jetgraphics: The U.S. Constitution may be flawed...

[BillBoard]

The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now. – Unknown
-------------------------

That tagline is evidence of the success of the propaganda ministry controlling education of the readership.

If one takes the time to read the constitution, and the documents preceding it, it may become clear.

The current government is NOT in violation of the U.S. constitution. It is operating within the bounds of the terms. Unfortunately, most Americans are blissfully ignorant of those terms, and the parties liable to perform.

But before I digress, let me show you exactly how the "constitutional" government can bypass limitations imposed by said constitution.

EXCEPTED FROM PROTECTION

"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)]

In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which
directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights

" 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.

"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."
BL 6, 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."
BL 6, p. 1549

"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense."
BL 6, p. 1128

The lack of the financial means or property to support oneself is the
prerequisite for being indigent, but as soon as one is supported at public
expense, the trap door springs open, and down he falls.

A pauper was and is a status criminal. But under national socialism, he is no
longer prosecuted for just "being a pauper". The "Homeless" problem is
evidence of that fact. Prior to national socialism, a vagrant was arrested
and incarcerated. After national socialism, no one is arrested or
incarcerated for mere vagrancy because "everybody" has no domicile and have claimed to be vagabonds at law.

Is it a coincidence that many, if not all state statutes redefine "resident"
to be synonymous with "vagabond"?

From the Official Code of Georgia Annotated-
OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:

(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode
in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of
returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable
presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief
absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a
resident.
^^^^^

--- This is a prime example of the art of legal word twisting.
Note how the phrasing sounds like the definition for domicile.

Resident = "a person" + "permanent home" .

If you quickly read the section, you might presume that it means one
who is in the state 30 or more days is a resident, for motor vehicle
code purposes.

But if you dissect it, the meaning is just the opposite.
"A person" + "permanent home" + "present for 30 or more days" =
rebuttable presumption that HE IS A RESIDENT.

In plain English, a Georgia resident is one who has a permanent home but is in
the state LESS than 30 days out of a year (A transient). If one is present in
the state 30 or more days out of a year, he can REBUT THE PRESUMPTION that he is a resident.

If he is "not a resident", it appears that he is an inhabitant (domiciled) at
his permanent home.

And you can bet that every state has an exclusion for "non-residents".

Every American who innocently claims to be a resident and a citizen in order
to enroll into national socialism and enjoy civil and political liberties has
surrendered his property rights and his status at law.

CHILD SUPPORT
Non-custodial child support (and ex spouse support) are directly opposite of
the common law and the pre-socialist statutes enacted in harmony with it.

" Where mother is awarded the custody of her minor children on a
decree of divorce from the father, he is thereby deprived of all
rights to the services of the child, and consequently is freed from
all liability to the mother for the care, support, and maintenance of
the child."
Husband v. Husband,67 Ind. 583, 33 Am.Rep. 107 (Ind.1879)

It's a "common law" axiom that one deprived of possession of a minor
child is not obligated to support, unless by consent.

Of course, once enrolled in Social Security, the minor is a ward of
the State, and all "contributors" are obligated to help support -
especially the numbered non-custodial parent.

Want another cite in support of that idea?

" When a wife deserts her husband, and continues to live separate
from him, and retains custody of a child, refusing to deliver him up
to the father, who offers to support him, an action cannot be
maintained against the father for the support and education of the child."
Fitler v. Fitler, 2 Phila. 372 (Pa.1857)

The rights to the child, his services and custody are bound together.
If the mother took the child, whether by divorce or separation, the
father was excused from support. This also explains why divorce was less
common (or rewarding) before 1935.

Remember, Socialism abolishes private property. Private property is land,
houses, and CHATTELS (people) owned absolutely. Without private property
rights, there is no absolute right of the parents to their children. Without
private property rights, coverture (absolute ownership by the husband /
father) of the family property ceases to function for the benefit of the next
generation, hence the loss to "estate taxes" and "death taxes".

Without absolute ownership of oneself, one's labor, and the fruits of
one's labor, there's nothing for government to secure - by original
compact.

If one has surrendered his private property rights in order to access
charity from the public treasury (entitlements), one has no rights
except those "privileges" the government grants to the paupers it is
supporting.

That's how the "other compact" supersedes all that we have been led to
believe about the "real American law".

More info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/29

[BillBoard]

JG: Oh, it can get much worse....

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

Point : it's not "our" constitution
Point : it's "their" constitution
Point : private people have no connection with it

Of course, if you signed a Form SS-5, Application for account with Socialist InSecurity, you surrendered your birthright of sovereignty, freedom, and absolute ownership, in exchange for 'entitlements' (charity from the public treasury). Only U.S citizens / U.S. residents can apply.

American nationals, domiciled within the U.S.A. are ineligible to participate.

