This Thing That Ain't Ours


Column by Tim Hartnett.

Exclusive to STR

The Sicilian proverb that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead is something America’s ruling class might need to consider one day. That point began to jab at the ribs of the old Cosa Nostra itself in November of 1957. When dozens of bosses tried to convene at Joe Barbera’s place in Appalachian, New York townies noticed something fishy in so much out of state traffic flooding their little berg. Police soon got wind of things. Wise guys had become too comfortable, fast and loose, and it was common rubes who put the heat on them. Hoodlum brass took to the hills as the law arrived in the kind of screw-up that would’ve meant a certain whacking for the rank and file. Things have been unraveling for the honored society ever since.

This is a classic example of the value of name brand university over street education. Shady clubs with bosses that headquarter on Wall or K streets hatch their plots in heavily populated locales. They never fail to include reporters and politicians among their “made” members. The police act as doormen for their ritual events, and a fake ID seldom gets anyone past the cordon. One of the things on the agenda at the disrupted 1957 summit was loan-sharking. Capos from the Ivy League tradition have muscled in on this turf in the last decades. The ones connected to respectable, if not “honored,” secret societies squeeze victims out of four times the vig any mafia goon ever did. City Hall takes care of the enforcement end.

Thriving rackets of the 21st Century have been hosed down, Savile Rowed up and Harvardized. They never have to worry about surveillance from G-Men or one of their associates wearing a wire. It’s the people keeping an eye on the moves of this hobnob mob that Feds are after. An old axiom of the grifting trade says “act like you own the place and the help will be opening doors for you.” This principle has never been executed on so vast a scale before, and in spite of catastrophe for marks everywhere, the jig still aint’ up. The old dons dodged the media like it was double-ought buckshot while new world order kingpins use the boob-tube to pronounce the next shakedown.

Simultaneous to all this brazenness, our liege lords are more jealous than ever with the straight dope about what they do to us. Openness only looks good to the guys running for office until they get in; once there, it becomes less appetizing than an emergency cyanide capsule. First term presidents are often like outsiders who find themselves in a club they thought wouldn’t have them. The headiness of clique inclusion never fails to keep information circulating in just the right circles. Joe Six-Pack’s nose-prints are right back on the cold side of the window as soon as the new, improved executive is done waving at the inaugural parade.

Every socialized child knows the self-aggrandizing power of being part of the loop. Adults are more interested in using inclusion to multiply net worth. A hard look at bottom lines over the last 30 years leaves no doubt that who stays in the know does not change with the addressee at 1600 Penn. Even the ones that collapse, like Enron, can’t blame it on their greasees clamming up on them. A three page list of clubs, think-tanks, lobbies, PR firms and corporations knows policy before anyone else does even on those rare occasions when they don’t author it.

Where is the media in all of this? Well, back in the 1950s, they were the belly of the beast. Katie and Phillip Graham’s home was a notorious den of drunken thieves when Eisenhower was in charge. The corporatocracy, the CIA, Defense, Congress and anybody else interested in buying or selling public power needed an invite to 2920 R Street NW if the big time was on the agenda. Classified information flowed like the whiskey there. Things went awry for the infamous residence when Phillip cracked up in 1963. That’s what explains Katherine’s flirtation with anti-establismentarianism in the hippie era.

Getting the drift that the modus operandi hasn’t changed much isn’t rocket surgery. The naïve should consider the following story: Katherine Weymouth, granddaughter of Katie, planned to turn her home into a “salon” where lobbyists could gain exclusive access to politicians and reporters for a price. Resort to this extreme came as circulation and ad revenue have been flagging for the Post. But this kind of arrangement would only be a more efficient version of what goes on presently.

Clubs, socials and PR firms disguised as research organizations (AKA “think-tanks”) are no more irrelevant now than in the day of Louis XIV or Queen Victoria. Their core function is to put together policy makers and the ones most likely to benefit from them. Take the notorious Council on Foreign Relations as a perfect example. Three of its eight “founding” corporate members--Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America--stood to gain enormously from various bailouts of the Bush-Obama era. The complete list, well over one hundred companies, hardly excludes any commercial entity that has been named in a scandal, swindle or conflict of interest with government in the last 25 years. Many are also mentioned in the cables released by Bradley Manning as the State Department attempted to strong-arm foreign governments on their behalf.   

