People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America

[jetgraphics]

People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America

In case you were not informed by the propaganda ministry, you are witnessing the advent of the PDSRA, rising from the ashes of the USSA (United Socialist States of America).

Since 1935, the USA has been a socialist nation... by consent. There is NO LAW compelling participation in FICA / Social Security, despite millions believing otherwise. There is NO LAW punishing any American who does not participate, yet private sector employers are unwilling to hire Americans who do not have "the number". In short, if you have "the number", you're a willing socialist - by their records.

The socialist coup was not fully implemented, in 1935, for fear of the adverse reaction. But now, after three generations, they are confident that the average "educated" American has absolutely no ability to reason nor obstruct their transformation of America. No recipient of public charity or pension will bite the hand that feeds him. No burdened tax payer knows the truth that he is his own worst enemy.

The irony is that the current economic and political chaos is blamed on "capitalism" by the left, when in fact, "capitalism" was killed off in 1935.

(No, stock corporations and bankers, who engage in usury, which like to call themselves "capitalists", are not part of capitalism, as defined. In fact, they prey upon capitalism.)

Capitalist Principles

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.

Capitalism is in harmony with the governments created under the auspices of the Declaration of Independence, 1776, Statute #1 of the Statutes at Large of the United States of America.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Translation:

1. Men are created equal - before the law that protects rights - and there are no privileged classes.
2. Men are endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty and private property ownership.
3. Governments, in America, are instituted to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.

----
In case you forgot Marxism 101:

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.

From the Communist manifesto:

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

But American law protects private property

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.

America's republican form of government cannot co-exist with collectivism.

“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.”
– - – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

“OWNERSHIP – … Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it… The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. ”
– - -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

In American law, individual absolute ownership is recognized as one of the inalienable rights protected by government.... until surrendered.

Since the vast majority of Americans have voluntarily surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property, failure to comply with socialist taxes and regulations often results in confiscation of their property without just compensation being paid. That is prima facie evidence that no enumerated American owns private property.

Welcome to the collective, Comrade.

This is not a sudden transformation.

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson and current President Barack Obama.
Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

Progressivism = compulsory labor for the benefit of another, i.e., slavery.
Progressivism = expropriation of property rights, by coercion of unions and government levies, i.e, thievery.
Progressivism = Socialism = Communism = Collectivism = Piracy ashore

Coincidentally, all these 'progressive' presidents and congresses opposed the private property rights of the people, and supported government expansion and control - over infrastructure, land, services and resources... And want to TAX TO DEATH the American people - for our own good.

(While taking a hefty cut for their magnanimous and enlightened leadership...)

In case you are still persuaded to believe that individual ownership is bad, and collective ownership is good, let us consider this:

"No one should suffer for lack of {fill in the blank}", must be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another, so that...."

Slavery is never an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.

Just say "NO" to collectivism, or say "YES" to indentured servitude for yourself and your progeny.

[jetgraphics]

Capitalist Principles

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.


Since the successful collectivist infiltration of America, beginning in the late 1890s, the U.S. has devolved from a capitalist nation, where the means of production, distribution and exchange were privately owned, for private profit.

Do you know or recognize what means of production, distribution and exchange were transformed from PRIVATE ownership into COLLECTIVE ownership?

Do you grasp the profound change that has occurred for over five generations?

How do you live without access to land and that which is produced on land?

Today, if one does not pay his "rent" (property tax) he is ejected from "his" land. Ergo, the land tenant (no longer owner) has no "right" to land, the primary means of production, essential to defending his right to life. In short, the "right to life" is a government granted privilege, that can be withdrawn, for failure to conform to the wishes of the Collective.

How do you live if you are prevented from farming the land you "rent"?

Today, building and zoning codes bar "tenants" (I resist the practice of calling them "owners") from fully utilizing their lots for agriculture and animal husbandry. Weed ordinances often require people to make replica English pastoral landscapes, regardless of the cost and waste. Zoning prohibits raising small animals within city limits, unless they're pets and limited in size and number. And if one fails to conform to the wishes of the Collective, one faces civil and criminal penalties.

Who really benefits from driving UP the cost for shelter?

The government, which bases its tax levy on the "market price"; and the usurer, whose collateral value is enhanced by inflation. It's not the tenant (formerly the owner). For if the shelter was to be passed to his progeny, the ephemeral, rapidly decaying, resources sucking, embellished and ornamented crap trap built in America would be summarily abandoned for something more robust, durable, and functional.

