It might be that you grunts should stick to what your good at... small unit tactics.

HK,
I struggled to read this thread. Don't get me wrong but I agree with ConSigCor. I get the feeling that he has been battling darkness for far longer than me.

If I've been drinking the coolaid, I've been drinking it while living outside NY, Detroit and Los Angeles over more than 50 years. AND, I've traveled to/worked in roughly 50 countries over my lifetime. I just don't like Grape coolaid.

A democratic republic to my mind protects liberties better than a democracy. For instance, without an electorial congress, a politial group could work to control the largest states and inact laws whereby the rest of the states would have little or no say. A simple but effective check against tyranny. By the way, the founding fathers made this case.

Our educational system seems to have dumbed down our citizenry over the past 40-50 years. If nothing else, it has been teaching us collectiveism is better than individualism.

I see thing as what was normal on social issues when I was a kid, is now abnormal in the "unbiased" press and in the schools. Conspiracy?

You're delusional if you think sitting around a camp fire singing kumbya will make this all better. When SHTF I hope your.22 is enough.

Archangel1,

I suppose that I am stuck in the rut of, one person, one vote.

The electoral college, the folks that actually cast the ballots, who are they, how are they picked? Each state makes up its own rules and as it goes along they are often changed when the results are not inline with the status quo.

Popular vote-electoral vote, there are too many variables and that opens the whole process up to be corrupted. As we have been witness to in the past.

Has this democratic republic, this representative republic and its checks and ballances designed to stop tyranny protected us from what is now upon us?

One sovereign man = many votes.

One sovereign man = many votes.

What does that mean?

Has the representative republican model protected us from what is now upon us?

Do the corporations that are in controll of our elected representatives have a liberal, a socialist, a communist agenda?

In my opinion, now this is just mine own opinion, a thorough study of socio-economic United States history from about 1730 up is desperately needed by some of the posters here.

Holden, some of us have studied history and political science...and not just the 'publik skool' pablum...since before you were born. For some, the founding of the republic is part of their family history.

The fascist oligarchs who now rule the world do so with the consent of the governed. We no longer have a functional republic because the people are immoral, dumbed down and ignorant. The oligarchs have usurped authority which was never granted, because the generally dumb masses are apathetic, lazy, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic children. The people are deceived and no longer retain any understanding of their own natural rights, responsibilities and authority.

Government granted privileges can be voted away on a mere political whim through the democratic process. The modern jury trial sham is a perfect example. Take two men chosen for jury duty...the democratic man will think "one man, one vote" and will do as instructed by the judge. The republican man will understand...one man has three votes.

Rights are inherent, something possessed by the natural man. They will only be retained if the people are educated and willing to enforce them.

ConSigCor,

...one man has three votes.

I still don't understand. Please explain this to me.

I do agree with most of what you say. I concur about the jury trial sham, heck 95% of cases are settled in the back room.

"the generally dumb masses are apathetic, lazy, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic children."

I understand why you write this but it is still a generalization. In estimate what percentage of the American population do you consider to fall into this group?

The ones who gave up. Why did they give up? Because they are ignorant, apathetic, selfish, parasitic children?

In 2008 56.8% of people voted, 136,618,580. The voting age population was 231,229,580. With 94,611,000 who didn't vote who could have.

With all due respect, and I don't know if your beliefs are commonly held among the active patriot community, but if they are then it would seem that the oligarchy, and specifically one of its major organs the splc has an extra easy time as writing us off as far right fascists on the same coin with the far left fascists.

Do you think, as do the extreme far left and the extreme far right think that the masses need to be under the iron heel because they cannot make the right choices or don't deserve to even be allowed to make choices simply for thier lack of participation in the political process?

Three votes...

An informed juror can judge
1. the facts in the matter in question ie the case
2. the guilt or innocence of the accused in relation to those facts
3. and the constitutionality of the law itself (whether or not the law is just and or violates the rights of the accused)

That comment is patently absurd.