Rather than rifle the files of these banksters, the Feds turn their enormous resources on things like the Occupy movement. What federal statutes they were suspected of violating remains classified, apparently. Deploying snipers against Occupy leadership was not ruled out, proving once again that in ruling circles, what’s considered good for Abdul abroad is not too good for Joe Six-Pack here at home.  

Meanwhile, Germany’s request for an audit and now a return of their gold reserves calls the solvency of the Federal Reserve into question once again. If this is a Madoff scheme, it could make Bernie’s look like a mere Ponzi. People at the DOJ don’t see fraud at a quasi-government agency as their lookout.

Instead, the national snoop-ware continues to be pointed at people struggling to live decently as the corporatocracy and their muscle in DC leave less pie on the table after every feeding. Everyone knows this by now, it only remains unreported by the thoroughly discredited major media.

When The Godfather became a bestseller, the mob appeared invincible to honest citizens that lived within their grasp. The Justice Department surprisingly focused on it, and two decades later began to have success against many American gangs even if they had to stifle the Constitution doing it. It’s no longer a secret to anyone that protection, just like the vigorish, came at bargain rates before G-Men took it over.  

Your rating: None Average: 8.7 (3 votes)
Tim Hartnett's picture
Columns on STR: 20


Thunderbolt's picture

When I read this, I feel the government corruption down to my toes. Well done, Tim.

Glock27's picture

Removed due to errors.

Glock27's picture

Look! The word “Constitution” is used on STR! Hey Tim, nice job of writing the article! My problem is that I missed the whole point other than the broad spectrum of fraud that occurs from the local town meeting all the way through to the top. My opening with “Constitution” is that every time I used the word stones would be thrown at me with missives about Lysander Spooner whom I am beginning to discover was a nit wit, not unlike the pile in Washington. I am sure he would fit into the liberals there somewhere, they would love him and hate him at the same time.
Sorry Thunderbolt because this was for you anyway and not Tim. The corruption IMO began with G. Washington and the army he gathered to deal with the Shaway Rebellion, and then there was the army march on the Whiskey Rebellion. So. As we study history we get to see the evolution of corruption all the way up to Bush Jr.’s epithet,“…it’s nothing but just a goddamned piece of paper.”
As I see it, corruption is historic. Any time someone can get away with something they do it, even if it is fixing their own car or toaster. Solutions to fixing the problem lie at the feet of the people. Those who will not vote, for odd reasons, only perpetuate the problem where it is—even if they vote they could still keep the problem at one's feet yet not their responsibility.
I am pleased to see that there are some states that have crafted bills to make it illegal in the given state for the Feds to come in and take away the firearms of the citizens and one, Wyoming, I believe, has passed a bill from the House of Representatives and ready for the Senate that tells the Fed Gov. Come here to remove our citizens guns away you will be arrested, and the Fed Agent, a) fined up to a minimum of $5000 and sent to prison for up to five years. Kentucky, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Oklahoma and Iowa are a few states I have seen in the news that are doing this. (If I knew how to fix the blue letter references into my work, I would. It hurts some of the things I say because I cannot help an individual to the source.) From my point-of-view change will have to come from the state level and even at the local level. I am hoping deeply that more states follow the rebellion that is beginning to happen; although [o]bama may drone the capitol buildings and label each of the states as terrorist organizations and come at us with the full force of the military (If it had personel who would follow the command). In my heart and soul I believe the revolution is now here, it is reminicent of 1771 to 1774 when the British established gun control here, ban on firearms and gun powder from individuals to local goernments and their use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising plitical tension into a shooting war (Charleston Law review V6 winter 2012, Number 2 "How the British Gun Control Program Percipitated the American Revolution.
My empathy’s are with you on this. I have nothing more than a roiling indignation every time when I hear the S**t the feds are doing while jamming their pockets full of gold. This thing with Germany wanting to repatriate their gold from the U.S. is going to be interesting also since Fort Knoxx is suppose to be empty of gold


Jim Davies's picture

Glock27, it's not too surprising that 'The word “Constitution” is used on STR!' rather infrequently.
Openly on its face, the Constitution creates and establishes a government. STR, openly on its face, sets out to strike at the root of government as totally evil. The two are diametrically, irreconcilably opposed.
After due consideration of each world-view, you and all readers here are going to have to make up your mind which one you want to adopt as your own; fences make very uncomfortable chairs. It should be very easy; either you intend to get what you want by force, or else by peaceful exchange.
Although the constitution isn't a frequent topic here, there are some articles about it; maybe you'd like to use the "search" function. I myself have contributed eight - indexed here in green, fuschia and red. You might also be interested by my 1789 - The Eden Myth, published elsewhere.

