Recent comments

  • mikehauncho's picture
    mikehauncho 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    "Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment" and ends with a promise to "continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President." Now analyze what that means: the gun-owner's rights are set by government permission?" You seem to be making some logic jumps that don't seem to be there. All he is saying is that he will protect the right not that he has any power over it. A police man protects your home but he can't take it from you.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Jim Davies, Thank you for your time and effort in writing this article. Isn't the bottom line that Ron Paul, (and I love listening to him, mainly because he seems so sincere), is just one man, and common sense tells us that one man cannot "alter, [to any great degree] or abolish" the UNITED STATES corporation[1]? "If education is our aim--and I think it should be--" ~ Jim Davies Who, precisely, are you trying to 'educate', and, for what purpose? Speaking only for myself, I am trying to 'teach' others that I, and they, individually, have a natural right to secede, i.e. to withdraw from membership in a group, in this case a body politic, or corporation, and to return to their original state, which is that of a natural man, with natural rights and natural liberty, "without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature". "The Right to Work is a tricky subject, because if, in a free society, some employer should choose to bind his firm to a monopoly supplier of labor--a closed shop--he would be free to do so." ~ Jim Davies Well, of course, "he would be free to do so", if as you indicate it is "his firm". The reason it seems like a "tricky subject", to you, is because you seem to be confusing a Right to Work with a Right to a Job. A 'right', as you no doubt know, is a 'just claim', and each of us had a 'just claim', or 'right', to his own labor, and the product(s) thereof, but we do not have a 'just claim', or 'right', to another man's labor, or the product(s) thereof, (which, in this scenario is, "his firm"), without his consent. "What one creates, one controls", or to be more precise, has the 'right' to control. __________________________________________________________________________ [1] US CODE: Title 28 § 3002 (15): (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    Right with you, Scott, so long as you mean by "decentralize" to decentralize rule all the way down to the individual. By the self-ownership axiom, the only valid government is self government. When evaluating Ron, it seems to me fair to accept that he's trying to wind the state down gradually, and therefore will not propose to abolish everything at the outset; I don't agree with that gradualist approach but can see it does have some merit. Hey, so long as we get there soon, without using force, the method is not a big deal. Even Harry Browne proposed to leave office with a $100B/yr Federal spend still in place (after spending his 8 years scrapping the other 93%!) But as the article shows, the real problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't have a credible plan even for winding it down gradually. The promises he does make (by his fine slogans, for instance) are not repeated in what's the nearest thing to a draft contract: his web site's "Issues" section. Hence my conclusion that even at its best, politics can never cut it. Education will.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    I want to hear Ron Paul state the truth that the only way to rehabilitate America is to abolish the federal government and decentralize everything. Central planning doesn't work, it can't work, and it won't work, in ANY area of life. I think Dr. Paul already knows this, and, frankly, I am just very disappointed with his compromises for the sake of avoiding offending certain voters, particularly conservatives and other neanderthals.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    I'm not clear as to which story Gwardion refers -- Suveran2's or tzo's -- but I think it must be Suveran2's monkey analogy. I can't see where the presence of "...spoken language or written language..." has any bearing on the idea that human beings conditioned by government ("public" ha ha) education and propaganda might respond in mass with ignorance of the gun in the room. Respond, in fact, with anger toward an individual who attempts to point out the gun in the room. Patriotic supporters of state are duty-bound to deny the fact that all acts of all agents of state are always backed by threats of violence upon s/he who dares to question compliance. That denial is exactly like a group of monkeys denying that it's OK for one monkey to climb up the ladder and enjoy the banana. I've signed no "social contract" that I'm aware of, and I do speak a few languages. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Some of you may enjoy this, but be forewarned, do not read this with food or drink in your mouth. A Prayer of Gratitude to Our Benevolent Masters For the Gift of Roads Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks. We prostrate and abase ourselves before you in great thankfulness and humility for your roads, the mighty thoroughfares you upon us do bestow. Hear our praise! For if not for your compassion where should we walk or ride? Truly is your mercy great. And wither shall our feet tread, and unto what desolate shore or rocky hillock shall we wander, should you guide us not, and show us not the way? Truly, as I walk, the highway shall resound with songs of great gladness, great gladness! Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks shall we give, for thou art great. Thou art the Builders, the Masters. The Road Makers. Amen http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-r...