Just because the majority of people are deceived and ignorant of their rights and responsibilities as citizens doesn't mean they should be placed under an "iron heel". They need to be educated in the proper role of the government and the citizen and accept responsibility for their actions or lack thereof. That was the whole purpose of having a republic rather than a pure democracy in the first place. With a republic, IF the people will enforce their rights, the government has no authority other than what we consent to. In a democracy a simple majority, whether deceived or selfish parasite seeking "free" entitlements, can vote all your rights away and place you under slavery.

Someone awakening for the first time in his life just how wrong things are in this country, then joins the first group opposing them... the Occupy movement... doesn't make them a communist.

Now, more than one regular here has condemned the whole lot as marxists, which is inaccurate. They might well become marxists though if they hypothetically bump into those that shun the Occupy movement instead of seeing the individual as a person to clue in-on their level-just how effed things are in America and that the Occupy movement is designed to tag them and get them to waste their energies supporting a pack of ringers.

Is the veteran who got shot in the head at point blank range by a 12 gauge riot round a commie?

How about that Marine who called about 30 NYPD on their participation in the police state and they didn't have a word to say-he a chekist?

How about some hypothetical American, lost his house to some bankster foreclosure chicanery or his job to China, and is asking 'why'. They're angry, sold a bill of goods and found out they got conned so they're looking for answers. They're looking for a way to respond...

...So where are all the hairy chest-beating militia men? Where's their front political movement?

Okay, what about the TEA Party-oh wait, that's recognized a an arm of the Republican party now.

So what does that leave?

Whose out there?

Occupy movement-and yes it's a front group but it's flaw to the enemy is that it's attracted a lot of people who think like us. It's just that it's the left wing version of the honeytrap... y'know like that militia group you might've nearly joined until you figured out who you signed up for was a fed or snitch.

The enemy subverts militias and 'our' political movements (TEA Party), why not subvert theirs?

Oh, right. Militia don't do that. Militia pound keyboards, recycle Jefferson quotes.

We have NO street cred.

OWS does.

Now, if you had just awakened, what would YOU join?

...And the answer to that is why I've been writing, persuading the Patriots to take a systematic, counter-offensive posture. Why plain English doesn't work can only be attributed to denial.

Oh, Holden, I'm near a very big lake...

We the patriots do have to take a more active stance in our political activity or die waiting for the other shoe to drop!

They have killed the first and they will take the second last, in the mean time we will loose every other right and freedom we have as the work to minimize us as a force!

So,Holden.Or,should I call you Howard?What is the real reason for your abrupt arrival on this board of very distinguished gentlemen and patriots.Clearly you have a background in some type of journalism/writing.Which mean you have studied the liberal arts at some point in your life.Personally,I've read the works of Homer,Socrates,Plato and Shakespeare.It help me to understand to multi-level game the enemy is playing with us.They use a lot of Julius Cesar and Henry VIII type intrigue.Perhaps because they "fancy"themselves to be a King or Cesar.You also,rant on about "Fascists" and the police state(we know the enemy uses two politic but has only one goal,global enslavement).Which,is a sign of your involvement with a more liberal crowd.

You say your making contact with the "Leaders" of many groups.Which one's?I'd like to look into to your claims further.I spend a great deal of my time "ferreting out" those who may pose a threat to the patriot movement as a whole.Most are just mouthy numbskulls,but every once in a while...

HK,
Perhaps you need to get out of the rut and get involved in the process. You can't change things if you don't participate.

Each voting district sends an electorial college representative, but you need to be involved to be the one that casts the ceremonial vote. The electorial college representative is pledged to vote for the winning candidate in a state-wide winner takes all scenario. Only 4 times in history has the majority vote and electorial college vote been different.

The Bush vs Gore election was interesting as it went to both the Florida State and the US Supreme Courts twice each to decide. I honestly think that the US Supreme Court was right to tell the Florida State Supreme court to follow existing State and Federal election laws and not reinterpret or make up new rules. Your interpretation may vary.

Another thing in our favor; each state has their own election rules, which is probably a good thing. One corrupt state government that can be identified should have less impact on the Union, than one corrupt federal government which makes all men slaves.

I live in California and the level of corruption here boggles my mind. What really bothers me is the fact that the new redistricting looks like it make it worse than better.

I could care less what the presstitute media says about the occupy movement. I base my opinion of them on what their own members write and what I see them do. Many of their grievances are 100% wholly legitimate. And, while I'm sure most of these people are sincere, many of them are misguided. When I hear the "democratic socialist" solutions some of these occupy folks advocate...we part company.