Glock27's picture

Greetings Jim,
Nice to hear from you. I worked a long while yesterday on a reply but if you will excuse me I cannot repeat it. I even took it through Grammerly check and that was quiet a bit. I will just say that he had documents available to him that should have prevented Spooner from making some of the remarks which he did. As I traveled throgh history I discovered that many of the things he was claiming about the Constitution were dead wrong. Part of this is the fact that information traveled rather slow in those days. If he had what is available today i am sure he would have produced something a lot different and maybe more convincing. Since Lysander is so quick to be noted to new people I thought it best to go through and look at it with a Constitutionals analytical perspective, apply a little imagination and get the texts.
I have a two volumen set called "The debates of the Constitution" and I recall Lysander saying that very few if any had the opportunity to debate the constitution. I have over 164 listed people. Some were carwrights,blacksmiths, grocers, stock brokers and many more. I don'tknow yet whether the "Federalist Papers and the Anti-federaliss" were available but there too was discussion. So the Constitution wa thoroghly discussed.

Thanks for the kind reply. I appreciated it.


Jim Davies's picture

Glad you liked my reply. So, on which side of the fence will you descend?

Glock27's picture

Greetings Jim,

I just finished a nice little piece regarding your question and stupidly forgot to sign in and lost everything I S said. Forgive me for not trying t repeat all the brilliant pieces I included, but to redue it is dumb. The only fence i will not slide of onto is the side of the government. I am a free spirit and will evolve my own positions as time passes before I expire.

Have you checked those stills out I mentioned to you about some time back. I have discovered plans to make a cheap still, but I have no idea what the quality of the product will be. Some sites here carry wood chip flavorings for scotch and etc if you hav a mind to give it a gol

Best regards
Glock 27

Glock27's picture

Greetings Jim,
Reading the Lew Rockwell piece. The area that grieves me is that you blame the Constitution for all the problems—I see it as the selfish, greedy, self-aggrandizing men who bastardized the Constitution. I do not know, and I have feelings of insecurity that neither do you understand if the Constitution could indeed work if it operated on the condition it was written. I stand with you in regards to the beginnings of the erosion of the Constitution (I do not even know if it had a chance to be eroded). Your second point, this was more of the principal players. For so long it held slavery as the principal reason. The tariffs were the powder keg. I do not find tea to be as significant of a player in the role of the Revolution. The foreign Policy is new to me so I must flesh it out more as well as Department of war. Point five, IRs is rather appalling.
“This is to what out well-meaning Constitutionalists friends will not to get us back.” For me, I do not truly trust anyone is clear what the Constitution. That is what grieved Bush Jr., So much.
The Supreme Court is another matter since they are political ‘where is the detachment’ with nine maggots in black robes. Thus, each point you lay out continues to rise up against the Constitution because it has never been given the opportunity to operate as it could happen. I cannot imagine that the Constitution would be perfect, and issues should have to be worked out without thievery, cheating, stealing etc.,
So herein, it was Marshall who performed the acts, not the Constitution. It was not perfect, and they took advantage of it as have all the others who pass through the halls.
Everything you have put here has substantiated the constitution, but the real problem is no one wanted it to work but a few. You have placed some carefully selected pieces in here to create 1789. Very few have the discernment that you have. Great piece of historical work.
Theremay be some eros of thought here but I was flying along and Grammerly does not pick up on buzz bombs.


Jim Davies's picture

No, Glock, the main point of my 1789 - The Eden Myth is that the architects of the Constitution deliberately crafted it so that within a very few years, they could rule America any way they wished. It was cleverly done, and I cannot say that all of them were "in" on the plot (eg Jefferson may have been kept out to the loop) but that's the bottom line.
Perhaps you also read Constitutional Rule, which outlines how repugnant society would be if, even without the findings of 1789, the FedGov kept itself strictly within the limits set by its plain wording, and exercised only those powers expressly said to be delegated to it.
There is no way to paint lipstick on this pig. As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, the Constitution openly, plainly and deliberately establishes a government. That is its ultimate condemnation.

