The Constitution provides for General Welfare, but not Specific Welfare. General Welfare benefits everyone while Specific Welfare benefits some at the expense of others. The purpose of our government is to protect our rights not to redistribute wealth and provide free goodies.
Specific Welfare is how the elected officials reward their supporters and punish their opponents. Showing preferential treatment to some at the expense of others is unethical, immoral and gives rise to crime, corruption and perpetual debt.
If it is wrong for you to take another man's property, how can it be ethical to hire another man or organization to commit the theft in your behalf? What is a crime when committed by individuals is still a crime when it is committed by governments.
When a man takes the property of his neighbor without his consent it is called theft. When a government does the same thing it is called taxation. If man has a right to own and dispose of his own property, how can the government do what we as individuals can not lawfully do? If it is wrong for a man to steal from his neighbor it is also wrong for a government take the property of an individual without his consent.
Replies
Governments, in the context of your message, means the same thing as organized crime, so why do you aid and abet, lend moral and material support to, those criminals running what you call government?
Does that not make you an accessory to the crimes you speak of with those words that fail to accurately account for the specific people who are specifically accountable for the specific crimes they perpetrate upon their specified victims?
Good points! Yeah, and as long as we do nothing about it, then we are actively not only condoning it, but assisting those who we employ to commit these crimes upon our selves...this is freedom? Hmmm I might have to look elsewhere...this is not the country I was born in any more.
Joseph- please don't confuse me with the facts!
Where would you go? Haven't you seen what is going on all around the world? Same old bull.
In between the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (inspired by the criminal Constitution of 1787) is a true Federal Union of free people inspired in their defense against criminal governments: and other criminals.
If anyone wants to know what is or is not a crime perpetrated by a criminal abusing the office of government then all one has to do is look at the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights attached to the Criminal Constitution of 1787.
Do the criminals lie?
Yes, they did so in 1787 when they made slavery legal and they outlawed (set aside) the working Federal Constitution.
Do they threaten innocent people with injury for failing to obey orders without question?
That is now called plea bargaining, so yes, they lie and they threaten; which is knowable as extortion; not knowable if the discovery of the knowledge is hiden behind a working fraud.
Do they make it a crime for the innocent to defend themselves?
Yes, they make their version of law (criminal versions are all the same base "laws" of might makes right, rule by man, mob rule, whatever they call it when they pick false names) unaffordable to anyone other than those who are in their club, those who can afford to pay the price they charge for their very scarce supply of so called "law."
Do they fail to understand what the word no means when they rape, rob, torture, murder, and mass murder with the loot (the power) they steal as they use that power to steal more power every day?
Yes, what does the word no mean in the context of the Bill of Rights?
It appears you believe the Constitution of the United States is what is criminal, drawn up by criminals? Yet, you appear to say it is the SAME criminals that "inspired" the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights produced in those documents " a true Federal Union of FREE PEOPLE inspired in their defense against criminal governments and other countries", you said.
You rightly point out the evils of mob rule and rules by men alone, etc and somehow this leads to the awareness that these same criminals as you call them produced a document that made us a Republic to reduce or hinder those evils.
In the end, it does seem it is the supporting, practicing and honoring of the Bill of Rights that is your point.
The irony of all you say can be demonstrated in the very words of our president who has made known he, too, is unfavorable to the Constitution, which includes the BILL OF RIGHTS. He said that the Constitution has too many flaws and too RESTRAINING. You may probably agree with him on the first. However, what is eye opening is his stated evaluation that the Constitution RESTRAINS him. It interferes with his ONE MAN RULE.
I submit to you, was that a mistake and un-calculated oversight on the part of those "criminals" of the Constitution of 1787?
This has become the most dangerous administration in the history of this Country. If some Americans cannot see this for what it is, then they are part of the problem.
Last November we sent a message to Washington D.C. and the several States, We The People, are aware of what is going on and we are going to change the rules, it will be a real wake up call come 2016. And we have just begun to make the changes WE can believe in.
Move over Mr. President, there are a few new changes we are going to make without you. One of them might be the removal from office for violating your oaths of office of both you and your VP.
Of the 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence only six of them also signed the Constitution. The other 49 men were either not invited or decided not to participate in the convention. Many of these men were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution. Men such as Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, Elbridge Gerry. George Mason and Richard Henry Lee all thought that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government.
And that Thomas Jefferson himself felt the Articles of Confederation were just fine and that he was badgered into writing the Constitution, he demanded that the Constitution would include the bill of rights or he wasn't going to write it.
James Madison was the pressure point who rode it through the committees and really was the father of the Constitution, and Thomas was a scribe employed to write it up, but only if he got to write the bill of rights.
Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other and fought back and forth over a strong Central Government and a Strong Central Bank, and now we have the Federal Reserve Bank, looks like Jefferson lost on that round..
Just thought I'd mention that..
David,
I am right here, ready, willing, and able to explain to you, or anyone, any misunderstandings transferred from me to other people.
Example:
"It appears you believe the Constitution of the United States is what is criminal, drawn up by criminals?"
I can clear up that confusion now. The Constitution of 1787 is inculpatory evidence proving that the people who wrote it were declaring slavery legal according to them. The paper is not criminal no more than a gun is criminal; or a pointed stick. Appearances are often false fronts invented, produced, and maintained by deceivers seeking to perpetrate crimes behind those appearances.
Example 2:
"Yet, you appear to say it is the SAME criminals that "inspired" the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights produced in those documents " a true Federal Union of FREE PEOPLE inspired in their defense against criminal governments and other countries", you said."
I chose my words carefully; and then I published those words which are now recorded and unedited by me. Three of the people who were invited to the meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 expressed the false pretenses stated by the frauds who then shut the doors on the meeting and issued gag orders. One was George Mason, who is credited with the victory of the Bill of Rights later attached to the criminals claims that slavery was legal, extortion was legal, and that same George Mason stuck it out during the whole dirty deal in Philadelphia, but he refused to sing the slave contract. Luther Martin and Robert Yates left the meeting in protest before the criminals were done recording their crimes.
Here are two references:
https://archive.org/details/secretproceeding00unit
http://www.constitution.org/gmason/objections.html
Your claims of what my words appear to say are curiously wrong. There were at least 2 major groups during the conflict after the Revolution and the criminals who were working effectively at returning the same organized crime system that was employed by the British forces called themselves the Federalist Parte. That was the criminal frauds who extort. Those same criminals were opposed by people like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, and Robert Yates and those people were truly working for a federal government system such as the one that existed between 1776 and 1787. The false Federalist Party members dreamed up a catchy name for their opponents. The false federalists called the true federalists "Anti" Federalists.
That is classic mind control happening well before the Wall Street gang financed their Manufactured Consent with the FUND they stole, which was then copied by the Nazis and then the Bolsheviks.
Example 3:
"You rightly point out the evils of mob rule and rules by men alone, etc and somehow this leads to the awareness that these same criminals as you call them produced a document that made us a Republic to reduce or hinder those evils."
I do no such thing. Mob rule is a catchy name for criminals perpetrating organized crime. Criminals have always used classic mislabeling as a means of deception, misdirection, false fronts, legal fictions, etc. Mob rule is one such example of mislabeling. As to the so called document that made us a Republic, there you have error compounding effort, in reference to me and what I said. A Republic is merely a government that is not criminal. Republic is the public thing, literally, in Latin: respublica.
The federal government design was working when a group of representatives of the people created it and one of the results of that group of people creating a federal government was the Declaration of Independence; written by a Continental Congress group of representatives of the people working for the public thing, or working for the public at large, which is by definition a republic. Those representatives then prosecuted a defensive war, driving out the British, and they also wrote a Constitution called the Articles of Confederation. The people in the States also wrote their own Constitutions for their own States which were also Republics, except perhaps for Massachusetts, which was a working organized crime ring once the British were driven out.
Example 4:
"In the end, it does seem it is the supporting, practicing and honoring of the Bill of Rights that is your point."
Concluding error on my part is your first mistake, and then you compound that error in that example. If you want to know my point you can ask instead of making errors in assumptions.
As to the current criminal claiming to be a president of something, and your continuing compounding errors concerning what I think: the man is a criminal and the Bill of Rights, if understood, could inspire people to form a Grand Jury, discover the criminal as one, write up a presentment, and put the traitor on his trial, presuming, of course, that he is innocent until proven guilty lawfully; meaning by a jury of his peers.
Now moving onto a point of discussion:
"I submit to you, was that a mistake and un-calculated oversight on the part of those "criminals" of the Constitution of 1787?"
The first thing the criminals set about doing, so as to perpetuate their power to perpetrate crimes under false government, was to bring back into America the British rule through Admiralty "courts" as proven by their Judiciary Acts of 1789.
Then they set about creating their Naturalization Acts, to tag each victim, and then the set about to Tax each victim, to create the demand for the Monopoly Money they make from their Central Bank. All that was done before 1794, by the way, as then they conscripted an Army of slaves to crush Liberty in Pennsylvania, enforcing the extortion payments they say that we the people had to pay or else.
References:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html
They, meaning the false federalist criminals, did not acknowledge the restraints (Bill of Rights) then, why do you think they (the current batch of criminals) are going to acknowledge the restraints now?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next