.


The claim became one of the foundational elements for the Priory of Sion hoax created by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey in the 1960s, and it was fused with the notion of a Jesus bloodline and popularized in 1982 by the authors of the speculative nonfiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and in 2003 by Dan Brown for his 2003 mystery thriller novel The Da Vinci Code.


Shortly followed by British Israelism (https://www.cdamm.org/articles/british-israelism):


Wilson was a Scottish autodidact historian who, in the 1830s, gave a series of lectures on the Israelite genealogy of the people of Northern Europe. Wilson originated the claim that the people of Britain were specifically descended from the tribe of Ephraim.


Whilst the seeds of British-Israelist belief were being scattered across the United States, spanning the entire continent within two decades of Hine’s arrival on her shores, other agents were helping to spread the message across the British imperial hemisphere.


This idea simply inhabits the Ghost of Oliver Cromwell (https://blogs.mediapart.fr/nicholas-molodyko/blog/160920/ghost-oliver-cromwell):


...since the Puritans' iconoclastic writings and actions were based on deceit, they marketed them to be seen as primarily theological, rather than political. Puritan iconoclasm of the 1640s was as notoriously slippery and insidious in its own time as the iconoclasm that remains today. The famous Puritan Oliver Cromwell who claimed war victory for satan holds the key.


In order to talk about America, we need to talk about England. The problem is that this part of history is glossed over in the United Kingdom. All of the incriminating stuff has been surpressed. In Britain, in their history education, they learn about the Romans, the Middle Ages, the Tudors — and then skip to the First and Second World Wars. That ignorance travels across the Atlantic to America. As I have been saying, Oliver Cromwell holds the key to much of what is going down in the U.S. today. Puritans were educated to believe that God was fighting on their side. But the politics of Olivier Cromwell and his disciples is informed by the Old Testament, not the New Testament.


The Jews were invited back to England by Cromwell when he needed money after the Civil War. While Cromwell’s weird Puritan fetish for Biblical Israel may have had something to do with it, in inviting back the Jews, Cromwell was mainly motivated by his determination to move the Amsterdam Jewish merchants to London to bolster England in her trade war with Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, whose Jewish community was famed for its wealth, commercial know-how, and business contacts.


They were not of the blood line of Jacob/Israel, but were in fact descendants of Esau/Edom, as described in Genesis chapter 28.


As we see, that conglomerates into the Bank of England, i. e. this policy of Cromwell was essentially cast in stone and continuous through all British governments, and eventually the U. S. when finally infiltrated.


Less sympathetic was the Christianity of Germany, which instead became the star of another show called Witch Burning (https://qz.com/1183992/why-europe-was-overrun-by-witch-hunts-in-early-modern-history):


By the mid-1590s, the territory had burned 500 people as witches—an astonishing feat, for a place that only had 2,200 residents to begin with.

More than 40% of Europeans executed for witchcraft were in Germany, according to the new dataset. Tellingly, the slaughter subsides after 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia brought an end to religious wars by establishing the geography of Catholic and Protestant monopolies and mandating tolerance of mainstream sects of Christians, regardless of official religion.

The epicenter of the witch hunts was Europe’s German-speaking heartland, an area that makes up Germany, Switzerland, and northeastern France.

With Lutheranism now officially given the green light, violence broke out across the Holy Roman Empire, as princes fought to force their faith on neighboring territories.




The Catholics mainly crushed heretics, i. e., those whom they thought gave a wrong form of Christianity. The Lutherans just went after people, anyone who was not them.

I would suggest that Westphalia is the only Treaty which potentially resembled a working peace. Almost everything else, if you look at Versailles, etc., are forms of balkanization that are doomed to fail.



And so--technicalities aside--the Enlightened Monarch attempts to personally perform in the same way that the American philosophy worked, for protection and prosperity. Because this was a minority view, the list of such monarchs is not many, but we will find among them the same as those we found were forming awareness and resistance about the Money Power:



Peter the Great of Russia (1682–1725)
Catherine the Great of Russia (1762–1796)
Frederick the Great of Prussia (1740–1786)
Maria Theresa (1740–1780)
Leopold I, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1765–1790)
Ferdinand IV of Naples (1816–1825)
Maria Carolina of Austria, Queen of Naples and Sicily (1768–1814)
Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia (1730–1773)
Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia (1773–1796)


Then, yes, there were some powerful non-governmental influences, such as Thomas Paine and Nicholas Bonneville. Marquis de La Fayette named his children George Washington and Marie Antoinette.

One cannot quite call this a faction, or movement, or platform with an idealized vocabulary in a legal format. It is a relatively new look at some values probably from Confucius. Mostly it was eradicated in the West and remained in Russia.


The new U. S. was generously given territory by the UK, who had decided that since it was militarily unfeasible to conquer, the States were desirable as business partners.


Hamilton of New York was the main architect of the First Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States), based largely on copying the Bank of England. However it had a twenty-year charter. It was generally opposed by most of the Founders. Note that among other things, it kicks off as a vehicle for paying $788,000 per year of interest.

It does not have that many "banking powers", but, as the largest entity in the new country, its status is again confessed by the
Federal Reserve (https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/first-bank-of-the-us):



...opened for business in Philadelphia on December 12, 1791.


The Bank of the United States started with capitalization of $10 million, $2 million of which was owned by the government and the remaining $8 million by private investors. The size of its capitalization made the Bank not only the largest financial institution, but the largest corporation of any type in the new nation. The bank’s sale of shares was the largest initial public offering (IPO) in the country to date. Many of the initial investors were foreign, a fact that did not sit well with many Americans, even though the foreign shareholders could not vote.

Such an institution clashed with Jefferson’s vision of the United States as a chiefly agrarian society, not one based on banking, commerce, and industry.


There was a Second Bank shortly after the War of 1812, and then nothing until the Federal Reserve, which was copied from the Reichsbank in 1908.

As we see, this is on the heels of the 1902 Pilgrims' Society (https://isgp-studies.com/pilgrims-society-us-uk), a union of British Imperialist followers of Cecil Rhodes with the American business and Wall Street types.

Just by that, you might reckon the Fed was inevitable, in fact its most powerful opposition such as John Astor and Ira Guggenheim sunk with the Titanic.

The World Wars were the method of conjoining the American, British, and European banks into an international system, such as the Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, SWIFT, petro-dollar, etc.


Any talk of equal rights, human rights, etc., is a bit like an intrepid new topic only recently introduced to those who were slaying each other over some relatively dim views of religion. The Enlightenment values are not quite what I see reflected in my community.

A Pilgrim is a member of Cromwell's community on Wall Street.

If my State owed money to people in France and The Netherlands, and I had just declared Sovereignty which means this is my sole responsibility, Hamilton managed to toss it in a large pool and make a much bigger responsibility for everyone. This is the main, original application of the U. S. Constitution.

If one might next say, Second Bank representing increased business with the UK, then around 1830 we find Lord Palmerston combining Zionism and British Imperialism into a racist anti-Russian view. If these were separate legs before, then, this too erupts into the British national will as a "certain understanding". This attitude was unknown in America until transferred.

Recently, I saw it explained that Fundamental Zionism primarily hails from a certain reading of the Book of Ezekiel. The original line is thought to have said "Gog of Magog", meaning an individual from a land, which in Ezekiel's time was probably the northern neighbor and Baal Zaphon. Later redactions started to say "Gog and Magog", that is, two individuals related to lands. Then the lands became nations. Then the nations were defined as Germany and Russia. This came out of 1700s British theology, and must be a main part of the doctrine of millions of ardent Zionists in the U. S. today. This is still a hardcore belief. It has actively been played out through Ukraine since the 1600s into Zion--Israel in the 1900s.

So, it is like I am united to this ideology and this international debt system, not by being a citizen of the State, but because of the federal union.


Even at the time of the First Bank:

To avoid inflation and the appearance of impropriety, the Bank was forbidden from buying U.S. government bonds.


But then when there is no bank, in 1863 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States#1863%E2%80%931913:_National_banks):

National Banking Act of 1863...To finance the war, national banks were required to secure their notes by holding Treasury securities.

Two problems still remained in the banking sector. The first was the requirement to back up the currency with treasuries. When the treasuries fluctuated in value, banks had to recall loans or borrow from other banks or clearinghouses.

These liquidity crises led to bank runs, causing severe disruptions and depressions, the worst of which was the Panic of 1907.


Sound familiar?

Frying pan meet fire.

These people are still generally treating Native Americans like livestock, women not much better, continue to use slaves, and so on. These are not "a central bank", but, banks that are chartered by the federal government which can open branches anywhere. Yet that insidious operative principle is already injected, this use of Treasury Bonds.

By losing the war, the Confederacy was roped in to this situation which was not there when it left.

I am no longer sure where the U. S. really represents the State's interests. Everything has been in Bondage since the time of Lincoln.

In the French letter, Thomas Paine said that the critical factor in human beings was not different cultures--there is no need for inherent animosity--but, within each culture, education. The more the ignorance, the easier to manipulate into this or that faction or extremism. That represents Enlightenment, or, i. e. a type of harmony similar to Confucianism and Deism, and, perhaps even Catholicism. At least some of the Chinese accepted it. With the American Founders, it succeeded at making a new non-monarchial system, but what appears to move forward is not Enlightenment but Money Power.