Good place to start re-education:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/487

Remember this - the only nation on this planet that has a republican form of government, where the people are sovereign, is the U.S.A. No other nation copied the republican form (don't know why). Americans are truly kings without subjects. Despite all the flaws, that alone, is reason enough to stop her opponents who wish to crush the sovereignty of her people.

In case you need "Target Intelligence" -
Enemy #1 is looking back at you in the mirror.

[BillBoard]

Why the U.S.A. is targeted by evil -

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

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

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

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

The Sovereign People DID NOT CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.
The Servant Government offered to serve the people, bound by the terms
of their compact (constitution).

Those who exercise political liberty (suffrage and holding office)
submit to the terms of that status (acceptance of civil duties in
exchange for privileges and immunities). Every "citizen", State or
Federal, is a SUBJECT of the government. Subject and Sovereign are
mutually exclusive. (Ex: The Queen of England is NOT an English
citizen, and cannot vote nor hold public office serving in that
government. Her title is hereditary, not based on compact.)

Prior to the U.S. constitution, we know that the States united
recognized that there were people who were NOT citizens.

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

POINT: There are FREE inhabitants (who have domiciles) and there are
FREE citizens. Any privilege or immunity that government grants to its
citizenry, is likewise bestowed upon the free inhabitants. In short,
no government servant can have anything that makes him superior to the
free inhabitant, who has NOT submitted nor consented to be governed.
Ergo, the Sovereign People must be the free inhabitants.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE CONSTITUTION:

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


REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are
vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or
through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are
specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary

A republican form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty
(absolute freedom and power) are vested in the people (not citizens),
and directly exercised by the people.


God Bless the USA!

[BillBoard]

JCarvingblock:

Welcome to this forum Jet Graphics! The general discussion is my home page. You will find some support for your views and so long as you remain civil will not be banned.

Very well run forum with mild moderation - THANKS MODS!

You are underestimating the seigniorage question (IMO - have not yet read very much of your stuff to NASP list). [edit - just did a NASP list search for seigniorage and seignorage - got zero hits for either word]

The Auriti piece gets to the heart of seigniorage:

And these two threads will likely give you some unique insights into the nature of the money problem:
Money that is better than gold:
and Much Better than Austrian Economics:

Carver

[BillBoard]

In the western world under the present system of debt-as-money the newborn children are sold into bondage at birth. This system of bondage dates back to Babylon.

Here, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford expose the seigniorage problem as found in public project bonds: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperi...es/edison.html

There are a number of threads on this forum related to the strawman topic along with efforts to redeem the strawman. Just search for strawman redemption. Supposedly, the bondage is voluntary, but it is damned difficult to extract yourself from the bondage.

The Thomas Edison & Henry Ford piece is reproduced here:

Carver

[BillBoard]

Here is another post where I attempted to point out the seigniorage problem:



It is on page two of a thread that was closed for bickering which is titled "Perfecting Remedy in America" that was started by David Merrill.

Carver
___________

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portmanteau View Post
The Constitution was established to grant (limited, specific) powers to the US Government. The system has reversed the polarity of that, and now claims all powers not specifically prohibited to it.
Decrees by whores in black robes do not extend authority to those acting outside of their specific constitutional authority.
JG: Which, as I have posted, can be side stepped when the government deals with impaired persons. Review the dates - they extend back to the 19th century. Americans knew about pauperization. But FDR lied when he said "Welfare" was not charity.
If you write to the Congressional Research Service, they admit that "entitlements" are synonymous with "gifts". What are gifts from the public treasury if not charity?
Thus every recipient is a pauper at law. And since only numbered Americans are eligible to participate, they are paupers by their own consent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portmanteau View Post
Anyone who has taken an oath of office - judges, presidents, legislators - violates the same if they act contrary to those limited, specific powers the Constitution gives them. The Constitution is not subject to plastic "court rulings" - it is what it is, in 1787 and now, the same. A court ruling repugnant to the Constitution has no authority. (that is, a court cannot act against the very document that empowers the court)
JG: Until I learned of the excepted classes, specified in the pre-constitutional agreement, I was baffled, as well.
Under national socialism, "the collective" would rather not upset the sheeple.
Yet, all the facts are available to the public in any county courthouse law library.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portmanteau View Post
We, the People, have collectively allowed gangsters to molest the Constitution, by not taking decisive action against those molest the Constitution. A judge rules that the executive branch can perform warrantless searches, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment? The People hold the responsibility to use all means necessary to render the judge and/or his decision void.
JG: Do not be deceived by lack of knowledge. The fact is that paupers, as parasites on the body politic, were to be discouraged by harsh treatment, lest they be rewarded for their status.
Unfortunately, by enrolling into Social Security, to be eligible for entitlements (charity from the public treasury), one becomes a pauper at law.
THAT grants sweeping powers to the servant government, and reduces the people's immunities.