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yeah, they are both 'vegetables', one with its head in the air, the other with its head in the sand, but both 'vegetables' nonetheless. And, that's okay, I suppose, as long as you want a 'vegetable' representing you. As for me and my house, we do not consent to having 'vegetables' represent us.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    The initial question was worded wrong. The question to be decided, for the card-carrying-members of the Country Club only, is, "Can a cop, legally, put a tracking device on a card-carrying-member's car without a warrant?" The answer, of course, may be 'yes' or 'no', dependent upon their peculiar law. On the other hand, if we ask the question, "Can a cop, legally, or lawfully, i.e. rightfully, put a tracking device on a non-member's car without that non-member's permission*?", the answer is an emphatic, and resounding, NO! [*If we accept that 'permission' can also be given by 'silence' (failure to rebut), and 'forfeiture' (by trespassing on another man's equal rights).] Whether the 'cop' has the physical ability to do it, is quite another question, of course. But, if he does do it to a non-member's car without that non-member's permission, he then becomes, as Sam rightly pointed out, nothing more than an "armed robber", with or without his master's "warrant"[1], because he has now violated the Law of Nature, that is to say, the Natural Law of Man. "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 Why is it "superior"? Because, "the law of nature [is] coeval with man[2]", and "what comes first in time, is best in law[3]". That, my friends, is the Cornerstone that is missing in all of your so-called governments. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves" ~ John Locke [2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41 [3] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    An excellent tractatum, though the first of questions to my mind is why there are wretches, of course they are convenient to the established power, in the roman age they did not constitute a moral problem, the romans were heartless??? Maybe it was so, but they were far from libertarianism, even so I don't want to go that far, if for the answer to that is so far, in the begining of Christendom, who were but a militia of helpless and poor wretches claiming for right such as those we grant today. I think moreso like you all, and I feel that ostracism applied on my person, even though I persevere in the opening of minds, the widening of gazes. I agree whit this post totally
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Excellent answer my friend, I was to say something alike, but is of no need now!!!
  • Guest's picture
    livefreeretiree (not verified) 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Excellent.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 3 years 37 weeks ago
    CIA 'Ninja Librarians'
    Web link Westernerd
    It is sincerely scaring how so a terrible force like the apparatus of US Intelligence grows through the seeding of chaos, inventing enemies outside its door, not to see that they're the only foe to liberty and always has been, not that the foreign governments are less scary, just a lo less powerful, though it amuses me to hear the american media to refer to other countries authorities as Dictators, simply because some of the counter the dicatates of US... so if a country dictates pretending the others to follow, is that not a dictator??? I advocate for a non governmental force of any kind, just people deciding for themselves, this kind of intelligence/ counter intel stuff is good to the movies, but trully harmful to reality. Thank you all
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Can a cop put a tracking device on your car without a warrant? This question is now before the Supreme Court as they decide whether GPS tracking devices can be placed on vehicles to track suspects without a judge’s approval. It really does not matter. The "cop" is a dangerously armed parasitic robber of state in or out of costume. S/he'll do what s/he pleases. And the court "judge", paid out of the same booty-bag, will agree. It's like asking, "can an armed robber put a tracking devise on your car?" (So s/he can meet you with a gun and relieve you of your billfold when you come out of a restaurant). Well, if s/he has a gun, and you don't want to gamble as to whether it's loaded or s/he has the cojones to pull the trigger, then the answer is yes. The advantage, of course, with the latter (non-government robber) is s/he knows s/he is a robber. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    [Republican Sen. Lamar] Alexander said Tennessee could use the extra money to improve education, reduce tuition at public colleges and universities, or lower the state’s sales tax rate - currently the highest in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation. It will also help ensure that Tennessee doesn’t implement a state income tax, he said. “If some purchasers and some sellers continue to avoid state taxes, why, it makes it more likely that Tennessee would have a state income tax.” I predict that tuition at Tennessee public colleges and universities does NOT go down and that the state's sales tax rate is NOT lowered, and that there WILL BE, eventually, a Tennessee state income tax implemented. Anyone wanna take a $1.00 bet against that prediction? Furthermore, the proposal has backing from Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy, so I am seriously considering boycotting these three giants.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    What makes you think that it's "your car"? Do you have the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO), also known as a Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO), the true title to that car, signed by the DEALER and notarized by a Notary Public? If the MCO/MSO, isn't the true title to that car, why does it have to be signed by the DEALER, who is the Author-ized Representative of the Manufacturer, and notarized by a Notary Public? And, if it is not the true title to that car, why does the STATE want it so badly? Try paying cash for a new car and telling the DEALER that you want to keep the MCO/MSO after it is signed and notarized. I mean, once it's paid for, you think it is YOUR car, right? Think again. If you are a citizen/subject of a STATE, then the STATE is your Master. And... Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327. "The ultimate ownership of all property[1] is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." ~ U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (c.1933) (Brown v. Welch supra) ________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Property. ...The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal, incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1216 Need we say more?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Yeah, I'm the taxman... (if you drive a car, car;) - I’ll tax the street; (if you try to sit, sit;) - I’ll tax your seat; (if you get too cold, cold;) - I’ll tax the heat; (if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet. Yeah, I’m the taxman. And you're working for no one but me. Taxman!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 37 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I tried to post a link: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf It did not "fire" as a hyperlink. When I copied and pasted to browser it worked. Sometimes they do, other times they don't. Who knows?? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 37 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Anarchy means "absence of political authority". That's it. It does not imply lack of governance or the means by which to enforce contracts. But the Websters of the world, along with many who claim libertarianism and/or anarchy, simply cannot envision a society without political authority. That is a concept beyond the borders of their capabilities, or mindsets. Thus their references to revolt, or chaos, or confusion when attempting to define "anarchy". It makes up the center point of ideology -- the thaumaturge -- of the slave-master. It allows the "ruling class" to pilfer and suck the productive capacity from the producers, who will never in a hundred years believe they are being beset with parasites. In fact "democracy" is a form of mysticism that gives rise to the belief that each can be part of predation with immunity. The mindless masses are convinced they MUST have rulers for mutual "protection". The individual is incapable of self governance. John Hasnas wrote an excellent treatise on anarchy. I've posted the link before, I'll post it again here: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 37 weeks ago Page tzo
    This article needs links, particularly where it asserts natural law is objective, universal, etc. I know Molyneux has tried to prove that, but while I thought it was a pretty good attempt I was not entirely convinced. I've run into many examples where people in agreement about NAP still could not agree what constitutes aggression. It seems when one applies ethereal principles to gritty reality, subjective judgements start to creep in anyway. "Now, personal philosophies based on personal ethics, also known as morals, are much less universal—in fact, I would venture to guess that no two individuals' personal ethics are identical. This subjectivity explains why any attempt to organize society by implementing personal philosophy can't lead to a coherent and consistent end. Whose personal philosophy shall be used?" Actually, I think it IS possible to organize society in any number of ways that would be acceptable to inhabitants of that society. Most people do not expect their society to be perfectly aligned with their own desires; "close" is good enough. And if anarchists have any sense, they too will adopt this notion, since I think they have hardly more consistent views than non-anarchists have, when we are talking about gritty reality. The point is not to get everyone on a perfectly consistent ethical plane - an obvious impossibility. The point is instead to have people not forced to live against their own subjective values, even if some of us think those values are wrong. It's not our business, is it?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    One of the greatest quotes to ever grace the pages of Strike the Root, "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves (John Locke)", is based on Natural Rights, that "all men are created equal", that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-alien-able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Natural & Justly Acquired] Property.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Here's another one for you, Sam, from the desk of the Not-So-Famous: “Politics is pointless. It is a waste of time, as it is intentionally designed to absorb the enthusiasm, energy, and efforts of every last person who participates in it, thus allowing the system to tick along on the same agenda that is set well outside of the political process. … The Matrix movie trilogy gives us a simple analogy for this: The masses involved in the political process are the sheeple plugged into the Matrix. It merely sucks its power from them, and leaves them with the minimum they need to survive. It keeps them entertained and happy, and totally ignorant of how completely they are controlled.” ~ Caleb, on New Zealand
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 37 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Evan, Noah Webster apparently believed that those two terms were interchangeable. AN'ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language AN'ARCHIST, n. An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state. ~ (Ibid.) Furthermore, the definition of the suffix -ist from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Publishers Limited is, "used with the names of some skills and professions to describe a person practicing that skill or profession" [emphasis added], not "advocating that skill or profession".