Glock27's picture

Greetings Jim,
I am not sure what to say . From what I have read of the biographies of some of these men they seemed to be pretty straight to me. If you look closely at what you have just said makes paranoia seem to be a very reasonable assumption to make "they deliberately crafted the consition so that in a few years they could rule America the way they wished. Constantly searching and finding facts to fit to fit together in a desirable manner. This is getting me lost down the rabbit hole. Your other lines of thought have made sense up unto this part. My I in a friendly manner suggest a vatcation for awhile and give your thoughts a rest.

Jim Davies's picture

"Pretty straight", Glock?  Every man Jack of these brigands believed in the myth that some people can rightfully rule others. Even Jefferson.  Yet you call that "straight"?
The reasoning in 1789 is original, and of course a rebuttal can be offered. It fits the known facts rather well, however. It explains how and why today's courts can and do declare "what the law is" regardless of what the Constitution and statutes plainly say. Perhaps you've got a better theory of how that came about; meanwhile, mine stands where I wrote it. Thank you, but I plan no early vacation.

mhstahl's picture


What is it that you like about the Constitution, exactly? That is a sincere question, I'm not baiting you or anything.

Before you answer, though, I would ask that you try as best you can to set aside any emotional attachment you have to it, or the notion of the "founders", and go read the document as objectively as you are able. It is not long.

When you do, try to keep historical context in mind: the convention that produced the document was NOT authorized to do any such thing (they were to make suggestions on changing the Articles of Confederation...and were very nearly censured by Congress for wildly overstepping their bounds).

Keep in mind, also, that taxation at the Federal level was not permitted directly under the Articles, and individual States were defaulting on Revolutionary war bonds. Alexander Hamilton had a fix-ratify the Constitution, the Feds take over the bonds, raise whatever taxes they want to pay back the wealthy folks who bought the bonds in the first place, and put down any resistance to such taxation with bayonets and gunpowder(which is, by the way, totally authorized by the constitution...just like the NDAA.) This is uncontested history so far as I'm aware.

He got his way, and George Washington led a larger army than he ever commanded in the Revolution against tax protesters in Pennsylvania in the Whiskey Rebellion in the first term of the first presidency under the constitution.

I really do hope you give it a read with clear eyes, and read what the document really states about the powers of government, and share your analysis. There is quite a lot of mythology wrapped up in the constitution and the "founding", sadly, most of it is just that, mythology. Mythology is warm and comfortable, but it is also a deception that can lead one to place loyalty where it is not deserved.



Glock27's picture

I know all this stuff I have used it from time to time repeatedly throughout some of my posts. I have a strong agreement with the Constitution because it gives a basis to keep human life on a steady course. The problem is not all with the Constitution. It is the people behind the document they are the ones whom 1) either have no idea what it consists of {demonstrated back when one senator was asked to name the three branches of government “House, Senate and President”} real bright senator. There are others there who have no idea what the Constitution is but they take their oath of office to it, or 2) they know it so well they know exactly what can and cannot be done and prefer to get away with what they cannot do. Simply they are a house of crooks. They are not there for the people or the country they are there for themselves and themselves alone.
It is my position that no legislator has given the Constitution the time of day. They do not want to know whether it works or not. They just want to do their stand and go home dragging bags of money behind them like carpet baggers. What if the Constitution genuinely works the way it should work? What then? I must grant that there are parts that could stand some overhaul work but at this time I cannot think of anyone I would trust to do it. I do not care what ism or ology you may subscribe to but it will not work either. 3) The Constitution is what we have like it or not. It is not going to go away, but some issues must be fought for, or a true tyranny will arise out of [o]bama’s on fire ass.
For me, right now the second amendment is a extraordinarily vital issue with me while there is a nest of nickel, dime baggers up there getting high of each others farts it is pathetic. My guns are the only thing that keeps me safe. I have had to draw three times since my cpl. I want my scary black gun because it scares the s**t out of the thugs who come around my place thinking it’s going to be an in and out job.
I cannot sit here and tell you the Constitution is perfect. I haven’t seen it work the way it is should perform I do not believe anyone has since the day it was signed, most of whom never attended the convention. Now I get to ask a question. Show me your document for this country? Once done then we can compare them, but we will never see them honestly work, but I still want to see your document.
Davies says no one ever debated the constitution, speaking of common folk. I have four texts loaded with “Constitutional Debates” and over 364 people recorded; farmers, cartwrights, black smiths, grocers and etc. So the people had their elected delegates to the convention, and they were elected by the people of the colonies. There was representation there.
Not trying to be rude here but it already seems as though you are looking through rose colored glasses.
To conclude. I am not a academician. You left out Washingtons Shay's rebellion which he put down first but I am really foggy on this one. The whiskey rebellion again I believe was in the carolinas. Time is taking toll on my memory.
Cannot think of anything else so I’ll shut up.