You can prove it, yourself.
ASK the Social Security administration for a copy of the law that requires one to join before working in the USA.
Their form letter reply was (paraphrased) "the sole reason to enroll is to participate in the entitlement program".
ASK the government from whence their authority comes to compel performance to unconstitutional duties (ex: alleged involuntary servitude and taxation). Their answer : Social Security Act of 1935.
Anyone who enrolls is presumed to have volunteered.
By that consent, are we entrapped.


Once you read the law, you'll see that they have not violated the constitution. You assume that they did, by not knowing excepted classes and obligated parties.

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrism View Post
The biggest flaw of the US constitution is that it REQUIRES honest and upright (morally clean) people to operate within its guidelines and to uphold its tenets. When enough corrupt people CONSPIRE to violate the laws of the constitution, it is powerless to force righteousness. It requires people to be the eyes, ears, arms and will to enforce and uphold what is so plainly written.
True, and we can discuss this line of thought further.

In my explorations of LETS systems and mutual credit, it came to my attention that these systems would work better if they maintained several parallel - call them "responsibility vectors" -

* Reputation recording perhaps like the early e-bay feedback system
* Enforceable commercial contracts, and;
* Performance bonds upon the membership

It became obvious to me nearly ten years ago that a single truth is of great importance - from the footer byline of GIM member "Dissipate"
Quote:
Freedom will never exist in a society which has adopted government created currency as the medium of exchange.
Power hungry people are always drawn to the money system lever; an ancillary observation is that these same control freaks always attempt to avoid responsibility for decisions they impose that fail to perform as advertised...

By moving this lever into a system that uses reputation recording (credibility index) together with performance bonding where precious metals are recognized as a "savings" and where these "savings" become the performance bond, hopefully truth can be returned to commerce.

Anyway, I gotta get my ass off this chair and out the door.

Carver

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCarvingblock View Post
You are underestimating the seigniorage question (IMO - have not yet read very much of your stuff to NASP list). [edit - just did a NASP list search for seigniorage and seignorage - got zero hits for either word]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage
Seigniorage derived from coins arises from the difference between the face value of a coin and the cost of producing, distributing and eventually retiring it from circulation. Seigniorage derived from notes is the difference between the interest earned on securities acquired in exchange for bank notes and the costs of producing and distributing those bank notes.

If you'll note - seigniorage refers to two specific things: the difference in bullion value and coin value ; and usury for debt-credit notes.

I do not "address the seigniorage question" because it is based on the wrong understanding of money and its function.

MONEY IS:

[1] A medium of exchange

[2] Accounting symbol

[3] Proportional to marketplace

MONEY HAS:

[4] No intrinsic value outside of the marketplace

MONEY IS NOT:

[5] real

MONEY CANNOT:

[6] be saved nor save "value"

[7] be invested, at usury, in a finite money token system

[8] be owned, in the sense that it can be bought and sold

MONEY SHOULD NOT:

[9] be limited or under restriction, save that of the marketplace

[10] be under the control of parasites (government, usurers)

[11] be worshiped

[12] be a goal of one's life

[1,2,3] Money is a medium of exchange that facilitates the creation and trade of usable (surplus) goods and services. It is a mechanism that simplifies trade of different items, services, and volumes. As an accounting symbol, for the value of all goods and services in the marketplace, it must be proportional to that marketplace. If it ceases to be proportional, then someone will suffer inequitable trade. Therefore an equitable money system cannot be scarce, nor have intrinsic value independent of the marketplace, for which it is an abstraction for.

[4] Money, as an accounting system, has no function if there is nothing in the marketplace to buy. Though a market can function without money, money cannot facilitate trade if there is nothing for sale. A sum of money without anything to buy has no value. (Mythical Gilligan's Island parable - Thurston Howell's sum of money cannot buy rescue nor buy anything unless the islanders first find it, make it, and will sell it.)

[5] An accounting system, by which one tracks the market value of items, goods, and services, should not be something from within the marketplace. In fact, if one uses an item taken from the marketplace, a mathematical error will occur. In set theory, if M (money) is proportional to S (sum of all goods / services), making anything from S, will generate a paradox. For this example, if G (gold) is deemed to be the preferred money token, and it is 1% of the whole Sum, we can set up the equation:

G = (.01 S)

BUT

We must now make G have a value proportional to the whole set (S), so that we can trade.

G (proportional to) S.

So 1/10 G can buy 1/10 S.

HOWEVER

Gold, which is 1% of Sum of all, can buy all. Yet G is a subset of S.

G = (.01S), so (0.01S) = S.

One percent of the gold, as "money", can buy all the gold (which represents 1% of S).