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 37 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Well at least they're getting it out of the oat meal can in somebody's backpack. Much safer.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My understanding of terms is that an "anarch" is one who lives without external rulers, whereas an "anarchist" is one who advocates anarchism. They don't necessarily overlap, that is, one may be an anarch without being an anarchist, and one may be an anarchist without being an anarch. Am I using these terms incorrectly?
  • scott_free_68's picture
    scott_free_68 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    awsome link Sueverans2...Setting aside the complexities of the issue, simple math shows an absolute financial basis for abandoning the drug policies regarding marijuana. politicians and law enforcement agencies are feeding the justice machine with the bodies and wallets of anyone they can handcuff. sex offenders are being released to make room for citizens who posess vegetation! people are labled as felons for possesing vegetation. in some cases, taxes are spent providing public assistence to people who are unemployed for having ingested vegetation. How is it that politicians can do the opposite of the will of the people and still get paid? How is it that we have not yet found the way to fire every single one of the liars and bar them from any form of public service? The 99% should be chanting "you're all f'ng liars, and you're all f'ng fired"!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Sam, I find that most "on fire anarchists" are technically not "anarchists" at all, that is to say, they are not "without ruler", they are virtually all "card-carrying-members" of one man-made-STATE, or another, thus technically they are only "proponents of anarchism", or "advocates of anarchism", and not "anarchists", in the purest sense of the word; kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" bunch, it would seem. And, God help the man or woman who heeds their advice and tells them that they have thrown away all these "cards" and have manifestly withdrawn consent to have any man, or group of men, as their ruler(s)...for these "proponents" and "advocates" will either attack them, screaming, "That is not POSSIBLE! My master doesn't 'legally recognize' your right to withdraw consent", or they will, for the most part, patently pretend that these Individual Secessionists do not exist. They most certainly will not support them in any meaningful way. So, why on Earth should anyone listen to them? "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good essay, Paul. Especially items 4 & 5. As I look back, within each level of my 75+ years I see how I have acquired "new truth" -- long prior to ever hearing the term libertarian. In each case I felt a compulsion to evangelize -- and inwardly denigrate anyone who would not or could not pick up my torch and run with it. If there is one thing anarchy has achieved for me it has been the recognition that my freedom and your freedom are different concepts. My beliefs of today are quite different from the beliefs I had just ten years ago -- about the time I first experimented with the internet and free communication with folks around the world whose backgrounds and beliefs were at variance with mine. I hope to be alert and open to new ideas and concepts 25 years from now at 100. Writers like you and many others here and at other forum sites I visit are constantly challenging my "unquestionable sacred ideas" (to use a Delmar England phrase). This is a good encouragement for us "on fire anarchists" to mellow out and let others achieve liberty and freedom at their own pace and in their own time. Sam.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I remember well "My Country 'Tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty..." We sang it in sister school when I was a wee lad, late 30's and early 40's, as a ritual of the morning flag a-raising, along with the "pledge of allegiance" and other state/g-d worship. You probably know the history (and it could be googled easily) of when Star Spangled Banner became U.S. national "anthem". I don't think I ever heard "Spangled" (what an ugly name -- and an ugly tune with NO rhythm) until late 40's or early 50's in high school. Sam.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Thank you, for that, Paul.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman And just what is this "potent Law of Laws"? The answer, as we have posted here twice before is... "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 38 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    This column has it exactly backwards. Nobody owes us anything. See Harry Browne's essay: http://harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Political philosophy based on the Natural Law defines ethical behavior and is best summarized by the Non-Aggression Principle." Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Thank you.