"The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to them and their kind as, quote, 'friends of paper money.' They hated the Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence from England and King George, we could never truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. Through ignorance, but moreover, because of apathy, a small, but wealthy, clique of power brokers have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties, and we are being raped of our wealth. We are paying the price for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents, and only God knows what might become of our children, should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber! Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel, but here in America, we just decided to hand it over voluntarily. Worse yet, we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with "voluntary" tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!" ~ Peter Kershaw
Yes or No?
Column by Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
There can be good reasons for not answering questions. If you are being questioned by the police, for example, prudence would dictate that you remain silent. Or perhaps you do not know the correct answer to a question, and would prefer not to guess and subsequently be proven wrong.
But you might also decline to answer if your answer could put you in an uncomfortable position. In that case, you might resort to evasion. I have found this to be a position frequently taken by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, I have devised a simple questionnaire for my public servants, asking only for Yes or No responses. Of course, they can ignore the questionnaire entirely, but in itself that is informative, since the questions are certainly reasonable. Silence, as a federal court has maintained, is itself a form of speech. The final form of the document will resemble this draft.
Dear Public Servant:
In order to better understand my relationship, if any, with the state, and therefore, with you, I would appreciate your answers to the following few questions. I enclose a self-addressed envelope for your convenience. (It is not stamped, but you have franking privileges and I do not.) Simply circle Yes or No. Thank you.
No. 1 Black’s law dictionary defines a statute as “the written will of the legislature.” Do you agree with that definition? Yes No
No. 2 The dictionary defines laws as “rules written by the government.” Do you agree with that definition? Yes No
No. 3 Are the “rules written by the government,” or “the written will of the legislature” binding upon me? Yes No
No. 4 The federal Constitution tells us that the powers of Congress are delegated to them by the people. Is this true? Yes No
No.5 My state’s Constitution (Missouri) declares that all political power is possessed by the people, and delegated by them to the government. Is this true? Yes No
No. 6 A person cannot, nor can many persons, delegate a power which they lack. Is that true? Yes No
No. 7 Government officials cannot derive from the people a power which the people do not possess. Is this true? Yes No
No. 8 The people cannot express their will as “laws,” or make binding rules obligating the general public. Is this statement true? Yes No
No. 9 Government officials routinely exercise powers which could not have been delegated by the people, or derived from them. Is this true? Yes No
No. 10 Thomas Jefferson wrote that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Was he correct? Yes No
No. 11 Have you sought or acquired the consent of your constituents? Yes No
Thank you for your cooperation.
Will this tactic result in a growth of freedom? No. Its purpose is to make members of the ruling class simply think about what they habitually do automatically. It can accomplish this even if it’s discarded after a glance. A thought, once introduced, cannot be suppressed indefinitely. Sooner or later, it must be faced. Our Rulers have the great advantage of having been around for so long, that the validity of their existence is taken for granted, by their victims, and certainly, by them themselves. My thought is to introduce a therapeutic germ into this malign organism or, as Thoreau put it, to strike at the root.