It would seem to me that all the States should be questioning all the unions all the time, e. g. United States, United Kingdom, United Nations.

[Johnnycomelately]

Hi Pris, and welcome back.

I like your take, your sentiment and orientation towards justice. I have not read up-thread from this quoted post (but have read your and Shaberon’s exchange in the subsequent 3. Good discussion; Shaberon always interests me and I learn, either or both info and language), but I want to add a idea.

I have highlighted your sentence that talks about will of the people. My thought is that when democracy got rolling, ‘will’ was quickly recognized as a variable, necessary to control, same thing as ‘raising’ armies but now about everything. Before, monarchies/dictators just laid down the law.

I question the ‘sovereignty’ of our will, not in actual life principles, but in practice. And that is our weakness, how we get ruled. Control efforts shifted from by-decree to suggestion/programming.

Your track/field of Art, language or graphic or other, seems to me to be a key or an influence to hearers/readers/seers’ will. Please teach us about our sovereignty of choice, what you know. 👻 ♥️




ir intentions -- without becoming corrupted by it. There's the old saying: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So, to avoid what's happening today worldwide, any centralized power structure (should there be any centralized power) needs to be kept at a clearly defined minimum. The decentralized power structure (on EVERY level of society) better represents the will of the People and appears to be the best way to go forward for all nations. That keeps power and decision-making in the hands of the local populations overall. On a macro scale, it keeps all nations as independent as possible from one another. That makes it much harder for those who seek power and control over others to infiltrate and undermine any system.

[ozmirage]

FYI: Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence *1776*, governments have two jobs (in America):
1) Secure endowed rights, and
2) Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
(Citizens have no endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them.)

And the stated purpose of the federal government was to administer the union of STATES, whose governments were instituted to secure endowed rights, etc. Those state governments have no "rights" - only delegated powers. And no state citizen had endowed rights, either. The only people in the State with "rights" were the noncitizen nationals... and they weren't party to the compacts and weren't governed nor taxed.

Due to the fact that 99.99% of Americans have consented to be bankrupt, socialist, serfs, and subjects, it's hard to find examples of the original republican form of government, and the real beneficiaries of the governments instituted to secure their rights.

The current Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic is deliberately fomenting unrest so that "we, the sheeple" break apart, and give "them" the excuse to dispense with that dratted republican form of government. Once that happens, they can ramp up that beloved WORLD GOVERNMENT and its "human rights".

[Bill Ryan]

:blackwidow:

mijatoca just unsubbed?! For what it's worth, thank you for the Black Widow.

Happy trails, mijatoca.Mod note from Bill:

There's an explanation here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?78116-RECORD-of-MODERATOR-ACTIONS&p=1551590&viewfull=1#post1551590). It wouldn't be appropriate for me to copy that publicly, but some members following his recent posts on a handful of threads concerning US-political and sexual issues may appreciate that his stated views all now make rather more sense. :facepalm:

:focus:

[pyrangello]

Bill and so we are who we are, As Mijatoca stated we agree to disagree and thats fine and respectable . For him it appears his background shaped his thought process , it is what it is. .......................................................... For me and the alphabet community(LGBTT ) the extra T is now for terrorist since nashville and before. The issue I have is not what sexual preference you are, I could give a rats behind and frankly don't understand the issue to let everyone else know either, that is intrusive to me having it thrown in my face daily now, just like the bud light commercial with that trans and kid rock taking a stance. Anheiser Busch is going to regret every dollar they are going to loose now , My largest issue are incidences of child indoctrination in the schools and on tv and where stories like those two gay men adopted those 2 little boys in Atlanta and raped them repeatedly and then were pimping them out for money which required hospitalization for the one boy, I believe they are 6 and 8. And my disdain comes from if the alphabet people want to be recognized so bad in parades, commercials and schools, where is their condemnation of these incidences? Where ? It is nowhere, it is silence, it is appalling how silent they are and unacceptable period........................... And so on behalf of all the children being abused by this group, here is the outrage just as kid rock stated , I feel the same exact way. If this group doesn't want to publicly make a stance that this isn't acceptable go back into the hole in the ground you came out of. Society has enough to deal with than a daily attack on the children . It is up to us as a society of grown adults to watch over the children and protect them so they have a shot of growing up with as little tarnish as possible so when they are old enough they can decide their life's direction. Not this indoctrination at 5 years old to learn what non-binary is have a child decide gender reassignment when they can't even vote or drink or drive a car?

“It’s well known that 80%, even up to 85% of children who experience gender dysphoria and cross sex identification feel differently when they reach puberty after the early phases of puberty.”

-Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Chief Psychiatrist, Tampere University Hospital and one of Finland’s leading experts on pediatric gender care

[shaberon]

FYI: Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence *1776*, governments have two jobs (in America):
1) Secure endowed rights, and
2) Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
(Citizens have no endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them.)



You do not understand how the Revolution worked.

The Declaration is a non-binding document, unlike:


South Carolina Constitution of 26 March 1776, prior to the Declaration of Independence



To be a part of any of these States, you had to take an Oath (https://dcssar.org/resources/Documents/Publications/Oaths%20of%20Allegiance%20During%20the%20American%20Revolution%208%20May%202021.pdf) to it--refusal did not mean "no taxes":


The consequences were severe for a person who was tendered an oath of
allegiance and refused or was required to take an oath that did not do so. For suspected Tories, it
was often banishment. For others it could mean loss of suffrage, a higher tax rate, the inability to
buy land, the inability to practice one’s profession, and other consequences.


"Consent of the governed" is exactly how it was understood that Kings worked:

The New Jersey Constitution said in the opening paragraph,
…all the constitutional Authority ever possessed by the Kings of Great-Britain over these
Colonies, or their other Dominions, was, by Compact, derived from the People, and held of
them for the common Interest of the whole Society..."


An example of part of an Oath:


“… declare that I believe the War [of] Resistance and Opposition in which
the United States of American Colonies are now engaged against the Fleets and Armies of Great
Britain is on the Part of the said Colonies just and necessary: And that I will heartily assist in the
Defence of the United Colonies.”


If you did not Consent:


Isaac Man was tendered the oath of allegiance by the New York
Commission and refused to take it. He was removed to the enemy lines, permitted only to take
family members, clothing, household furniture, and 14 days of provisions [NY8 192, 193]. In
South Carolina a man could be banished from the state for not taking the oath if tendered to him.
The law provided that those returning without permission “…shall, on conviction, suffer death
without benefit of clergy.”


The State was the Militia, or the Militia was the State. All were consent-given citizens.

Scroll up a few posts to the 1789 election for the House of Representatives. There was a man who had not taken an Oath around 1776, because he was a minor--and because of that, his citizenship was challenged.

The Supreme Court ruled that since he had been living in a State, he was a citizen.

This follows from the description of the President in the Constitution, since it was impossible for him to have been a citizen for the adequate length of time when the thing was drafted in 1787, he had to have been a resident for that time.

The Constitution simply presumes citizenship without really defining or explaining it, and at the time there were no particular additional meaning such as tax and bribe schemes. The first two central banks had the unpopular factor of foreign investors, but they were not allowed to hold Treasury Bonds. President Lincoln authorized a "national banking system" which *does*, and that fact has remained unchanged to this day.

What Thomas Jefferson said in non-binding documents are standard quotes of Enlightenment philosophy that apply equally to monarchs.

I cannot dispute that an "American National" status today does cover a tax immunity and so forth, but it has nothing to do with a non-citizen status in the original States and early America.

[Pris]

The spread of art is due to the Enlightenment.

Oh well, at least it was nice while it lasted.



In the French letter, Thomas Paine said that the critical factor in human beings was not different cultures--there is no need for inherent animosity--but, within each culture, education. The more the ignorance, the easier to manipulate into this or that faction or extremism. That represents Enlightenment, or, i. e. a type of harmony similar to Confucianism and Deism, and, perhaps even Catholicism. At least some of the Chinese accepted it. With the American Founders, it succeeded at making a new non-monarchial system, but what appears to move forward is not Enlightenment but Money Power.


I agree with your point about ignorance. But, education? I think I've mostly had to uneducate myself in order to learn what I know today. By the way, with the constant physical, psychological, chemical, and technological assaults on our thinking capabilities, it's amazing any of us can think at all. Cumulative abuse does take its toll.

And, with the constant slaughter over the centuries, I'm amazed any of us are here at all.

[Pris]

Hi Pris, and welcome back.

I like your take, your sentiment and orientation towards justice. I have not read up-thread from this quoted post (but have read your and Shaberon’s exchange in the subsequent 3. Good discussion; Shaberon always interests me and I learn, either or both info and language), but I want to add a idea.

I have highlighted your sentence that talks about will of the people. My thought is that when democracy got rolling, ‘will’ was quickly recognized as a variable, necessary to control, same thing as ‘raising’ armies but now about everything. Before, monarchies/dictators just laid down the law.

I question the ‘sovereignty’ of our will, not in actual life principles, but in practice. And that is our weakness, how we get ruled. Control efforts shifted from by-decree to suggestion/programming.