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    By the way, in "Up From Slavery", Booker T. Washington wrote, "I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my race, was in a large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and forced. In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of Southern whites. I felt that the Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    It's not ignorance. It's that it is not in the interest of people working in government to solve problems - which would put them out of work - but to manage problems. It's simply not an accurate reflection of reality to think there is something wrong with the welfare state. It institutionally is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing - degrading its "clients" and providing work for those in government. Anyway it makes no sense to say "society is... ignorant". Society is not a sentient being, but a collection of individuals. Society cannot be ignorant, or intelligent, or anything else that applies only to individuals. As to Chinese and slaves, I didn't write clearly enough. What I meant to say was that at the point immediately after the War of Northern Aggression, they were in roughly similar positions. They were looked down on, thought shifty and not to be trusted, and did not enjoy equal legal rights. For example a Chinese could not testify against a "white" in California, IIRC. I did not mean to imply that the way the Chinese got over here could be compared to the way "blacks" got over here. If anything, the position of American Indians at that point was worse, since the slaughter and starvation and destruction of their culture was about to move into high gear.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    A complement to your last line, my friend. "When I hear a person talking about political solutions, I know I am not listening to a serious person." ~ George Carlin
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/202/CycbvARsxWU http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/201/d496xMLacSE http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/200/6AUXDsA_yVY http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/199/Au4xnyfxf1s http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/221/CA5Bh8Zk0Xo
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    He who trammels the debate,directs the outcome. The rejection of the truth in the new testament would tend to steer the debate.While it was the eyeWITNESSES who wrote the vast majority of the new testament,it would be an almost fruitless endevor to find an eyewitness who was not changed into a believer!(that is,if Christ is,who he says he is.) If there was no Christ,there would be no Christians,as that is where the moniker comes from. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iHWVWw9gJT8 Paul was given power to unrestrained persecution of the Christians,stoning husband and wives and imprisoning children.Paul,a powerful jew and enemy of the Chritians, had an impecable pedigree that he counted for dung after his eyes where opened. See-Philippians, Chapter 3:4 Another great historic evidence> http://www.foxes-book-of-martyrs.com/ Flavius Josephus, who was a Jewish authority, a Roman scholar and who lived from 37 A.D. to 100 A.D., has recorded in his work, The Antiquities of The Jews. Josephus verifies that Jesus was an historical figure who was called Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and who rose again on the third day. Listen: "He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him at the first, did not forsake Him, for He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him.(from-The Complete Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Kregel Publications, Chapter.III, page 379.) 1 John 4:9-10: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Propitiation simply means "to atone or make amends for." In other words, Jesus came and died in our place (atoned for our personal sins) so that we could be freed from sin's penalty, which is death. Jesus died so that you and I could be saved. John 15:13 says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." How can a Holy God show his justice and mercy and love? Justice demands you be punished for your transgressions. But God is pure love and wants to show mercy. http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/102/ A lot of readers wonder why in the Scriptures there are so many pedigree,name of so and so, begat so and so and so on &c. Try this ,take the genealogy in Genesis Chapter 5 and write down the names Adam thru Noah. (Every name in Hebrew has a meaning)Look up the meaning of each name and it should look like this. ADAM–MAN SETH–APPOINTED ENOSH–MORTAL KENAN–SORROW MAHALALEL–THE BLESSED GOD JARED–SHALL COME DOWN ENOCH–TEACHING METHUSELA–HIS DEATH SHALL BRING LAMECH–THE DESPAIRING NOAH–COMFORT or REST You have a picture of salvation in the first book of the Bible. The ancient hebrew patriarchs did not encode the new testament gospel in the 'old testament scrolls' on purpose. This is the fingerprint of God. To be honest in our search for truth ,demands investigation. http://www.youtube.com/user/Knowwheretorun1984#p/u/15/zRb8uuMhAkc