mhstahl's picture


I think that you missed my point, which is simply this: everything the current US government does is completely, totally, and absolutely authorized in the Constitution; either that or the constitution was a total waste of a sheep.

The Constitution is, before all else, a legal document. As such it is subject to interpretation as every legal document ever devised is so subject. This is exactly why treating it as though it were divinely inspired as so many "conservatives" do, is damned isn't, it is just words a gaggle of high rollers of the time mannaged to finagle some popular support for, it met thier needs at that time, just as its construed by modern power brokers to meet the "needs" of our time. That's it.

You are a fan of the second amd., it seems at first glance pretty firmly worded. Why then are you worried about your guns? You know why just as well as I do, you even said so-nobody cares what the constitution says, or they deliberately violate it. Personally, I think the 2nd amd (which is chock full of weasel words-what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?) does far more harm than good. The fact is, very strict gun control is quite uncommon worldwide-go look it up-without the second amd. And, of course, if it comes to it they really can't truly disarm anyone....prisons are full of weapons after all.

It would seem that you are very near reaching the same conclusion that Lysander Spooner once did, to paraphrase, that the constitution was either a total failure, or it was designed to permit the very abuses of power he saw in his day, and we in ours.

You ask about my "document for this country"...well, I'm not much of a fan of documents like that-they are rather useless as we've seen with the constitution. I'm also not a big fan of "countries" either-I don't like centralized government, so I'd simply do without it. I think that small communities can and have organized themselves quite nicely without a distant ruling class to harass and tax them. So I'm afraid we will not have much to compare, though I might point you to the history of early Saxon England or the free period in Iceland as a loose model.

Of course, I don't anticipate seeing any such thing in my lifetime, or in this millenium-my lenses have only the faintest hint of pink. I do think, though, that such a perspective offers the best possible means of pointing out the ugly abuses of the current system and thereby making today's world a bit better. Perhaps some day my decendants will once again live without congresses and presidents and constitutions.

I do consider, if such a document must exist, the original Articles of Confederation to be far, far preferable to the constitution-so perhaps we have something to compare after is the dear constitution better than the Articles it replaced without due process and in a strange system of state conventions?

I also consider the British pre-Revolution system to be far better in terms of personal freedom than the constitution...and millions of dead Indians and slaves would agree with take your pick.

For the record, Shay's Rebellion happened before the constitution was ratified and was put down by the State of Massachusetts independantly, not the Federal government(which did not then exist in the form we know it). Shay's Rebellion was also something of the "Sandy Hook" of its day in that it and its (somewhat justified, btw) violence was used as a rally cry for the need of a stronger central government through the constitution.  The Whiskey Rebellion did in fact take place in mostly Western Pennsylvania near what is now Ohio. Google it. I have no doubt that Carolinians may also have revolted, I have no knowledge of it however. Sadly, they failed.

I hope that you continue this conversation, Glock, I truly am interested in your perspective.



Glock27's picture

mhsthal. Give me some time. I just got kicked off and lost the entire thing. Maybe later today or tomorrow. I did say, however, I was unsure of the Shay rebellion.

Jim Davies's picture

Fundamental error, Glock: "The problem is not all with the Constitution." Yes, it certainly is; and with any other document or agreement that establishes any government anywhere.
Recently I referred you to Constitutional Rule. There, I showed what society would be like if all politicians honestly followed the Constitution to the letter - obeying its limits, exercising only the powers it purports to delegate. I encourage you to re-read it.
Then, we'd have a FedGov which would...