See the problem now?

Anything of intrinsic value from within the marketplace cannot be used as money (an abstraction for the marketplace). Especially since the marketplace varies, disproportionate to the item deemed to be money. "Hard Money" results in economic distress from inequitable trade.

[6] If money is a mechanism to account for value, facilitate trade, and is proportional to the marketplace, you cannot "save" it. Taking money out of circulation only prevents it from its function - moving goods and services equitably. In fact, the more money taken out of circulation by hoarding / saving, the less trade can occur, since there is not enough money tokens to facilitate trade. By making money scarce (disproportionate to the marketplace), the sellers cannot sell, or must accept LESS money. If they cannot sell, they suffer. And if have to accept less money, they cannot equitably trade (nor pay outstanding bills). Money, as an abstraction for value, cannot store value, no more than one can save 4 hours of a plumber's labor, nor compel a storehouse to fill with a harvest by holding money in a vault.

[7] Though we might think we're "saving" money when we deposit it with bankers (usurers), buy bonds (usury) or "invest" it in stock corporations, for interest (usury), we are not. The money is put into circulation, facilitating trade. The usurer charges a fee, in money, for the use of that money,and pays a portion to the investor.

However, if the money token system is finite (as is precious metal coin), aggregate usury is impossible to pay. The sum of principle and interest owed exceeds the whole set of available money tokens. A proportion of debtors will default, simply because the money does not exist. And they will lose their valuable property pledged as collateral on the debt. That is why usury is proscribed as an abomination, and denounced by almost all religions (except Satanism).

When we're told that it's "wise to invest", mathematics says we are unwise.

For example, if "everybody" invested 10% of their money, within one time unit of usury, the resulting debt would be impossible to discharge.


S (whole sum of money), and 0.1 S (10% invested, at usury), for 10% simple interest per time unit, computes to:

1.1 x (0.1 S) = 0.11 S

BUT

0.9 S + 0.11 S = 1.01 S

To pay the usury, the money supply (S) would have to grow 1%. If the supply is static or cannot grow at the necessary rate, investors will be unable to be paid. Debtors will default. Someone will suffer.

This problem is compounded when the money token is borrowed into existence at usury. Each unit created imposes an obligation for more money, which, in turn, can only be created by greater debt. Ergo, debt-credit money tokens are catastrophic tools that destroy productive societies for the benefit of parasites and predators.

[* special note : in America's case, the bimetallic standard was another disaster in the making. A simple solution would be to make the unit dollar a silver coin, and designate a gold coin as an eagle, without stipulating any proportionality, by law. That way, the market value of the silver to gold would not create havoc. Contracts payable in dollars might be negotiated with eagles, but that would be a private agreement, not imposed by statutory law.]

[8] There are many people who believe that money must have an intrinsic value, such as precious metal (gold, silver, platinum) or it violates religious law. However, I sincerely doubt that God would impose a money token system that cannot function equitably. The marketplace of goods and services can always grow larger from (a) rising population of laborers, (b) tools that multiply the labor, and (c) automation that produces goods and services without additional input of labor. If the money token system is finite, composed of scarce precious metal coin, it will impose chaos. The harder you work or produce, the less money you earn. If you are in debt, the harder you work, or produce, the less you earn, and thus cannot pay your creditor. Scarce money is a recipe for economic disaster. In fact, scarcity of money drives demand for credit, at usury, offered by bankers.

Therefore, a sound money system (honest accounting) cannot be composed of any "thing" that can be bought or sold in the marketplace, if equitable trade is to exist. It would be as absurd as charging a fee to make each tick mark on a tablet, used to keep score. (Imagine playing "MONOPOLY" and you had to pay rent for the use of paper money.)

[9] For a "free market" to truly exist, the medium of exchange has to be free to grow / shrink in proportion to it. If any disproportionality exists, either the seller or the buyer will be cheated. Those who can manipulate the illusion of abstract money can enrich themselves at the expense of others. Mankind has suffered from the predation of usurers for millennia. And we still willingly cooperate with those who prey upon us. Worse, we are indoctrinated to copy them, and debase ourselves, and "run with the pack". And it's no surprise when folks are "thrown to the wolves!"

One way that the supply of money tokens can adjust is when producers / laborers of new goods and services can issue private promissory notes (ex: coupons) denominated in that which they can do, have or produce. A farmer can issue notes denominated in harvest, or animals, or products. Laborers can issue notes denominated in hours of labor or specific services. Enterprises can issue notes, denominated in that which they offer. A restaurant can issue notes, denominated in meals, or other services.

When the note is tendered to the maker, it is extinguished when the trade is completed. If an entrepreneur needs to purchase goods or services, but has no "money", he can emit promises (notes) to capitalize. He need not beg for debt-credit, at usury, from a bankster. He then discharges his promises, when his enterprise is up and running, without the burden of usury, nor the requirement to fight for a share of scarce money tokens.

