Join The Trading Room

Parenting in These Dystopian Times

By Rick Ackerman Posted on September 9, 2011, 12:01 am EDT Last Updated September 9, 2011, 2:49 am EDT

[ Wayne Razzi’s  guest commentary drew quite a response, so I am running it for a second day. I’ll have something to say about the President’s latest jobs proposal when Shadowstats reports that U.S. unemployment has fallen below 20 percent.] 

Parents have many responsibilities and as nothing matters more to me than the wellbeing of my four children, I take my fatherly responsibilities very seriously.  Educating and guiding my children are two of the most important of those as I see it, and yet my confidence in addressing these responsibilities is decidedly losing a battle to anxiety.

John 8:32 accounts that “…the truth will set you free.”  And it seems that it does most certainly achieve that, even in small doses, but it doesn’t assure that you that you’ll find a better place as a result, which is exactly where I am at present.  Aside from the birds and bees and related topics, I never anticipated that I’d have to hesitate so frequently when answering the questions put to me by my children, who range in age from 7 to 12. However, there isn’t a day in which I do not have to either frame my responses quite craftily, or quite honestly tell them that I’ll properly answer a particular question when they are older.  The frequency at which this is occurring is increasing significantly and that is what led to me thinking about just how pervasive the dystopian matrix has become.  I suppose the real problem lies with me in refusing to deceive my children by offering up pat answers to them.

Here a few anecdotes.  The smart bunch that y’all are, I expect that you’ll need nothing beyond these to see my point.  Each question is followed partly by some of what I said and some of what I thought. “Hey dad, want to watch the Phillies game with me?” Sure buddy, that sounds good.  I know you love baseball — just don’t look at the Big Pharma commercials that are too sexually explicit for a 9-year-old as you watch the game.  Oh yes, and try to turn off those areas of your brain that are susceptible to conditioning from our corporate sponsors. “Why do they keep showing all these Gold commercials?” That’s a tough one.  We’ll talk about that later. “Dad, who are you going to vote for?”  No one, guys.  “Why not?  My teacher said that we should talk about the race with our parents so we could discuss the candidates in class.” Tell your teacher that your dad even stopped voting for libertarians a while ago after realizing that there’s no point to it.  Freedom does not equal a false choice between two finger puppets every four years. “What do you think about Obama?” I think he’s a psychopathic finger puppet of the global elite with an incurable case of unmerited narcissism.  He’s a nothing who never achieved anything remarkable or inherently useful and was installed by TPTB to serve as a figurehead fool to placate 45% of the population of this so-called country, which is actually a corporation, for a few years before they flip the switch the other way, sit on their recliners and laugh maniacally as they watch the same gag work to near perfection for the umpteenth time.

Obama the Orator?

“People say he’s a great speaker, do you think he is dad?”  No son, I do not.  I think that most of our fellow American Debt Slaves have intentionally been so dumbed-down that anyone that confuses “Prompter Man” with a great orator is effectively a zombie. “But a lot people on TV say he’s a great speaker and that he’s really smart…” They say that because they’re planted, cowardly, sycophantic shills who are paid to spew propaganda disguised as bogus opinions of things they know nothing of.  These people serve as a distraction from reality. “Do you think that other, old guy would have been better?”

No, I really don’t.  He would have been just as eager to lie and mislead everyone as this guy has, and he very well, at the behest of his MIC handlers, may have involved us in even more empire building than the lying, empty suit that beat him already has. “Hey Dad, we started learning about the Civil War today.  Why did so many Americans fight against other Americans?  I don’t get that.” Well it’s a long answer, but basically the South wanted the U.S. to obey its own laws, and since the U.S. has a history of corrupting and violating its own laws, it decided to use its puppet in the White House in those days to order an invasion of the South.  Your teachers are nice people and they’re only teaching you what has been mandated that they teach you; they know not what they do, as it was done to them as well.

“Dad why are we at this Gun Show and not going into it?” Well, we’re trying to talk to who we think will be many like-minded people as they enter the show to get the word out about the Third Palmetto Republic and what we’re trying to do with it.  We’re trying to let people know that the only way that we can really put things right and establish ourselves as sovereign individuals is to establish our own independent state, thereby unshackling ourselves in the process. “Dad, did you think you’d end up talking with more than the three people, and what did you mean by sovereign individuals?” To answer your second part first, well, it’s a long ride home from Charleston.  Let’s get something to eat and I’ll explain sovereignty to you on the way home. And yes, I did expect to talk to more than three people about their freedom and sovereignty at the Charleston Gun Show

 

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • mikeck September 11, 2011, 11:46 pm

    Thanks for the response Steve,

    It seems to me that you have much more faith that government will do the right thing than do I. We may also disagree on what the right thing for government to do is, i.e. steal from some to give to others or nothing. Is that what you mean by, limited anarchy? The theft is okay if it goes for the right cause and/or provides false security for some?

    I’m not sure what you mean by political anarchy. Maybe this: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio Those are podcast by Stefan Molyneux…number 0., 1. and 2. will give you a good feel for where he is going. I’ve not met Stefan, but have followed his work for a few years.

    Or maybe you mean by political anarchy, something like this: http://tolfa.us/ This is a study course designed by Jim Davies to show one how to attain true freedom. I have met and had some discussions with Jim…he really thinks his study course is going to change the world as we know it…I hope he is right.

    Mike
    PS: The best $40 I ever remember spending was for a cheap mp3 player. I can get information regardless of what it is that I am doing. True, I may be blowing my ear drums out when tilling my garden or mowing the lawn, but I do much driving and that player allows me to listen to what I want when I’m on the road.

  • A. Rand Fan September 11, 2011, 8:19 pm

    Thanks for a great post Redwill. Finally got past my dread and watched “Waiting for Superman”. I liked that they shed some light on the problem with public schools but their solution will only work up to a point where it starts cutting into the teachers unions control. Then I suspect a nasty retaliatory reaction like burning the non-union schools and death threats if not actual harm to non-union teachers.

  • mikeck September 11, 2011, 1:15 am

    Marc please forgive my interruption,

    You wrote: “Regardless of which precious metal we might designate as our currency, it needs to be only one — any bimetallic system that purports to set the exchange rate between two (or more) metals is doomed to failure. Only the free market can set those relative values.”

    I totally agree and if I may be so bold, only the free market can determine the value of anything, including gold. Governments have consistently proven that they can not avoid the temptation to debase, i.e. a gold standard is doomed the day it is installed. BTW, I seriously doubt anyone alive today has experienced the free market in any major way unless they live/deal in the black market…this is coming from someone who spent many years offering silver and gold for almost everything…with success that would surprise many.

    Term limits do not solve the problem of government taking from one group to give to another…only anarchy can solve that problem. BTW, not one of the anarchist I know is anywhere near as violence orientated as all of those I know who think government is a legitimate entity…to a person, those who support government support violence. As a matter of fact I have never met a true anarchist who had even the slightest leaning towards violence.

    By definition, those who support government, support violence against those who would choose not to support the violence that is the nature of government. All government actions are based upon the threat of violence. Taxation is the threat of taking by force, i.e. violence, and government can not/will not exist without that threat.

    I also like anarchy because I trust those I know and interact with much more than anyone who lives off the labor of others against the will of the others. I, not some bureaucrat, want to decide who I support with my labor and resources. Also, I do not like supporting the killing of innocent people just because they look different than me, it makes folks proud to be “American” and it paves the roads for corporations to control government.

    Steve,

    I hope I’m not interfering with your quite time, but do hope you are giving some thought to the above comments.

    Mike

    • Steve September 11, 2011, 10:13 pm

      Mike, I read with interest and with an open mind, though it takes a lot of fact to change me. Opinions and consensus of opinion to establish truth are just democratic anarchy.

      My exerience with ‘anarchy’, and my work on money allows me a different perspective than yours. You might say that I believe in limited anarchy, which is exactly what the Immutable Law, or Mosaic Law is. Freedom bound by Wrongs against other individuals and established punishments for wrongs.

      Left to their own anarchy the individual is left to the Natural Laws of Breeding that I wrote about no long ago in this forum. I witnessed absolute Freedom while working as a Police Officer, and was called most of the time when anarchy was exercised on an individual basis like killing someone with a car.

      So we disagree. To that end we should each be free to do as we wish on our own estate. When we as individuals take anything off of our own estate the Immutable Law governs in regard to Rights and Wrongs. Should you crash into me and injure me under anarchy I would be required to get my tooth in return as I see fit. In anarchy, should I like your breeder I am allowed to take her if I am able. If I like your space to be added to my space I am free to take it if I can. Freedom is the power to kill, and that will exist for all time. Murder is defined by the Immutable Law an an unlawful killing. Abortion is murder, legalized in agreement not to obey an Immutable Law because of a few simple corporate words “. . .all person born. . .and subject. . .”.

      If I misunderstand, and your expression is in regard to a Political Movement named Anarchy – we miscommunicate.

  • Marc September 10, 2011, 9:32 pm

    Steve, I wuld like to respond to your points:

    “The only gold standard is administrative by F.D. Roosevelt in treasonous designs in executive usurpation of exclusive legislative powers of the People over money. . . . Gold Coin is an Eagle valued in silver Specie Dollars who’s value is based upon the Spanish Milled Dollar.”

    “We don’t need term limits. We need responsible PEOPLE !!!”

    Yes, the Dollar referenced in the Constitution was the dollar known the world over at that time, being 371.25 grains of silver. But with silver having many industrial applications in the modern world, I’m inclined to favor a gold standard. It would require nothing more than a constitutional amendment, and in light of how the implicit silver standard of the Dollar has been ignored, any hard currency standard will unfortunately require an amendment to prevent its future dissolution by our government. Regardless of which precious metal we might designate as our currency, it needs to be only one — any bimetallic system that purports to set the exchange rate between two (or more) metals is doomed to failure. Only the free market can set those relative values.

    As for term limits, the very reason I think we need them is because of what you have repeatedly noted: there is too much immorality and corruption among our fellow men. That is never going to change. And the immoral and corrupt will always seek public office, and they will achieve it through pandering and lies. With term limits, you at least reduce (certainly not eliminate) the motivation for the power hungry to seek public office, as well as the motivation for monied interests to invest in candidates. The goal is to get rid of professional politicians and the system of support and influence that arises around them. It’s not perfect, but no system of human self-governance will be since people are not perfect.

    • Jill September 11, 2011, 8:46 am

      The problem with term limits is that, without campaign finance reform, this would cause the most corrupt folks to jump for joy. It would mean they would only need to suffer through one term of office as a lower paying Congress person, before jumping into a high paying lobbyist job or other lucrative job– at one of the corporations that financed their Congressional campaign. Corporations purchase the right to have their corporate lobbyists write the legislation they desire, through these campaign contributions.

    • Steve September 11, 2011, 10:20 pm

      Point #1 Marc – Embasement of Coin is already High Treason, as is the Administrative Gold Standard High Treason.

      Unless the People wake up and prosecute the criminal High Treasonous Designs – no idea for Free Coin will endure. It is not a constitutional amendment that is necessary as Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1 exists. The Article just did not contemplate congress abusing Article I, sec. 8, cls. 17 and/or Article IV, sec, 3, cls. 2 to create territorial slavery u.s. citizen subjects. Nor did Article I, sec 1o, cls. 1 contemplate the people in rebellion refushing to prosecute the governors of the several states for breach of contract.

      Term limits under a Constitutional Amendment might stand like the 2 term limit for corporate C.E.O. Obama stands.

      Until the people shake off the cords of corporate enfranchisement, and legislative creation under the 14th amendment, no court is going to limit terms of office because the people can limit terms with their vote.

  • Benjamin September 10, 2011, 2:08 pm

    Given the topic (Children and Education), and some of the posts made in regards to “not having values shoved down our throats”, I thought it’d be appropriate to talk about abortion and the right to life. Anyone interested in learning what Immutable Law is may find this enlightening…

    Right to life is not a State or Federal power. Nor even in the choice of the individual. If the power to abolish an inalienable right was in the hands of either of those, then there would be no rights in the face of any criminal action, except by the kind mercies of the lawless.

    I feel safer already! But if the Founders were pro-choice or held that rights were confered at birth, then the Declaration of Independence would read:

    “…endowed at birth with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    “…endowed by choice with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    It doesn’t say that, of course. The Declaration says our Creator endows us with inalienable rights. None the less, I’ll point out the problems with the substitute concepts…

    If by birth, then I can kick any pregnant woman hard in the stomach and only be charged with assault on the woman. But I couldn’t be charged with assaulting or murdering the unborn. Not if we’re being consistent with the notion that birth confers rights, anyway.

    But couldn’t we just say that when a mother decides she wants to have the baby, the rights are extended to the unborn? Sure we can. But this is just as abominable…

    If by choice, then we have a blatant contradiction. Choice necessarily makes inalienable rights, alienable. Or, inalienable rights necessarily forbids choice being exercised over them. But since we’re only interested in choice, here, inalienable rights become alienable. Thus, we can never have inalienable rights.

    So, yes, even by extending rights to the unborn, through the consent/choice of the mother, I could still abort that unbron life if I felt like it… even if the mother wouldn’t make that choice!

    The only intellectually honest statement is that the unborn have the inalienable right to life. Which means that neither Legislative, Executive, or Judicial powers, nor even individual choice, can abolish that right. That is what Immutable Law is. It exists. It just is. We can live in accord with it, or die in the denial of it.

    However, exception to the Law can be allowed. And concerning abortion, exception must exist in order to uphold a woman’s inalieable right to not be forced into child-bearing. Another exception can be made when her life is threatened by the carrying or delivery. But the right to life cannot be abolished by exception, nor the exception allow the right to be ignored in practice. So while exceptions can be made, there is no absolute right to an abortion. Questions must be asked and investigations carried out, even when life is necessarily aborted due to unjust and tragic circumstances. And where deception is discovered, punishment must be metted out. If questions, investigations, and prosecutions are not done, then we can’t honestly say that the right to life is being protected.

    And that’s why it’s better to have values “shoved down our throats”. If we don’t accept values down our throats, then we’re stuck with the alternative of having the oppressive boot put to our faces (or stomachs, as the case my be).

    • Jill September 11, 2011, 8:40 am

      As the song goes, “everybody wants to rule the world” with their own values.

      One can find a zillion reasons why one’s own values should rule. The Founders were also pro-slavery. Should we go back to that?

      Honest people can disagree as to when “life” begins. It’s interesting how many folks claim to want less government, and yet also apparently want to hire extra policemen to run around in the gynecology clinics to make sure that any abortions performed are approved exceptions to the rules dictated by their own values.

      Of course people who want “less government” only want less government of certain kinds that they particularly disapprove of. That must be why, when the “less government” types hold political office, the government continues to expand greatly in size and power.

    • Benjamin September 11, 2011, 1:03 pm

      “As the song goes, “everybody wants to rule the world” with their own values.”

      Well, Jill, then you’ve managed too avoid understanding everything I wrote, which is summed up here…

      “Which means that neither Legislative, Executive, or Judicial powers, nor even individual choice, can abolish that right.”

      That is the very antithesis of any and all “flavors” of Big Government mobocracy.

      As to where life begins… Look, I’m really big on skepticism and debate, but that doesn’t mean that I must doubt and debate the obvious. So until two dead necrophiliacs can couple and conceive; an inalienable other begins at conception.

    • fallingman September 11, 2011, 7:38 pm

      Speak for yourself. I don’t want to rule the world.

      And I don’t want less government of certain kinds that I disapprove of. I want less government of all kinds….as in ALL kinds.

      Maybe you’d consider painting with a brush instead of a roller when you pontificate.

    • Jill September 11, 2011, 8:47 pm

      Well, Fallingman, perhaps you are an exception to the rule. Do you agree or disagree with what I said above, that when politicians who have campaigned on “less government” promises hold political office, the government continues to expand greatly in size and power.

    • Steve September 11, 2011, 10:24 pm

      Jill, you are a legislative slave in fee, debtor in possession !!!!

    • Steve September 11, 2011, 10:34 pm

      Benjamin, Jill, and you all; Read Blackstones Commentary on the English Common Law. That law form became the American Common law in A.D. 1787. Corporatism brought forth Roman Civil Law as a private territorial form of government about 1868.

      The Unalienable Right of Inheritance is established at quickening. The child is never biologically inside the body of the mother. The child as part Dad, part Mother is exterior of the mothers body in a symbiotic relationship across a semi-perm membrane. The child is no more inside the body of a wo man than the hair in ones arm pit is. In fact the hair of the armpit is more inside the woman’s body than a child at quickening. A taking of inheritable right is a THEFT, and a Murder if it is abortion. Roman Civil Law ignors Law to establish legal precident as a inferior god, and this murder stands on these few words “. . .all persons born. . .” In other words are corporate git of slavery who have exited the womb and the umbilical has been cut from the Natural Law.

    • Jill September 11, 2011, 10:49 pm

      A little fertilized egg inside a mother is a different situation than a fully independent person. Otherwise there would be no exceptions. If the childbirth was likely to kill the mother, you’d just let it happen that way. No other “person” can legally be killed because they are likely to kill another. Even those who are “pro-life” make these exceptions. Different people make different exceptions. Of course each of us knows what is right, and everyone who disagrees with us (most people, as we all make different exceptions) is wrong.

      See this article about Christianity and abortion. And it only covers Christianity– not other religions.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion

      “Christians have held different beliefs about the moral status, gravity and excusability of abortion.[1][2][3] Churches that represent more than half of Christianity (including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy) oppose abortion in all circumstances. Other churches oppose abortion in general, but allow for exceptions to this teaching in some circumstances. Yet others support a right to abortion.[4][5] Within each of these churches individuals and groups dissent from their church’s official stance. In general, Christians have about as many abortions as non-Christians, depending on a range of factors. Some Christian groups have higher-than-average abortion rates while others are lower.”

    • Steve September 12, 2011, 1:15 am

      Jill, glad to see you are still out there. We need to get the science and the myth absolutely straight here so that a conversation can develop. One’s heart and liver are inside one’s body. The mouth, nose, and arse are just two ends of tube that are not inside biologically. The food is chewed, goes through the tube, some elements enter the body across a membrane, and some things that are not taken inside the body come out the other end, plop !!!! having never reached the inside of the body. This waste never entered the biological body of the wo man. It traveled down a tube and exited without entry to the heart, liver, or other inside organs. The waste did not even get to the inside of the skin that makes up the tube, or gut – stomach/small intestine/large intestine. Several organs like the liver and kidney shove junk out of the inside, to the outside. The ovary is a unique organ that grows 1/2 a manchild and expells (shoves out) the egg outside the body of the wo man into a fold or pocket on the exterior of the wo man. It is almost like an explosion in the ovary that sends that egg exterior of the insides of a wo man. The egg travels the outside of a tube waiting to encounter the other 1/2 necessary to ‘quicken’ into an entity that has inheritable Right to property from the dad. The egg and sperm collide as free entities having recognized Right of Inheritance upon quickening. The quickened gets its inheritable Endowments from the dad’s sperm. When the egg quickens with Unalienable Rights it is not attached to the woman in any way form or kind.

      If the body of the wo man likes the ‘quickened’ mankind the exterior skin of a special fold ‘the womb’ allows the manchild to nustle up and establish a symbotic relationship as two, once free roaming, mankind. Technically the womb can be turned inside out clear back to the ovary to show that the child at quickening is exterior of the wo man’s body. In real terms one could view the egg exploding out of the ovary as it left inside the wo man’s body on this turned view. The sperm would travel just the same as if it was placed on the outside of an arm and met up with an egg resting on the wo mans arm. There are several pockets and tubes on the body of mankind that have both an interior and exterior side to them. One must carefully look at reality to see what is really inside, and what is really outside the body. If I go into someone’s stomach and shove through the stomach contents and pierce the lining with a lance I will enter the body ‘inside’. But the stomach contents are not inside the body like the heart and liver are, or the lance I just shoved inside the body, from the area outside with the stomach contents. One must visually grab ahold of the picture of a donut as one’s body. The hole in the center of the donut is the gut. If I shove my finger gently into the donut and form a pocket without breaking the skin of the donut I have formed the womb. The Quickened Child is always on the outside of the donut and is created outside the donut when the egg and sperm meet on the outside of the donut.

      The quickened is never inside the body of a wo man. Only the egg exists inside the body of woman until it explodes out of the overy as a free ranging 1/2 manchild to meet 1/2 man sperm. This is almost like a blister containing an egg forming on a wo man’s skin and the blister bursting to expel the egg. Imagine a blister on the back of your hand that holds an egg. It bursts along with some fluid. Sperm is placed in the fluid and the sperm and egg meet as free roaming 1/2’s to create a whole 1 manchild quickening. The manchild rests against the woman’s skin. The arteries and veins bring food up to the surface of the skin of the woman. The child’s egg membrane allows elements to pass from mother to child. The element leaves the mother’s body across her membrane, and the child’s membrane allows the element to enter for it’s use. The child’s membrane is a miracle bubble that all flows toward the umbilican cord. The child is in the center of a bubble. The bubble feeds the child via the umbilical. The bubble absorbes elements from the mother. There are two completely independant circulating systems of blood, one mother, one child.

      Like I said I try to avoid ‘religion’ on Rick’s Forum. Abortion is a tough topic for all. Murder is defined by the Immutable Law, which is superior to Man. Killing is justified as self defense, or unjustified as murder. (gets really techical on intent/negligence etc.) If we look at mother and child as two symbotic equals at quickening we find both have an equal Unalienable Right to continue.

      Judgements are hard some times, yes ? Doing what is correct/right can be very hard when the world is in rebellion, yes ?

      Which individual of the symbotic relationship is engaging in a killing of the other Jill? Is it a quickened child who is unlawfully killing the mother ? Or, is it a mother who views the choice of sex as an illegitmate right who decides she can kill anyone she chooses in anarchy ? If one looks at the quickened child in symbiosis one can easily determine if the quickened child is unlawfully killing the mother, or the mother is unlawfully killing the child as an inheritance of both mom and dad, having Unalienable Inheritiable Right to Property. You see Jill, the quickened child has a Right to Inherit the Estate of the dad. The mom has no right to kill, unless the quickened child is killing her unlawfully as a defense of her life.

      There are other technicals that are all addressed via the Immutable Law, and not necessary to establish that when an egg and sperm exterior of the interior of a wo man’s body unite and quicken – that man form has Unalienable Endowment to continue. By all means a woman can cut out her ovary and related organs as the privilege of control over her body.

      Sex is not a right, but the privilege of creating a symbotic relationship on the outside of a wo man’s body, which woman chooses to take on the Unalienable Inheritable Estate of a man. Biologically the Quickened Child is created by a free roaming 1/2 wo man egg meeting a free roaming 1/2 man sperm creating a free roaming Unalienable Endowment holding manchild, who either comes to an agreement with the mother for a symbiotic relationship side by side, skin to skin, or the manchild continues its journey in a very very short life unattached to a loving carring wo man.

    • Jill September 12, 2011, 3:28 am

      Steve, religion is quite relevant in a political conversation, if one is proposing the use of the state, the police, and our taxes, to enforce one’s religious values, as apparently you are, if I understand you correctly.

      E.g. I believe that adultery is immoral. However, that is not relevant to any political conversation, because I have zero desire to be taxed more, in order to have more police hired, so that they can spend their time tracking down and jailing every member of my community who commits adultery.

    • Benjamin September 12, 2011, 9:40 am

      Steve,

      Thanks for the contribution (re: quickening). I had actually considered that, but felt it wouldn’t be necessary to touch upon, since it only needs to be determined that life begins at sperm-meets-egg. From there, it’s only a matter of examining the logic of the alternatives. Thus, either the unborn have the right to life or no one does. Quickening would support this, but I suspect there will always be cases made against it. On the other hand, a case can never be made against inalieanable rights at conception. If this is my mistake, I will of course admit it. Thus far, it does not seem to be, though. Whatever the truth is, thanks again for taking the time!

      Jill,

      I don’t understand why you persist down the path of objecting to religious/personal values. Nothing I pointed out about the Immutable Truth has anything at all to do with either. The Law/God does not care if the arsonist and complacent value the Law/God or not. The Law/God does not care if the arsonist and complacent can ever learn to accept the law. The Law/God is only concerned with punishing violators.

      It is necessary to punish wrong because that is the only conclusion left standing at the end of a view vs oppostie view war…

      Take self-defense, for example. Immutable Law necessarily means that we all have a right to self-defense. By necessity, that means no one has the right to wantonly kill.

      But if Immutable Law must mean that the opposite is true, then it would be our right to kill whomever we wanted, with self-defense in face of such attack being wrong.

      But we don’t want any of that “preachy stuff”, either way, right? Right! So let’s just agree to co-exist in our differeing views. But that CANNOT work. The wantons would soon perish by their own hand as well as to the actions of the defenders. Thus, Immutable Law necessarily means that we have a right to self-defense. This is not the result of personal values, NRA or FOX news “propaganda”, religions, or anything other than the Immutable Truth.

      In terms of abortion, the alternative to right to life is going to lose. Period. The unborn necessarily have them as well, because if they do not, then neither can we. And if we cannot have those rights respected, a war will break out in order see the defenders victorious. Pro-life is invincible. I would also like to point out the other things that the truth allows for…

      a) You could still have an abortion via the legal exceptions.

      b) Rapists would be punished for any and all abortions they force women to have. And since there is no statute of limitations on murder, they would be hunted for the rest of their lives.

      c) You could still bypass the legal channel (at your own risk, of course)
      d) You’d still have the right to trial, if caught lying or bypassing
      e) You’d still have the right to plead the 5th, during your trail
      f) You’d have a chance to escape earthly justice, and take it up with God instead (or whatever you believe).

      Six rights that you can have respected, without having to be totally and utterly defeated. Compare this to the horrid world of by birth/choice…

      a) Government can enact a child limit policy (zero to whatever)
      b) It can then import immigrants from elsewhere, as the replacement rate became critical
      c) Which is to say, government can commit genocide without an apparent war
      d) Non-life/non-person factories could be established, using female slave-labor so that…
      e) Government can sell the embryos, fetuses, or even babies to some big medical research company, in order to pay for the enforcement of their genocide scheme (and earn some profit on the side).
      f) Rapists wouldn’t be such a pariah because, well, that is opportunity profit!

      Zero rights in necessarily being totally and utterly defeated. And while none of that may happen to you and/or in your lifetime (see my very first post re: cannibalism), it is none the less wrong to let the logical groundwork be laid. History is repleat with examples of “build it and they will come”.

      And while I’d be cool with saying “have it whatever way you want”, the fact is, the birthers and choosers necessarily oppress the rights of all! And yet, somehow the pro-life side is the one doing the forcing?! No, no, no… FALSE! You’ve no right to even accuse others of what you and the pro-choice camp, and you guys alone, are allowing and supporting.

      Don’t Tread On Me. And if you can’t help yourself, then go tread on others someplace else. The United States of America is not the place for you if you cannot abide simple and Immutable Law. Or rather, will not. I know you can. It’s only a matter if you want to.

    • fallingman September 13, 2011, 5:51 am

      Jill,

      You’re correct about the lying politicians, including the sainted Ronald Reagan. The ones who mean it DON’T WIN.

      I may be an exception, but there are a hell of a lot of exceptions out there. Care to acknowledge that?

    • redwilldanaher September 15, 2011, 4:42 pm

      As usual fallingman, I am with you and as you know Southern by choice. I couldn’t agree more. I have no desire to rule anything. I simply want to be left alone.

  • sina88 September 10, 2011, 8:09 am

    Fantastic concepts on this web site. Its rare nowadays to discover internet websites with data you are searching for. Im pleased I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Maintain up the good job and Im certain some other folks researching valued information will actually quit by and benefit from your internet site for resources.

  • Jill September 10, 2011, 7:01 am

    Thanks, Steve. I don’t understand everything you just wrote, but I understand a lot more than I did before.

    No, I have no talent as a sculptor and can not see the blue bird in the solid block of stone. But if you sculpt it, then everyone can go and look and see it. If everyone could see it already, perhaps there would be no need for talented sculptors. We appreciate what someone else can give us that we can not give ourselves. I guess that is what this whole forum is about, and Rick’s hidden pivots that he teaches too– that we can learn amazing things from one another.

  • mava September 10, 2011, 1:52 am

    “those who serve and those who take”?
    Wow, that’s not nice. A small correction:

    While some like yourself have not received any pay for their service, there are many who get paid by involuntary, violent extortion from those who produce (those they say (tongue in cheek) they “serve”).

    And since those are in absolute majority, Steve, then
    the statement should more properly read “those who serve and those who order the service in the first place, and pay to feed those serving”.

    I do not really understand the meaning of things like “brothers”. Who are you referring to when you call to stand up for brothers?

    For instance, I can hardly find one man who is not out to forcefully take something from me, under one pretense or another (short of well known iconic figures: Madison, Mises, Casey, Reisman, Jefferson, North…). Did you happen to find a whole group of like minded individuals?

    What is an “immutable law”? (I am not a lawyer). I am interested.

    But I have to say some of your posts sound like lawyer speech, – kind of hard to understand for me.

    • Jill September 10, 2011, 3:11 am

      Mava, a lot of what Steve is saying is a mystery to me also. Communication between humans is often unclear and misunderstood. One of many reasons for that is the use of abstract terms. Of course we all write abstractly a lot here. I do too. But sometimes it can be really unclear, resulting in all or most readers having no clue as to what one intends to say.

      Sometimes things are a lot easier to understand if one describes them so that a listener could see and hear a videotape of them in their head. E.g. I can make a “videotape” in my head of Wayne, the author of our article here, at the gun show with his kids, trying to find people who want to talk about state secesssion and only finding three, and his kids asking him about it later.

      But when someone says “I fought for 10 years on the streets, in the fields, and over the waters so that others can loiter and refuse to Stand for anything, especially taking a stand for one’s Brother, or the Future” I don’t really know who the person was fighting, or the specific situation. Is he saying he was in the military? Or something totally different?

      And I need an example of taking a stand for one’s Brother or the Future. Does that mean feeding the homeless? Tutoring kids? Voting in an election? Being politically active in a political campaign? Helping in local community planning by serving as a volunteer on the school board or a water use board or something?

      I did get one thing for my video– the fact that he gave a lecture called “Good versus Evil” to some people somewhere, for some reason that is not clear to me, and that he was somehow punished for this– by whom or in what way or for what reason I have no clue.

      “I have avoided voluntary use of federal reserve notes for 17 years. ”

      I hear what the writer did not do. But I can’t see any “videotape” of what he did do. Barter? Insist that his spouse do all the purchasing of food and other items and services used by the household? Live out in the wilderness and hunt and gather for food? Or what?

      And as to the quote below, I have no clue whatsoever as to what the speaker is referring to.

      “Respectfully mava, the concept of Sovereignty/ Liberty expressed in your walk down the trail is inauthentic and disingenuine as you may vote all you want to engage in high treason with your wife to walk leftist down the trail. I will have this conversation with you. But, I will not play with you. I will not walk down your trail. And, I will find loathing in my heart even if mava has the power to arrest my Liberty and put this Sovereign Free Man in prison. I will be Sovereign in the land of enfranchisees. I will Sojourn through this land of war. I will be Free even though shackled. I will be Free and Sovereign because these qualities exist in the heart and soul. I will obey the Immutable Law / Mosaic Law to the best of my ability so that I am not tricked by fancy words and fanciful feelings.”

    • Steve September 10, 2011, 4:54 am

      Mosaic Law as adopted by these words of Mr. President James Madison, Mr. Chief Justice John Jay, and Mr. Franklin in A.D. 1783 “In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity” as the sole authority for Peace on this soil. The Law is Immutable because it comes from the Absolute Sovereign. It is also noted in the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America “. . .the Laws of Nature and Natures God. . .”.

      I have been forced to learn the meaning of words like “Allodial”, “resident”, and democracy just to name a few – but; within the time and plane of use, ie; 1829 Websters Dictionary, and a few earlier that I have been able to find on Ebay.

    • Steve September 10, 2011, 6:28 am

      Jill, very often I believe that the back and forth often viewed between yourself and me is because our brains are hardwired different. In other words more concise I strive to allow you to do anything you want, any way you want as long as the Mosaic Law/Immutable Law is not violated. To be clearer I do not care what you do in your own home to yourself or other adults who are willing. But drink and drive and injure someone and the matter is clear (insert any violation of the 5 Common Law Torts) That person has voided their Immunity in the Public and their existence should be terminated. To deal with the issue of capital punishment under the Mosaic Law I learned that in Order to execute an offender one must have two actual witnesses testifying to the crime. So, DNA is not sufficient to get an Order of execution, it is hearsay, but good enough for republicrats to kill in violation of the Immutable Law, that includes Gov. Perry.

      In order to understand what is happening one must learn the anachronistic words and meanings and weigh that against the attempt of mobocracy to change the meanings to suit their sway and propaganda.

      Mava, you are abosolutely correct in:

      “those who serve and those who take”?
      Wow, that’s not nice.

      I agree; IT IS NOT NICE – the TAKERS who lie on their mortage and expect Obama to bail them out. The TAKERS are not nice. Mava, the majority; in fact the super majority walk the streets, sleep in their home, and work their job without ever serving their Nation, state, city, or doing a single thing for Liberty. They know not the meaning and difference between a Country and a Nation, and appear not to want to know the distinction. In fact mava the super majority worship democracy, support democracy, and vote for rebellion because they refuse to know reality in historical terms. More specifics you say. OKay, my family was forced to come to this land as twin 10 year old brothers in 1740. They and the many Family who followed did not come as the Mexican with their hand out for government services in the give me. These Blood brothers gave at Concord Bridge so that you could have Liberty, and at Boston, Brandywine, and Monmouth to name a few. They served the Revolution with other Brothers who also gave to the Nation. At the same time there were about 33 percent of non-family who sought to enslave in the British Way in feudalism as takers of Liberty because of personal cowardness, greed, or bad biology. Hamilton was one of these debt slavers. Do you want the book of service clear through my 10 years as a police officer and my son as a dumb 18 year old Marine in Desert Storm?

      Jill, if one does not know the difference between the Republic and the democracy how can we have a conversation ? How can one know what is the proper governmental form when one does not know the difference between a Republic and a democracy ?

      There is a reason why the term “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. An American is presumed to care enough about Liberty to study and know the Law. You like Jefferson so: ‘If Yee fail to know, understand, and exercise your Rights Yee subject yourself to tyranny and so deserve’. Beyond that the Immutable Law is written on the heart of those who will hear and will remain a mystery to those who’s reality is mystical magical mysterious incantations of mobocracy. I try to avoid religion on this forum until such time as someone take the Word and abuses it.

      Pretty much jill and mava I lectured in regard to “Good v. Evil” across the western half of the country. It is really simple. The Immutable Law is Good, democratic mob rule is BAD. I studied the Mosaic Law, Blackstones Commentary on the English Common Law, and read through old dusty state General Laws, Contract Law, International Law, the Law of Nations, to discover certain common facts of rebellion all having common dates like 1860, 1872, 1897, 1909, 1935, 1973, 1985, etc. & etc, etc. I taught Commerce Clause abuses, and the Northern Senate Rebellion. I taught persons at outrageous rates because that was the only way they would do exactly as I taught them. Then I found out that these persons only wanted to get out from under the Man (contract, agreement, obligation to democracy), and did not wish to change their own rebellion. I learned through experience that the majority do not want to be moral, they wanted me to be moral enough to get the monkey off their back so they could go back to being immoral. I learned that the IRC prohibited me from teaching a corporate enfranchisee who was immoral and would not change. In clear words I could be prosecuted for conspiracy for teaching the Immutable Law to an enfranchisee who then refused to change and tried to be both Sovereign and a taker of democratic benefits unearned. Mostly jill and mava I learned that I was going to face a jury one day, and may still, that did not care a thing about the Immutable Law, or Justice. Who are too lazy to take Jefferson serious, or to pay the obligation for Liberty to know Right from Wrong, Good versus Evil. I see the masses coming out of the trial saying “If I have too, he has too.” (actual statements of treasonous designs in public from a federal jury)

      I wrote this once before in the forum. I can see a perfect Blue Bird in a solid block of stone, and I can remove the waste material to produce what I see in my mind in full color as art. I can turn the Blue Bird in my mind and see it as clearly as most watch a nature show on TV while only looking into a solid block of stone. Do you understand Jill because you have the same brain as I do ? Or, is your brain wired different ? You indicate that you can see the video of Wayne and his sons in front of the gun show. If you can see the Blue Bird, as I see the Blue Bird you are very special and peculiar Jill. I did not understand until someone asked me about the Blue Bird and I said “Of course I can see the Blue Bird, everyone can.” No so Jill, not so jill, not so jILL.

      Study Jill. Study mava. Study the Mosaic Law as a start, and then Blackstones Commentary on the English Common Law. If we do not study then Mr. President Jefferson is correct in that we deserve tyranny for our rebellion and lazyness.

      This is my rate from about 15 years ago. 1500.00 in Gold to walk in the door, each person. 150.00 an hour for each person in attendance in silver. They paid because I could show the facts that individually I did it, so don’t give me this ‘wife’ thing insult, and I’m still doing it in court TODAY, and last month (but only for myself). Want a case try U.S. / I.R.S versus MILJUS et. al. 2006 through 2009 dismissed by the government with prejudice. Individually res Judicata was created for me and an artifical buffer, but; it took 3 years and heaps of abuse including voluntary and involuntary use claims. I asked Department of Justice to be joined to the case as party defendant. Want to join me the next time as party defendant ?

      As to teaching, The lecture lasted 3 days, and I would not teach unless there were 6 in attendance. What is 6 times 150.00 times 12 hours ? I quit because the students were immoral and lawless. As I said. They only wanted to get the monkey off their back so they could go back to sinning. The ‘Monkey’ you name the charge from claiming social security while claiming to be a Free Man in Liberty, or some Warrant issued for an offense. I taught Good v. Evil, and asked these persons to become Men, but; they just couldn’t be men wanting the sin, the lust, the corruption of “just have fun” of corporate enfranchisees. Then I had to spend my silver and gold in the courts to fight the evil of persons of corporate nature and I have come to a place where I do not fear anyone taking from me, because I have nothing of value except my Brothers. I have Tendered 2 Eagles and 50 silver Specie Dollars to the U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR OREGON, Judge Ancer Haggerty – let the record stand.

      I’ll write the whole story for you Jill and mava. The read will take at least 5 days if you read 2000+ -. Instead of Rick’s Forum I’ll produce a manuscript. The cost 10,000,000.00 in silver because I will hire the best Lawyers @ 1000.00 an hour to prosecute anyone who abuses contract in regard to what I write. There in the manuscript I will paint a clear picture of facts and figures, pictures of documents like the Treaty of Peace, and even put it to video for you. Still 33% will never understand. 33% will not care. 30% will never do anything. And, the 3% – they already know because their heart and soul know the Immutable Law because it was written on their Soul at quickening in the womb, and upon their inheritance jus Soil (right to Soil) by Covenant.

      I have sinned for Sabbath is upon me in work. I am unclean for 24 hours, and until I wash at the begining of Time in Darkness, as it was in the beginning before the Light. Study mava and jill and even this mystery shall be discovered of your own willing unbigoted works.

  • mava September 9, 2011, 11:44 pm

    I did not intend to offend any of your feelings, Steve. I am sorry if I did. I am just pointing out thing as I see them. This conversation is not personal to me at all, and I did not intend to mean anything personal to you as well.

    I very rarely use pun, and here too, I meant to walk left / right just as directions. I did not mean to imply that you’d choose to be a leftist.

    I have no interest of comparing my experiences with yours, as I can not see how any possible experiences or tough times can lend any support at all to your word or mine. The word is either true or not, it is irrelevant of who speaks it, unless we are in church and are trying to exchange our beliefs (things we believe in, without any shred of fact of evidence).

    I also did not assume anything at all about your nature, character or life experiences. Again, I am sorry if I offended, it was not my intent at all.

    • Steve September 10, 2011, 12:46 am

      Do not assume my feeling are hurt mava. The conversation and expression is for a purpose in communication and nothing else to express factually the difference between those who serve and those who take. I sincerely have no regret for serving the People of the Nation. I was making a point in expressing being sorry for risking my life so that people who stand for nothing can speak freely and walk freely without ever having to stand for something that is more than a consensus of opinion by a few individuals based in the moment to moment whims of change for the truth of the day.

      I worked to get mava to see the distinction between a private territorial mobocracy called the UNITED STATES, and the highly limited Federal Government for the several states union, or united States of America. Unless you find the answer for yourself mava there is little reason to believe there would be acceptance. I tried to haze you to find the Immutable Law.

  • mava September 9, 2011, 9:20 pm

    Steve: “No one is forced to use Federal Reserve Notes.”

    Not true. FRNs game points enjoy the status of “Legal Tender”. This literally means that if I owe you, and I choose to repay you in FRN game points, then you will be violently forced to accept, by the US Government marines and what not other “patriots”.

    Steve: “Everyone votes every day when they reject silver Specie money, and make use of fraud via federal reserve notes.”

    I believe you are confused about the use of “vote” vs. “choice”.

    If you , my wife, and I walk in the forest and we come to the fork in the path, you may choose to go left, while I may choose to go right irrespective of what my wife decides. That’s choice. It is always assumes FREEDOM. If, we take a vote, then I and my wife will vote to go right, while you will now have to go right as well. That is vote. It assumes violent tyranny. Vote has zero to do with freedom.

    Therefore, you don’t “vote” with your money. If we were voting with money, then minority would have no choice at all, i.e., you, as much as you love silver (lawful money, I agree), would not be able to use it, as that would be against the law.

    This might seem unimportant, my bickering about the choice of words, but as you spend more time in these debates, you will start noticing that they lead nowhere. I did notice that, and traced the reason of failure to different concepts we all hold in our minds, while using same words. I therefore conclude, that one of the main reasons of a failure in societies in general is the proliferation of imprecise language.

    Take example from Joel B post above: “I am not disputing that our government is totally corrupt but if one makes the choice not to vote and then to do nothing else to change the corrupt system you have essentially surrendered.”

    Here, Joel suggest that we force each other to accept our own version of “non-corruption”. Essentially, he believes that there is something that is worth forcing all other into. But there is no such thing. One can only fight to be left alone or with those who share his principles. If one can not find anyone who shares his principles, then he is alone, and the only thing he has a moral right to fight for is again, to be left alone. He can also achieve that by leaving.

    Joel’s incorrect perception of surrender while he looks at very useful choice, in this instance, comes from yet another presumption, that there is or was some system worth supporting. Usually, folks point at US Constitution. However, the US constitution (USC) itself was written to deny the freedoms granted by the Articles of Confederation (AOC). Secondly, not AOC, not USC is worth fighting for, because they both were so imperfect as to not being capable to last any significant measure of time! They both failed, and if restored, they will fail again! Something else needs to be designed, based on AOC and USC, but better, much more resilient.

    • Steve September 9, 2011, 11:15 pm

      With all due respect to the use of your mind mava (which use is real and active), I fought for 10 years on the streets, in the fields, and over the waters so that others can loiter and refuse to Stand for anything, especially taking a stand for one’s Brother, or the Future.

      Respectfully mava, by private contract I have avoided voluntary use of federal reserve notes for 17 years. Don’t think this is choice without pain and suffering for Freedom and Liberty mava. Nor, is it without the use of a buffer to keep the tar baby from sticking me to the propaganda of mobocracy speak voluntarily.

      Respectfully mava, the concept of Sovereignty/ Liberty expressed in your walk down the trail is inauthentic and disingenuine as you may vote all you want to engage in high treason with your wife to walk leftist down the trail. I will have this conversation with you. But, I will not play with you. I will not walk down your trail. And, I will find loathing in my heart even if mava has the power to arrest my Liberty and put this Sovereign Free Man in prison. I will be Sovereign in the land of enfranchisees. I will Sojourn through this land of war. I will be Free even though shackled. I will be Free and Sovereign because these qualities exist in the heart and soul. I will obey the Immutable Law / Mosaic Law to the best of my ability so that I am not tricked by fancy words and fanciful feelings

      The concept of refusal to use FRN and voting with silver is not that hard to grasp. Warren Buffet can only buy so many potatoes with FRN. If all sellers of potatoes refuse to use frn, eventually Buffet will not be able to use frn. It is the simple opposite of what is happening today where there is nothing but foreign territorial banks under Article I, sec. 8, cls. 17, Const. The number of transactions completed daily far exceed Buffet’s ability to transact. Ignorace of private contract does not negate the power of private contract to make money in a private transaction anything agreed to by the parties. Need to commit fraud and misrepresentation, then by all means conduct business with a foreign corporation created by the territorial powers of the congress, and the federal district of WA, or CA, or CO with territorial script as valueless notes of tally for debtor in possession.

      I agree about the abuses of words like ‘democracy’. Yet, mava, a presumption about how many years, or lifetimes I have spent in the courts, carrying a firearm to defend the people, or Standing on the corner on a soapbox, or engaged on the internet is something one should not speculate with in inauthenticity and disingenuiness.

      I do not know you mava and I make no assumption in regard to how many times you have seen the black void of terror. If you wish to go tit for tat off Rick’s Forum I’ll compare my life experiences to yours rather than making assumptions in regard to what I have done, or not done here. There is no need to highjack the forum from Red Will.

      I can not disagree with you more about conversations going nowhere. A conversation only goes nowhere where bigotry reigns supreme in the hands of someone like Obama, or Reid, or Pelosi. All failure of society traces to a refusal to admit there is an Immutable Law, that that Law is written on the hearts of Man, and only corruption, rebellion, and anarchy hide the Law in selfish hearts and lost souls. Mostly mava, the mind of man is so small as to fool its self into believing hu of man gains something by high education propaganda brainwashing.

      Education is good when framed by the Mosaic Law.

      I end with this mava. I am sorry I took an Oath/Affirmation to defend the Original Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am sorry I risked my life and was injured so that corporate persons can engage in rebellion. I am sorry I wasted the past 27 years of my life personally fighting mobocracy in the courts believing that I could help my Brother American Nationals. I am sorry that I taught a lecture titled “Good versus Evil” which brought the spotlight of mobocracy to shine on me punatively. I am sorry that IRC 6702 just fined me 5000.00 for exercise of Article I of Amendment security to free speech. I am sorry that I know that IRC 6702 is a bluff, and that only a Court in Law can take property that belongs to the individual. I am sorry that I know that federal reserve notes are the property of the federal reserve and that the I.R.S. can seize their property anywhere, anytime, for any reason because the inferior corporate citizen is only a debtor holding in possession for their master creator “the congress” via general and paramount lien of the Banking Act of 1913. I am sorry that I cannot teach understanding of the Immutable Law as the source of definitions from the heart. I am sorry I cannot overcome the conversation of ever changing mobocracy rules who’s education defiles the heart and Law leading us to absolute failure.

      I apologize to you Wayne, and to you Rick because the conversation is about Children and Education.

  • Rich September 9, 2011, 8:22 pm

    Re “I’ll have something to say about the President’s latest jobs proposal when Shadowstats reports that U.S. unemployment has fallen below 20 percent:”

    Youngstown U has de facto unemployment at 29.17%, with only 58.1% of the civilian population employed…

    http://cwcs.ysu.edu/resources/cwcs-projects/defacto

  • Steve September 9, 2011, 6:29 pm

    Joel B. The NIV scripture holds no merit to the Original Greek Word given to Titus to help stop the corruption of the lawful governmental form. Try the Geneva source as it is closer to the origin and not corrupted by current american mobocracy. Taking a single line of scripture to prove a point is a fatal error. The book of Titus is a letter to Titus in regard to the overthrow of Church Government by Satan through false representatives (ministers) and what to do about it:

    GENEVA BIBLE,
    Pretext to the Book of TITUS
    When Titus was left in Crete to finish that doctrine which Paul had there begun, Satan stirred up certain which went about not only to overthrow the government of the Church, but also to corrupt the doctrine: for some by ambition would have thrust in themselves to be pastors: others, under pretext of Moses’ Law brought in many trifles. Against these two sorts of men Paul armeth Titus: first teaching him what manner of ministers he ought to choose, chiefly requiring that they be men of sound doctrine to the intent they might resist the adversaries, and amongst other things he noteth the . . .

    And second, the Pretext to Titus 3

    Titus 3
    1 He willeth that all generally be put in mind to reverence such as be in authority. 3 That they remember their former life, and attribute all justification unto grace. 9 And if any babbler withstand these things, 10 he willeth that he be rejected.

    Joel, power and authority are two entirely different precepts. Paul admonished Titus to throw out the babblers of foreign powers and governments. Paul admonished Titus to reverence the Mosaic Law. The powers of democracy are to be rejected according to the letter from Paul to Titus, as are the practioners of democratic abuses as babblers of propaganda. The Book of Titus rejects what you have written as an abuse to enslave the people in false doctrines, false governments, and false representatives.

    Read the Book of Titus as the way to elect Representatives who will be in honor and honorable to the Foundation of the Nation, not the new age mobocracy. These representatives are to obey the Mosaic Law, and the Government Framed upon the Word. It is simply a fatal error to try to say that I must obey the treachery of the current mobocracy that Titus was told to “. . .reject. . .”. The book of Titus is a guide from Paul to Titus to select ministers who will not overthrow the Word for an imperfect and false governmental form like our current democracy in rebellion.

  • Joel B September 9, 2011, 4:59 pm

    Since you are actually quoting the Bible let me quote another verse Titus 3:1 : (NIV) “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good”. I am not disputing that our government is totally corrupt but if one makes the choice not to vote and then to do nothing else to change the corrupt system you have essentially surrendered. As Edmund Burke said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Follow your conscience but please do something with the truth!

    • Robert September 9, 2011, 6:45 pm

      Joel-

      A Biblical quote without context… Really?

      Ok, then let’s just throw Romans 13.1 out there as well:

      “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

      – How many different ways could this passage be mis-interpreted by the idiots among us?

      And, since you mentioned Titus- Here is another passage from that same book that runs counter to the quote you provided, and in fact when you read the following passage in the corect context, you will see that it is referring specifically to people who “administer” to others from a corrupted pulpit:

      Titus 1.16: “They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”

      Now, all of this might make me look really churchy, and I have, in fact, read the Bible 6 times (4 different versions), but in reality I am only about as Christian as Christ was… 🙂

      Regarding the Bible; I still like this one personally:

      Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

      Or perhaps Matthew:
      Matt 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

      Thanks for the Brain exercise… feels good.

  • Marc September 9, 2011, 3:17 pm

    Although I firmly believe both that states have the right to secede and that the current political paradigm is a loser for the American people, I still think We The People could effectuate meaningful change through the ballot box. I believe term limits for our legislators and the institution of a true gold standard (not the bastardization of that ideal that this country used to have) would go a long way to turning things around, and those are two issues that could be accomplished quite easily through just one or two election cycles. While it seems highly unlikely at this juncture that the electorate would go that way (particularly the gold standard), I’m still holding on to the hope that the sheeples’ eyes will be opened when the global economy and our currency truly collapse. And I have absolutely no doubt that such a collapse will occur over the next few years.

    • Steve September 9, 2011, 5:39 pm

      Marc, The only gold standard is administrative by F.D. Roosevelt in treasonous designs in executive usurpation of exclusive legislative powers of the People over money.

      Read the Coinage Act of 1792, and the Act of 1985. Read the legislative intent and the Senator’s comments on the Act of 1985.

      Gold Coin is an Eagle valued in silver Specie Dollars who’s value is based upon the Spanish Milled Dollar.

      When one says Gold Standard they are saying they believe in executive usurpation of the Constitution in treason.

      Understand why the Supreme Court cannot rule in the Patriot’s favor ? If one cannot ask the correct question to find the Constitution the court is going to laugh, or maybe cry because the people have lost their way to brainwashing by democracy.

      If yee ask for the gold standard surely you will be given the executive abuses and treachery yee ask for in treasonous designs.

      We don’t need term limits. We need responsible PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Marc September 10, 2011, 9:04 pm

      Steve, you are correct, of course, that the Dollar referenced in the Constitution was the dollar known the world over at that time, being 371.25 grains of silver. But with silver having many industrial applications in the modern world, I’m inclined to favor a gold standard. It would require nothing more than a constitutional amendment, and in light of how the implicit silver standard of the Dollar has been ignored, any hard currency standard will unfortunately require an amendment to prevent its future dissolution by our government. But whatever precious metal it might be, it needs to be only one — any bimetallic system that purports to set the exchange rate between two (or more) metals is doomed to failure. Only the free market can set those relative values.

  • Jill September 9, 2011, 6:06 am

    Seceding is an interesting topic. I would like to see a state secede– but not my own– just to see how they handle on their own the hiring of air trafffic controllers without the FAA, their own military defense, various business laws and regulations etc.– whatever things that the federal government handles for the states now.

    These things began a long time ago, but we are all so used to them now that we take them for granted. I wonder, have secessionists made a list of these things, or planned what to do about them. Or do you just plan to “wing it” if your secession turns out to be successful?

    It seems almost like those “Rapture” predictions– something one might look pleasantly forward to forever, as it is always way ahead in the future. It’s never close enough in time that there is any pressure to plan for it in concrete ways.

    • Benjamin September 9, 2011, 10:10 am

      The irony is, in becoming government and people in rebllion of the Constitution (now I’m starting to sound like Steve!), we in fact seceded already.

      That is one thing, nay, THE thing that I find flawed with secesionist arguments. Why break away from The Republic that the Founders gave us? And if it becomes the mobocratic nightmare, well, fight for the Republic!

      Article I, sec 8 cls 15: The Congress shall have power… To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

      I’m not really sure what kind of vote is needed in the House and Senate, but I suppose if enough states were willing, the states in rebellion could be forcefully brought back to law and order. Whatever the case, no secession is needed. What is needed, and to deny the “no vote” camp, are the right district representatives in the House (and by extension, the Senate). We have to vote for those in elections. Trouble is, finding those kinds of representatives…

    • Steve September 9, 2011, 5:29 pm

      Ben, you are spot on. The current governmental form Jill speaks of is the governmental form that breached Contract Constitution in skullduggery to create a mobocracy that is communistic toward property as banking control over the people by debt instruments. The current government is a foreign corporation 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) who used treasonous designs to run from the Republic.

      Think you are Free and at Liberty ! Try to live the Republican form of Government and see the jack booted thugs come to force you back to democracy by whatever means necessary, including dumping diesel on you and tossing a match.

    • Benjamin September 9, 2011, 6:12 pm

      “see the jack booted thugs come to force you back by whatever means necessary, including dumping diesel on you and tossing a match.”

      Good. Then we’d just have to run to embrace the bastards with open arms.

    • redwilldanaher September 9, 2011, 6:46 pm

      Jill, you leave me baffled. Only with DC guiding us is it then possible that we can effectively navigate the air, defend ourselves, and put common sense to use in handling our affairs? My county airports and local ports handle things quite well. The laws that would arise would result from much closer (local) scrutiny and the best defense would be in working with neighboring states the way that was originally intended. I live in SC and given the history of this state I worry not that a militia would rise if circumstances called for it. The Southern boys acquitted themselves well with respect to the Army of Northern Aggression. Check the stats and then discount accordingly with respect to all of the other factors that favored the North. Also I’d remind you that the Federal Troopers can be turned on those that choose to remain in the warm embrace of the corporation at any time. Even Ron Paul recently remarked on the duality of fences.

    • Jill September 10, 2011, 12:37 am

      Redwill, well I do hope your state is successful in seceding then, because I sure would like to see how all the necessary governmental functions are handled by a real state in the real world, as opposed to theoretically.

    • fallingman September 11, 2011, 7:30 pm

      Yeah, you’re right Jill. After all, we southerners are way too stupid to figure out how to direct air traffic.

      Hell, we’re still stumped by the thermos. It keeps hot things hot and cold things cold…and how do it know?

      We need the geniuses at the FAA…and those crackerjack regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision, the SEC, The CFTC, The Fed, etc. etc. to make sure no one ever hijacks planes and flies them into tall buildings or hijacks the financial system and flies it into the mortgage market.

      How would we ever live without ’em?

      Actually, the Question now has become, how can we live long WITH THEM?

    • Jill September 11, 2011, 8:53 pm

      I never said Southerners were stupid, Fallingman. And if you are right that no state needs the services that the Federal government does, then that will be proven, once a state successfully secedes. I am curious and would like to see what happens then. A lot of theories in our heads do not work out like we expected, but then some do.

    • fallingman September 13, 2011, 5:31 am

      Yeah, you’re right. You didn’t. I’m a transplanted New Yorker anyway. Southern by choice.

      I just didn’t like your defense of the Feds. And I don’t care what state tried it, they could do a better job of everything than the sold-out jackasses in DC.

      Let me ask you this…would we be better or worse off without the FDA? Here’s a hint. WITHOUT.

  • Rich September 8, 2011, 10:33 pm

    Re the Civil War, although it is not a popular politically correct opinion taught in public schools, trade with Britain and recovery of French & Indian War, Revolutionary War and War of 1812 debts was a factor:

    Following their conquest of Europe early in the 1800s, the Bankers cast their covetous eyes on the most precious gem of them all — the United States.

    America was unique in modern history. It was only the second nation in history that had ever been formed with the Bible as its law book. Its uniquely magnificent Constitution was specifically designed to limit the power of government and to keep its citizens free and prosperous. Its citizens were basically industrious immigrants who ‘yearned to breath free’ and who asked nothing more than to be given the opportunity to live and work in such a wonderfully stimulating environment.

    The results — the ‘fruit’ — of such a unique experiment were so indescribably brilliant that America became a legend around the globe. Many millions across the far flung continents of the world viewed America the Beautiful as the promised land.

    The Big Bankers in Europe — the Rothschilds and their cohorts — viewed the wonderful results borne by this unique experiment from an entirely different perspective; they looked upon it as a major threat to their future plans.

    The establishment Times of London stated: “If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic [i.e. honest Constitutionally authorized no debt money] should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt [to the international bankers]. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

    The Bankers and their friends sent in their financial termites to destroy America because it was becoming “prosperous beyond precedent.”

    The first documentable evidence of Rothschild involvement in the financial affairs of the United States came in the late 1820s and early 1830s when the family, through their agent Nicholas Biddle, fought to defeat Andrew Jackson’s move to curtail the international bankers.

    The Rothschilds lost the first round when in 1832, President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the ‘Bank of the United States’ (a central bank controlled by the international bankers). In 1836 the bank went out of business.

    In the years following Independence, a close business relationship had developed between the cotton growing aristocracy in the South and the cotton manufacturers in England. The European bankers decided that this business connection was America’s Achilles Heel, the door through which the young American Republic could be successfully attacked and overcome.

    The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President.

    The plotters raided armies, seized forts, arsenals, mints and other Union property. Even members of President Buchanan’s Cabinet conspired to destroy the Union by damaging the public credit and working to bankrupt the nation. Buchanan claimed to deplore secession but took no steps to check it, even when a U.S. ship was fired upon by South Carolina shore batteries.

    Shortly thereafter Abraham Lincoln became President, being inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Lincoln immediately ordered a blockade on Southern ports, to cut off supplies that were pouring in from Europe. The ‘official’ date for the start of the Civil War is given as April 12, 1861, when Fort Sumter in South Carolina was bombarded by the Confederates, but it obviously began at a much earlier date.

    In December, 1861, large numbers of European Troops (British, French and Spanish) poured into Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with widespread European aid to the Confederacy strongly indicated that the Crown was preparing to enter the war. The outlook for the North, and the future of the Union, was bleak indeed.

    In this hour of extreme crisis, Lincoln appealed to the Crown’s perennial enemy, Russia, for assistance. When the envelope containing Lincoln’s urgent appeal was given to Czar Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain.”

    Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Liviski, steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there, The Russian Pacific fleet, under Admiral Popov, arrived in San Francisco on October 12. Of this Russian act, Gideon Wells said: “They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North” (Empire of “The City,” p. 90).

    History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War. Lincoln put a damper on their activities when, in 1862 and 1863, he refused to pay the exorbitant rates of interest demanded by the Rothschilds and issued constitutionally-authorized, interest free United States notes. For this and other acts of patriotism Lincoln was shot down in cold-blood by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865, just five days after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

    Booth’s grand-daughter, Izola Forrester, states in This One Mad Act that Lincoln’s assassin had been in close contact with mysterious Europeans prior to the slaying, and had made at least one trip to Europe. Following the killing, Booth was whisked away to safety by members of the Knights of the Golden Circle. According to the author, Booth lived for many years following his disappearance…

    • Benjamin September 9, 2011, 11:03 am

      Interesting, to put it mildly, Rich. I must admit, my Civil War knowledge is spare and rusty (a deficiency I mean to begin fixing, soon), but I never did see that either side was clearly in the right. See my post to Jill, below. I mean, really… If the Union was in rebellion of the Constitution, then why secede? Why not fight for the Republic? It was not as if there wouldn’t have been a fight, either way.

    • Steve September 9, 2011, 5:22 pm

      Ben, the several Southern States went to the Convention of 1777 as the Confederation of Thirteen united States because the contract constitution of A.D. 1787/1791 stood in breach of contract by the Northern Senate Rebellion.

      Ultimately the War of Northern Aggression prevailed and the Original Constitution was lost to the abuse of a.k.a. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 which promoted the 14th corporate structure amendment at the point of a gun, and by fraud in Oregon – Ratification, just P. Knox lying about ratification, and the rebellious congress accepting the fraud as their foundation for foreign banking democracy.

      Factually, the Constitution has been ignored since prior to 1860, and was supplanted by corporate skullduggery in 1867/68 with a corporation named UNITED STATES 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) in 1872.

      Congress created that corporation named UNITED STATES and everyone has been a corporate enfranchisee created by their master the congress ever since at the point of a gun under the Commander in Chief according to the branches of government.

      I just cannot accept that reality, and refuse to change because the change to democracy is illegitmate de Facto without de Jure Right.

    • Benjamin September 9, 2011, 6:05 pm

      Steve,

      “Ultimately the War of Northern Aggression prevailed and the Original Constitution was lost to the abuse of a.k.a. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 which promoted the 14th corporate structure amendment at the point of a gun”

      “Factually, the Constitution has been ignored since prior to 1860, and was supplanted by corporate skullduggery in 1867/68 with a corporation named UNITED STATES 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) in 1872.”

      Yeah, I kind of figured that things had gone off the rails well before the secession. None the less, the point still stands… Seceding was not the answer. And it can’t be, either. What was it you said earlier, about 70 years after the war crimes of the Nazis? Root ’em out and bring them to justice, no matter how much time has passed?

      I concur. Therefore, the same principle would apply back in the Civil War era, just as it does more than 150+ years after the fact. Remove all resistence and root out the corruptions enacted. A total reboot. Won’t be easy and would probably take a lot of time, but it wasn’t going to be easier or shorter any other way.

      By the way, I read your other post (re: voting with silver specie). I saw some problems, at first, but almost immediately got some ideas that showed that it could indeed work!

    • Rich September 9, 2011, 8:34 pm

      Re “Interesting, to put it mildly, Rich.”
      Thanks Ben. Much more good quality research available online, hesitated to even post it here as some may think it OT. (Still think poet Carl Sandburg’s multivolume Lincoln Biography one of the best.)
      Will conclude by suggesting anyone wanting to be deloused mentally from corporate monopoly media brainwashing may wish to listen to Bob Chapman, former FBI agent, on infowars.
      The good news is the MSNBC finally closed the Ron Paul Debate landslide with RP at 57.8% of 212,452 votes, twice the combined total of corporate monopoly candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
      Still they try to marginalize him and the consequences of 0’s latest insanity adding $500 B to the debt and claiming it will be paid by cuts, when we are already over the recently raised debt ceiling.
      Financial endtimes indeed.
      We are still short the equity markets…

  • Rich September 8, 2011, 10:20 pm

    Closing equity volume was hugely red.
    Looks like tonight and tomorrow could get kind of wild and woolly in response to BB and B0, whom all primary contenders in last night’s “debate” vowed to replace…

  • Rich September 8, 2011, 10:18 pm

    Thanks RedWill:
    When our daughter came home from public school quoting the teacher as saying Parents did not know what they were talking about, she was put into private school…

    • Rich September 8, 2011, 10:21 pm

      She speaks her own mind @ 21…

  • Pete September 8, 2011, 10:10 pm

    Red Will, this response has serverd me well …

    “Go ask your mother and stop standing in front of the TV”

    😉 Pete

  • Ryan September 8, 2011, 8:13 pm

    Red Will,
    I applaud you for your pain staking effort with educating your children. I would say that you have hit the nail on the head with one of the biggest problems with our society today. From my observations it is clear that most parents are just lazy. They will not take the time to educate their own children to give them a fighting chance to get out of the matrix. Most parents do not arm their children with the knowledge to be able to fight through the lies and misinformation that is constantly bombarding them. They do not encourage their children to question anything.
    It take a lot of effort on the parents part to simply raise a child, but to go that extra mile is truly difficult. Most parents will allow the current matrix indoctrinate their children with the misinformation because they are slaves themselves to the current system. Dual income families or single parents are just trying to make ends meet. They have little time to steer their child’s mind through the grey scrubbed lies that are told to them everyday through the education system.

    The general public wants the blinders on. Reality sucks. I have fought with dear friends over very simple concepts about how their lives would be forever changed and it takes the market to crash and gold to double for them to even think twice about what I have said. They along with the majority of the general public just want to be lied to.

    The only problem I see is that there is a fine line in educating your children and making them opinionated. The truth is hard to swallow for adults and I can see potential pitfalls with providing children too much information. All parents walk a fine line with this and it sounds like you are doing an incredible job.

    Most teachers are just cogs in the machine and will frown upon individual thinking. Your children, with their new found knowledge that you have instilled, will have to weigh when to be opinionated in class and when to let the disinformation continue.

    I think it will serve them better to know now versus finding out for themselves years from now.

    Are any other forum readers teaching their children to question their history books or current events?

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 10:02 pm

      Of course. All recollections of history are jaded by the point of view of the observer…. As I alluded to above, there are points of common reference that we can hold as factual, but only in regards to the incidence of the event. Personal aspects and motivations are never accuratley preserved.

      Healthy skepticism is, in my opinion, a VITAL trait to a healthy mind, and a successful future.

      Had Lincoln held the Constitution in the highest regard, the South would have been allowed to succeed peacefully, and the Union would have focused it’s efforts on maintaining trade relations, rather than forcing political will, and placing the needs of the Union (the collective) above the needs of the individual sovereign people, and the Sovereign in common (the Confederacy).

      We killed each other for nearly 4 years because re-drawing borders on maps was too vile a concept to contemplate. Complete idiocy.

      I encourage everyone to read everything they can on the civil war period in the US…. I feel that we face a similar crossroads today. Choose to live your life in full recognition of these parallels, or live in complete denial… the long term success of your personal outcome will probably be determined by this choice.

    • David Tanner September 8, 2011, 10:27 pm

      Regarding Robert’s comment: “Had Lincoln held the Constitution in the highest regard, the South would have been allowed to succeed peacefully, and the Union would have focused it’s efforts on maintaining trade relations, rather than forcing political will, and placing the needs of the Union (the collective) above the needs of the individual sovereign people, and the Sovereign in common (the Confederacy).” Well said! And if that was true then, how much moreso today? Which is why I can’t see the powers-that-be allowing a peaceful secession. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from it. The playground bully is making big bucks off of his game of marbles and he is not going let any of the participants just peacefully walk away. In addition, the military is much more entrenched today than in Lincoln’s time. If we couldn’t pull it off then, I surely don’t see us pulling it off now, unless we have Divine assistance. Which brings us to another question: What does God want? Does He want this thing to crash and burn, or does He want us to stand up and take it back? Wish I knew the answer to that one! But to be on the wrong side of His Will would not be a good place to be.

  • Robert September 8, 2011, 6:21 pm

    Great commentary, Red Will. I wish you luck and success in your continued endeavors to raise your children into successful, independent adults.

    One thing I hold as an immutable truth is that there is no such thing as a shared experience. Two people in the same place at the same time, witnessing the same event, will take away from it memories that only bear a superficial resemblance, and only “match up” on certain key points.

    Because of this, I can only deduce that every journey through life is intended to be a private, individual journey. We are not supposed to “mold” our children. We are not supposed to “shape” them into what we (or society) expect them to be.

    As MB points out so pointedly above- our jobs are to help them learn to understand their reality, and to help them understand what concepts reign as immovable fact (physical and natural law) and what concepts reign as intellectual or legal foundations of advanced society.

    I beleive we are supposed to enjoy the trip alongside them, and hope that they enjoy the trip alongside us.

    My older daughter (now 8) once asked me: “Dad, if dolphins have bigger brains than people, then are they smarter than people?”- Little did she know that such an innocent question would raise hours of debate between my wife and me later.

    When the question was tabled, my wife (a Mastered degreed teacher who fully recognizes that she is indoctrinated into a system that covets the principle of the hierarchical false authority, but still tends to walk the path of non-confrontation and relies on normalcy bias) said “of course they’re not smarter than people honey. Dolphins can’t build things, and they are not as technically advanced as we are”

    To which I (being about as open minded and anti-normalcy bias as any human being can get), replied:

    “Well, true that Dolphins do not modify their environment like we do- but that might be due to the fact that they might already find their environment to be ideal- therefore ambition is not required; and true that they don’t use computers, but some of the greatest technological advances humans have made (echo location and directional positioning technology) Dolphins already have built in to their brains…”

    Then I dropped the hammer:

    “And it could be argued that Dolphins ARE smarter than people: because they exist in societies where there is no crime. There is no record of a Dolphin ever murdering another member of their own species, especially over something as trivial as who or what created the first Dolphin”

    My wife cringed, but my daughter raised her eyes in thought (a facial expression that she clearly gets from her old man) and said, “Yeah, and they also don’t have to worry about doing their chores like we do”

    ….The kid’s a genius.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:54 pm

      Thanks Robert. I share your sentiments. It’s a balancing act. My responses to their questions in the essay where largely my thoughts and only a few words. I honestly allow them to make up their own minds. I don’t care for indoctrination and coercion very much and I still try my best to observe the golden rule and especially so with my children.

    • ebear September 9, 2011, 2:16 am

      “And it could be argued that Dolphins ARE smarter than people: because they exist in societies where there is no crime. There is no record of a Dolphin ever murdering another member of their own species, especially over something as trivial as who or what created the first Dolphin”

      from wikipedia:
      During the breeding season, males compete for access to females. Such competition can take the form of fighting other males or of herding females to prevent access by other males.[66][67] In Shark Bay, male bottlenose dolphins have been observed working in pairs or larger groups to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive.[66][68] These coalitions will fight with other coalitions for control of females.[68]

      Where I come from that would be considered a crime, but I guess you’d have to ask the female dolphins what they think about it.

      ebear

    • Robert September 9, 2011, 6:14 pm

      ” In Shark Bay, male bottlenose dolphins have been observed working in pairs or larger groups to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive.[66][68] These coalitions will fight with other coalitions for control of females.[68]

      Where I come from that would be considered a crime, but I guess you’d have to ask the female dolphins what they think about it.”

      – This is a VERY good point, and while the coralling of females is certainly coercive (and would be classified as criminal if the females did not consent or aquiesce to being “herded” by choice), I also noted in your quoted research that the males engage in such behavior as they WAIT for the females to become sexually receptive, as opposed to Chimps, who have been documented many times over the past 50 years actually commiting rape.

      But still… a very interesting point.

  • Muddy Chicken September 8, 2011, 6:14 pm

    This is a great article, Rick. Can you link your articles to face book so I can share them with people? We have to wake as many up as we can. Even just a “like” button would do. Thanks.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:47 pm

      Thanks Mud.

  • Marc September 8, 2011, 6:10 pm

    While I appreciate (and agree with) the things Red Will wrote, I would suggest that the biggest concern any parent should have is with their children’s peers. Yes, the federal government, the media, and the financial system are detestable to anyone who cherishes the ideas of individual liberty enshrined in the Constitution. But those abominations do not have the kind of constant, intensley direct influence on our children that their peers do.

    As a prosecutor who deals with juvenile offenders (ages 10 – 17) every single day, I can tell you that you would be horrified by the things I encounter. And I’m not just taking about kids from tough backgrounds who have fallen into gang life. I’m also talking about kids from well-to-do, upper middle class, two-parent families. I realize every generation tends to be uncomfortable with some of the boundary pushing they see in the next generation, but I’m not talking about mere promiscuity and drug use. That’s passe. I’m talking about 16 year old males violently sodomizing their younger siblings (including younger brothers), and 13 year old females savagely assaulting their own parents simply because a cell phone was taken away.

    We see those kinds of cases every week, and we see it from kids from all walks of life. If you want to talk about more mundane issues, like drug use, I would say that around 60 to 90% of the kids at any given high school are using drugs. Burglary of homes and cars is also shockingly high (nothing like the drug use, but much more common than you would expect). With that kind of prevalence, you can rest assured that your children will have friends who engage in at least some seriously delinquent behaviors. Only children with the right combination of upbringing, self-confidence, and self-discipline will navigate their teens and early 20s without losing sight of the moral compass bearing that you try to instill upon them.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:50 pm

      Thank you Marc. I’m not sure that I agree with you entirely but I do agree with you greatly, especially with your closing sentence. Those are my goals. The peers only complicate things greatly for the parents. There is a lot of risk involved and it is many-sided with respect to opening your children up to the truth.

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 7:30 pm

      “Only children with the right combination of upbringing, self-confidence, and self-discipline will navigate their teens and early 20s without losing sight of the moral compass bearing that you try to instill upon them.”

      Agree completely.

      Educate your children as to the ENORMOUS power that they yield via the expression of personal choice, and inspire them intellectually (and morally) to forecast potential consequences of their immediate actions and to choose these actions accordingly.

      Newton probably did not consider the value that Cause and Effect would have on the quality of parenting, but it is the perfect vehicle for blending the immutable laws of nature with the fluid, unnatural “laws” of society.

      Living in the moment is fine, provided that it does not prevent you from reaching the next moment filled with dread.

    • John Jay September 9, 2011, 5:05 am

      Wow, Marc. I remember from my Psychology 101 decades ago that the percentage of psychopaths in the general population was running at 2%. It looks like we left that number in the dust! USA! USA! USA!
      So life will indeed imitate art, a la “Mad Max” and “Escape from New York”! As if our financial ruin was not bad enough. Maybe those Southern Baptist preachers were on to something when they were burning Elvis records back in the 50s! I guess we’ll never know for sure.

  • Steve September 8, 2011, 5:58 pm

    Everyone votes every day when they reject silver Specie money, and make use of fraud via federal reserve notes.
    How can we punch the tar baby and not expect to get stuck in the tar ? Ron Paul, for all the good he is, still supports corporate mobocracy in 28 U.S.C. 3002(15), a foreign corporation to the several States. Register to vote as a corporate enfranchisee subject citizen and one is already lost in assent to outlawry. Refuse to vote by voluntary use of Federal Reserve Notes and the fiat fraud mobocracy will fall like a waterfall. In other words people, vote by refusal to practice fraud via voluntary use of federal reserve notes. (do not have time to go into the way to argue voluntary versus involuntary, and the fact one has to be in a court fighting for Liberty to make the arguement)

    If the People would just choose to use silver Specie, and only reward the businesses who trade in silver Specie, there would be real Change.

    No one is forced to use Federal Reserve Notes. It is a voluntary choice to the easy way in mobocracy trading/commerce. The pain for using fraud is not greator than the pain for using moral and honest silver Specie money in the sphere of private democracy.

    Please do not bet that the pain of using fraud via Federal Reserve Notes will always be less than the moral choice to fair weights and measures in Specie Money. A time comes when fraud will be taken care of by the Rule of Law. Remember that the Nazi’s are still getting their just due, even if it is 70 years late.

    Twelve men and women on a jury can render judgment that an Allodial Estate is the Right/Endowment of Mankind. Twelve men and women in 50 states can start a fire that burns hot in the hearts of Men of Liberty. All it takes is the positive energy of belief in Liberty.

    Children should be raised up based upon the Immutable Law, and therein we have failed in rule by passion creating discontent and anarchy where every public school teaches the U.S. is a democracy, and they are Right. The U.S. is a democracy in treasonous designs to encompass the masses in assent to outlawry and individual greed.

    I.R.S. sec. 6702 establishes a 5000.00 federal reserve note fine for Free Speech. What are YOU going to do about it ? Or, will the masses just convict Free Speech because it might require them to choose not to be immoral ? The Republic awaits, its offices and seats standing vacant because mobocracy is easier to vote for.

    • mikeck September 8, 2011, 7:52 pm

      Steve,

      I agree with so much of what you post that I feel guilty about only pointing out some disagreements, but time is limited. You seem to always equate anarchy with lawlessness…IMHO, the only lawless anarchist are those agent provocateurs that we see and hear about in mainstream news.

      If the feds did not have kept juries, I would have some hope for reforming that system. I’ve sat through two federal trials and watched the government worshiping clowns vote guilty without any serious thought that maybe the government was wrong. Well, I guess I can’t know what they were thinking, but I know how long they spent not thinking.

      Regarding using silver as money, I agree and am here to vouch for the fact that it can be a painful experience that can take freedom as well as provide freedom. I am over 1000 oz. lighter thanks to the federal criminals, but unlike Bernard, at least I’m not, yet, facing hard time.

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 9:44 pm

      Had I owned any, I would have melted my Liberty dollars before surrendering them.

    • mikeck September 9, 2011, 3:55 pm

      Robert,

      That is what was in the warehouse when they raided…as of now, they have not come for any others that I may or may not have. Actually, I still hold out some hope that they will do the right thing and return my property.

      They have not charged me with a crime, but I guess they are trying to justify their criminal activity by charging the property with a crime. Is anything beyond their reach? http://rundown.com/article.php?article_id=2568

  • DanLuke September 8, 2011, 5:34 pm

    Redwill reveals a fact that few will admit too in this country. If you send your children to public school, that should be classified as child abuse. As for Gary L, why did you open your mouth and show your ignorance. Being a parent in this day is quite simply Hell. The whole country is Shitsophrenic. Your children are filled with lies from every public source. If you tell them the truth, and they repeat it at school, you are in danger of having the state take those children from you. We are way past the point where the system can be fixed. The whole thing will collapse in a spectacular fashion and a new way will be found, that does more than pay lip service to the concept of sustainability.

    • redwilldanaher September 9, 2011, 2:47 am

      “Truth” Dan. All to true.

    • fallingman September 11, 2011, 7:08 pm

      Thank you Dan. And you Redwill.

  • mikeck September 8, 2011, 3:54 pm

    Bravo Redwill,

    Thanks for bringing on some soul searching…I suppose I could use the excuse that without the internet when I was facing those hard questions, I was not armed with the knowledge needed to share the whole truth with my children.

    However, that would merely be a cop-out because many who were/are older than I, i.e. Eustace Mullings, Bob Chapman, G. Edward Griffin, Bill Cooper, to name just a few who were spreading the word back then. I just did not know enough to realize that I was being lied to about so many things.

    Thanks Mava and others for expanding on the subject of voting. The only voting I view as legitimate in our corrupt system is that which is done in the marketplace with “dollars” for goods and services. The subject of voting in a political system implies that government is legitimate…it is not!!!

    As Larken put it in his book, The Most Dangerous Superstition, I’m paraphrasing here, the belief in authority, including all government, is irrational, self-contradictory, immoral, anti-civilization and the most destructive, dangerous superstition that ever existed.

    My theory on voting in the current political system is now boiled down to this, I will only vote for someone who has no chance of winning, i.e. after the Repubs reject Ron Paul again, I will vote for him via write in or on another ticket in the hope that the brain dead party followers get exactly what they fear most.

    • David Tanner September 8, 2011, 4:05 pm

      Mikeck,
      That’s my theory on voting as well! And the bottom line is this: If everyone had that theory, we could elect whoever we wanted! (Of course, he’d get a bullet to the head before he could ever assume office.)

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:46 pm

      Mik, David, I’ve been a longtime Ron Paul supporter but as David noted, he’ll be the victim of a lone gunmen with psychological problems should he ever make enough waves. Besides, nothing can be changed from within Mordor on the Potomac. The only way to win is to not play the game. This is one of the few times I advocate picking up your ball and leaving the playground. That’s the only way to win but how many have the stomach these days for even peaceful secession? To bastardize a cliche, the psyops run deep.

    • mava September 8, 2011, 9:10 pm

      “The only way to win is to not play the game.”

      Yes!

      Life, and time spent thinking taught me that some games have no winners.
      Besides, one can descend into violence against his neighbor with no end, forgetting that even his neighbor has a right to be what he wants to be, say a commie.

      So, I fully support the rule that sometimes leaving is the only way to win the game. Let the nature decide who is right and who is wrong. Let the rightful to prosper, and the one who is wrong to pay with everything he has.

      I did it before (leaving USSR) and am fully prepared to do it again.

  • David Tanner September 8, 2011, 3:47 pm

    Great post. Agree with everything. Only one piece of advice. Quit wasting time trying to change the world. The world doesn’t want to be changed. Instead of spending time at the gun show trying to rally the troops, take your kids fishing. Political activism is a dead end street and a waste of time. It’s a pipe dream. We have passed the point of no return as a nation and as individuals. I hate to say it, but the bottom line is that the majority of our citizens really don’t deserve to be saved from what’s coming, so all we can do is prepare. David Tanner, Lexington, SC

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:40 pm

      Thanks very much David. I hate to agree with you but I am forced to do just that. I guess it is a combination of my dreams and my pro-SC bias that still hold out hope for a peaceful secession scenario for our state. To echo your sentiments, I’ll be taking my boys to do a lot more target shooting this fall than pamphlet dispersion.

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 7:20 pm

      “Instead of spending time at the gun show trying to rally the troops, take your kids fishing”

      I fully agree, if only for the fact that (for me) fishing would be a much more joyous and fulfilling way to spend an afternoon with the kids.

      To subject them to your personal brand of politics is to expose them to the jaded point of view of a “disatisfied customer”… These are viewpoints they must be free to formulate on their own, via their own experiences.

      “If instead of trying to change the world around us, we all focused on improving our own place within it- we would all soon realize that the world does not need changing” – Anonymous

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 7:28 pm

      Robert, how late in the game are we? Would you let the indoctrination process run without interruption? Is it wrong to show my son what I believe in doing?

      I’d love to focus exclusively on my own place in it but at this stage of the game I think that we be foolhardy. I will be using my time with them for more “fun stuff” and always have but I can’t entirely ignore increasing reach of the tenacles of tyranny.

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 9:31 pm

      Wayne-

      How close to the end? I don’t know. All I do know is that it is ending; and I believe a new dawning will occur within my lifetime, and certainly within my kids’ lifetimes; so the best job I can do is to prepare them for what’s next. But since I can not paint that picture entirely and clearly for them, it seems that endowing them with the resources and confidence to trust themselves to navigate whatever waters they face is the best strategy.

      The Universe is a wondrous place. Humanity is nothing but a collection of bugs that have been blessed with the ability to choose whether they will survive, or whether they will allow the brutal laws of nature to simply squash them under a giant cosmic shoe.

      Any bug that wastes their energy fighting with the other bugs over the available crumbs on the kitchen floor deserves the shoe, so I hope to be successful in teaching my kids to stop and look up every once in a while…especially when there is a strange shadow being cast overhead…

      Regarding the reaches of Tyranny- it is always darkest before the dawn. I cling to the notion that no tyranny has ever succeeded in killing every proponent of Liberty- therefore Liberty always triumphs.

  • Jeff September 8, 2011, 3:35 pm

    Mike, thanks for reminding me of Krishnamurti. I read his book ‘Think on These Things’ at a very young age. It’s a book all children (actually everyone) should read. It’s brilliant in it’s simplicity and offers a wonderful perspective on this very brief but wonderful adventure we are all on.

    • ebear September 9, 2011, 1:17 am

      “Mike, thanks for reminding me of Krishnamurti. I read his book ‘Think on These Things’ at a very young age. It’s a book all children (actually everyone) should read. It’s brilliant in it’s simplicity and offers a wonderful perspective on this very brief but wonderful adventure we are all on.”

      Why make it easy on them? Start them on Karl Popper then have them ask their teachers if they even know who he is.

      ebear

  • Lee Aaron September 8, 2011, 2:53 pm

    Thank you Red Will. I have been a reader/lurker of this forum for a long time, but this post brought me to contribute. I have four children and found myself agreeing with everything written. The moral tenets this country was founded upon were manifested from the ennobiling foundations of religion and philosophies, which seem to be lost today. I want my children to understand and respect this background. However when they are adults, my children will need to understand that ideas like the rule of law, individual sovereignty, and property ownership are no longer respected and have become a fantasy. I am of the belief that we are past the point of return and that only a significant series of painful events will bring about the needed change. The best I feel I can do is to prepare for my grandchildren’s future, and hope my children understand and believe in my wife and me.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:36 pm

      Thanks to you Lee. Unfortunately I agree with everything that you’ve written!

      “However when they are adults, my children will need to understand that ideas like the rule of law, individual sovereignty, and property ownership are no longer respected and have become a fantasy.” – Perfectly put Lee.

    • David Tanner September 8, 2011, 10:10 pm

      My conclusions also. Well said.

  • gary leibowitz September 8, 2011, 2:43 pm

    Just as you came to a certain conclusion about the state of the world I suggest you allow your child the same privilege. To infused them with your prejudices only enhances your own ego. To suggest that you alone could come to the truth is also absurd. If you possess a dogmatic notion of what is right and true then I suggest you step aside and allow your child to lern or experience the “truth” for themselves.

    Let us each become our own person, self guided with the knowledge that free will and reason shaped our thoughts.

    • Steve September 8, 2011, 5:26 pm

      Gary, with all due respect. John Marshall, Chief Justice S.C.u.S. debated a gentleman and was allowed the first question which was:

      Do you believe in the Immutable Law ?

      The adversary said no, to which Marshall replied ‘The debate is over and I have won because without the Immutable Law you will change the rules and change the rules until all is lost’.

      I believe that reality created by consensus of opinion in regard to Right and Wrong is exactly why we exist in a mobocracy that is so sweet to the masses that they refuse to change. As Ben stated. Rule by passion produces persons eating the flesh of other persons because the mob came to a consensus of opinion in regard to what is. If there is no Immutable Law, then by all means prepare for absolute anarchy in the hope that one is bigger, stronger, quicker, more intelligent, and street wise enough to know when to run.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:28 pm

      Great points Gary. I agree with your sentiments. I do restrain myself as much as possible for the very reasons that you noted. However, ask yourself if it is right to sit by and watch your children become indoctrinated and brainwashed.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:33 pm

      Super contribution Steve. I try to restrain myself as much as possible because of what you and Gary have touched on.

      In a nutshell, I may have opinions, even strong ones, but how am I to know that I have reached the absolute truth? I can’t know that with certainty which is the reason I’ve alluded to “this is the premise” type language that I’m operating with in many of the essays that Rick has published.

      There is one line in the essay above where I qualified that “Each question is followed partly by some of what I said and some of what I thought. – That may be a little ambiguous but I think you can see my point.

  • bob September 8, 2011, 1:43 pm

    Kids have an ability to see the truth. Let’s hope for some “King’s New Clothes” stories en masse soon.

  • MB September 8, 2011, 1:40 pm

    Good to hear that other also “struggle” with educating their kids in these times. My aim is to make sure that my kids are independent thinkers, are natural sceptics and go for facts. I try not to impose my opinions on them (certainly not political or religious) but offer tools/sources so that they can get an informed opinion if they want to. It is currently only an aim as my kids are too young now, but we will see how it works.
    MB

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 5:46 pm

      ” My aim is to make sure that my kids are independent thinkers, are natural sceptics and go for facts. I try not to impose my opinions on them (certainly not political or religious) but offer tools/sources so that they can get an informed opinion if they want to. It is currently only an aim as my kids are too young now, but we will see how it works.”

      – I’m giving you a golf clap for that MB- I share your philosophic approah to parenting.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:26 pm

      That’s a great point that you raise MB. My approach is similar to yours but one of the problems is what I alluded to in the essay. The teachers themselves and the textbooks that are used are oblivious to the truth in many cases. So, by not interceding, you are allowing your children to be indoctrinated into the education matrix.

      If I had the time and the ability, I’ve often thought I’d write a book entitled “Raised to Fail”. If you raise your children “old school”, you’re essentially raising them to be fodder for the ruthless of this world which are many. I am raising my children “old school” to a degree and that worries me greatly. I hope to be there for them to get into the nitty-gritty down the road to help them avoid the snakes and arrows as much as possible.

  • Benjamin September 8, 2011, 9:42 am

    This is a very touching article, on a very important matter, Redwill. Thanks for writing it.

    I don’t have kids myself, but I can relate to your anxieties none the less. I often find myself wondering how I would explain my views and stances to the kids I haven’t had. The complexity only grows, making clarity less likely to be conveyed. A parent must surely be hard-pressed to keep up with it all. But maybe there is a simpler way to get the points across? If I may be a little more graphic here…

    I won’t go into the details of my childhood, except to say that simple and shocking works. So, what can be said of Such-and-Such the “Do-gooder”, that is simple and shocking? Well, what if government decided that some portion of a person could be sliced-n-diced and served to the neighbors, for dinner? Is that right or wrong? And if it is one of the neighbors, instead? Would it be right because it was not you?

    And so it is for the fruits of ones labor. To forcefully take away the fruits and property of another is akin to cutting of that persons hands. No law or program created that must rely on forcefully taking from another can be called “for the greater good”. It can only be the savagery of eating each other alive, til the last man stands.

    I imagine that most kids over the age of 5, rather than being terrified out of their wits, would grasp what is being said and would use the lesson as a foundation by which they can hone their ability to evaluate others and their ideas, in greater depth, so that they’ll be prepared when they’re adults. And that is the best a parent can do, to give them a means, an example(s), by which to determine right and wrong, and consistently encourage them to use it.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:21 pm

      Hi Benjamin, thanks for your kind comments and I do see your point. I tend to be an analytical type that likes to engage in research before venturing out into any new endeavor. That being said, you’d think that I would have read extensively on how to parent children (child psychology books/development) but I didn’t. I didn’t read anything. For some reason, growing up, I was a constant observer of the parents of my friends and how they handled things. I watched the goings on very closely. I saw attempts at behavior modification and a lot of what did and didn’t work. I discussed my opinions with my wife and we decided that our approach to parenting would be very simple. By the grace of God and a lot of bothersome work, things seem to have gone really well so far. Maybe we just got lucky, who knows? But here are the basics. 1. The Golden Rule is paramount. This should be your guide. 2. The Truth. We will tell you the truth always and we expect you to do the same at all times. 3. Risk/Reward. Always evaluate what you are about to do and decide if the upside or downside to it is worth the risk. 4. As long as they do a good job of following at least 1 & 2, then give them plenty of freedom and leniency because coercion isn’t something that anyone enjoys as the receiver. Give them trust and allow them the freedom to learn. 5. An appropriate cliche: Don’t sweat the small stuff and even the medium stuff! Because there will be oodles and oodles of it and predicting what it will be in advance makes stock market forecasting appear to be a cakewalk!

    • Santa Claus September 8, 2011, 6:53 pm

      Red >> “2. The Truth. We will tell you the truth always and we expect you to do the same at all times.”

      Ok did you tell your kids that there was NOT a Santa Claus and all the other nonsense fairy tales or did you lie to them?

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 7:17 pm

      Well Santa, I must admit that I’ve yet to reveal to them all that my wife and I have aliases as Mr. & Mrs. Claus, as in, we’re one and the same as the jolly fat man and his wife. When they ask (about 10 years old) for our first two, we do come clean but honestly, the younger ones never ask so we never have had to lie to them. Our solution might not be as clever as Shakespeare’s C Section but it’s worked for us.

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 9:04 pm

      Santa Claus, while not real in a physical sense as a breathing, self aware person, is still very much “real”

      To declare the spirit of Santa as unreal is as fallacious as declaring that the spirit of Mammon is equally unreal… and if you should hold such a viewpoint as truth, then I must (respectufully, of course) suggest that you may have more reading, thinking, and meditating to do about the duality of human nature…

    • fallingman September 8, 2011, 10:57 pm

      Whoa…wait a minute. Santa Claus isn’t real?

      How do you explain all those presents under the tree?

    • Benjamin September 9, 2011, 9:55 am

      @ Wayne,

      Actually, Redwill, I figured that, being the analytical sort, that you WOULDN’T have read all them kinds of books! 🙂

      “By the grace of God and a lot of bothersome work, things seem to have gone really well so far. Maybe we just got lucky, who knows?”

      Luck? No. There is no luck in this “draw”. If you have a moment…

      Two important people in my life did not have what I have. I was raised in a stable family. My father and the closest friend I ever had (not the same person), did not. The came from some pretty bad “families”. In each of them, I observed the same traits. There was a hunger and passion them, coupled with a daring sense of independence. My father of course overcame all his setbacks and managed to build the family he never had. Same with that old friend.

      You’d think I would have a family of my own. Well, it’s like this. What I saw in those two, I didn’t exactly see in myself. This was not to say that I was the polar opposite, though. We were different because we had different starting points. I had the same qualities and values as they, just expressed differently. But I mistook this observation that I was less of a man, because two people close to me so well exhibited those qualities. So, I sought to get away from what I though was “keeping me back”. I was a fool, though. And because of my great misadventure, I can’t have kids now (long story, won’t bore ya).

      The real crying shame of our times is how the credit and welfare system kills the drive in so many people to do what both my parents and best friend and cousin (I introduced them to each other) did. And growing up in the neighborhood that I did, it was so clear. By the way, my family was there because my sister had some severe medical problems. She didn’t make it, but the bills had to be paid. So, we were stuck there a while.

      Anyway, getting back to the neighborhood observations, even the single mothers that didn’t rely on welfare, raised much better kids than most of those that did. The only ones that did okay were the households where the children were predominantly older girls. If a welfare mom had mostly boys? Forget about it! She couldn’t keep them in line, much less raise them to know right and wrong. Boys need fathers. No getting around that.

      But the starkest comparison is my grandmother, on my mother’s side. She managed to raise six kids into what are now middle-class families. My grandfather died earlier on, so she did this entirely on her own. No welfare, no foodstamps (she used them for herself, later, after the kids were all grown up), nor even charity. And certainly not credit cards. I don’t even think they even had them back in the 50s. Anyway, she worked any respectable job she could find and the kids even pitched whatever money they earned from thier odd-jobs, babysitting, etc. Still, there were very bleak times that they had to survive through. One of my uncles told me of the time when the fridge and cupboards were bare (completely empty), that he resorted to eating dirt, just to feel full for a little while. Earlier, I said Vlad the Impaler was a great and brilliant man. But compared to my Granfmother… Not even in the same solar system! 🙂

      So there it is. Parents who strive to maintain their independence are going to affect their kids in more ways than might be immediately realized. This striving certainly does prime them, if not mold them to the additional lessons that parents impart to them. And it probably does so with fewer words than the “shock” I provided, earlier (still, kids will be kids… My father used shock on me when I was 7. I swiped five buck off the table, which belonged that Grandmother I mentioned earlier. I knew it was wrong, but theorized that if I thought she was leaving it there for me, it wouldn’t be stealing. Well, dad went to whip me, but the knife-buckle fell out of the belt. So without pause, he picked it, showed to me, and said “So many fathers go to prison for killing their bad kids”. I never tested another “good” theory again!).

      Thanks for reading. And thank you for your kind words, in praise of the many contributive posts!

  • mario cavolo September 8, 2011, 3:30 am

    They are great and scary points Red Will. My wife is due with our boy in six weeks. I am determined to make sure he understands from as early an age as reasonable how the world really works in terms of culture, society and business across the globe. Last night I had dinner with my group of Italian American friends and we were commenting on how we want to make sure our children spend a year studying abroad in Italy and learn the language. Exposure to life on other continent’s expands a person…

    Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin September 8, 2011, 9:45 am

      “My wife is due with our boy in six weeks.”

      Congrats on the lil’ Mario Jr, Mario Sr! 🙂

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:05 pm

      Thanks Mario. Congratulations to you and your wife. I find your goals for your son highly admirable. I sent you an email via your website some time ago. I’m not sure that you received it. If there’s a better way to reach you via email please let me know of it if you have chance. Thanks. Wayne

    • mario cavolo September 9, 2011, 5:04 am

      Hi Wayne,

      Thanks kindly that you made an effort to get in touch with me by email, I think that’s great, but in fact I never received/saw it for some reason. Please write me again vtvasia@gmail.com Cheers, Mario

    • mario cavolo September 9, 2011, 5:13 am

      Thanks Ben! 🙂 When I told my parents indirectly its a boy; I reminded them of the Godfather opening scene story with Lucca Brazzi… they got the meaning quick!

      “Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your home on the wedding day of your daughter. And may their first child be a masculine child.”

      …class Italian American stuff 🙂

  • mava September 8, 2011, 3:17 am

    Oh wow. I would sure like to have you as a friend, Red Will. Lot’s of common beliefs. And yes, you are doing the right thing telling them as it is, no sugar coat.

    Small disagreements, there always there, and I guess I might have learned that your way is better or the other way around. Such as a view on voting.

    I don’t vote. But not because I see no promise in any party, although true, I do not see any promise. I do not vote because I believe voting as it is practiced today is inherently wrong.

    Say there was a party I believed in. Now, if I’d take a vote, my side might win. Now what? Now I get to enforce my view and desires over that of your own? Say I want the FED to exist (I don’t). Do I obtain the right, by my sheer luck or circumstance of being a majority, to bend your life to my mold? Did I just gained the right to subject you to the FED?

    Did voting gave me the right to curb your right to disagree and to opt-out?

    I don’t believe so. So, I don’t vote.

    Because, when you vote, you count on your rights trampling mine should you win. But it equally is a waver of your rights should you lose. That is the whole trick they play on us. They promise us the images of what we would do to others once we win. In the mean time, we all, every one of us, loses his own right to independence and sovereignty by our playing this game.

    Voting is a bad moral choice.

    • Steve September 8, 2011, 8:02 am

      Wow mava ! There is much more abroad in regard to voting in a voluntary private military voter scheme democracy/mobocracy (see; The State of Georgia v. Stanton 73 U.S. 50), thereby agreeing to corporate enfranchisement under territorial law (a.k.a. The Reconstruction Acts of 1967 – present) to be judged by Roman Civil Law (instead of the Common Law), which was forced by military threat, abuse of arms, upon the several Southern States ( see; RedWill civil war/War of Northern Senate Agression above), in violation of Article II sec. 2 Mr. President Lincoln presidential pardon.

      Unalienable Covenant Endowments cannot be taken, or ‘alienated’ from the Sovereigns in Common in these several States. You see mava, only a criminal committing high treason can interfere with, and commit assault upon the Sovereign in Common’s Covenant Endowments. And, therein is an answer to the voter (democracy) versus Elector (Republic) status and the ignorance of the masses. There is a reason to be disenfranchised from the treasonous designs of those practicing democracy. There is no reason not to fight for the Covenant Endowment to be an Elector on a Republic several State. (please do not get confused with the Electoral College)

      One may choose to sprinkle the Tree of Liberty, as a Sovereign in Common thereby keeping Endowments, or one may choose to assent to lawlessness – there really isn’t much more than that when confronted with the practice of voluntary democracy/mobocracy instead of STANDING UP for the REPUBLIC.

      If one were an Elector Sovereign in Common mava neither you, nor the masses, could alienate the Covenant Endowments of the Sovereign in Common, though; one might push a Man to defend his state in the face of administrative military courts as we have now. (just look at the Colors ‘flag’ of the commander in chief, as International Symbols) Eagle – Commander in Chief, Ball – recruiting, Spear – state military. Irregular size, cords, silks, fringes – military (Flag Publication – Veterans of Foreign Wars). It is much easier to accept the falsehoods of a democracy administrator on ‘Colors’ that to accept the truth and change. Somewhere, it may have been here, I read that in Order for Change to occur that the pain of not changing must become greator than the pain of changing. So far it is much easier to be spineless than to stand up for our brother’s Unalienable Covenant Endowed constitutionally secured Rights. I define spinelessness as taking care of self without regard for our Brother’s Endowments.

      One of these days, maybe soon, it will become more painful to keep up the democracy/mobocracy scam, than the individual pain to change to paying the debt we all owe to Liberty. When the jury is willing to defend the Covenant Endowments of their Brothers no matter what the individual cost, Change will be about us. Still, and right now it is less painful for Joe Sixpac to allow the few others to strike out for Liberty by conviction in the de Facto courts of commander in chief administration. It is really odd how Joe Sixpac will look at the Commander in Chief’s military flag flying in a court, or over his statehouse, and just ignor the truth because doing nothing as Liberty ebbs is far less painful than defending one’s Brother as a responsible juror. The Nazi are still being tried for their crimes in the 30’s. Let us hope that justice knows no statute of limitations when Joe awakens and the pain of practicing mobocracy is greator than the pain to change for Liberty.

    • Mark Uzick September 8, 2011, 10:11 am

      “Voting is a bad moral choice.”

      I once believed this too.

      The mistaken implication is that voting confers moral legitimacy to the aggression of the state, when, actually, voting evolved as a non-violent; less disruptive; less costly way to change the structure of government than armed revolution. Whether the change is for good or for evil, it’s always preferable for it to be peacefully democratic than bloody.

      Voting is just an imperfect, but valuable, tool for self defense. Losing legal rights in a vote in which you participate, no more gives the state the right to its aggression against you than losing a shoot-out with a criminal gang gives the gang the right to demand tribute from you.

      At least, with voting, you needn’t “kill or be killed” in order to try to take back your rights: You just organize a counter revolution of the ballot box. Voting is no more moral or immoral than any other weapon: It’s the judicious use your weapon that matters.

    • Carol September 8, 2011, 3:43 pm

      I gave up voting and actually “rescinded” my voter registration when I woke up from my deep sleep (in mid 1990s). I refuse to any longer participate in their “democracy” and elect my next corporate master.

      As far as Red’s stories of teaching his children, I have had similar experiences with my son. I am a single parent and raised my son from the age of 1 all by myself. When he was in the 8th grade his social studies teacher assigned a report to the class to write a paper on how great democracy is in this country. Well now my son knows that democracy is not “great” and that this “country” (corporation) was founded as a republic and was meant to be a republic (“if we could keep it”). So my son wrote his paper basically stating these premises.

      Boy did his teacher freak out. She got the school counselors involved, as well as the principle and called me in for a conference. They told me how my son was such a problem child (he was almost straight As) and didn’t do his project as it was assigned. I tried (with no success) to explain that my son did not beleive democracy was great so for him to write how great it was he would have to lie; did they want him to lie? They blew up. Long story short, after that incident I quit my high paid career (well over 6 figures) so that I could stay at home (single parent) to home school my son.

      My son just now (a week ago) started college. He was home schooled since 8th grade. He scored extremely high on his SATs and got many scholarships.

      Do I regret my decision to home school him? Not at all. Even though I made a great sacrifice to do so. However, now I am stuck being unable to reenter the work force doing what I used to do because my skills are so out of date (computer software). Even if I could update them too much outsourcing and competition in this field. I now can’t even find any work (uggg). I have often thought about trading for an income but even though I watch the markets every day, I am overwhelmed with learning how to trade. Does anyone on this forum use Rick’s trading methods? Do you make any money? Is it difficult to learn?

    • mava September 8, 2011, 3:45 pm

      Mark Uzick,

      Respectfully, I don’t think you understood my point.

      I do not aim to change this government. I simply refuse to consent to it.

      You think the choice is (as you have stated) between “kill” and “be killed”. Big mistake. You will be “killed”, no matter what, no matter if you chose to “kill” or not.
      You will be “killed” because you will be forced to obey someone else will, that happened to be the winner of voting. You will not be allowed to opt out.

      You voting is not giving consent and legitimacy to aggression (although it does) primarily, but it gives consent to the system where everyone will be forced to obey. This is what you are missing.

      You want to change the government? My government? Who are you to do that? Why don’t you just get busy changing your own government? May-be I am happy with constant aggression (I am not)?

      There is, and can not be, a government for all. Thus the attempt to create one, the pretense that there is one, is a crime and an abomination.

      I want my right to IGNORE OBAMA LEGISLATION no matter what the other 300 million think. Voting pesumes that losers will obey. I refuse.

      Voting therefore is a bad moral choice.

    • Steve September 8, 2011, 5:10 pm

      There is no changing the heart of someone who walks the path of anarchy in selfishness. One must be willing to sacrafice for one’s Brother’s rights/ Endowments as the obligation of Liberty.

      I read defeatism in the lines of this thread. When one says they will be killed, then in fact they will be killed as the already walking dead in fear of Liberty. Rights/Endowments are not without obligations to the Immutable Law that created those Endowments. For, in fact, those who will not engage for Liberty are already dead. Liberty is worth living for, and worth fighting for at many levels. Sovereignty lives in the heart and minds of men, and no other place.

      Carol chooses a path to Liberty by paying the price to reach Liberty by teaching, as does Red Will choose the path of Liberty in teaching his children. Carol pays the price, as will Red Will pay a price as he sees the Joe Sixpacs at a gun show talking big and doing nothing as he educates the future on Liberty. Like Carol I disenfranchised from democracy some 17 years ago and began to work toward a Republican Form of government. That included revoking the military powers of the current scheme of mobocracy as Carol did in non-assent to voluntary military voter registration under the theory created by The State of Georgia v. Stanton 73 U.S. 50. Anyone who chooses this path will be punished by the corporate enfranchisee juror who refuses to change because it is so easy to be irresponsible in mobocracy, or in other words, in a limited liability insurance scheme to spread treason upon the backs of all in assent to lawlessness.

      Words really do mean something exact. One cannot consent to give away the Covenant Endowments of a blind contract under Abraham. Yet, one may assent to lawlessness and anarchy by not doing anything to prevent the loss of Liberty. Sovereignty exists in the hearts and minds of Men. A Sovereign in Common LIVES LIFE into the need to fertilize the Tree of Liberty if that is what is required, or into a prison if that is what is required. Soverignty cannot be taken. Sovereignty may only be given away by assent to outlawry in refusal to act for Liberty. The persons of anarchy, living in fear, are already the walking dead, walking fear, the walking selfishness in democracy.

      Democracy works when good men refuse to do anything and hide. Thank you Red, and thank you Carol for making a Stand for Liberty.

    • Benjamin September 8, 2011, 5:34 pm

      “If one were an Elector Sovereign in Common mava neither you, nor the masses, could alienate the Covenant Endowments of the Sovereign in Common”

      Correct. The worst that could happen, and I do believe you mentioned this in your next sentence, is that the lawfully elected Executive commit an act of treason. In which case, try ’em, hang ’em high, and swear in the new Executive. But a lawless House will quite simply never do such a thing. After all, with it being so easy to break the law these days, everyone in government needs at least a thousand pardons. If they didn’t have them, nothing would ever get done!

      And the citizens? Great, but they are so divided. What it’ll all end up as, is the equally unconsitutional practice of states having the absolute power to determine what is right and wrong. That seems to be the way things are going. There is not one right and one wrong, Steve, but many of each. TOO many. But for some reason, it’s supposed to work out really, really well. Except that it makes about as much sense as doing nothing about any of it other than “voting with my money” or the totally ambiguous thing called “preparation”.

      But I must say that not all the historical figures I admire were especially good. Vlad the Impaler, for example. I am awed by how he took complacent countryman and enemy alike, and forced them to stand in defense of Eastern Europe as the scarecrows they chose to be. Stand, or you will be stood! This was a great and brilliant man, but I do hope that he doesn’t have to be emulated any time this side of the eon.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 6:02 pm

      Mava, Steve, Mark, Carol, Benjamin, thanks very much for adding your comments to the discussion. You’ve all helped me to think in broader ways than I would had I not been enlightened by your contributions in Rick’s forum. The discussion y’all had is great material for a Rick’s essay of its own!

    • Robert September 8, 2011, 7:07 pm

      “Boy did his teacher freak out. She got the school counselors involved, as well as the principle and called me in for a conference. They told me how my son was such a problem child (he was almost straight As) and didn’t do his project as it was assigned. I tried (with no success) to explain that my son did not beleive democracy was great so for him to write how great it was he would have to lie; did they want him to lie? They blew up. ”

      Oh Carol- that is both a hilarious, and sad story, all at the same time.

      I too find it “interesting” (for lack of another less inflammatory term) that teachers today discuss freedom and liberty in terms of respect for authority and yielding to the judgement of others…

      Socialist debt slaves declaring themselves as free. Like I said- interesting (maybe even fascinating)

      We must yield to the RIGHTS of others…. but not the judgements. To a free person, judgements are either to be either respected, or avoided.

    • Mark Uzick September 8, 2011, 9:18 pm

      Mava: “I do not aim to change this government. I simply refuse to consent to it.”

      I understand you; I just disagree:

      Like any weapon, voting can be a tool for self defense or aggression, not a contract of consent to the outcome, nor a guarantee of a satisfactory end.

      Mava: “You think the choice is (as you have stated) between “kill” and “be killed”.”

      No, I said that the choice is between “kill or be killed” (the non-voters choice) and voting.

      Both the voter and the non-voter can choose to fight for his rights or be a passive victim: The only question being whether the fighter chooses the battlefield or the ballot box to make a stand.

      Mava: “You voting is not giving consent and legitimacy to aggression (although it does) primarily, but it gives consent to the system where everyone will be forced to obey. This is what you are missing.”

      When you vote, you do not sign a contract agreeing to consent to or obey the outcome, no matter how unjust; your compliance is merely a function of the degree to which you fear the state; the cost of compliance and your moral agreement/disagreement with what the state expects of you.

      Question: How can voting – or anything for that matter – give “legitimacy to aggression”?

      Mava: “There is, and can not be, a government for all. Thus the attempt to create one, the pretense that there is one, is a crime and an abomination.”

      This is an excellent point!

      In fact, the state is no government at all; the state, in its purest form, is anarchy: It thrives on the chaos of arbitrary rules; violence and war.

      All legitimate government is an extension of the non-aggressive variety of self-government. The degree to which a society is civilized is the degree to which it operates through voluntary organization (government). Civilization doesn’t just spring into existence; it must evolve. The means by which a society governs itself are a reflection of the overall values of its constituents and the way this evolution is is expressed is through voting to either limit or expand the state; to move toward the ideal of unlimited legitimate government (statelessness) or toward the anarchy of the powerful state.

    • Rich September 8, 2011, 10:16 pm

      Mava et al:
      You can always write your candidate in, eg Ron Paul
      He got twice as many internet votes after the Simi Reagan Library Debate as Mitt Romney and Rick Perry combined:
      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

    • ebear September 9, 2011, 2:23 am

      “Voting is a bad moral choice.”

      There’s nothing moral about it. As it stands today, it’s nothing less than pure evil:

      http://www.patcondell.net

      ebear

  • John Jay September 8, 2011, 2:26 am

    Nice expression of the way it is, Red Will.
    I am sure you will do a great job of raising your kids, that’s the toughest job in the world for sure.
    I do not know if it will make any difference, but I see zero support for Obama amongst the populace. Even at their worst moments W and Slick Willie had people speaking up for them. I see nothing from the far left to the far right but universal disapproval for Obama, and Congress. It is increasingly hard for TPTB to explain away the mess they created, especially as the money flow to the proles is constantly shrinking.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 5:52 pm

      Thanks John. The only “difference maker” to me is peaceful secession. I’ve been stuck on that conclusion for many years and as much as I’ve tried, I still can’t come off of it. Which is why Rick has kindly published my “leave the maze” essay and others along that line of thinking.

  • mike September 8, 2011, 1:19 am

    Unity of Mind and Heart
    Training the intellect does not result in intelligence. Rather, intelligence comes into being when one acts in perfect harmony, both intellectually and emotionally. There is a vast distinction between intellect and intelligence. Intellect is merely thought functioning independently of emotion. When intellect, irrespective of emotion, is trained in any particular direction, one may have great intellect, but one does not have intelligence, because in intelligence there is the inherent capacity to feel as well as to reason; in intelligence both capacities are equally present, intensely and harmoniously.Now modern education is developing the intellect, offering more and more explanations of life, more and more theories, without the harmonious quality of affection. Therefore we have developed cunning minds to escape from conflict; hence we are satisfied with explanations that scientists and philosophers give us. The mind, the intellect, is satisfied with these innumerable explanations, but intelligence is not, for to understand there must be complete unity of mind and heart in action.
    – J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

  • Steve September 8, 2011, 1:04 am

    Ouch !

    Too much reality at 4:04 PDT. Great Job Redwill.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 5:48 pm

      Thanks for the compliment Steve. I always look forward to reading your comments in Rick’s forum.

    • redwilldanaher September 8, 2011, 7:56 pm

      Steve, I just had a thought. Perhaps you’ve already done so somewhere, I know that you have to a degree in this forum, but would you be up for chronicling the decline into servitude/disenfranchisement of the American chattel in laymen’s terms? I’d love to make it a sticky post on my blog and create a powerpoint based video of it so people can understand what exactly happened and when. Citing all the legalese would be fine in small print but we need to spell it out in large print so that the most A D D addled among us can still fight their way to the inevitable conclusion. Please let me know if you’re up for this. Thank you.

    • Steve September 9, 2011, 2:50 am

      Wayne, I’m open to a discussion and putting something to pen. Right now I’m heavy into the harvest for the year end having just taken some of my first fruits to help others. I have less than 30 days before subsistence gathering begins. Things are running very late this year. The first time I wrote to Rick in regard to money he responded and asked me for a re-write that Joe Sixpack could understand.
      If you can deal with what I wrote back. Maybe we can work together to find a common language. The response back to Rick: ‘If Joe Sixpac could understand we wouldn’t have a problem, would we.’

    • redwilldanaher September 9, 2011, 7:05 pm

      Steve, I’d be happy to give it a try. If you’d like, please email me at rw@tractiontech.com and we’ll see what we can do but I echo Rick. I’d like to leave the citations in their own section and connect the dots of descent together in a chronological timeline. I think it could be very powerful if this case is made in laymen’s language.


Exit From This Page Back to Trades