Your track/field of Art, language or graphic or other, seems to me to be a key or an influence to hearers/readers/seers’ will. Please teach us about our sovereignty of choice, what you know. 👻 ♥️




ir intentions -- without becoming corrupted by it. There's the old saying: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So, to avoid what's happening today worldwide, any centralized power structure (should there be any centralized power) needs to be kept at a clearly defined minimum. The decentralized power structure (on EVERY level of society) better represents the will of the People and appears to be the best way to go forward for all nations. That keeps power and decision-making in the hands of the local populations overall. On a macro scale, it keeps all nations as independent as possible from one another. That makes it much harder for those who seek power and control over others to infiltrate and undermine any system.




Thanks, Johnnycomelately. It's good to be back. :)

I'm not sure this will help.

When I first learned that democracy actually means "rule by the mob", that clarified everything for me.

https://imgs.search.brave.com/j5Ashpn9e4Q1u520ns8SkrMDcWHI4DNavtS_BfK4zzA/rs:fit:640:512:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9zdGF0/aWMuZmpjZG4uY29t/L3BpY3R1cmVzL0Rl/bW9jcmFjeV9mNTk1/MjNfMTc2NjI3MS5q/cGc


Democracy is easily undermined. Because it's mob rule, public opinion (mob) can be easily swayed by evildoers and thus weaponized to their advantage.

Clearly, it's not good to be a lamb in a democratic system or any system for that matter.

I like this particular animal. Notice, no chains.

https://imgs.search.brave.com/sNiW5h_7H4BHsAVIPMFEmhb6hS6yeOLHQLJ4Rzh0wmg/rs:fit:594:393:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmlt/Z2ZsaXAuY29tL3Ez/MHJ1LmpwZw


The unchained unicorn has always represented the individual human being, body and soul, born free.

I think having personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy is a big part of what it means to be born free.

There's a reason why they like to put chains on unicorns.

https://imgs.search.brave.com/PjbCYYnLCjjzRIX2cE2mZw0B6FszYLSl1nzzhBIbEx4/rs:fit:455:530:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vNzM2/eC84Yi9lMS8zYy84/YmUxM2NlOGE2NTM4/YzEzN2E2MzExN2Nj/OTFlMmFlYS0tdW5p/Y29ybi1uYXRpb25h/bC1hbmltYWwtc2Nv/dGxhbmQtdW5pY29y/bi5qcGc

Everything is about the freedom of choice and the decisions we make as individuals. As we need to make those choices and decisions, anything can be used as a weapon against us to confuse and mislead us. We see the weaponization -- of everything and in everything -- all around us.

Meanwhile, they are rewriting stories, rewriting history. It's a literal digital "book burning" happening right now. They are destroying culture and tradition. All the confusion is deliberate. It is unbelievable how much fake, misleading and/or manipulated material is out there now. Regardless of how obvious it is to some of us, many people are still completely unaware of the multiple psyops being perpetrated against them simultaneously.

The key is knowing how to spot psyops. It helps if you are able to recognize patterns, images, and symbols. It helps to know about linguistics, the power of words, language structures, spelling, and phonetics. It helps to know more than one language, the similarities between languages and words. It helps to know pop culture. It helps to know history and something about every other possible thing you can think of (lol).

[Johnnycomelately]

Everything is about the freedom of choice and the decisions we make as individuals. As we need to make those choices and decisions, anything can be used as a weapon against us to confuse and mislead us. We see the weaponization -- of everything and in everything -- all around us.

Meanwhile, they are rewriting stories, rewriting history. It's a literal digital "book burning" happening right now. They are destroying culture and tradition. All the confusion is deliberate. It is unbelievable how much fake, misleading and/or manipulated material is out there now. Regardless of how obvious it is to some of us, many people are still completely unaware of the multiple psyops being perpetrated against them simultaneously.

The key is knowing how to spot psyops. It helps if you are able to recognize patterns, images, and symbols. It helps to know about linguistics, the power of words, language structures, spelling, and phonetics. It helps to know more than one language, the similarities between languages and words. It helps to know pop culture. It helps to know history and something about every other possible thing you can think of (lol).

Elegant understanding of the situation, thank you. I especially value your final para, “The key is...”.

My idea, perhaps too briefly said above, is that sovereignty, I would call it righteousness, is lacking enough in a large enough portion of incarnated humans that democracy brings the more righteous ones along for the ride.

I think we can only change our own selves, and that on important scales that is sufficient. The world will world, and how (we are when) we die is up to us. I think that progressively correcting our ways and honing righteousness and pure love and things like mercy, lessens the power of those that would steal our energy — incarnate too, but mostly discarnate.

Cheers, and please wish me luck with the incipient bug season. I LOVE those mini critters, the more the better! ~8D 🐜 🕷 🦟 🐝

[ozmirage]

FYI: Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence *1776*, governments have two jobs (in America):
1) Secure endowed rights, and
2) Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
(Citizens have no endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them.)
You do not understand how the Revolution worked.

The Declaration is a non-binding document.

Did the colonies "win"? YES
Did the former sovereign surrender his dominion? Yes.
WHO were the beneficiaries?
According to Chisholm v Georgia, the governments are servants / agents of the sovereign people.

Which means the English sovereign gave up to the sovereign American people - NOT to their agents, the servant governments, nor the subjects of said governments (citizens).
If you can produce a law or citation that refutes this, please present it.

SEE: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1551355&viewfull=1#post1551355
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE _IS_ THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Why?
If 50 states repeat the "self evident truths" that underpin the "republican form of government", and NO constitution can institute a republican form of government, then what do you think of the Founders' pledge of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?
And the imposition of the same mandatory civic duties upon subsequent citizens?

The republlican form existed BEFORE the USCON.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
Under the subsection:
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

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term `state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
CONSTITUTE: To be the elements or parts of; compose.
. . . .
The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government) which are organized as indirect democracies. Citizens have no endowed rights to secure - only government privileges (i.e. "civil rights" & "political rights").


DEFINITION UNDEFINED
Under the subsection:
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. Where it was also held that this clause was sufficient authority for the reconstruction, after the Civil War of the governments of the states included within the Confederacy. No precise definition of what constitutes a republican government under this clause has been judicially declared; . . . Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 027
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government).
“No precise definition of a ... republican form of government ... has been judicially declared...”
The servant government cannot define that which existed before itself.

THE IDEAL FORM
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“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

“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
- - - George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-17-02-0282
"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_lincolnIF the republican form was the creation of the Articles or the USCON, why is Lincoln quoting the Declaration?

Did anything change the republican form since 1776?
. . .
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
. . .
According to Mr Coolidge, the existence of Creator endowed rights is not open to argument. Ergo, the republican form is still secured by the States united and the United States in Congress assembled. And that directly links back to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
. . .
CAN YOU SHOW WHICH CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION(S) INSTITUTED THE REPUBLICAN FORM THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION(S)?

Simple reading shows that the beginning of the republican form is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. [Good work, Thomas Jefferson]

NO CHARTER CAN INSTITUTE A REPUBLICAN FORM
Thomas Paine elaborated on natural rights in his work “Rights of Man” (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:
“. . . It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.”
“ The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
- - - Thomas Paine
In other words, in America’s case, Americans have creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure, not legislate, tax, regulate, infringe, nor restrain. Only by consent of the governed, may government step beyond securing endowed rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic). And that consent waives / surrenders endowed rights, rendering one a subject of the government.

CAN ANY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ACT CONTRARY TO THE REPUBLICAN FORM (or the Declaration of Independence)?
[crickets chirping]
DID ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM, where all the non-consenting people had endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure?
[crickets chirping]
IF THE PROPAGANDA MINISTRY PERSUADES THE PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN FORM, NOR ANY OBLIGATION TO CONFORM TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, "THEY" WIN, AND "WE" LOSE.
D'Oh...

I don't know about the rest of the world, who are subjects of their sovereigns, whether monarchs, oligarchs, warlords, aristocrats, autocrats, bat sh!te crazies, but I LIKE THE REPUBLICAN FORM and the Declaration.

'Fess up.
Who doesn't like tax exempt endowed rights, natural & personal liberty (sovereignty, freedom, and independence), and a big powerful union whose governments act as YOUR servant / defender?

But feel free to consent to be governed, and embark on the "Ship of State."
It's your decision. But carving up the Ship into separate sections generally will sink it.


ADDENDUM:
[NO TAXES]
The court record, constitutions, and statutes are clear - NO TAXES can be levied on ENDOWED RIGHTS and LIBERTIES lest a government diminish a right by excessive taxation.

All taxes are limited to government privlleges.
If you do not exercise a privilege, you don't pay a tax.

[OATHS]
In a war zone, one might insist that all combatants on "your" side have agreed to serve and obey.

BUT the notion that non-citizens were to be tossed out, is not supported in the law.
- - -
Declaration of Independence 1776 : "All Men" have rights, etc.
Article IV of Confederation 1777 : "Free inhabitants" have all the privileges and immunities of the "free citizens." Since citizens have no endowed rights, one can infer that the "free inhabitants" are the sovereign people with their endowed rights, liberties, inherent powers, etc.
Art 4, Sec 4, USCON 1787: guarantees a "republican form" to the States (which was ruled to mean to "the people" - not "the citizens").