{Even "luxury" shelter is built from short lifespan, ephemeral products, without any regard for the long term consequences of such profligate waste.}

Among the means of production, one must recognize that LABOR is an essential part. But one's labor is subject to taxation. Which means that the laborer no longer absolutely owns his labor - but must "share" a portion with the Collective. Does anyone realize that fractional slavery is still involuntary servitude, no matter how that duration is measured?

What forms of distribution that were once privately owned are now part of the Collective?

Navigable waterways and associated means have been "taken over" by the Collective. Where once one could find private canals, locks, channels, docks, and shipping, now, one must be approved, licensed, registered, taxed, and regulated - OR ELSE! Boat owners must have "their papers" and an "address". Technically, good "socialists" cannot be full time live-aboard vagabonds - they must procure a "residence".

Land transportation and associated infrastructure has been "taken over" by the Collective - and mismanaged to the point that we're faced with staggering bills for its repair and restoration. In the past, most roads, bridges, ferries, and turnpikes were privately owned, maintained, and operated for profit. The body politic was not forced to pay for anything it didn't use. Now? Even that which is perceived to be "privately owned" ( railroads and truckers) are taxed, forced to "share" a portion of their profits with the Collective - the real owner.

Air transportation - well, we all know how that was gradually absorbed into the Collective, and no one has a "right to fly". All airborne activities require government permission, restriction, and regulation. Which might explain why the phenomenal advances in aviation slowed to a crawl - especially with regard to Civil aviation. Can't let the peons get uppity - flying about.

What about distribution of information, via electromagnetic transmission?

The Collective rules the airwaves, takes a share of revenues of direct connected systems (fiber optics and wired connections), and can eventually control what may or may not be communicated.

And the means of distribution that we often do not consider - the merchant - has been entirely absorbed into the Collective. No one can legally "buy wholesale" without government permission (license). In most states, a retail merchant must have a license and collect a transaction tax (excise / sales tax). So a portion of EVERY transaction is taken by the Collective, because the merchant no longer has the right to distribute goods and services. It is a government granted privilege. And in some cases, folks who DARE to sell direct may face criminal prosecution - as in the case where Dairy farmers sold raw milk.

What medium of exchange has been transformed from private ownership to collective ownership?
The money, itself.
Prior to the usurer / socialist alliance, the money was privately owned. Afterward, the money ceased to be privately owned. That's right - you no longer can own the money in your pocket.
It is a crime to destroy a Federal Reserve Note. (Technically, notes are not money, but you get the gist of the argument)
Is it a coincidence that prior to the 20th century, American coin did not have "Caesar's Image" on it?
Indian head penny, buffalo nickel, Mercury dime, Eagle quarter... hmmmm.
Now?
Lincoln penny, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt (shudder) dime, Washington quarter... hmmmm.
Whose money is it now?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...

Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America

[jetgraphics]

What I didn't elucidate in the previous post was that their foundation of power is our consent.

Our consent, via submission to the obligations of citizenship and the acceptance of the liability for the national debt (via FICA) have empowered the Collective. Thus they can rightly say that they are innocent of any wrong doing.

He who consents cannot complain.

If you are ambitious or wish to prove it to yourself, write polite letters of inquiry to "your" representatives in city, county, state and federal government.

Ask them to explain which specific form of consent empowered them to act outside of the securing of rights of an injured party, whose person or property was injured?

Ask them to provide the law that compels all Americans to submit to citizenship and socialism before they can live and work in their own country.

It's really that simple.
In America, governments were instituted to do TWO JOBS:
1. Secure rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.

Absent your consent, all government is authorized to do is help secure (not guarantee) your right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (for only upon your private property can you pursue happiness without needing permission of another). Those rights are what YOUR CREATOR endowed you with - not the Collective State.

Beware, once consent is given, job #1 is waived.
{See: Conscription and Militia duty, beginning in 1777}

[jetgraphics]

The absence of rebuttal leads me to conclude that most readers recognize these points.

What next?

If the PDSRA is inevitable, then you must seek your own accommodation with "Big Brother". If the PDSRA is avoidable, you will have to construct your "escape" from their "new world order".