[10] A money system should not be under the control of parasites (government, usurers), who produce no goods nor services. A government may offer its services for oversight and offering recourse and remedy, in the pursuit of justice (giving everyman his due).

A private promissory note money token system, by itself, would probably be limited in scope to a local community, where the people knew the credit worthiness of the note makers.

For a larger marketplace, a widely circulating note / money token, is necessary. A bank, acting as a note warehouse, may be one solution. A note could be tendered, discounted by the bank, and bank notes given in exchange. There would be no pressure to create new money tokens, because there would be no usury, nor compound interest. The bank can either tender the note for discharge (making profit from the discount) or sell it to another.

[11] Obviously, we've been taught to worship money, chase after it, be persuaded to act against our better natures, by it. That must change. And the first place change occurs is within each individual.

[12] We must all awaken from the nightmare where money was the goal of one's life work. True prosperity is the creation, exchange, and the time to enjoy those necessary goods and services we produce. Any other activity is counterproductive, including conquest, usury, predation, theft, and parasitism.

Final Note:
One of the easiest ways to 'enslave' people (compel them to work at inequitable compensation) is to obligate them to pay money tokens, especially when those money tokens are scarce. Governments and usurers rely upon that fact. Without scarce money tokens, there would be no demand for the bankster's "service" - extension of credit at usury.

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Mine View Post
The biggest flaw is in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."

Government is force. Liberty is the absence of force. Creating a government to secure the blessing of liberty is a self contradiction.

But the legal distinctions don't matter. These things always go on until the subjects escape and the government is left with no visible means of support.
JG: You are correct about the Preamble you wrote. It is flawed.

The real Preamble is:

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

The subtle difference is "FOR", not "OF" the U.S.A.

It's important.

Now let us move to the "other flaw". IF you interpret "The People" to mean the people of the United States of America. Those two words "of America" aren't in the preamble's first phrase.

Pursuant to the Articles of Confederation (which was in force and effect) the term "United States" means CONGRESS, not the nation. The lawyers who wrote the Preamble certainly knew the difference, since they used the correct phrase at the end.

One of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation are not taught in schools is that fresh young minds might ask embarrassing questions.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is
not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

So who are the "People of the Congress assembled"? In 1787, the people in the United States of America certainly didn't ordain or establish the agreement.

The Constitution is not "ours".

" But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. ...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

The people in the U.S.A. did not nor could not consent, since the only people who could vote and ratify the Constitution were electors, who owned property and had paid their taxes.

That's right, folks, it's not "YOUR" Constitution (agreement), nor do you have to perform to it, unless you have sworn an oath to it.

Curious thing, that Declaration of Independence, wherein it states that governments are instituted to (a) secure rights and (b) govern those who consent.

So WHERE did the government get the authority to conscript? Conscription is certainly a violation of one's life, liberty and property, if ordered to fight and die on command?

Answer: Consent.

Duh?

What our glorious propaganda ministry omits to teach is that there are two known classes of people:
1. Sovereign
2. Subject

Citizens, whether state or federal, are subjects, by definition. Only citizens are obligated to serve.
The free people, aka sovereign people, are not compelled, since they did not consent to be governed.

Did you knowingly, willingly, and intentionally consented?
More info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/487

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by footloose View Post
Also, your explanations of the voluntary nexus created by our own signatures on fraudulent contracts and the use of corporate currency is .... well, right on the money.

In this upside down system, one must intentionally DISconsent. The question is: how to get on the "do not call list" and not be labeled terrist by our peers.
JG: Clarification - we have not signed "contracts", in the sense that valuable consideration was exchanged, and both parties agreed to perform. What we have signed were applications for participation in national socialism. We accepted the duty to underwrite the bankrupted U.S. government, making their FRNs into legal tender (under the law of notes). In compensation, the government would make us eligible for 'entitlements' (charity from the public treasury). When I contacted the Congressional Research Service about entitlements, their answer was : entitlements are synonymous with gifts. Congress is under no contract to provide entitlements. They are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
If we were led to believe otherwise, it's our problem. It's not in the law. Congress can turn off the spigot at any moment... like next week... and we have no recourse.
Soundbite flag on:
Participants in national socialism surrendered their sovereignty, freedom and liberty, in exchange for pauperization.
Each "human resource", his labor and property, are pledged as collateral for the unpayable national debt (10+ trillions). Each socialist is therefore bankrupt, and since 1933, have not paid debt with lawful money. For that privilege, transactions are subject to taxation (sales / excise tax). Likewise, "real and personal property" (held with qualified ownership) is subject to the state's authority to tax (ad valorem taxes). And as we all should know, socialism abolishes private property ownership, which means we are (expletive deleted).