(People have rights and powers; Citizens have privileges and immunities. They are mutually exclusive.)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. But they are sovereigns without subjects with none to rule but themselves.
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

"... 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)
People = sovereigns
Citizens = subjects of a sovereign (government, monarch, etc)


To this day, court cases are styled "THE PEOPLE VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
You will not find a case styled "THE CITIZENS VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
The government is the agent / servant of the sovereign people.
The subject citizens serve the government - THEIR sovereign.


= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)

But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
Why?
Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.

It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.

WHO BENEFITS FROM OUR IGNORANCE OF OUR BIRTHRIGHT (AND HOW WE SURRENDERED IT)?
WHO BENEFITS BY THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION INSTITUTED TO SECURE OUR BIRTHRIGHT?

[Satori]

FYI: Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence *1776*, governments have two jobs (in America):
1) Secure endowed rights, and
2) Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
(Citizens have no endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them.)
You do not understand how the Revolution worked.

The Declaration is a non-binding document.

Did the colonies "win"? YES
Did the former sovereign surrender his dominion? Yes.
WHO were the beneficiaries?
According to Chisholm v Georgia, the governments are servants / agents of the sovereign people.

Which means the English sovereign gave up to the sovereign American people - NOT to their agents, the servant governments, nor the subjects of said governments (citizens).
If you can produce a law or citation that refutes this, please present it.

SEE: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1551355&viewfull=1#post1551355
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE _IS_ THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Why?
If 50 states repeat the "self evident truths" that underpin the "republican form of government", and NO constitution can institute a republican form of government, then what do you think of the Founders' pledge of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?
And the imposition of the same mandatory civic duties upon subsequent citizens?

The republlican form existed BEFORE the USCON.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
Under the subsection:
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

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term `state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
CONSTITUTE: To be the elements or parts of; compose.
. . . .
The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government) which are organized as indirect democracies. Citizens have no endowed rights to secure - only government privileges (i.e. "civil rights" & "political rights").


DEFINITION UNDEFINED
Under the subsection:
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. Where it was also held that this clause was sufficient authority for the reconstruction, after the Civil War of the governments of the states included within the Confederacy. No precise definition of what constitutes a republican government under this clause has been judicially declared; . . . Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 027
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government).
“No precise definition of a ... republican form of government ... has been judicially declared...”
The servant government cannot define that which existed before itself.

THE IDEAL FORM
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“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

“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
- - - George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-17-02-0282
"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_lincolnIF the republican form was the creation of the Articles or the USCON, why is Lincoln quoting the Declaration?

Did anything change the republican form since 1776?
. . .
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
. . .
According to Mr Coolidge, the existence of Creator endowed rights is not open to argument. Ergo, the republican form is still secured by the States united and the United States in Congress assembled. And that directly links back to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
. . .
CAN YOU SHOW WHICH CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION(S) INSTITUTED THE REPUBLICAN FORM THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION(S)?

Simple reading shows that the beginning of the republican form is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. [Good work, Thomas Jefferson]

NO CHARTER CAN INSTITUTE A REPUBLICAN FORM
Thomas Paine elaborated on natural rights in his work “Rights of Man” (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:
“. . . It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.”
“ The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
- - - Thomas Paine
In other words, in America’s case, Americans have creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure, not legislate, tax, regulate, infringe, nor restrain. Only by consent of the governed, may government step beyond securing endowed rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic). And that consent waives / surrenders endowed rights, rendering one a subject of the government.

CAN ANY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ACT CONTRARY TO THE REPUBLICAN FORM (or the Declaration of Independence)?
[crickets chirping]
DID ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM, where all the non-consenting people had endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure?
[crickets chirping]
IF THE PROPAGANDA MINISTRY PERSUADES THE PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN FORM, NOR ANY OBLIGATION TO CONFORM TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, "THEY" WIN, AND "WE" LOSE.
D'Oh...

I don't know about the rest of the world, who are subjects of their sovereigns, whether monarchs, oligarchs, warlords, aristocrats, autocrats, bat sh!te crazies, but I LIKE THE REPUBLICAN FORM and the Declaration.

'Fess up.
Who doesn't like tax exempt endowed rights, natural & personal liberty (sovereignty, freedom, and independence), and a big powerful union whose governments act as YOUR servant / defender?

But feel free to consent to be governed, and embark on the "Ship of State."
It's your decision. But carving up the Ship into separate sections generally will sink it.


ADDENDUM:
[NO TAXES]
The court record, constitutions, and statutes are clear - NO TAXES can be levied on ENDOWED RIGHTS and LIBERTIES lest a government diminish a right by excessive taxation.

All taxes are limited to government privlleges.
If you do not exercise a privilege, you don't pay a tax.

[OATHS]
In a war zone, one might insist that all combatants on "your" side have agreed to serve and obey.

BUT the notion that non-citizens were to be tossed out, is not supported in the law.
- - -
Declaration of Independence 1776 : "All Men" have rights, etc.
Article IV of Confederation 1777 : "Free inhabitants" have all the privileges and immunities of the "free citizens." Since citizens have no endowed rights, one can infer that the "free inhabitants" are the sovereign people with their endowed rights, liberties, inherent powers, etc.
Art 4, Sec 4, USCON 1787: guarantees a "republican form" to the States (which was ruled to mean to "the people" - not "the citizens").

(People have rights and powers; Citizens have privileges and immunities. They are mutually exclusive.)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. But they are sovereigns without subjects with none to rule but themselves.
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

"... 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)
People = sovereigns
Citizens = subjects of a sovereign (government, monarch, etc)


To this day, court cases are styled "THE PEOPLE VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
You will not find a case styled "THE CITIZENS VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
The government is the agent / servant of the sovereign people.
The subject citizens serve the government - THEIR sovereign.


= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)

But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
Why?
Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.

It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.

WHO BENEFITS FROM OUR IGNORANCE OF OUR BIRTHRIGHT (AND HOW WE SURRENDERED IT)?
WHO BENEFITS BY THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION INSTITUTED TO SECURE OUR BIRTHRIGHT?

If I may, Chisholm v Georgia (or as you say, “Jawjah”) does not stand for the proposition that “the governments are servants/agents of the sovereign people.” While that statement is true in our constitutional, Republican form of government, that is not the holding or import of that case.

It was well-established before Chisholm v “Jawjah” that the people are sovereign and that governments are endowed only with limited powers, and only so much power as was expressly bestowed upon and relinquished to it by the people. Governments were, and are, disabled from any conduct not specifically and expressly conferred upon governments by the principals, i.e. the people. Hence, the principle you state did not need to be, and was not, first expressed or established in Chisholm.

Chisholm v Georgia was concerned with the narrow question whether a citizen of one state, South Carolina as I recall, could sue the state of Georgia in federal court to collect a debt. A majority of the SCOTUS, in a 4-1 decision (there were only 5 “justices” at the time, not 9) held, and what Chisholm stood for, was that a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court.

However, following the reasoning of the sole dissenting voice, Chisholm directly led to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment expressly recognizes, restates and provides, that the individual states of the union are immune from suit in federal court by a citizen of another state, and also a citizen of the defendant state. In short, with limited exceptions, one must sue a state in its own courts.

In subsequent decisions by the SCOTUS it has been held that a state’s sovereign immunity can be waived, either expressly or by implication. But that’s a different conversation.

[Pris]

Everything is about the freedom of choice and the decisions we make as individuals. As we need to make those choices and decisions, anything can be used as a weapon against us to confuse and mislead us. We see the weaponization -- of everything and in everything -- all around us.

Meanwhile, they are rewriting stories, rewriting history. It's a literal digital "book burning" happening right now. They are destroying culture and tradition. All the confusion is deliberate. It is unbelievable how much fake, misleading and/or manipulated material is out there now. Regardless of how obvious it is to some of us, many people are still completely unaware of the multiple psyops being perpetrated against them simultaneously.

The key is knowing how to spot psyops. It helps if you are able to recognize patterns, images, and symbols. It helps to know about linguistics, the power of words, language structures, spelling, and phonetics. It helps to know more than one language, the similarities between languages and words. It helps to know pop culture. It helps to know history and something about every other possible thing you can think of (lol).

Elegant understanding of the situation, thank you. I especially value your final para, “The key is...”.

My idea, perhaps too briefly said above, is that sovereignty, I would call it righteousness, is lacking enough in a large enough portion of incarnated humans that democracy brings the more righteous ones along for the ride.

I think we can only change our own selves, and that on important scales that is sufficient. The world will world, and how (we are when) we die is up to us. I think that progressively correcting our ways and honing righteousness and pure love and things like mercy, lessens the power of those that would steal our energy — incarnate too, but mostly discarnate.

Cheers, and please wish me luck with the incipient bug season. I LOVE those mini critters, the more the better! ~8D 🐜 🕷 🦟 🐝



Appreciated, thanks! Yes, I like what you say about honing righteousness, pure love and mercy. And, I think people who hate themselves are incapable of those things.