In sound bite format, I conclude that individually, and in groups, we are going to have to recognize fundamentals such as the difference between a right endowed by one's Creator, and a privilege (aka "right") granted by a government. And anything a government gives, invariably requires it being taken from someone else. Furthermore, until consent is withdrawn, "confrontation" with government is futile.

Then what?

If you've determined the ways you've given consent, and are ready to withdraw that consent, you will have to find your own way of dealing with "the system" while living outside of it. In other words, once you restore your sovereign status, via owning private property upon which you established your domicile, you will have to support your right to life with harmless activity.

It may be difficult to trade with the "Collectivists" who unknowingly assume that you are contrary to "real Americanism". Folks get "feisty" when they discover that you don't pay all the taxes they do. (Of course, you're not a "person liable", and are not in violation of any tax law.)

You may also find it necessary to reduce your consumption while boosting your production of useful goods and services. Of course, once you no longer have the parasitic load of the collectivists upon you, a little goes a long long way. (For inspiration, read Dolly Freed's "Possum Living" http://www.possumliving.net/- an anti-socialist before it was chic)

Investment for the long term

In my humble and subjective opinion, I'd seek to construct the most frugal, low consumption, shelter (ignoring the codes which only apply to real estate - not private property). That shelter might incorporate such features that would enable it to function despite an interruption in resupply, utilities, fuel, water, etc., etc. In fact, I would hope to make it disaster resistant and comfortable regardless. See: Autonomous building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_building.

First off, I'd scrap the minimalist decrees in most building codes. If you're going to build your domicile, your domain, your "castle", make it so it will last at least 100 years or more. That reduces your options to stone, concrete, cement, and brick. I'd want the most super insulated shell I could afford. You can never have "too much" insulation. My preference is a concrete stress skin shell with a generous EPS foam core. But even an insulated concrete form (ICF) isn't out of the question - as long as you "skin" it well.

Windows would be sized and situated for letting in light - and that's all. Operable windows make lousy fire exits, ineffective ventilation, and leak when closed. And "picture windows" are wasteful decoration. For fire exits, I'll have a metal doorway, a fire resistant stair case, and won't be building with a fuel source anyway. For ventilation, I will have outlets at the top, to exhaust hot air (or recycle it), and inlets at the bottom. I'd add insulated shutters, for those times of temperature extreme. (Even the most expensive glazing has pitiful performance as insulation)

I'd install a cistern and collect rainwater - just in case.
Install a dry composting toilet system - just in case.
Install a hand pump in the kitchen, connected to the cistern - just in case.
Install a solar hot water heater - just in case.

I'd install / invest in all manner of food production - permaculture http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/organic/the-essence-of-permaculture-gardening.htm perennial gardening, aeroponics, hydroponics, orchard, fish pond, chickens, ducks, rabbits, green house, keyhole gardening, and so forth.
(See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ring_life/message/142)

For hot and humid climates, I'd suggest segregating appliances that generate a lot of waste heat. I'd also look into "sleeping porches", summer kitchens, and other means to keep cool, without power. For cold climates, I'd look into making an ice house, to "invest" all that winter cold for the hot summer.

The list can go on and on... but you get the idea.
It's the 21st century version of going "back to the future", while keeping modern options open.

And hopefully, the next time "something" goes awry, you can button up in your domicile, and wait it out. Which is a good thing - reducing the demands upon the "first responders".

Failure to plan is planning to fail.

[iOWNme]

Jet,

How did the US CON recognize private property, if it could be taken from you with 'just' compensation? That seems like doublespeak. If they could force you to fight and die without consent, where did the consent come from to take ones property with 'just' compensation?

[jetgraphics]

How did the US CON recognize private property, if it could be taken from you with 'just' compensation? That seems like doublespeak.
No, it's not. Any taking of private property had to follow due process, and in furtherance of the delegated powers.
For example, some one falls through the ice near your property. A rescue worker sees a ladder on your property and takes it to use in the rescue. During the rescue, the ladder is lost.
A. Your private property was taken for public use - in support of some one's right to life (reasonable).
B. The government owes you compensation for the lost ladder.

The taking of "estate" for non-public purposes, since 1935, is another matter.



If they could force you to fight and die without consent, where did the consent come from to take ones property with 'just' compensation?