When I say "We", I refer to the millions of Americans who signed up for national socialism and usury, thinking that the law required them to enroll before working in their own country.

Me?
I left national socialism in 1992, and haven't looked back. It is against my religious belief to participate in the abomination of socialism, usury, gambling, limited liability, and so forth.

(Check out Ezekiel 18:13 KJV, for the consequences of usury)

[BillBoard]

The Original Electoral College Needs to be Restored - and more.

Recently, it was mentioned in the media that this election candidates spent over a billion "dollars" to campaign for the chief executive position in these united States. This excludes 99% of the potential candidates who do not "acquire" (beg, borrow, steal, bribe, or otherwise) the necessary funds to "buy" an election seat - or the office.

The first part of the solution to high cost campaigning for a national office is to restore the Electoral College to its previous operation, by repeal of the 12th amendment. After the election of Electors, chosen by their respective districts, the Electoral College will form, meet and interview all candidates for office, and vote for two people. The one receiving the most votes becomes president, the next in line becomes vice president (and is probably the most popular rival of the winner).

Since such a vote will eliminate the advantage of party affiliation, partisan politics will be eradicated in the executive branch. Since the chief executive appoints subordinates, there would be no benefit for candidates to espouse political affiliation. The spoils system would be eliminated!

Additionally, an empowered electoral college, absent partisan affiliation will eliminate national campaigning for the chief executive offices. Anyone with a bus ticket to the College can offer their duly signed petition, credentials, and be examined for fitness for office.

With full public disclosure of the college's examination, the press could help uncover those who used subterfuge or were less than honest in their presentation of credentials.

It will be refreshing to have a means to winnow out the unfit, BEFORE they enter office.

In the event that an excessive number of candidates appear, the College might break up into 5 man committees to quickly screen the bulk of candidates, and reduce the number to a manageable group, for more in-depth examination before the final vote is held.

It would not be out of the question for the college to host debates between the top contenders, to determine how well they perform under pressure. (Get Alex Trebek, from Jeopardy, to host!)

It might even be sensible to increase the time that the college meets, so that they could deliberate without haste. Electors could be chosen in May, convene in June, and vote as late as December.

Second part of the reform, after the Electoral College restoration, is to make the office of the Elector to run concurrently with the sitting president and vice president. The Elector shall become an ombudsman to hear complaints (or suggestions) from the people of his electoral district.

This shall free the Legislative branch (House of Representatives) from auditing complaints about the Executive branch. It is a conflict of interest for the legislators who write and vote on the law to then interfere in the execution of those laws. There is too much opportunity for partisan meddling to skew the results.

The new ombudsman office will facilitate communication between the people and the president, since each elector represents one of the people who are directly responsible for the election of the president. Likewise, the elector ombudsman can be the conduit from the executive office to the local district. And since there's no party affiliation, there's no partisan bias.

With the eradication of the spoils system, the whole political party structure would cease to be influential. The "two party" phenomena would cease to have any real force and effect. Hopefully, professionalism would substitute for the rivalry and backbiting inherent in "We versus Them" mindset. It is often annoying that the "loyal opposition" will vote against something simply because it benefits their opponents, without regard for the people who are served.

It would have an astounding effect on the appointment of judicial officers. Without partisanship, the unholy alliances between legislators, executives and judges would cease.

These two reforms would radically change the nature of running for the office of president as well as correct flaws in the political organization. It is practically impossible for any majority of people to devote the necessary time and effort to examine all candidates for office, let alone make an informed choice to their character and capability for public office. Worse, the campaign for office focuses upon the wrong attributes of appearance and popularity, while ignoring statesmenship, selfless service, integrity, and moral character.

That drawback illustrates the greatest advantage of the electoral system : that it IS reasonable for people in a district to investigate, evaluate and choose an elector from their own ranks. Hopefully, people will choose an elector whose judgment and past acts would give confidence that he would faithfully seek out and vote for the best candidates for the executive office.

One small effect of restoring the Electoral College would be to eliminate the electors for the District of Columbia *(City of Washington). The seat of the federal government is NOT a state, nor should its residents exercise any power in the choice of the chief executive for the United States of America. It would be better for the residents to establish their domicile in a state, and vote THERE, via absentee ballots, while maintaining their federal residency.

The federal district should not become a 'home', with all attendant allegiances, for that would interfere with the function of the federal system - an intermediary agent for the states united, and with other states and nations.

The States united shall be restored their power to elect their senators to the United States Congress, by repeal of the 17th amendment. The consequence of restoration will eliminate statewide campaigning for the office, as well as reducing the influence of wealth over statesmanship. The office of senator should not be a "super representative" but a restraint on excesses of the House of Representatives. The obvious benefit of the longer length of office
was to unburden the senate from the political pressures of partisan politicking and re-election. And haste in politics makes for bad decisions.