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Yes, on a discussion thread where I was repeatedly alluding to the gun, someone responded (paraphrasing): "What is this gun you keep talking about? I've paid taxes all my life and no one ever pointed a gun at me." School is indeed a Pavlovian reward/punishment system designed to elicit conditioned reflexes. Inflict it upon young children before they can defend themselves and it becomes a part of who they are. The reflexes become very difficult to identify or acknowledge as being problematic, and so the much harder to get rid of.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Suverans2's example of behavioral conditioning is an excellent metaphor for how people are conditioned from birth by the spoken word and written language; though I would add television and movies. I constantly must point out the "gun in the room" to statists whom seem oblivious to it. The social contract is the cage itself and but a barbaric relic left over from discredited apologies for the feudal state. People are animals that you give too much credit to as most react more than they think.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Continued from previous post: And, if one is, in truth, a "private person", i.e. not a consenting member, (s)he is not "clothed with [the] office" of "citizen", and therefore CANNOT participate in "political solutions". You might also take notice of the lyrics of the "original" anthem, adopted by the people, Sam, for it had nothing to do with flags or governments. My Country, 'Tis Of Thee, Sweet Land Of Liberty, Of Thee I Sing; Land Where My Fathers Died, Land Of The Pilgrim's Pride, From Ev'ry Mountain Side Let Freedom Ring. My Native Country Thee, Land Of The Noble Free, Thy Name I Love; I Love Thy Rocks And Rills, Thy Woods And Templed Hills; My Heart With Rapture Thrills Like That Above. Let Music Swell The Breeze, And Ring From All The Trees, Sweet Freedom's Song. Let Mortal Tongues Awake; Let All That Breathe Partake; Let Rocks Their Silence Break, The Sound Prolong. Our Father's God! To Thee, Author Of Liberty, To Thee We Sing; Long May Our Land Be Bright With Freedom's Holy Light; Protect Us By Thy Might, Great God, Our King!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I believe you will find that that's because a "private person" is not a consenting member, (s)he is not "clothed with [the] office" of "citizen". Private. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinguished from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1195
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Why should I, or Ventura, or any other free thinking individual, fool around in the white man's court system, needing law scholars to sort out the beast's billions (trillions, I suspect) of jots and tittles? Justice? Never happen! At least Ventura, in all his wisdom acquired from holding his Grand Wizard of MN "office", figured one thing out: "If I appeal it, they'll get federally paid judges to squash it." I wrote this over at HaleBobb: Jesse is already coming to understand that "judges" who suck on top teats are duty bound to protect TSA goons who suck on lower (but still stolen milk from the same sets of) teats. There is no such thing as "justice" when all participants are paid from the same booty trunk. I'm reminded of the 70's when I, ignorant sheep that I was, let myself get "assessed" over half million frn's in fines, penalties and back "taxes" (well over a million in today's inflated digital frn's) by agents of the US "Internal Revenue 'Service'". Later they tried to take the farm from my ex wife. My son and a number of other lawyers got her off under a "wounded spouse" clause of some sort. In my blindness I, like Jesse Ventura, became angry. I had gold US and TX flag pins I had worn daily for years as jingoist badges on my suit jacket -- proud and clueless patriot that I was. In rage I took a spray can and painted them black, but continued to wear them covered in black while teaching in government ("public" ha ha) university -- until anarchy caught up with me. Before I declared sovereignty I had to suffer a lot of what is being called "cognitive dissonance". I came to understand that anger toward agents of state ("the government") is playing directly into their hands and providing a clear target on my own back to which they can dutifully and gleefully take aim. My anger would be better directed at foxes for their ill treatment of the chickens. State agents depend upon angry citizens ("home grown terrorists") to carry on their ruse of war "against terrorism". Just like they need drug dealers and pushers and addicts to carry on their egregious drug "war". Wars allow them to maintain such criminal acts as federal reserve to print up counterfeit "funds" to support the various "industrial complexes" that support wars and state agents. It's a vicious cycle in which I no longer play a part. I quietly excuse myself from exercises in state worship (anthems, pledges of allegiance, etc). With all due respect, Jesse (and Dr Paul), political solutions are no solutions. Sam
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ventura-TSA-d... Ventura has no standing to use the Constitution. Padleford Case: "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the grounds of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain." In other words, Ventura based his complaint on a violation of "his" constitutional rights as expressed in the Constitution. To which he is not a party to, hence no standing, case tossed. Jesse had his lawyer selling him out here. In this case, Congress determined that the Courts of Appeals get to declare the law void, not the District Courts. J.V. should sue his LIEYER for legal malpractice and file in the proper venue if he is the ''real deal'' and not just a rabble rouser.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The American people should have known something was amiss when their government changed the national anthem from, "America (My Country 'Tis of Thee)", "sweet land of liberty" to the "Star Spangled Banner",with its "rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air", written by a lawyer.