The imposition of militia duty was not "forced" but by consent, via assertion of citizenship (political liberty). It is stipulated that few Americans are aware of the nature of their consent. It is obvious that the Draft dodgers of the 1960s - 70s had no knowledge of that fact.

The taking of private property had to be for public purposes (in harmony with the delegation of powers to secure rights). Of course, since 1935, and national socialism, few own private property, and the question is moot.

Anecdote flag on.
In a courtroom, in 1992, I claimed to be an American national, not a U.S. citizen, and the assistant D.A. uttered a veiled threat to deport me. The judge looked at him, with daggers in his eyes, and reprimanded him. Knowledge of the law is not a necessity for the practice of law.

To the best of my knowledge, the natural and personal liberties of the American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America are still secure. Ironically, I know of no one who fits that definition. (I do not own land at this time)

[iOWNme]

Absent your consent, all government is authorized to do is help secure (not guarantee) your right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (for only upon your private property can you pursue happiness without needing permission of another). Those rights are what YOUR CREATOR endowed you with - not the Collective State.


Amazing. Thank you for simplifying that so easily. That really hit home with me.....

[iOWNme]

How did the US CON recognize private property, if it could be taken from you with 'just' compensation? That seems like doublespeak.
No, it's not. Any taking of private property had to follow due process, and in furtherance of the delegated powers.
For example, some one falls through the ice near your property. A rescue worker sees a ladder on your property and takes it to use in the rescue. During the rescue, the ladder is lost.
A. Your private property was taken for public use - in support of some one's right to life (reasonable).
B. The government owes you compensation for the lost ladder.

The taking of "estate" for non-public purposes, since 1935, is another matter.



If they could force you to fight and die without consent, where did the consent come from to take ones property with 'just' compensation?

The imposition of militia duty was not "forced" but by consent, via assertion of citizenship (political liberty). It is stipulated that few Americans are aware of the nature of their consent. It is obvious that the Draft dodgers of the 1960s - 70s had no knowledge of that fact.

The taking of private property had to be for public purposes (in harmony with the delegation of powers to secure rights). Of course, since 1935, and national socialism, few own private property, and the question is moot.


Your ladder example is very interesting, and i never thought about it like that.

The taking of ones property for public purposes 'in harmony with the government securing one's rights' sounds an awful like like communism to me. I mean, of course you want to save a life. But that is just my opinion. Next thing you know the government is taking your entire plot of land, because it will save lives in the future somehow.......


Government - "We are taking your property, because we promised to secure your rights"
You - "Thank you master."

:P

[jetgraphics]

The taking of ones property for public purposes 'in harmony with the government securing one's rights' sounds an awful like like communism to me. I mean, of course you want to save a life. But that is just my opinion. Next thing you know the government is taking your entire plot of land, because it will save lives in the future somehow.......

Government - "We are taking your property, because we promised to secure your rights"
You - "Thank you master."

Part of the confusion may lie with the difference between owning property as a right, versus owning property as a privilege.
Absolute ownership by an individual is a right. Qualified ownership is not a right, and as such, comes under a different set of rules to adjudicate disputes.

Only private property is constitutionally protected - estate is not.

Since 1935, very few, if any, Americans own private property.

Without private property rights, the evidence is clear that the socialist administration - in power since 1935 - does arbitrarily take property from one to give to another (wages, land, etc.).

In the original implementation of the republican form of government, you may recall that the only people who voted or held office were PROPERTY OWNERS who paid their taxes.

Under that system, I think you will agree that no servant in government would DARE arbitrarily take private property without serious justification.

For a government delegated the power to help secure YOUR property rights cannot deny your property rights unless you consent - OR - it is in the pursuit of justice where there is an injured party, whose person or property was deliberately injured by you or yours. Without your consent, and without an injured party, constitutional government has no authority to trespass upon you or yours.

FWIW - most of the usurpations done under "General Welfare" are actually empowered by Article IV of the Confederation, in which paupers are excepted. Via FICA, the majority of Americans have devolved in status, and thus empower the servant to become the master, dispensing charity from the public treasury. Beggars can't be choosers, nor can they bite the hand that feeds them.

[jetgraphics]

Since only the U.S.A. has a republican form of government, in which the people can be sovereign, it follows that the enemies of America had to not only drag down America, but erase all knowledge of the historical foundation of American law.