In light of the benefits of indirect election of the chief executive, it could be replicated in the State governments.

The office of State Governor should be by a state electoral college. The institution of a state electoral college, whose members are chosen from each district, will facilitate the election of the chief executives based on a sound review of the candidates, absent party affiliation. As in the Federal system, the electors shall vote for two people, with the majority candidate becoming governor, and the minority candidate becoming lieutenant governor. The electors shall become ombudsmen to the State executive, releasing the state
legislatures from the chore of fielding complaints and suggestions that pertain to the executive branch.

Note: One of the consequences of the implementation of electoral reforms will be to eliminate partisanship in the executive branch, while preserving it in the legislature. The Judiciary, if appointed by the executive branch, will also be freed from partisanship. In addition, the nature and quantity of elected offices will be changed so that candidates will be better known to those who shall elect them, for good or ill. There will be no more "popularity contests" and repetitive advertisements to persuade those who are ignorant of the character and history of a candidate for office.

Best of all, the election of chief executive officer will be balanced with the election of his most popular rival, to watch over him, and act as a restraint on unlawful, partisan, or any other improper activity while in office.

The "Imperial Presidency" will come to an abrupt end! Any improper activity shall be proclaimed by his "vice" officer to the press, and swiftly reined in. And impeachment will elevate the vice to the chief office.

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverblood View Post
In post #21, jetgraphics, I gather that you are saying that gold is NOT money, or at least it shouldn't be.
JG: Under constitutional law, real money is defined as precious metal coin. Money is defined as either real money or certificates of deposit of real money. Notes (promises to pay real money) are not money.
With that in mind, consider that precious metal coin is scarce, and thus always in demand, in order for trade to flourish.
It has a purpose within the framework of servant government, though it gives great power to usurers.

However, most people, programmed by socialism, for over 3 generations, have been kept ignorant of the power to make money inherent in any sovereign people.

That power is the private promissory note.
Unfortunately, most people only have experience with notes denominated in money, as in the notes every debtor signs when he borrows credit from banks.

Since 1933, there has been little or no money in circulation, ergo, all those promissory notes denominated in "dollars" are fraudulent. Thus "The people" cannot come into court with unclean hands, when injured by usurers.

This long winded answer is to illustrate that the solution is more complex than merely using lawful money.

Sovereign people who absolutely own themselves and their labor can emit private notes denominated in their labor or that which they can do or produce. Such notes are not at the mercy of the supply of "dollars".

If people began utilizing their forgotten power, the money / usury powers would lose their ascendancy over us.

Look closely at the fine print on any coupon denominated in something real.
You should find a legal notice : cash value 1/20 cent.
Despite the fact that one can tender a coupon for a "free item" and receive it, the lawyers wish that you never, ever connect the value of the promissory note / coupon with lawful money of any significant amount.

(Ex: 21 dollars would require 25200 coupons.)

Now I can answer your question:
Gold IS money - but it shouldn't be the ONLY MONEY.
It's far too scarce, and not enough exists to facilitate trade on a national or international marketplace.
But private promissory notes are only limited by the issuer's ability to discharge them.

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosepublico View Post
Jet - I like your electoral college ideas except for having them hang around from election to election, sound like a plum patronage job for a party hack.

While we're amending the Constitution I would eliminate the use of party labels on ballots and the use of government resources in party politics (no primary elections).

Second, I'd make the office of vice president elected by the Governors from among their number and if no Governor wishes to serve then the office go vacant until filled by the Senate. The vice president would be required to actually sit in the chair as President of the Senate lest their pay be docked. The Vice President would have the power to call up for a vote any legislation/appointment after 60 legislative days in committee. Members of Congress would be required to actually be in the Chamber of their respective house while floor business is conducted (Chamber being the "floor" and a restroom or two), if absent then no vote on bills debated and a dock of pay. The Speaker of the House would be elected directly by the people every two years and have similar powers of the President of the Senate to call up legislation but have no vote except in the event of a tie. Each member of the House would be able to introduce one bill per term that the House would be required to vote up or down with no amendments and any bill passed by the House would be required to by voted on by the Senate after 14 legislative days or before adjournment. All revenue bills arise in the House and the Senate may return the bill with individual amendments listed and the House may adopt any or all of the Senate amendments and send the bill back to the Senate wherein the Senate have a second go of amendments for the House to consider. Upon the third presentation of the bill to the Senate it can either pass or reject the bill.

No retirement pay for Members of Congress or any other benefits after leaving office.

No joint committees of the House and Senate.

No saving clauses if legislation is found unconstitutional.