  • LadyLaLa's picture
    LadyLaLa 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent article finally we are discussing moves that are steps ahead of the game..... The dissection of their strategy and laying blame exactly where it belongs...is almost revolutionary. However, I do think the comparison between the Chinese who emigrated to America of their own free will and African slaves brought against their will, bought and sold and forced to work with no hope of ever being free -- cannot be compared. Even Native Americans have their Reservation as a refuge. The Chinese were never perceived as slaves [animals] to be bought and sold. The Welfare state to my mind is only wrong in that it does not [intentionally?] strive to teach, rehabilitate or support an individual's self-sufficiency... Interestingly enough... neither does the penal system, which in a more normal society might not even exist. One very striking reason is because this society is predominantly ignorant of how to rehabilitate or help anyone... much less ourselves.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good stuff! I've watched the OWS movement as many have and found things to agree and disagree with but when I saw the vid of Peter Schiff with the OWS protester, I got this feeling that Schiff was there not to expand truth or open dialogue but instead for some personal PR sake. Sorry, the video camera present and how it's been spread around the "so-called" freedom and liberty movement was just too convenient for me. Not that Schiff didn't have some points and not that the protester in the vid wasn't the best at making her case but I just questioned the whole motive and this piece above by Paul helps to express in my gut what I was feeling as I watched it. The OWS movement is rightly pointing at crony capitalism so why didn't Schiff approach the protesters on that level while understanding that on other levels there may be disagreement? What if doing so could draw a line from Wall Street to Washington and thus make the OWS folks rethink some of the public demands they've made by bringing another POV? Schiff IMO has only made them dig in deeper and what does that accomplish? Now we're right back to the construct of division Paul laid out so I had to ask myself was Peter's real motive something else indeed or was he an unwitting tool of the tyrants as we've all been at times I'm sure? Thanks again Paul for a thought provoking piece.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    That might be an interesting idea if there were no spoken language or written language. In human discussion the idea of the threat of the gun is brought up, it isn't a secret threat or uncommunicated threat in the background. Your story is an interesting study in Pavlovian behavioral studies, but it has no bearing on the idea of the social contract to the interaction of beings with language. Also, in our society, we might not get hit directly by the water hose, but you cant missed the highly publicized soaking of others by the paid soakers (the police, military and intelligence establishments). So, once again, interesting story but it has nothing to do with humans or modern society other then pointing out that Pavlovian training is possible on an animal level, which most people already knew.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 3 years 38 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Leftists' first thought is for the unfortunate, and they rightly perceive us libertarians as heartless because that is not our first concern. We begin any discussion with seemingly selfish statements of self-ownership and (negative) rights, and then only as an afterthought add with a hand wave that even the unfortunate would be better off because society overall would be wealthier and charity would be greater. To our leftist adversaries this is utterly unconvincing. If we are not preaching to the choir, we need to take the point of view of our audience. In the case of charity, we need to grab the bull by the horns and admit, *in a voluntary society, there would indeed be a very real problem of under-provision of public goods such as charity, but the problem is tractable*. The US charity industry is amazingly sophisticated, and quite clever at extracting ever more money out of donors. The Internet has enabled whole new approaches, like crowd-funding sites like ChipIn and Kickstarter. Thus last week Jon Stewart and Judge Andrew Napolitano talked past each other, and Jon Stewart won applause by asking about "the free market's losers": http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew... Napolitano and other libertarians shrug this off as "creative destruction", but Stewart and his audience understood it to mean "the unfortunate crushed and left homeless by cruel capitalism". Do not cede the compassionate high ground to our adversaries.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 38 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very good, Paul Bonneau, "he that is not against us is on our part".