Lol I agree that democracy brings the more "righteous" ones along for the ride!


https://imgs.search.brave.com/KLC06fqyfLdWVNWP_-uahPr8vTUqvxHJTlwj0u3PoMM/rs:fit:484:325:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93b3Jr/YXRob21lcm9ja3N0/YXIuY29tL3dwLWNv/bnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fk/cy8yMDEzLzA5L2Ny/YWJzLWluLWEtYnVj/a2V0LXN5bmRyb21l/LmpwZw



https://imgs.search.brave.com/1fFyR-D16FoT2AYV1K7OQD5a47RBeGAH1VyZr-Y97yo/rs:fit:948:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Ux/LmV4cGxpY2l0LmJp/bmcubmV0L3RoP2lk/PU9JUC4zanlzd0tN/eDMyVzd1QWU2MS11/S25RSGFEdCZwaWQ9/QXBp



https://imgs.search.brave.com/qqicAIBbp_7t1Fee_Q07KUN_PEMVMM56rQhIkNEXDMY/rs:fit:556:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uz/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5W/NDg5QmpOemMzLXVo/TVhWQ2xIeUR3SGFH/VSZwaWQ9QXBp



Hey, I love bugs, too! But, not so much those little black flies.
I think Ontario grows them and spreads 'em right across Canada.


https://imgs.search.brave.com/Pz_G_n18Cb8Zmmq-OEauXvXCHDmgXHOyqsKgjx-pjY0/rs:fit:499:330:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRp/YS5naXBoeS5jb20v/bWVkaWEvN3dpQmJr/em1MOWhXOC9naXBo/eS5naWY.gif

[Bill Ryan]

:bump::bump::bump:

[Mike Gorman]

Everything is about the freedom of choice and the decisions we make as individuals. As we need to make those choices and decisions, anything can be used as a weapon against us to confuse and mislead us. We see the weaponization -- of everything and in everything -- all around us.

Meanwhile, they are rewriting stories, rewriting history. It's a literal digital "book burning" happening right now. They are destroying culture and tradition. All the confusion is deliberate. It is unbelievable how much fake, misleading and/or manipulated material is out there now. Regardless of how obvious it is to some of us, many people are still completely unaware of the multiple psyops being perpetrated against them simultaneously.

The key is knowing how to spot psyops. It helps if you are able to recognize patterns, images, and symbols. It helps to know about linguistics, the power of words, language structures, spelling, and phonetics. It helps to know more than one language, the similarities between languages and words. It helps to know pop culture. It helps to know history and something about every other possible thing you can think of (lol).

Elegant understanding of the situation, thank you. I especially value your final para, “The key is...”.

My idea, perhaps too briefly said above, is that sovereignty, I would call it righteousness, is lacking enough in a large enough portion of incarnated humans that democracy brings the more righteous ones along for the ride.

I think we can only change our own selves, and that on important scales that is sufficient. The world will world, and how (we are when) we die is up to us. I think that progressively correcting our ways and honing righteousness and pure love and things like mercy, lessens the power of those that would steal our energy — incarnate too, but mostly discarnate.

Cheers, and please wish me luck with the incipient bug season. I LOVE those mini critters, the more the better! ~8D 🐜 🕷 🦟 🐝

Yes, we are amidst a gigantic information war, as several astute pundits have recognized for many years (I'm looking at you Alex Jones) - having a broad range of awareness/knowledge is the key skill set of today, General Knowledge it used to be called, so many people are being duped, and led by their noses.

[ozmirage]

FYI: Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence *1776*, governments have two jobs (in America):
1) Secure endowed rights, and
2) Govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
(Citizens have no endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them.)
You do not understand how the Revolution worked.

The Declaration is a non-binding document.

Did the colonies "win"? YES
Did the former sovereign surrender his dominion? Yes.
WHO were the beneficiaries?
According to Chisholm v Georgia, the governments are servants / agents of the sovereign people.

Which means the English sovereign gave up to the sovereign American people - NOT to their agents, the servant governments, nor the subjects of said governments (citizens).
If you can produce a law or citation that refutes this, please present it.

SEE: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120873-A-US-National-Divorce-are-differences-irreconcilable&p=1551355&viewfull=1#post1551355
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE _IS_ THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Why?
If 50 states repeat the "self evident truths" that underpin the "republican form of government", and NO constitution can institute a republican form of government, then what do you think of the Founders' pledge of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor?
And the imposition of the same mandatory civic duties upon subsequent citizens?

The republlican form existed BEFORE the USCON.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
Under the subsection:
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

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term `state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
CONSTITUTE: To be the elements or parts of; compose.
. . . .
The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government) which are organized as indirect democracies. Citizens have no endowed rights to secure - only government privileges (i.e. "civil rights" & "political rights").


DEFINITION UNDEFINED
Under the subsection:
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. Where it was also held that this clause was sufficient authority for the reconstruction, after the Civil War of the governments of the states included within the Confederacy. No precise definition of what constitutes a republican government under this clause has been judicially declared; . . . Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 027
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government).
“No precise definition of a ... republican form of government ... has been judicially declared...”
The servant government cannot define that which existed before itself.

THE IDEAL FORM
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“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

“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
- - - George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-17-02-0282
"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_lincolnIF the republican form was the creation of the Articles or the USCON, why is Lincoln quoting the Declaration?

Did anything change the republican form since 1776?
. . .
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
. . .
According to Mr Coolidge, the existence of Creator endowed rights is not open to argument. Ergo, the republican form is still secured by the States united and the United States in Congress assembled. And that directly links back to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
. . .
CAN YOU SHOW WHICH CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION(S) INSTITUTED THE REPUBLICAN FORM THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION(S)?

Simple reading shows that the beginning of the republican form is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. [Good work, Thomas Jefferson]

NO CHARTER CAN INSTITUTE A REPUBLICAN FORM
Thomas Paine elaborated on natural rights in his work “Rights of Man” (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:
“. . . It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.”
“ The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”
- - - Thomas Paine
In other words, in America’s case, Americans have creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure, not legislate, tax, regulate, infringe, nor restrain. Only by consent of the governed, may government step beyond securing endowed rights (adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic). And that consent waives / surrenders endowed rights, rendering one a subject of the government.

CAN ANY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ACT CONTRARY TO THE REPUBLICAN FORM (or the Declaration of Independence)?
[crickets chirping]
DID ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM, where all the non-consenting people had endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure?
[crickets chirping]
IF THE PROPAGANDA MINISTRY PERSUADES THE PEOPLE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN FORM, NOR ANY OBLIGATION TO CONFORM TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, "THEY" WIN, AND "WE" LOSE.
D'Oh...

I don't know about the rest of the world, who are subjects of their sovereigns, whether monarchs, oligarchs, warlords, aristocrats, autocrats, bat sh!te crazies, but I LIKE THE REPUBLICAN FORM and the Declaration.

'Fess up.
Who doesn't like tax exempt endowed rights, natural & personal liberty (sovereignty, freedom, and independence), and a big powerful union whose governments act as YOUR servant / defender?

But feel free to consent to be governed, and embark on the "Ship of State."
It's your decision. But carving up the Ship into separate sections generally will sink it.


ADDENDUM:
[NO TAXES]
The court record, constitutions, and statutes are clear - NO TAXES can be levied on ENDOWED RIGHTS and LIBERTIES lest a government diminish a right by excessive taxation.

All taxes are limited to government privlleges.
If you do not exercise a privilege, you don't pay a tax.

[OATHS]
In a war zone, one might insist that all combatants on "your" side have agreed to serve and obey.

BUT the notion that non-citizens were to be tossed out, is not supported in the law.
- - -
Declaration of Independence 1776 : "All Men" have rights, etc.
Article IV of Confederation 1777 : "Free inhabitants" have all the privileges and immunities of the "free citizens." Since citizens have no endowed rights, one can infer that the "free inhabitants" are the sovereign people with their endowed rights, liberties, inherent powers, etc.
Art 4, Sec 4, USCON 1787: guarantees a "republican form" to the States (which was ruled to mean to "the people" - not "the citizens").

(People have rights and powers; Citizens have privileges and immunities. They are mutually exclusive.)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country. But they are sovereigns without subjects with none to rule but themselves.
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

"... 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)
People = sovereigns
Citizens = subjects of a sovereign (government, monarch, etc)


To this day, court cases are styled "THE PEOPLE VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
You will not find a case styled "THE CITIZENS VERSUS THE ACCUSED".
The government is the agent / servant of the sovereign people.
The subject citizens serve the government - THEIR sovereign.


= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)

But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
Why?
Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.

It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.

WHO BENEFITS FROM OUR IGNORANCE OF OUR BIRTHRIGHT (AND HOW WE SURRENDERED IT)?
WHO BENEFITS BY THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION INSTITUTED TO SECURE OUR BIRTHRIGHT?

If I may, Chisholm v Georgia (or as you say, “Jawjah”) does not stand for the proposition that “the governments are servants/agents of the sovereign people.” While that statement is true in our constitutional, Republican form of government, that is not the holding or import of that case.

It was well-established before Chisholm v “Jawjah” that the people are sovereign and that governments are endowed only with limited powers, and only so much power as was expressly bestowed upon and relinquished to it by the people. Governments were, and are, disabled from any conduct not specifically and expressly conferred upon governments by the principals, i.e. the people. Hence, the principle you state did not need to be, and was not, first expressed or established in Chisholm.

Chisholm v Georgia was concerned with the narrow question whether a citizen of one state, South Carolina as I recall, could sue the state of Georgia in federal court to collect a debt. A majority of the SCOTUS, in a 4-1 decision (there were only 5 “justices” at the time, not 9) held, and what Chisholm stood for, was that a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court.