Create a Sovereign Grand Jury (Google: Jail for Judges) with the power to indict persons who have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution. The SGJ could indict, forward to the House of Reps a petition for impeachment (which would have to be acted on), and/or allow the aggrieved individual to sue the offending oath taker (prohibit the oath taker from using judicial or any other claim of immunity). The SGJ could indict under any Congressional law, or any state law where the act occurred or under federal common law. Prohibit any government official or employee from claiming any "right to remain silent" in any proceedings resulting from the SGJ action. (Sorry, the sovereign - we the people - have the right to all information acquired by an agent during the course of the agency relationship.)

Either restore the original 13th Amendment or have one just like it.

Return the District of Columbia to Maryland and reestablish the seat of government within a territory ceded by a state or states (just like the original) but require a land be owned by the Congress with no permanent residents except the Congress could allow the States to build housing for their Representatives and Senators.

Return the election of Senators to the legislatures and prohibit the legislature from using any popular poll in aid of the election of Senators. (Before the 17th Amendment some states would have a popular poll which the legislature would rubber stamp.)

Oh, one more thing, prohibit any member of any branch of government (state or federal) from serving in another branch of government (aimed at prohibiting attorneys from serving in Congress or the Executive branch).
JG: Ombudsman / Elector would be laid back - except when folks are driving him batty with their complaints. He'd be the filter in the front office, so to speak.

Partisan politics are empowered by the current "Winner takes all " nature of the presidency. Once the presidency is severed from partisanship via restored Electoral college, the legislation would be the only place for partisanship.

Governors, as executive officers, should not vote for the VP. It's not unlike a sergeant voting for his captain. Bad for the chain of command. Might encourage assassination.

We could add a third house - the House of Repeal. It's job is to repeal laws with a simple majority. (Which group would vote on representation?)

Technically, any Grand Jury investigates a crime that has no injured party who came forward and filed a complaint. If there is a complaint, no grand jury is required to instigate action.

Instead of new territory, put the U.S. government on a cruise ship, docked in the Potomac. It would truly be the "Ship of State".

;-P

[BillBoard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
However, most people, programmed by socialism, for over 3 generations, have been kept ignorant of the power to make money inherent in any sovereign people.

That power is the private promissory note.

Unfortunately, most people only have experience with notes denominated in money [the national currency extant], as in the notes every debtor signs when he borrows credit from banks.

Since 1933, there has been little or no money in circulation, ergo, all those promissory notes denominated in "dollars" are fraudulent. Thus "The people" cannot come into court with unclean hands, when injured by usurers.

This long winded answer is to illustrate that the solution is more complex than merely using lawful money.

Sovereign people who absolutely own themselves and their labor can emit private notes denominated in their labor or that which they can do or produce. Such notes are not at the mercy of the supply of "dollars".

If people began utilizing their forgotten power, the money / usury powers would lose their ascendancy over us.

----------

About 6-8 years ago, a small group of cultural creatives, myself, Segio Laub of California, two guys in Ecuador, Thomas Greco... I would need to check the records... Embarked on a private discussion as to how to implement just such a private decentralized system could be brought into existence. Five of the group went to Argentina to study the Credito movement there and to identify problems.

The idea was to create a short term note that would circulate 90 to 120 days and be retired.

One proposal I advanced was the use of an in-field printer that would be used to print a two dimensional bar code upon pre-printed notes. Such a two dimensional bar code becomes part of the anti-counterfeiting measures necessary. (The Argentina Credito note was widely counterfeited.)

It has become quite clear to me since that any private issue will need a system with insurance features and performance bonds. And such a private issue will need to extract from the medium of exchange by one mechanism or another a portion sufficient to provide for full time paid administration.

Hayek was right; competition is needed in money systems.

Carver

[WebTech]

I don't get it. What is the point of copying and pasting from the other side?

How does this benefit me or others here?

What is your point?

WT


Plus I removed all your links to goldismoney dot info because they no longer go to the article so they are irrelevant.

We don't need post from the former site. Keep them for yourself, most of us who would be interested have already read them.

Got it?

[BillBoard]

I don't get it. What is the point of copying and pasting from the other side?

How does this benefit me or others here?

What is your point?

WT


Plus I removed all your links to goldismoney dot info because they no longer go to the article so they are irrelevant.

We don't need post from the former site. Keep them for yourself, most of us who would be interested have already read them.

Got it?


You know, you are right. Why bother?!

Too much damn work anyways. See Matthew 7:6

Take care,

BillBoard

[WebTech]

You know, you are right. Why bother?!

Too much damn work anyways. See Matthew 7:6

Take care,

BillBoard


Well being as you didn't answer my questions, and then flip me off with this

6 Giue ye not that which is holy, to dogges, neither cast ye your pearles before swine, lest they treade them vnder their feete, and turning againe, all to rent you.

Go in peace...