  • Impose taxes
  • Undertake debts, repayable only by imposing more taxes
  • Regulate commerce
  • Control immigration, ie dictating where humans can live and work
  • Prevent voluntary agreements in settlement of bad debts
  • Control money (that alone is fatal to freedom)
  • Control communication (ie, post and roads)
  • Control inventions
  • Make war on pirates (transferring the cost from shippers to taxpayers)
  • Declare war
  • Provide military force
  • Call out the militia (so preventing it being used against the FedGov)

All this is a summary of what the Constitution actually says. Re-read the article, if you doubt that. The delegation was bogus anyway, but every one of those supposedly delegated powers is repugnant to a free society.
Yet you wrote "I have a strong agreement with the Constitution because it gives a basis to keep human life on a steady course."
Glock, IMHO you have a huge amount of homework to do.

Thunderbolt's picture

Glock: Thank you for your observations. I would quarrel with your using the term "nit-wit" regarding Lysander Spooner.
Please take a look at this article by Jim Davies:
Genius Concealed.

Best regards, T.

Glock27's picture

No,no,no,no. I cannot do that please. Please don't make me read him I beg you. I am going through Spooner and Comparative Constitutional history and I am finding all kinds of mistakes of assumptions, presumptions and liberties he is taking with the constitution. He is doing the same thing we are doing. Making things fit the way we see it. I can see why he was not very successful at many of his efforts.
I am not contending that the Constitution is a perfect "document" and Spooner was not a perfect genus; that is to be seen.
If you would "What was the single most important reason europeans took the opportunity to leave England and Europe? Remember not all these people were English".
By your response I note that you are more interested in Spooner than any of the other content of my expositions. I am heart broken for it is in these parts that we beging to see Spooners failure to understand the Constitution. I am making an assumptin that he was noting the corruption going n at the time and he blamed the constitution for the mess we were in. Good research depends more on discovered facts that dreamed ideas. One advantage I have over Spooner is that there are a lot more facts that have been revealed that what was available to him in his time.

With Humble respect,

Samarami's picture


    "... He (Lysander Spooner) is doing the same thing we are doing. Making things fit the way we see it. I can see why he was not very successful at many of his efforts..."

You've exposed my "belly-button" thesis, Glock. The world revolves around MY belly-button -- not yours (or Spooner's). My world.

That knowledge gives me a unique advantage: I know YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly-button, whether you admit it or not. Your world. Therefore I can see you mean no harm to me when you disagree with me over this or that issue. It's just that you see things in your own light -- not mine. Same with Spooner in his day, and you're correct in pointing out Spooner didn't have the internet to make the almost unfathomable comparisons we have before solidifying his "opinions". Access to unbiased information was scarce in his day.

But we are both on this particular forum site, which means we're seeking out the "page" on which we need to be to see things more clearly in this messed up world.

The overriding issue, I think, as Tim has aptly pointed out in the underlying message of his essay, is that monopoly state (no alternatives -- you have to go to The-State for remedy of a "legal" nature) gives rise to unbelievable manipulations and machinations designed to give one party or group of parties advantage over all others. Conspiracies abound when everything "legal" is under one tent.

Keep in mind, The-State does not exist -- "government" does not exist: those are abstract terms for groups of psychopaths (yes, all who achieve "top" status in monopoly government entities are psychopaths) who call themselves "state" or "government".

That's why I do not vote in political elections for or against participants who will conspire to take your guns away, for instance.

Oh, I can hear you now: "...but,...but you need to vote for 'PRO' gun ownership 'representatives'..." What those individuals who seek political positions in a monopoly on violence say, and what they do, are two separate things. And good luck if you trust "media" to adequately inform you as to who is a "good" monopolist representative as opposed to a "bad" monopolist representative.

Actually I am a voter. I voted yesterday. Yesterday I biked with "bob trailer" for a large amount of supplies. I voted in this instance for Wal Mart -- so by salutary neglect (thanks, Robert LeFevre) I voted against numerous other grocery suppliers from whence I could have made my purchase. Tomorrow I might "switch parties" and vote for one or more of the other stores -- especially if they show me by advertisement it will be to my advantage to patronize them in lieu of Wal Mart. In fact, realizing I forgot one item necessary for my today's cooking project, I biked back last night to a little grocer who is 4 miles closer for that single item. I paid a few pennies more for it, but he was more convenient, and that unintended trip gave rise to my decision to eat out; so I "voted" for a restauranteur and against a couple other alternatives along the way.

But I won't do you, my friend, the disservice of voting in any political election in support of monopoly government.