I have no problem working with some of them on an individual basis. If occupy shows up to protest the fed or the bilderburgers, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with them protesting a common enemy. If their rights are being violated, I'll defend them. However as a movement, we have far too many differences.

I shake my head at some of their comments but support their right to free speech. I find that I share many of their concerns but not their solutions. I think both sides want to eliminate the corruption that we see every day.

Holden Karre,

My opinion of what I've read of your posts on this subject so far is this:

You advocate direct democracy - each individual getting a vote in electing our leaders. That sounds fine and wonderfully egalitarian, but I disagree. You point to the number of registered voters who didn't vote as a problem. This suprises me as you come across as a thinker. (If voting could change anything, it would have been outlawed long ago.) What do you think would have happened if all registered voters had voted in the last several elections? When the electorate at large is indoctrinated into believing that the choice is only between the two parties' anointed candidates, Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, both of whom are bought-and-paid-for fascist statists, the difference would be completely inconsequential. Do you believe we would be any better off or safer or less involved globally if McCain had defeated Obama, or if Gore or Kerry had defeated Bush II, or if Dole had defeated Clinton? Are you aware that the top 10 contributors to both McCain's and Obama's presidential campaigns are the same corporate entities (although in differing amounts)?

While this may be unpopular, I want to return to the idea that the only people who are allowed to vote for elected leaders are people who own land. People who own land have something key to lose that non-landowners don't. Try selling redistribution of wealth, in the form of property, to land owners. Try selling the idea of property taxes to landowners.

That said, I'm concerned by the lack of cordiality and downright accusations and character assassination being flung simply because some disagree in whole or in part with what Holden Karre is suggesting. Are we not free to discuss ideas here? Are we not able to toss ideas back and forth without slander? Do we castigate and ostracize and insult people on this board who inject different (fresh?) ways of looking at problems into our conciousness? What ever happened to the idea that we may not agree with what someone says but we understand the importance of defending their right to say it?

Holden Karre, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that things would be better or improve if only we could get the non-voting populace to vote. But I'd like to see you stick around here. Heck, I didn't agree with airforce for a long time about the drug war, but in back-and-forth discussions on this board, I came to see things his way. Similarly with anarcho-capitalism, although that has taken me longer to see.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I hope you, like many on this board, are humble enough to discuss these important matters with an open mind, understanding that if you "lose" a friendly or even a heated debate, you win because you gain greater understanding.

Peace to all.

Edited to add:

I would like to apologize in advance for stepping on toes. I just hate to see good discussion suffocated.

Bilderberg 2012 Marks a Turning Point in Focused and Cooperative Activism

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/bilderberg-2012-marks-turning-point-in.html

The 2012 Bilderberg meeting at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia marked the first time I have attended a protest geared toward exposing this particular private cabal which is instrumental in choosing Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as determining the life and death of millions of people and the economic fate of billions more.

I honestly had no idea what to expect as I made my way to the hotel. Being a realist by nature, I expected to encounter heavy security and only a handful of determined protesters carrying signs and repeating anti-Bilderberg chants; typical protest stuff.

What I found, however, was somewhat of a surprise. Of course, the heavy police presence was exactly what I expected. But there was significantly more than a mere handful of protesters waiting at the hotel entrance. In fact, the crowd was about three times the size I thought it would be. Obviously, the signs were there and so were the chants. But there was no doubt that this protest was something different.

I must admit that it is difficult to describe in words just what was so different about this demonstration as compared to others I have attended in the past. Indeed, after talking with other activists, journalists, and demonstrators, I have found that the majority of them have come away with the same outlook regarding this year’s Bilderberg meeting. That is, that they took part in something special this weekend and that the protest surrounding Bilderberg 2012 was some kind of a turning point.

In truth, the size of the crowd was secondary to the energy it produced, and the energy surrounding the overall event.


The political makeup of the protesters was extremely diverse with libertarians, socialists, anarchists, war veterans, anti-war activists, Christians, New-Agers, Occupy protesters, and those with no affiliation whatsoever coming together not as a mob but as a grouping of Individuals who have the same goals and interests.