However, following the reasoning of the sole dissenting voice, Chisholm directly led to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment expressly recognizes, restates and provides, that the individual states of the union are immune from suit in federal court by a citizen of another state, and also a citizen of the defendant state. In short, with limited exceptions, one must sue a state in its own courts.

In subsequent decisions by the SCOTUS it has been held that a state’s sovereign immunity can be waived, either expressly or by implication. But that’s a different conversation.
Government is not a sovereign, but a servant to the sovereign people. However, it is sovereign over consenting citizens.

Please note, a subject CITIZEN is mutually exclusive with a sovereign American.
The sovereign people retained endowed "rights" whereas no State government or its subject citizens retained endowed rights.

Which supports the assertion that there is no "STATE'S RIGHT" to secede from the UNION (perpetual) created to SECURE RIGHTS of the sovereign people.
Consenting citizens have no endowed rights to life, liberty nor private property.
. . . .
“ 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...
> No inalienable right to life,
> No liberty or private property for [consenting] citizens!

The only people in a state with "state's rights" are the sovereign people who are not parties to the constitutions, and cannot "secede" from the perpetual union established to secure their rights.

Those who claim the "right to secede" have no legal standing to do so, unless they are in direct violation of the Declaration of Independence, the republican form of government, and the supremacy clause (Art. 6) of the USCON.

ERGO, any irreconcilable differences are under the socialist democratic form, and that's a whole 'nuther kettle of feesh. [see Peoples Democratic Socialist Republics of America, circa 1933]

Under the guaranteed republican form, governments have two jobs :
1) Secure endowed rights of the sovereign people, and
2) Govern those consenting citizens.
Can you spot any irreconcilable differences?

HOWEVER, there is a terrible danger to the PDSRA, if a substantial number of Americans, denounce the fraud, withdraw from citizenship, socialism, and usury (interest bearing accounts), and restore their endowed rights.
Absent sufficient collateral *(human resources), the public debt is unsecured, and that makes it risky for any investor (bond holder). Furthermore, all those who are not obligated parties can OBJECT TO THE TENDER OF WORTHLESS NOTES.
"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305
Once the masses can refuse wastepaper and demand lawful money from creditors, the whole shebang goes ba-bang. Of course, CONgress declared they will NOT redeem their obligations in 1933, so they're not liable. But that means the vast number of untaxable and ungoverned Americans can tell them to [censored, redacted, impolite euphemisms deleted]. This will have a serious side effect on all instrumentalities of the Federal Reserve, as well as the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, etc, etc.

All those scoundrels have no fear of the "good Christians" who will turn the other cheek and forgive. But all the other predators will turn on them in a New York Minute. Won't be pretty - - -

[ozmirage]

BOILED DOWN

How to end all "differences"

_ _ Government reduced to securing the endowed rights of the people.
_ _ Liberty money* - a medium of exchange created by the people, not bankers nor governments, to facilitate trade when barter is insufficient.

*(It’s part of natural liberty and an endowment that cannot be taxed, regulated nor trespassed.)

That's all that is necessary to secure endowed rights of the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic... and end the dominion of the usurers over the sovereign people.

But for those consenting subject citizens, oh my-y-y-y-y-y-y.

[norman]

As a federal Republic, The Republic of the United States of America is peculiar in having it's Federal Capitol on foreign soil.

The District of Columbia is no more American than is the Vatican City Italian, and I'm sure Italians would kick up a storm if The Vatican claimed it was the Capitol of Italy.

From a distance, I'm not in America, I see a large group of States who are perfectly capable of getting on with each other very amicably, IF the foreign based entity operating out of the District of Columbia and claiming the right to set the rules for all those states of America would get gone and let the Republic sort it's own affairs out.

Never mind 'Drain the Swamp', it should be flushed right off the continent. Maybe it could be designated a (UN?) swamp reserve, fenced off and returned to the swampy nature it came from.

Very importantly, and must not be left out of any discussion on this general topic, is the criminal illegitimacy of many of the federal and state functionaries who are doing the Sh!T stirring that even brings up this as an issue at all.

[shaberon]

As a federal Republic, The Republic of the United States of America is peculiar in having it's Federal Capitol on foreign soil.

The District of Columbia is no more American than is the Vatican City Italian, and I'm sure Italians would kick up a storm if The Vatican claimed it was the Capitol of Italy.

From a distance, I'm not in America, I see a large group of States who are perfectly capable of getting on with each other very amicably...


Well, such States are formed via what Thomas Jefferson called "consent of the governed":


I will shoot the British.


That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The Constitution is the Federal entity, not so much the fact that the District is a Federal territory.

You were warned about taking on this Constitution as it would create a "consolidated government" which would then serve the purposes of Wall Street.

Therefor it is an issue of the State being party to the Constitution.

It is dominant, e. g. just in 1971, my state added a clause to the state constitution saying "will not secede from the United States".

In the abstract, no, I have no idea why I should be under the same government as someone in Idaho or Hawaii.

The Federal Constitution can't validate itself for any reason other than it is already there. I think we would be benefitted by making regional blocs where no one cares about those obsolete foreign policies no one likes.

[ozmirage]

As a federal Republic, The Republic of the United States of America is peculiar in having it's Federal Capitol on foreign soil.

The District of Columbia is no more American than is the Vatican City Italian, and I'm sure Italians would kick up a storm if The Vatican claimed it was the Capitol of Italy.

From a distance, I'm not in America, I see a large group of States who are perfectly capable of getting on with each other very amicably, IF the foreign based entity operating out of the District of Columbia and claiming the right to set the rules for all those states of America would get gone and let the Republic sort it's own affairs out.

Never mind 'Drain the Swamp', it should be flushed right off the continent. Maybe it could be designated a (UN?) swamp reserve, fenced off and returned to the swampy nature it came from.

Very importantly, and must not be left out of any discussion on this general topic, is the criminal illegitimacy of many of the federal and state functionaries who are doing the Sh!T stirring that even brings up this as an issue at all.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the United States of America is a UNION of sovereign people, subject citizens, servant governments, and the federal government, which is a servant to the States united.

All sovereigns are "foreign" to each other. A sovereign American's dominion (private property) is foreign to his neighbor's property, as well as the city, county and state government.
Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal 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.
All governments, in America, are corporations in the sense that they exist independent of the officers that administer them. And all are foreign sovereignties to each other, otherwise they wouldn't have exclusive jurisdiction and venue.
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
- - - Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
Ergo, all sovereign people are "foreign" to their servant governments, governments limited in delegation of power to secure their endowed rights, and govern those who consent. This is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, and the republican form of government.

[ozmirage]

World's Greatest Propaganda Ministry

Americans are victims of the WGPM. It has successfully erased, eradicated and rewritten history so that most Americans believe all manner of nonsense, both "left" and "right" wing. They even control the "opposition" (new patriots, tea party, etc).

How do we know this?

No president or administration, since 1933, has sought to end the STATE OF EMERGENCY, or restore constitutional government, partisanship notwithstanding. No public servant suggests repealing national socialism (aka Social Security Act of 1935). Nor will any public officer dare challenge the validity of the fraudulent public debt (over 34 trillion dollars, Jan 2024), bound by clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON. Thus he will remain subservient to the Creditor and his fiduciary agents.

You will never see a politician campaign for a smaller government that taxes less, spends even less, and doesn't meddle.

All this is by your consent to be governed.

To restore the republican form of government, requires the people to withdraw consent, so that government is reduced to securing the endowed rights of the people, and respect their liberty money* - a medium of exchange created by the people directly, not by bankers nor governments, to facilitate trade when barter is insufficient. Only then can the people be free of usurers, socialist slavers and money madness.
*(It’s part of natural liberty and no government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax, regulate nor trespass them)

Anything government does beyond securing endowed rights requires explicit consent of the governed, with full disclosure of how and when that consent was given, what was surrendered, and what taxes and duties are imposed in exchange for privileges and immunities. The presumption of widespread consent is based on fraud, constructive fraud, misrepresentation and withholding of material facts. Ironically, all facts are in the public record, available at any county courthouse law library.

Until the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republics of America cease guaranteeing the Republican Form (which is still on the books), the people have no grounds to "alter or abolish it."
But when 99.9999% of Americans are clueless, "they" will win by our ignorance and apathy.

[norman]

I've never heard or read that the white Europeans who founded America on the land mostly stolen from the people who lived there were Anarchists. Perhaps they hid that from view because it would have undermined their justification for genocide and occupation.

Some were adepts of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, and many were Christians, an awkward dichotomy from the get-go. After much consideration I think the Christians were used and abused.

https://archive.org/download/iconic-sodbusters-of-the-prairie-d.-d.-teoli-jr.-a.-c.-193/Iconic%20Sodbusters%20of%20the%20Prairie%20D.D.Teoli%20Jr.%20A.C.%20%281%29.jpg

[ozmirage]

I've never heard or read that the white Europeans who founded America on the land mostly
__ stolen from the people who lived there
were Anarchists. Perhaps they hid that from view because it would have undermined their justification for
__ genocide and occupation.