No, sir ree, Bob.


Glock27's picture

Greetings Samarami,
Thanks for the illumination. All I am doing is looking at history and Spooner together. When I first read it there was an odd feeling about it; I could see how his words would mislead many of today. My effort is to merely bring facts to light Spooner never had, if he did he may 1) never have written his piece or 2) his piece may have been more effective than it currently is. I was attempting to show that when the immigrants arrived here they or someone said "We need an assembly" to establish some guidelines on how we are going to conduct ourselves as a group. Or it was a council or another thing. The point was they recognized a need for organization so their lives could get along as smoothly as possible. Ergo, the traveling judges made judgements over disputes while the church established a moral basis of operation. I have to admit that Spooner was insightful. I agree with you that the government structure from the bottom to the top is a "Machine" Just as the assemblies and councils of the colonial period voted for delegates to represent them and their interests so do we (or some of us. This just may be my last time myself to vote). So, when Spooner said no one voted was a mistatement of fact (343) members voted as delegates from the 13 colonies. No different than today. (The troubelsome part of this is that all the members who signed the Constitution were not members of the Contennential Congress. That concerns me because it makes me wonder if the Constitution is really a bona fide document, but then again they may have been significant in making ita truely bona fide document).
As I have mentioned before in other spots throughout the site I believe, given the evidence that corruption began with George Washington when he went after the Shaway Rebelllion and then the Whiskey Rebelion. Why do F***ing morons keep voting for the same idiots all the time. I cannot prove it but the democrats were Klu Klux Klan members in one way or another and look who votes for them. When I watch the slander news media and see crime reports what race is always engaged in killing one another. They don't give race anymore but when you hear the names you know its not a white name.
It has done my heart good to see that there are states standing up to the Federal Government and telling them "I'll be F***ed if we are going to let you make up some childish Unconstitutional Law and come here to force it on us."
Wyoming has established a $5000 fine and a 5 year prison term as a felony on any federal agent who attempts to carry out that duty if they do. My state Michigan has timidly brought up a bill but not as forceful as Wyoming, but for a government being so non-existant they sure as hell push trhough any damned thing they want to and citizens pay via , coercion. Here our food bill is going to go up by one percent, but they are going to be nice to us and cut our gasoline cost by one percent. Whoopie.
I am just as rankeled as anyone else on this site over ther government, but it dosen't mean citizens should blindly accept a piece of writingdly 140 years old as if it were just as good today.
In Lysanders time it may have been significant, but what he wrote then didn't change one iota of things then and obviously will not change anything today. If he could not get anyone to see then what makes us thing we can make anyone see today.

All these philosophies here are empty air. They affect a hand full of people who can't do anything to make an effective change. I am me. I subscribe to no philosophy but bits and pieces non-aggression is one

Thank you for the kindness of your words. Should you have any more Belly button wisdom I would greatly appreciate hearing from you.

Stay safe, stay well and watch your six.


Samarami's picture


    "...All these philosophies here are empty air. They affect a hand full of people who can't do anything to make an effective change. I am me. I subscribe to no philosophy but bits and pieces non-aggression is one..."

You've hit the brass key, Glock. "I am me".

"I am a sovereign state". Sometimes I indict myself for saying things like that merely to raise the ire of the naysayers. Those who profess to have the keys to the path to freedom (for everybody) are first to declare you are not free.

But I know better. I am me, and you are you. I, too, avoid the "ism"'s and "ist"'s.

If I choose to be free nobody can stop me from being free.

I'm headed out in a couple hours to relatively close to your part of the woods -- Tecumseh, ON -- just across the bay from Detroit. I know I've got to interface with some of the worst terrorists known -- "homeland security" and "immigration" types. They love it. Generally they leave truckers be, but one can't be certain in this police state world. They're always out to "...protect one of their own..." The Canuck's can be worse than Yankees.

But their behaviors have limited effect upon me. I'm free, and I'll remain Sovereign once I drop my trailer and flee back across the bay.


Glock27's picture

Greetings samarami

I would have guessed truckers would be the worst he carrying all those buzz bombs and ammunition and stuff, and stoppin yu guys just to irritate all the people behind them. Have a great trip. Be safe. Avoid the blizzards and lizards and gizzzrds along the way.

With deepest regards for one of the brightest men I have ever known.