Throughout the demonstration, one could walk through the crowd and witness discussions and debates, all of them mutually respectful, regarding history, philosophies, and solutions.

One such debate was a conversation captured on camera between Webster Tarpley and Adam Kokesh, two individuals of very different backgrounds and political pedigrees, but who are nevertheless in complete agreement about the dangers posed to the world population by cabals such as the Bilderberg Group.

As I mentioned above, the electric energy present at Bilderberg was both unmistakable and indescribable. There were even times when it felt as if there was some kind of unconscious telepathy taking place between the protesters, as one could immediately pick out other activists when walking down the street far from the hotel itself. No one needed to be decked out in political shirts or carrying signs – you just knew. I truly felt there was no need to formally introduce myself to other demonstrators because, from the moment I reached the event, it felt as if I was visiting a group of old friends and family.

In fact, the protest felt more like a festival than a demonstration. Although Mark Dice was obviously making a joke by dubbing the demonstration “Bilderfest 2012,” it was also an accurate description of the event. Adam Kokesh felt the same way as he described the protest as a “summit” for alternative media.

Author JG Vibes agrees when he writes:

Everyone was well aware that they were standing just yards away from some of the most evil conversations that could possibly be taking place, but that didn’t mean that the atmosphere outside had to take the same tone.

This statement brings us to another aspect of this protest that made it so different from all the others. The 2012 Bilderberg Demonstration exhibited a startling lack of anger and hatred; rather it was an startling amount of love and commitment to one other that defined the atmosphere. This is not to say that the protesters were not angry or that they didn’t hate the criminals meeting inside the hotel; it is to say that the anger they carried was not the anger that consumes the one that harbors it. It was the kind of anger that produces peaceful resistance and productive change.

Even in the midst of the heavy police presence and the fact that, only a few yards away from them, plans were being made to further tighten the noose fastened around the neck of the general population, the activists maintained this spirit of love and community, all the while making enough noise to cause at least some disruption of the globalists meeting inside the hotel.

Again, as JG Vibes writes:

The vibe outside was one of celebration, love, togetherness, and peaceful resistance. Everyone was excited to share that moment with one another, and were excited to see such an unprecedented turnout for something that has remained secret for so many years.

In terms of community I, myself, was thrilled to meet so many people of like minds and to have the opportunity to discuss with them the issues that have become such guiding factors in all of our lives. I was also immeasurably pleased to meet one of the individuals who played a role in my own awakening, as well as several other activists, researchers, and journalists whose work I have greatly admired from a distance for some time.

In all honesty, when I first realized that I would have this opportunity, I must confess at having some question in the back of my mind as to whether or not some of these individuals are as real and sincere as they have presented themselves to be through their public work. After all, such doubt and possibility is human nature.

However, I am now pleased to say that, although I only met them briefly, I am convinced that they are indeed as sincere and dedicated as they appear to be from a distance. There is no question in my mind that these people are absolutely determined to promote freedom and humanity in the face of the obstacles currently placed in front of us.

With this in mind, it is important for all of us to remember that we may disagree with each other’s political philosophies and methods of presentation, but we cannot allow these disagreements to divide us. We must be able to hold views that are different from those around us while still working together for the same common goal. Not only that, we must maintain the ability to be respectful and tolerant of each other on those issues and areas where we may disagree.

Lastly, we cannot forget to mention the man who dedicated so many years of his life to exposing this secretive cabal of globalists known as the Bilderberg Group. Jim Tucker has been following and reporting on Bilderberg for well over thirty years and, for most of those years, was labeled a conspiracy theorist by almost everyone in the mainstream media and ignored by all the rest.

When Tucker first began his work against Bilderberg, he was laughed at, ridiculed, and ostracized. No one showed up to protest the meetings because virtually no one knew about them. No mainstream news agencies followed up on his reports because they were owned by the individuals he was trying to expose. Even many outside of the mainstream media were reluctant to follow this rabbit hole any further.

One can only imagine the discouragement Tucker must have felt as he watched his reports -- which were the result of a great deal of hard and dangerous work, as well as financial and geographical inconvenience -- be so easily dismissed the moment they were released.