There was no GENOCIDE, and the land wasn't STOLEN.
Yeah, this flies in the face of the "new" history peddled by the disinformation administration.
85% to 90% of deaths were due to Eurasian diseases. (Plenty of historical references, from Spanish, English and Russian sources)

Frankly, based on other European conquests, the locals were to be utilized as cheap labor. Genocide doesn't fit that modus operandi.
. . .
Nomadic hunter-gatherers did not recognize individual ownership of land. That concept was foreign to their thinking. If you cannot own land, you cannot steal it. Tribes only recognized group use of lands for hunting, etc, and fought incesssantly to preserve their areas from outsiders.
This is due in part to the LARGE AREA needed to support hunting and gathering.

According to the Department of the Interior, a hunter / gatherer, such as a tribal Indian, needed 10 sq. mi. (6400 acres) per person to sustain themselves. (This was for sizing reservations) (Think of a circle with a radius of 1.78 miles - for each person)

Based on the USA’s 3,794,101 sq. mi., that’s only enough for a population of 379,410 indigenous people living a primitive lifestyle (hunter / gatherer).

It's only an approximation, but also remember that the USA isn't uniformly good for hunting / gathering, so estimates of population per area may vary. Even if that figure is off by a factor of ten, that still sets the maximum population at 3.79 million indigenous people living a primitive lifestyle.

In addition to the 90% population decline from Eurasian diseases, the European colonists brought new agricultural techniques that vastly increased output per surface area - in essence supporting more people.

Unfortunately, there are mutually exclusive lifestyles or cultures that cannot co-exist :
__ Hunter - gatherers,
__ Nomadic herders, and
__ Settled agriculture.
When the settlers improved the land for agriculture, they could not tolerate their crops destroyed by the nomad’s herds, nor taken by gatherers. THIS is the basis for exclusive land ownership.

The question is : IS there a moral imperative for farmers who support the most people per surface area to exclude the nomads and gatherers?
Yes.
And is there a moral imperative for nomadic herdsmen to exclude hunter-gatherers from hunting livestock on their grazing lands?
Yes.
But the hunter-gatherer does not recognize the "ownership" of the land and exclusion from its bounty, and therein lies the conflict.

Much injustice and evil was done on all sides, as each sought to support and defend their traditional modes of survival. But in the long view, the multitudes of today (330+ million) owe their existence to the victory of agriculture of the Europeans.

In fact, there are more descendants of Indian ancestry than could ever have been supported if the Europeans never migrated.

And to be frank, whoever develops the "next" improvement in agriculture that feeds 10x more people per surface area, will have the moral imperative to displace the current occupants.
(This does not bode well for the suburbanites!)

[ozmirage]

LAND USE & GENOCIDE continued

COLD EQUATIONS

HUNTER - GATHERER requires 6400 acres per capita (approx)
SEDENTARY FARMER requires 2.67 acres per capita (approx)
2397 : 1

Was there a justification to eject the indigenous people from under utilized lands?
The math is simple : use 6,400 acres to support one hunter / gatherer, or use 6,400 acres to support 17,088 by modern agriculture.

If the indigenous Indians weren't removed from the lands, top population might have reached 400,000. According to the US Census Bureau, the current total population of Native Americans in the United States is 6.79 million, which is about 2.09% of the entire population. So 6.39 million Indians today owe their existence to the Europeans.

Based on an assumed population of 379k in 1776, the population doubling rate has been every 59 years, and definitely refutes any claim of genocide.

[ozmirage]

CONTINUED...

The Amerindians may have displaced by the Europeans - but it was their diseases that cleared the natives out.

For example, the Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th century explorer who was the first European to traverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels exceeding even those of today.

But later explorers found the region depopulated, and the culture reduced to stone age implements. His stories were disbelieved for hundreds of years.
Only recently, archaeologists discovered evidence of a mighty civilization that vanished shortly after the arrival of Orellana.

European diseases are the major suspects.

Coincidentally, Orellana's reports of extensive agriculture overturn the "Green" belief that the rainforest should be sacrosanct from development.
(See "Terra preta" for more info)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Orellana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

“The Secret of Eldorado” - Terra Preta
Anthropogenic soil developed by prehistoric Amazonians that turned the acrisol of the jungle into fertile farmland. . . Amazing.
In addition to the soil engineering, was civil engineering of large areas in South America. Some cultures built elevated villages and causeways, to deal with cyclical floods. And alongside the causeways, dug canals that provided transportation and irrigation during the dry season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Os-ujelkgw

Why did so many native Americans die from diseases, but not vice versa?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/995/why-did-so-many-native-americans-die-of-european-diseases-but-not-vice-versa (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/995/why-did-so-many-native-americans-die-of-european-diseases-but-not-vice-versa)

MODERN ALASKA NATIVES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives
“.... during the first two generations (1741/1759-1781/1799 AD) of Russian contact, 80 percent of the Aleut population died from Eurasian infectious diseases...”

BISON VERSUS CATTLE
The largest US cattle herd occurred on January 1, 1973, when there was a total of 132 million head of cattle.

Five hundred years ago bison – also known as American buffalo – were arguably the dominant animal on the continent. There were an estimated 60 million ranging over the plains.

So one can see that even with the reduction of available pasture by sedentary farmers, domestic cattle had over a 2:1 population versus the “wild” bison.

In other words, if the stone age culture of hunter - gatherers weren’t displaced by European farmers who “improved” the land, and boosted food production, the current population in excess of 330 millions would not have been possible.


Isn't more abundant life a moral imperative?

[Nasu]

.
Isn't more abundant life a moral imperative?

Depends. Who’s morals victor or vanquished?………x…… N

[ozmirage]

.
Isn't more abundant life a moral imperative?

Depends. Who’s morals victor or vanquished?………x…… N
The litmus test is population, for the specific way of life.

An interesting example of the "wrong" victor is Islam.
Islam favors herders over farmers, and it's no surprise that former food independent countries became net food importers after their conquest.
Egypt, which was once the breadbasket of the Mediterranean, became a "basket case."
Tiny Israel is a net food exporter, while its immediate neighbors are all importers, despite similar climate and geography.

[shaberon]

No president or administration, since 1933, has sought to end the STATE OF EMERGENCY, or restore constitutional government, partisanship notwithstanding.


This is not correct and this exploit was perpetrated by a veterinarian from Denver in 1996, for the purpose of book sales and speaking tour.

All Emergencies were terminated in the 70s and it is correct that the majority in 1977 mysteriously omitted the banking powers emergency. This is what the good doctor exploited.

It was simply tossed in the next batch in 1978, which extinguished *all* emergencies. In order for them to continue, the President must renew it yearly; for example, embargo on Cuba has been renewed by every president in every term I believe.






All this is by your consent to be governed.


Yes, exactly. This phrase has a context:


You must agree to shoot the British, or we will throw you out.

That is called a Revolutionary Oath and it is how citizenship is defined.

Concerning such issues, there was, to the House of Representatives, the disputed election of Smith 1789 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0115), because he had been too young to take an oath during the war:



...I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

Cong. Register description begins Thomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4). description ends , I, 391–95. The House decided overwhelmingly in favor of Smith. Many years later JM recalled this contested election when composing his essay on sovereignty (“Sovereignty,” [1835], Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.] description begins Gaillard Hunt., ed., The Writings of James Madison (9 vols.; New York, 1900–1910). description ends , IX, 570).




So, this "citizenship challenge question" came up immediately, and the House overwhelmingly approved that if you are born here, you are a citizen.


It was scandalous enough that the man who challenged Smith's citizenship turned around and more or less wrote a form of apology detailing the ways it worked in Ramsay 1789 (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/62af88a807a9130c8574a07a/1655670957827/Ramsay%2C+David%2C+A+Dissertation+on+the+Manners+of+Acquiring+the+Character+and+Privileges+of+a+Citi zen+of+the+United+States.pdf):

...citizens possess
in their own right original sovereignty.
There is also a great difference between citizens, and
inhabitants or residents.
Any person living within a country or state, is an inha
bitant of it,. or resident in it.
Negroes are inhabitants, but not citizens. Citizenship
confers a right of voting at elections, and many other privileges not enjoyed by those who are no more than inhabitants...


So, yes, they recognized non-citizen nationals then, too.

Ramsay explains the requirements for President from Article II:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.



This was drafted in 1787 when it would have been physically impossible to have been a citizen for fourteen years, although you could have been resident.


The process proceeded to expand itself according to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790):


The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. The courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigrants from citizenship until the decision Ex Parte Mohriez recognized citizenship for a Saudi Muslim man in 1944.


There are certain terms about how one may be born a non-citizen national in Nationality Act of 1940 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160331121102/http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf), page three, Sec. 204. It takes place in "outlying possessions". This has the Pacific Islands in mind. The status was also used to inter Japanese indefinitely without trial.


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of citizenship by birthright in 1830. In 1853, it was noted that an Austrian refugee who had been living and working in the United States for a number of years was a national, but not a citizen.


Just saying. The non-citizen really is a type of legal status, but it isn't Thomas Jefferson or a secret self-government, the picture would be those Free White Men who chose to live with the Dakota Sioux. Something like that. Otherwise it amounts to saying the philosophical ideals of the new government were written by and for the benefit of the slaves. Or fugitives from foreign authorities.


Texas may secede, which is outside of my influence.