I began my long, slow trek into the labyrinth of legal study, in 1989. I still believe that all law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. As time went by, I realized the many mile posts of transformation that eradicated our endowment from our Creator, and replaced it with a false benefit from government.

Some of the opposition was in the form of finance, from "our friends", the usurers. Some of the latest opposition is in the form of collectivist pirates (i.e., socialists, progressives, communists, marxists, etc.). But each opponent is determined to strip Americans of their birthright to absolutely own themselves, their labor, and the fruits of that labor - and eradicate all knowledge of natural and personal liberty.

In their place, we are indoctrinated to embrace usury, "human rights", privileges bestowed by government (and taken back), as well as tolerate vices and condemn virtues.

To understand the depths we have fallen to, here is an example of the founding generation's understanding of the true nature of law in America:

Virginia Constitution, 1776

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

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

(If you recall, only land owning, tax paying citizens voted for "representation" and therefore were bound by all laws. Those who did not vote, nor consent, were not taxed nor deprived of their property.)

[iOWNme]

Since only the U.S.A. has a republican form of government, in which the people can be sovereign, it follows that the enemies of America had to not only drag down America, but erase all knowledge of the historical foundation of American law.

I began my long, slow trek into the labyrinth of legal study, in 1989. I still believe that all law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent. As time went by, I realized the many mile posts of transformation that eradicated our endowment from our Creator, and replaced it with a false benefit from government.

Some of the opposition was in the form of finance, from "our friends", the usurers. Some of the latest opposition is in the form of collectivist pirates (i.e., socialists, progressives, communists, marxists, etc.). But each opponent is determined to strip Americans of their birthright to absolutely own themselves, their labor, and the fruits of that labor - and eradicate all knowledge of natural and personal liberty.

In their place, we are indoctrinated to embrace usury, "human rights", privileges bestowed by government (and taken back), as well as tolerate vices and condemn virtues.

To understand the depths we have fallen to, here is an example of the founding generation's understanding of the true nature of law in America:

Virginia Constitution, 1776

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

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

(If you recall, only land owning, tax paying citizens voted for "representation" and therefore were bound by all laws. Those who did not vote, nor consent, were not taxed nor deprived of their property.)



Fantastic post Jet.

Question:

You mentioned 2 groups- Usurers and Collectivist.

Do you suppose the top of the food chain for both of these groups, has a full understanding of American Law vs Public Policy? (Secured rights vs Consent to be governed)

Or do they just go by the golden rule: He he owns the gold makes the rules.

[jetgraphics]

Question:
You mentioned 2 groups- Usurers and Collectivist.

Do you suppose the top of the food chain for both of these groups, has a full understanding of American Law vs Public Policy? (Secured rights vs Consent to be governed)

Or do they just go by the golden rule: He he owns the gold makes the rules.

I really can't speak for those on the top. I know that some judges, off the record, divulged their understanding of the bankruptcy, and the "real party of interest".
I guess they feel that as long as they have their "good life", they don't care about the petty details or scruples.

[jetgraphics]

Addendum:
On another forum, I "stepped into it" by asking if pensioners or any future recipients of pensions, military included, would be willing to give up those pensions in order to save the nation.

The feedback was astoundingly negative. Those who claimed to "defend" Freedom were most adamant about compelling their fellow Americans to pay pensions and benefits to them.

With such a belief in "entitlement", we are [expletive deleted] !

[iOWNme]

Addendum:
On another forum, I "stepped into it" by asking if pensioners or any future recipients of pensions, military included, would be willing to give up those pensions in order to save the nation.

The feedback was astoundingly negative. Those who claimed to "defend" Freedom were most adamant about compelling their fellow Americans to pay pensions and benefits to them.

With such a belief in "entitlement", we are [expletive deleted] !


What you have described is one of the biggest tools TPTB use against naive citizens. How can you possibly be free to make your own decisions, when it is the .gov who is keeping you on their nipple?

I remember my grandmothers generation..." Always save 10% of everything you make ". They also had to see the Great Depression, and learn to be frugal. But i guess it didnt take many generations to forget that hard lesson.

[jetgraphics]

You cannot reward consumption and penalize production and expect prosperity.

Money is not a measure of prosperity. Prosperity can only exist when there is a creation, trade and transportation of surplus usable goods and services.

And no government charged with securing rights is doing its job when it takes from one, and gives to another, under threat, duress or coercion.