Yet he still persisted where most others would have given up long ago.

Now, over thirty years later, not even the mainstream media can continue calling Jim Tucker a conspiracy theorist with any sincerity.

What he was once laughed at for reporting, the London Telegraph, London Guardian, Washington Post, and Washington Times have now been forced to address in their own publications.

While once following and infiltrating Bilderberg alone, Tucker is now greeted by close to a thousand protesters. He is now standing side by side with a large contingent of the alternative media and even a tiny portion of those from the mainstream.

Although Tucker has grown much older since his first exposé of Bilderberg many years ago, I cannot help but to express immense joy that he has been able to live to see his tireless effort and often thankless work turn into such an event, and to know that it is largely because of him that demonstrations like Bilderberg 2012 are taking place. Such is an honor that many men never receive and it is one that Jim Tucker truly deserves. Indeed, it is thanks to Jim Tucker that Bilderberg is greeted with a growing number of protesters and new leaks every year.

Although these meetings are still conducted in the dark, they are forced to work harder and harder to dodge the light.


Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.

That is the most encouraging bit of news I've seen in quite some time. Do you have a link you can post?

Fixed the original post.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/bilderberg-2012-marks-turning-point-in.html

Flick,

Howmuch land do I have to own to get my vote?

1 acre, 100 acres, a 500sq ft loft that I own that is located in a high rise, the rehabbed hud house that habitat for humanity gave me on the 1/8 acre lot?

Maybee I live in a secure zone with 10 other famlies. Do we all get to vote?

I don't much like that idea.

I agree that a lot Americans are apathetic, howmany I don't know, but atleast 95 million.

What do we have here, roughly 330 millions, I think. Shit, thats a lot of people.

I think that people segegrate themselves to specific geo locales, for whatever reason, cultural, economic, ideology.
And I have often wondered how so many millions of people can live together in the cities. It would seem like this is idea of America is not fifty states but 2 states, city states and country states.

Hell Flick, I know that if voting actually worked it would be illegal.

I have long spells to which I don't take in any information from any outlet but mine own thoughts.
. Maybee just escape and re- read all my old Louis Lamours for a few weeks or a couple of months.

I have to take a break from this kind of thinking, some remf r an r if you will.
I am not well suited or naturally inclined toward it as I was indocked and swallowed it whole, so that had me joining up intentionally, signing up specifically for the infantry of all things, criminy I was a really dumb kid, but if I can change my prespective anybody can.

Just thinking out loud this time.

I just read that, in Virginia under the Articles of Confederation, to vote required one to own at least 25 acres with a house or 50 acres without. I would say that one should be required to own enough land to use it for a productive purpose other than simply residing. So owning a row house or a townhouse or most single family homes would not qualify. Were I king, I'd say that one must own at least 1 acre with a house or 5 acres without a house in order to be allowed to vote. With today's advances in agriculture and technology, land can be more productive than in the late 18th Century. Those who move to cities do so for jobs that earn them more money and/or prestige. If that's what floats one's boat, then they either need to suck it up or buy a 5-acre plot somewhere if s/he wants to vote.

No, only the titled property owner would be allowed to vote. The key for me is that the voter stand to lose property or his/her freedom to use his/her property as he/she wishes. If I don't own property, I at least know that those who do will vote to protect mine as well.

Then buy 5 acres or a house with at least one acre. Oh, and the vote would be for the district in which the property is owned. Again, this is under the system I would establish if I were king.

I'm guessing your response might be something like: "But poor people or people of less means would be disenfranchised by being unable to vote." Exactly as they should be. Those are the very people who don't understand the greater good and vote for people in power to take from others to give to them.

So why all the emphasis on getting all Americans -- or as many Americans as possible -- to vote? In what way do you think that would change anything?

Direct democracy would work only if there were sufficient numbers of people awake enough to understand that a vote for either of the two factions of The Party is wasted and would have to all vote for the same candidate -- not some for the Libertarian, some for the Green, some for the Constitution, and some for the Reform candidates. Do you think we have that kind of majority among those who vote or would vote? I look at how Ron Paul has fared in the primaries and the media blitz either ignoring or attacking him and I say we're not even close. Hell, I'll bet that most of the OWS folks will be voting for Obama this year.