In my state as in many others, there is the amendment, "will not secede", which is unlikely to be removed by any given session of legislature. You can force a referendum on it by a substantial portion, I believe a 60% demand by popular vote. If it reaches the point that 60% of the population in multiple states is forcing issues like this, let me know.

Speaking from the view of colonial stock, for the most part early American settlers attempted to continue what they were doing in Europe, that is, to build and manage small mill towns and manifest a form of local prosperity.

Ideas about anarchy, military might, or other forms of depravity simply do not apply.

Not a big consolidated government either.

Coming from long lines of slaveholders I can also tell you what people say about that is ludicrous.


Of course there are exceptions to the way I am describing it, but, I am talking about the common person, and usually.

The sharpest minds of the time were operating on a quite limited basis. At the governmental level they were fascinated by "separation of powers" which really comes from Montesqiu and was copied by European governments, even monarchies. It was the big person's intellectual conversation of the 1700s; everyone talked this way. The idea of "freedom" meant "not a slave", and the line on the Statehouse Bell is a celebration about being put in jail in England for saying the wrong prayer--as if the fact of that being stupid is really news. These people were still burning witches because they were afraid of the devil everywhere. And so it is not really the highest caliber ingenuity at work; it is a struggle.

Now, unfortunately, we are in a struggle with that consolidated government, which was not any intended outcome of our rebellion. 30% of everyone would have been fine electing Washington as king. They were still monarchists. What was being rejected was not really even King George, it was the British Parliament. The only common goal of the American Revolution was simply the removal of this authority.

[ozmirage]

No president or administration, since 1933, has sought to end the STATE OF EMERGENCY, or restore constitutional government, partisanship notwithstanding.

This is not correct and this exploit was perpetrated by a veterinarian from Denver in 1996, for the purpose of book sales and speaking tour.

It is correct. I have the 1993 edition of the 50 titles of US Code, and Title 12 USC Sec 95a, b were NOT repealed. They RETCONNED the whole bleepin' law.

There are several claims that the emergency was ended in 1976, and Title 12 USC Sec 95a, b was revoked.

YET, it’s still online in the USCODE site.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=9386E320F7860F5803B487E6B989299B?path=&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2000-title12-section95a&f=&fq=&num=0&hl=false&edition=2000

At the very end :
Section 2. The revocation, in whole or in part, of such prior Executive orders relating to regulation on the acquisition of, holding of, or other transactions in gold shall not affect any act completed, or any right accruing or accrued, or any suit or proceeding finished or started in any civil or criminal cause prior to the revocation, but all such liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures under the Executive orders shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner AS IF THE REVOCATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE.

WHOOPS, they didn't really revoke it, did they?

The government will not redeem their Federal Reserve Notes *(dollar bills) with lawful money (gold coin) as required by Title 12 USC Sec 411.
Do you still believe the "emergency" was revoked?

[ozmirage]

...citizens possess
in their own right original sovereignty.

NO.
No citizen, who has MANDATORY civic duties, has sovereignty. A citizen obligated to perform militia duties has no right to life nor liberty. Ergo, not sovereign.

A sovereign citizen is an oxymoron, no different than a vegetarian cannibal.

There is no supreme court citation wherein it states that the citizens are the sovereigns.

All refer to "people" as the sovereigns, who retained their endowed rights because they had not consented to be citizens.

There are a few that play word games to lead one to presume otherwise, but they're no different that the second amendment which conflates "people" with "militia", when in fact, they're mutually exclusive.
People with endowed rights DO have the right to bear arms.
Citizens with the obligation to serve in the militia may be regulated as to the kind of weapon and when it is to be used... or not used. Citizen / militiamen have no "right to bear arms." In fact, all gun laws and licenses are limited to non-sovereigns.

[ozmirage]

There is also a great difference between citizens, and
inhabitants or residents.

Any person living within a country or state, is an inhabitant of it,. or resident in it.

Negroes are inhabitants, but not citizens. Citizenship confers a right of voting at elections, and many other privileges not enjoyed by those who are no more than inhabitants...
Thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form.

And the eradication has been going on for a long time.
Please note - voting is not a "right" but a "privilege" granted by government. No one has an endowed right to vote.

IN THE DECLARATION IT STATES that all men are created equal (before the law - none higher) and have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.
BUT
The founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (obedience) to the new governments they created. All subsequent citizens have made that same pledge. That is why mandatory civic duties are not a violation of endowed rights. Citizens have none. . . they were surrendered.

What about those "free inhabitants"?
The Articles of Confederation (IV) state:
- that the free inhabitants shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the free citizens in the several states.
Clear enough? Anything the citizens are granted apply to the inhabitants, who retained endowed rights, having not consented to be governed.

People (free inhabitants) have rights and powers.
Citizens (subject residents) have privileges and immunities.
(Each group is mutually exclusive)

Still unsure?

CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1The individual (one of the sovereign people) has endowed rights... under the republican form of government.
But those who consented to be citizens SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS.
Also note how they swapped in "democracy" at the end.

NEED MORE?

Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .
“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.
IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

NO government instituted to secure Creator endowed rights can impose citizenship, with its mandatory civic duties upon an infant who cannot consent. To do so would void the endowment, violate the republican form, as well as be involuntary servitude, banned by the 13th amendment.

PART of the 'long con' has been the indoctrinated belief that the government is the servant of the citizenry, and being a citizen is superior.
In the law, it's the opposite. Citizens are subjects of their sovereign government. And those governments are servants of the sovereign people, delegated power to secure the endowed rights of the PEOPLE. Citizens have no endowed rights to secure.

Citizenship is a privilege, and public service is a privilege. Constitutional governments can bar whomever they wish from becoming servants. Citizens were held to a higher standard of behavior. The sovereign people could object to civil servants who were disgusting, repugnant, despicable, or immoral. Of course, there are so few sovereigns left, there's no pressure on the gubmint to kick out the crooks and other reprobates.
I hope to see that change.

[ozmirage]

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
ONLY CITIZENS have mandatory civic duties.
Ergo, citizenship must be voluntary, as is consent of the governed.
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States...
It is obvious that a citizen who is obligated to train, fight, and die on command cannot retain inherent rights to life, liberty, etc. It doesn't matter if one is a state citizen or a federal citizen, neither has endowed rights.

Who did retain those endowed rights?
“... 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. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign [the people] in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - 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
The PEOPLE . . . sovereigns without subjects.
The government is their servant, not their master.

But if you consented to be governed, d'oh!

[ozmirage]

Slavery is not possible under a republican form of government, where the people are "sovereigns without subjects."
Slavery is a revenue taxable privilege under the democratic form, where a majority can legally persecute a minority.
That's why the Confederate States sought to secede. If they merely dissolved their democratic institutions, the republican form would void all slavery.
. . .
Ironically, the Confederate Constitution also guaranteed a republican form to their sovereign people.
. . .
CONSTITUTIONAL SLAVERY
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/property-taxes-slaves

The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to tax slaves as property in Article I, Section 9, stating:

_ _ _ The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

... many states not only taxed slaves as property, but oftentimes taxed the slaves of non-residents at higher rates than the slaves of residents.

The District of Columbia also taxed the slaves of non-residents at a rate higher than slaves of residents:

_ _ _ Sec. 36. From and after the tenth day of April, eighteen hundred and twenty-three, the following tax be, and the same is hereby, imposed on slaves of non-residents hired to persons residing within the city of Washington, to wit: On every male slave above the age of eighteen years, and under forty-five, twenty dollars per annum; on every male slave under eighteen and above twelve years of age, twelve dollars per annum; and on every female slave between fifteen and forty-five years of age, two dollars per annum. Act, 5th April, 1823 §1 (Washington [D.C.] 38).
= = = = = =
There is no endowed right to enslave, thus it was never protected under the republican form of government.

[Huckleberry]

The Civil War Didn't 'Settle' The Question Of State Secession

"Look for this and other flawed talking points when secession interest intensifies after Nov. 5."

"Secessionist inclinations are on the rise in the United States, and are sure to intensify after Nov. 5 regardless of which party prevails. When that happens, you can expect the accompanying discourse will be peppered with assertions that states have no right to secede, with many declaring the question was “settled” by the Civil War."

53525

Read complete article at https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/the-civil-war-didnt-settle-the-question

[shaberon]

[B]When that happens, you can expect the accompanying discourse will be peppered with assertions that states have no right to secede, with many declaring the question was “settled” by the Civil War."


In the sense that state constitutions were written to include the phrase, "will not secede", it was "settled".

If your lawmakers will not remove that, you can force a change via referendum, but it takes a higher percentage. It may vary, but I think it is in the range of 66-80%.

The rights are only determined by constitutions, and we can change those any time we want. Or remove them.

[Bill Ryan]

:bump: :flower:

[ExomatrixTV]

1933074391115706671
source (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1933074391115706671)

[Nasu]

A civil war or secession would fall on political or ideological lines IMHO. Very few states can afford to go it alone, Texas being a good example. At the moment the dice fall between republic and democratic lines, the republicans have the guns and the democrats have the ideology. It’s a safe bet who would win. Personally I don’t see it happening any time soon. We are in the height of riot season in the states so this time of year always looks like the fall of Rome…….x….. N

[Bill Ryan]

:bump::bump::bump: