What it All Means This Election

Remember when you enter the election booth this November, you will be voting for candidate to limit someone else's liberties while they will be voting for a candidate to limit yours. No matter what you are told to believe, there are more choices than two parties. I'll come back to this later.
********
Back during our founding fathers discussions on how to implement a Federal Government, they needed to decide on the role and power scope of that entity. Ultimately they decided on the bare minimums. The Federal Government was to be an arbiter between States using a court system, defend our borders with an Army, handle immigration, and officially enter in treaties with other sovereign countries. That's basically it, except also given the right to tax or issue debts in order to provide funds for the above mentioned. Although, the taxes were not income tax as we see nowadays, that was unconstitutional. The Federal Government used tariffs and commerce taxes.

In 1913 under the cover of Christmas break when most of Washington was out of town, the  16th Amendment to the Constitution was passes that stated:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I would say that technically the United States, as a federal entity, died on this day. Let me explain...

When people think of the government nowadays and how it relates to their lives, the heirarchy looks like this:

GOVERNMENT > LAWS > PEOPLE > GOD

It's the government that makes the laws which us people have to abide by, right? Our founders thought this was a little different as interpreted:

GOD > PEOPLE > GOVERNMENT > LAWS

God made people, people made Government, and Government makes laws. Now, in this basic hierarchy, the People are above Government. People institute a Government to preserve their God-given rights, not limit them. This is evident with a court system. Without courts, a disagreement could easily be handled by two respectable gentlemen, but in the evident an impartial arbiter is needed thats where government steps in.

Also, let's say that you have a child. A certificate of live birth is filled out and GIVEN to the government for safe keeping. This means that the Government has entered into a contract with you, preserving your new child's right as a citizen so long as they choose. Ever wonder why after a few weeks the government send you a Birth Certificate, a different document, that asks you to sign and keep? They are asking you to enter into a NEW contract with them! Ever notice that when filling out the new born baby forms, there is a check box asking if you want your baby to have a social security number? Did you know this is optional?

And what about that 16th Amendment? The power of government (remember who is BELOW the people) to tax the fruit of your labor. A direct income tax proportioned to the wealth you accumulate. This is stripping a natural right, a GOD-given right from you. This is by definition, a sin against humanity, regardless of whether you believe in God.

You see, the Federal Government wasn't designed to LIMIT your freedom. It was created to preserve your freedom. But State governments are different and can create their own rules, as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights and Natural Laws. Unfortunately, this happens all the time. But the founders knew that if the Federal government was too powerful, the people would have no where to run other than outside the country. If one State became too overbearing and infringed upon people, those people had the choice to move to another State where it might be less oppressive. If enough people left the State that was oppressive, they would go bankrupt and have to clean house to make themselves attractive again. It was free markets. It was the United STATES of America, not the United FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America. See the difference?

But how can States be oppressive? It's up to the voters really. If you are against sugary sodas and think that "if everyone couldn't drink them it would improve lives," then you vote in someone to carry out that message. Because really, are you going to go door to door and tell people not to drink soda? No! You are going to hire a proxy to do your dirty work. See how easy it is? You don't care that the person who likes sodas can't drink them anymore, because you are doing them a personal favor!

It's just like voting in a candidate who wants to established a war veterans fund. Another person might think, "Hey! I don't want to pay for that!" But what do they know? Those war vets protected their rights as citizens! We owe it to them!

This brings me to my main point. Remember when you enter the election booth this November, you will be voting for candidate to limit someone else's liberties while they will be voting for a candidate to limit yours. No matter what you are told to believe, there are more choices than two parties.

Let's go through some main political issues:

Abortion

Any federal candidate who is asked the question "What is your stance on abortion" should immediately answer, "That does not pertain to me, that is a State issue." There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government the power to determine this. But wait! Technically, its murder! Even if that was the case, its still a State issue. When a murder happens in your town, does that person go to federal court? No, that person goes to State court. A true liberty candidate will explain that its not the role of the federal government so that question shouldn't pertain to him or her. This is not provided under the Constitution.

Jobs

Presidents don't create jobs. They redistribute money. Beware, any candidate that says they can create jobs is a liar. A true liberty candidate will explain that they will allow the free markets to determine how many jobs an economy can create. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about job creation.

Education

The federal government was not empowered with the ability to create federal education. This is to be handled by the States. Any candidate who supports federal subsidized education is not following the Constitution. Even if the candidate supports a minor role in education on a federal level, they are in direct disagreement with the Constitution.

Taxes

A true liberty inspired candidate will offer to repeal the 16th Amendment, along with the abolishment if the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service. Personal income tax is illegal and against natural law by God as stated above. Any other candidate willing to keep these functions is in direct disagreement with the Constitution and how it was originally created. Candidates although may offer consumption or tariffs as alternative taxes on a federal level.

Foreign Policy

History is repeating itself, USA is just like Rome from back in the day, and will collapse if the present course is sustained. But regardless, the Constitution didn't afford peace time Armed Services, those functions were to be carried out by States' militias. One one of our main reasons our military has such a presence worldwide is facilitating the reserve currency (the Petro-Dollar). The US secures this with smooth (ish) trade, but this is at a substantial cost.

Apart from military expansion overseas (which founding fathers didn't want), the US is to act in a non-interventionist way. This means promote trade with other countries, but stay out of other nation's affairs. The US is currently in a currency war with nearly every other country on the planet and soon will result in trade wars, and possibly actual wars after that. Any candidate looking to PUSH American values on other countries will force America into tougher times and escalate situations.

Drugs and Prostitution

The war on drugs is a failed policy and needs to be abolished. When someone tells someone else they cannot smoke weed, snort cocaine, or do whatever drug they are limiting freedom. "But it's good for them!" This goes back to my earlier point, government does not have the ability to limit freedom. People who vote other people into office to carry out their ideas via proxy are using the system and should be stopped. People have choices and are free to do them, as long as they don't harm anyone else. And if they do harm someone else, there are courts to handle those situations.

Prostitution is the same thing. Two people consenting to a sexual act has nothing to do with anyone else, as long as they aren't harming them. These are personal choices and if there are adverse effects, then those people will suffer from those choices. It's not up to you and I to decide who can do what.

Healthcare

This is a non-issue. Healthcare is not in the Constitution. It is not a right or privilege. It has nothing to do with Federal Government. If States want to take up the issue, fine. But any respectable federal candidate will tell you its not the purpose of the federal government.

Firearms

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Any candidate who opposes ANY types of firearms is in direct opposition to the Constitution.

If you truly went through each point and asked yourself, "Which candidate supports what?" Then you should have come to the conclusion that both Obama and Romney are very similar. They're ideas might vary a little, but both support the same federal functions. Here is a video to back this up:

You see, when you REALLY start to think about the differences between Obama and Romney, there really aren't any. They both support FEDERAL government providing all these functions or using FEDERAL government to limit your liberty. These two candidates are not inspired by freedom, natural law, or protection of civil liberty. They are against these ideals and when you vote for them, you are using a proxy to limit other people's freedom. Both Republican and Democrats are doing it. It's just a matter of how many people will come out in support of either one. But unfortunately, in the end it won't matter because everyone loses.

No human has more power over another human. They are equal. And when you GIVE more power to someone and that person denies you or takes away something, you DESERVE the consequences. I will not vote either candidate this election because I will not vote for someone that will limit YOUR freedom. No matter if I think what you will do is wrong, I don't have the authority to decide that. You have the freedom and liberty to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't impose upon mine.

And when liberty and freedom is taken away, the people need to rise up and take back that freedom. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This was not a mistake. Jefferson realized that history repeats itself and no one is perfect. If the United States Government becomes a tyranny over its people, the people need to rise up with force and violently take it back. In my opinion we very well might be at that juncture, and when it happens, rest assured the Constitution will be once again the binding document of the States and no republicans or democrats will be allowed to change that.

I am voting Gary Johnson for the following reasons.

1) He is the closest candidate on all ballots that will adhere to sound money and preserve liberty.
2) He will put forth the discussion and attempt to end the federal reserve and IRS.
3) He will attempt to bring all our troops home and close hundreds of bases around the world.
4) He will attempt to take power away from the Federal government.
5) His vote will directly be counted as a protest vote against both major parties.

And if he doesn't win? Well, it was only three percent of Americans that begun the revolutionary war...

The Biggest Red Pill You Can't Swallow

If you are anything like me, you like to expand the known horizon by reading thought provoking ideas; which admittedly the best ones border on conspiracy or at least makes your stomach drop like on a roller coaster. And usually the most shocking revolve around freedom and sovereignty, something that Americans haven't experienced in generations.

If you have seen Office Space you will remember a scene with Peter where he is completely whacked out and couldn't care less if he doesn't pay his bills.

Now, its not exactly the same, but ideally in the same vein. You'll see that Peter starts realizing that happiness is more important than paying bills for things he doesn't need. But deep down its more than that. It's his sovereignty and his ability to do anything he wants in life is what becomes important. It's just like if Peter owned a piece of land and decided that he doesn't want to pay property taxes anymore. I mean, he owns the land doesn't he? Why does he pay taxes to land he owns? Maybe he doesn't really own it?

I found it interesting that people could be labelled a "homeowner" but get their home taken away by someone that doesn't own it. But maybe they do? If your home and land is paid off and you don't pay your property taxes, they can take the land and the house. And this is the Land of the Free?

Before I get going, I want you to follow my journey with the biggest red pill. I'm having a tough time swallowing it mainly because there is too much information to digest and verify. Initially, this proceeding literature is what sparked something inside me. Now beware. This is a lengthy read but well worth it. Mary Croft reminds me of a renaissance lady, someone who can lay a path to a new revolution of some sort.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf

The next day a woman rang me requesting a session of Rapid Eye Technology (energy healing). Her anxiety was that the IRS had been confiscating her husband’s veterans benefits to settle her ‘debt’ with them. All I could tell her, from my years of studying $$$, taxes, etc. was, “You know there is no law compelling you to pay tax on your income.” She DID know! I was delighted. I also told her, “If it makes you feel any better, you’re not alone – the credit card banks think I owe them $40,000. I know that I don’t
really owe them, I just don’t know how to prove it.”

Lo and behold, she said, “You just send the letters.” I leapt from my chair – my prayer had indeed been answered – ask and ye shall receive. She then produced a series of letters, the drift of which was to request the bank to provide me with three things:

• 1. validation of the debt (the actual accounting);
• 2. verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice); and,
• 3. a copy of the contract binding both parties.

I was to write that I would be happy to pay any financial obligation I might lawfully owe as soon as I received these three documents.

The banks can’t validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; they can’t verify any claim against me because I am not the NAME they are billing – more on this later. They can’t produce a copy of the contract because one doesn’t exist. What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);
2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and
4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

Credit cards are win/ win for the banks and lose/ lose for everyone else – it is the slickest con game on the planet. My writing the letters worked for all but one account. The bank filed suit. I poured over all kinds of legal nonsense, none of which matters – how we handle banks now works beautifully, yet back in 1996, we were still fumbling – and so, since the card was in a NAME similar to that of my sons’ father, the bank came after him. He did not want to go to court and since I regarded this as research, not to mention adventure, I went in his place. (If you’re not living on the edge you’re taking up too much space.) When the administrator (aka ‘judge’) called his name, I stood up and said, “I’m here about that matter.” A year previous I had used a similar tactic when I went to court over a ‘seat belt violation’ and was promptly thrown into jail for stating that my name was nowhere on the ticket or the summons. Although I was accurate, I didn’t know the next 8 step. This time I knew what I was doing. The District Court ‘Judge’ asked me my name. I responded, “If I tell you my name will I have entered into a contract with you?” He became irate. I knew I was onto something. He furiously said, “I’m going to ask you again; what is your name?” I said the same thing again and was literally, bodily tossed from court. On my way out I told the bailiff, “I believe I hit a nerve.” I was ecstatic.

As it turned out, I had indeed hit on the only issue which matters. CONTRACT. Contract Law is the only law. There is no Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, by-laws, or anything else which most people think of as ‘law’ which applies to free, sovereign people. They all apply only to corporate entities. There is only one law which applies to us:
the law which protects the life, liberty, rights, and property of all living souls. That which causes us to think that all these ‘laws’ apply to us is the contracts/ agreements we have made, either wittingly or unwittingly. If there is no contract there is no case. Contract is the law. Contractual Financial Liability is all that matters; and it must be proven.

Whoa!

Whoa is right. Damn right in fact. It's probably about time you bookmark this page.

But what's strange is after reading Mary's excerpts I also stumbled across something very similar that uses the same sovereignty ideas.

http://truthpills.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/without-prejudice-ucc-1207-1-308/

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.

And also this regarding sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code...

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: “Who was injured as a result of your failure to ‘buckle up’?” However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers’ Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, “Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”

So this is getting heavy. We're talking about throwing everything you knew out the window and starting from scratch. I mean, how is it possible to drive down the road with your own registration that you printed yourself? Or maybe refuse a seat belt ticket because you proved there was no damaged party? This actually sounds like freedom. Real, true, freedom that was created in history books. Could it exist now? In this world?

Let's take a quick step back into history:

http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/

• In 1933, 48 Stat 1, of the TWEA was amended to include the United States Person because they wanted to take our gold away. Executive Order 6102 was created to make it illegal for a U.S. Citizen to own gold. In order for the Government to take our gold away and violate our Constitutional rights, we were reclassified as ENEMY COMBATANTS.”
• In 1933, there was a second United States bankruptcy. In the first bankruptcy the United States collateralized all public lands. In the 1933 bankruptcy, the U.S. government collateralized the private lands of the people (a lien) – they borrowed money against our private lands. They were then mortgaged. That is why we pay property taxes.

I asked my 70 year old father why he pays property taxes and his reply was, "It pays for the city services." Houston... we have a problem.