Coming full circle, how do you think direct democracy would undermine groups like Bilderberg?

If you read what the founders of this country said about voting it would shock and enrage most modern Americans.

In general terms...they considered voting not a right but rather a privilege and responsibility of State citizenship. Many of the States required either property ownership or the ability to read before you were allowed to vote. You were also required to enroll and take an active part in your local militia before you could vote. Their reasoning was that the uneducated weren't able to make an informed decision. And, that only people who owned property and paid taxes were responsible enough to make decisions on how the government spent their tax money. Naturally, if you pay taxes you will not vote to waste that money on bloated gov. programs like we have today. Anyone who received government assistance was exempted from the voting process.

.gov employees should unequivocally be exempted from voting, and IMO, New Hampshire has the best working model for a low-pay high-turnover state legislature.

Voting to spend my money should never be taken lightly.

The founding fathers were right. If you don't have skin in the game, why should you have a say?

Most of those called the Founding Fathers were lawyers, plantation owners-basically the upper crust of Colonial America. Some did it out of genuine repression coming from Britain but a lot of them did it because they wanted their own empire. Some did it for occult reasons.

The average soldier, the average militia member did it for their own sense of being Free-that is what the elite draped their end of the revolution with as they forged the United States.

Saying that, I'm for one man one vote-no it's not communist it's Freedom. Just because you don't have a business or legal practice or plantation doesn't mean you don't have the right to vote. I mean, those assholes counted slaves as 3/5 of a man as far as votes go, giving each slave owner enhanced representation at the ballot box.

We had an American Revolution that got rid of the tyrants across the Atlantic, we just need one now to get rid of the tyrants here.

That all works out great when the Constitution is adhered to and the govt isn't raping us of our hard earned dollars to purchase more power at our expense. This is done obviously by making as many as possible dependent on them and using OUR money to control their votes and buy ever increasing amounts of power to use against us.

Get rid of entitlements and I can do the one man, one vote bit. Until then, I am totally against it.

ALL entitlements are a violation of the Constitution through the 10th Amendment.

Nor does the Fed Govt have any constitutional power to involve itself in healthcare, education, etc.

Obviously, most people now think these are a good thing even though in every case it has been an abysmal failure.

Perhaps there should be a test required to vote.
Perhaps revisionist history and socialist indoctrination should no longer be tolerated in the schools.
Perhaps the Lamestream 5th Column shouldn't be a blatantly overt ally of the Soviet Kremlin.

Until those things happen, fuck the douchebags.

They don't give a damn about my rights and liberty, so I don't give a flying fuck about theirs. They can swim to Cuba or get sent to Hell for all I give a damn.

Actually, I do give a damn. I say start sending 'em now.

Freedom requires justice, knowledge, and intelligence-why do you think they've done their damndest to breed that out of Americans?

Historically democracy has always lead to chaos and been a tool of socialist control of the uninformed masses.

Many of the problems drjarhead described are a direct result of our Republic being replaced by a socialist democracy where a mere majority can vote themselves anything they feel entitled to. The lazy and incompetent 51% can now force the other 49% to pay for their free ride. The simple majority can also vote to abolish any and all of your unalienable rights regardless of any constitutional prohibitions.

See... http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000015;p=1#000006

We've all answered that 1000 times.

The solution isn't letting those without those traits vote to impose further destruction of the same.

That is the reason for the 2nd Amend and cleansing our nation of its infestation.

We need to keep a few things in context.
1. Freedom without responsibility will always end in loss of the freedom
2. Liberty with out an agreed upon law form will result in chaos.
3. law without an agreed upon set of rights and responsibility will end up in either tyranny then anarchy or anarchy then tyranny.
Just like our Militias, nations are joined by every person for their own selfish reasons. While all have one thing in common, most have nothing in common.
In our founding days we started with a Constitution written by Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton was a representative of the Rothchilds bank of England. Jefferson was a member of the French order of the Rosicrucians. It ios rumored that Franklin was also.
In 1783 it was Benjamin Franklin ESQ, John Jay ESQ, and John Adams ESQ who by signing the Treaty of Versailles lost what we had spent so many men winning. This Land.
They, all being Bar Registered Lawyers signed th document even though in his description of himself the King claimed to be "Prince elector of the united states" before there was a united States.
Thus those who have studied deep into these times understand that there is a Con in Constitution.
It also explains Franklin's quote to a lady who stopped him one evening in Philadelphia.
She asked him "what type of governmnet have you selected for us?
his answer was "it is a republic. If you can keep it."
Was that because of what he had done or because of what he knew was to come.
These treaties with the King were not needed.
When General Washington received Cornwallis' Sword the land belonged to us by The law of Nations. When we accepted the description of the king as the Prince elector of the united States we gave it back to him with our own Constitution for the united States.

Freedom lies in the hearts of men.

Liberty is possessed by those who take it for themselves.

Papers and words have never allowed men liberty or justice.

Gunpowder and cold steel have.

So true. I think there is a fear of losing our Constitution; for if we lose that, to what shall we cling? Ultimately, Bush II was right, although without the expletive: it's just a piece of paper. Those in the higher levels of government understand that; it's high time we understood it as well.

"I believe if they set aside their law as and when they wish, their law no longer has rightful authority over us. All they have over us is tyranny, then, and I'll stay here no longer. No force on earth will keep me here. Anyone caught leavin' the fort could be shot. So each man make your own decision. Those who are goin', be back here in an hour."
-Jack, from Last of the Mohicans

I suppose that when you get on down to the bottom of it all you find that those oligarchs that ran things back in the colonial day were just as bad as the chumps running things now.

Shit, the representative republic has got us right where we are now.

I am not sure about this, as I have not made a thorough study of it, but it seems to me that the money that comes out of my check every two weeks is just money that my massa don't have to pay me.

I mean, its not really like there is only one pie, an only so many pieces to go around an all us scratchin and scraping around competing for the same crumbs by working or being unfit for work in some way.

Is it really Like this that Uncle Sugar takes some of my hard earned pie and gives it to old granny down the road so she can buy her kibble or mayhaps give it to little Lolita so she can keep her squad in koolaide and ramen noodles or maybee give the comandant the a few dollars to buy a round or two of 20mm depleted uranium.

No it is not like that. The presses run day and night producing paper. Hell, the part of my earnings that I don't get is a tax break for the company or his subsidy or his block grant for being a job creator or any such bullshit that can be dreamed up.

And we don't value it much when we put down the paper to buy a 16oz, caramel colored sugar water for a buck fifty.

Since no one knows what the hell to do I suppose we'll all just wait around untill it costs 800 credits to buy a loaf of white, well you can maybee buy it if your ration card is current and you can make it through the check points before curfew.

...the following headlines and the upcoming VOTE are a good place to START.

North Dakota Considers Eliminating Property Tax

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

Nice, thumbs up, way up!!!

Interesting thread.
Really, since most property is actually owned by the banks, almost none of us get to vote, no matter how much land we call our own. We don't "hold title".
So the rich get to cast all the votes. Based on the leanings of most of the rich, I don't see much change for the better there.
While I don't own my 1/2 acre with a house on it, I and my wife work every week to make it our own, and we have everything to lose. Our skin is definitely in the game. I am self-employed, getting every FRN with my own hands.
I don't think anybody "on the tit", should vote, as it's patently obvious where their votes will fall.
While I still vote, I no longer think it matters, and haven't for awhile. As we all know, they do as they wish, we be damned. They will continue this path, as they put the last few bricks into place to seal the wall of tyranny in on us. Then, they will send their guns in to take out those who will not knuckle under, and convince those who will of their fate.
I no longer believe our voices will change anything, and that they simply laugh while they put those last bricks up, as we are diverted.
I don't propose to have the answer, and quit trying to follow all the "protests". Do what you will if you think it helps.
But "it" is coming. They have come way too close to let it go now.
So I am left with but one course.
To be as ready as I can,
and to wait ..............

The immediate solution with regards to your post is to break the control they have on the political system.

The corporations and unions want to be treated as individuals?

Okay, limit their campaign contributions to the same amount as private citizens.

We still can't prevent them from doing whatever Ads they want to put out on their own but we can limit their control somewhat. Prevent what they consider their 'investment' in the politicians.