CDZ Anniversary or forelorn regrets?

[Josf]

July 4th is approaching.

The absolute physical capacity for effective defense of innocent victims against harm done by guilty criminals is precisely what it is in each time and in each place where crime has been initiated by a criminal upon a victim or a number of criminal conspirators upon a number of innocent victims.

Whose idea is it to seek out and achieve the goal of rendering the targeted innocent victims defenseless against the initiation of harm, with malice aforethought, perpetrated upon those targeted innocent victims by those guilty criminals?

Confess your guilty minds in advance of this 2015 July 4th day of either independence from such guilty minded individuals acting alone, or such guilty minded individuals acting collectively to reach their goal of enslaving everyone who are then dependent upon their masters for every breath, every morsel of nourishment, and every thought placed into their guilty minds.

And have a nice day too.

To be continued while July 4th approaches...

 

[Josf]

As the leaders of the freeing world were debating the merits of slavery under criminal British rule there were among those leader of the freeing world a contingent of agent provocateurs whose obvious, and amply demonstrated, predilection for enslaving people became part of the official forlorn and regrettable record.

To free some people, say those criminals among us, we (as in we the criminals) must enslave some people. That is akin to saving babies by burning them alive in churches.

So here in a portion of the surviving, official, record, leading up to July 4th, and a declaration of independence, is the two faces of the two faced:

One common sense face, in your face:
"That the question was not whether, by declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the hone ceasing when the other is withdrawn:..."

That is a definition of voluntary association for mutual defense.

The other face which constitutes the forlorn and regrettable face of the evil among our number as we the people divide along clearly moral boundaries.

"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

 

[Josf]

We the mixture of innocent victims, effective defenders of innocent victims, and criminals hiding behind a very thin and thinning velvet glove covering an iron fist of despotism are divided. We are divided and we are conquered. We are divided according to thoughts driving actions. We are divided along moral lines as the two quotes leading to the edited Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776 harkens back to those moments where a fork in the road tested we the people here in America.

The road taken was the criminal road. The obvious consequences are demonstrated time and again. Those dire consequences are demonstrated even now in many places throughout America where words spoken help criminals, even now, injure the innocent with impunity. The injuries done to the innocent victims are for the exclusive benefit of the few slave traders at the top of that slave trading pyramid where the costs of those crimes are paid for by the current generation of misled troops, debt slaved indentured servants, willing slaves, and unwilling slaves; not to mention the ignorant.

How about a short dive into the lies contained in the second quote before exposing the counterfeit sincerity expressed in the first quote?

The struck out clause is the clause that none of the American people ever read - not read by children in school, not read on the 4th of July celebration in 1777, or 1778, or any time since the clause was struck out - can't be quoted, the struck out clause can't be quoted, it was struck out. The struck out clause could be quoted if someone can find that original copy of the document where the document was written with the clause written into the document for reasons that may, or may not, be clear to anyone reading the clause that was struck out.

For whose benefit was the clause struck out? Certainly not for the inhabitants of Africa who had yet - in 1776 - to be violently kidnapped for a few pieces of silver. Certainly not for the struggling, independent, family farmers in Georgia and South Carolina whose difficulties in selling goods in free markets is made more difficult if those free market farmers pay taxes for protecting their free markets from tyrants demanding extortion payments, taxes for mutual defense against despots who enslave people, taxes for their government, and those tax payments go instead toward subsidizing the corporate famers whose labor force is FREE government welfare in the form of protecting their slave trading racket; paying out bounties for captured runaways, paying for kangaroo courts where counterfeit judges pass orders to inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and death sentences for failing to obey immoral criminal orders without question. Certainly not the slaves currently forced into labor; they don't benefit by striking out the clause reprobating the enslaving of the inhabitants of Africa.

Who is this individual named South Carolina? Who is this individual named Georgia? These two individuals never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves? These two individuals wished to continue the importation of slaves?

How about all the wives of all the aristocrats who managed to collect their corporate welfare checks where the counterfeit government subsidized their slave trade? Did those wives look the other way when their aristocratic husbands had their way with their beasts of burden?

 

[Josf]

Moving onto the insincerity of the author of the words expressing the idea and function of voluntary association for mutual protection. The idea is independence from slavery, in so many words, where the words may fail to connect well to the actors acting out actions in opposition to the words.

Quoting from brilliant words:

"That the question was not whether, by declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the hone ceasing when the other is withdrawn:..."

The bait in a rat trap is not going to be a screaming rat already trapped in the rat trap. Sure the next rat to arrive on the scene where there is a rat already stuck under the bar sprung down on the rat's neck might be a rat ready to eat the cheese that lured the first rat into the trap, and then if still hungry the second rat might even eat the rat that is stuck in the trap, such are the natures of rats. Such are the natures of slave masters.

The lure of easy pieces of silver, gold, and money inspire those who then trade with the enemies of liberty. Here is a slave. How much is my piece of the action?

Here is a lie. How much is my piece of the action?

Here is an insincere word or two used as a lure to catch more slaves; how true are the words used in this rat trap? How much is my piece of the action?

Well John Adams, you can be dictator in chief number 2, but when you are given the power to dictate to all the slaves you will turn your coat and work to enslave anyone who dares to speak out against the Red Coats. Is that a good deal?

How true are the words used to set the trap?

We should declare a fact which already exists. Should we not? Are free people free because free people have to ask their masters if it is OK with their masters?

We had always been independent of them. Is that not true? How about now? Are we independent of them now?

The efficacy of restraints on our trade are derived only from our acquiescence. Does that not describe a voluntary association? Is that clear enough, or are the waters somewhat muddied by the trade among criminals as criminals trade human lives for silver and gold; or titles of land defended by ignorant people easily led to slaughter in the protection of those titles of land that happen to be held by a few aristocrats who happen to also be the ones prone to insincere campaign promises that are routinely broken as often as gassy people break wind?

1. Free market trade where no one is involuntarily subjected to injury with malice aforethought during the process of trading goods.

2. Free from any effective defense of the innocent: therefore the criminals routinely claim that trading people as if people were less than cattle (it is cost-less for US - just us - to do so) is "free trade" because we the criminals agree!

Moving on to sentiments.

 

[Josf]

Sentimental emotions approach as the days count down to July 4th.

"Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Who apologizes for slave masters as slave masters invest in slavery as their chosen vocation?

Boys with toys?

A few bad apples?

Criminals are all joined by a few commonalities. All criminals lie to their targeted victims who may be innocent victims or fellow criminals. All criminals threaten their targeted victims who may be innocent victims or fellow criminals. All criminals violently consume their targeted victims who may be innocent victims or fellow criminals. All criminals know what they do, why they do what they do, how to do what they do, when to do what they do, and they all share this knowledge among themselves even without speaking to each other, since this criminal knowledge is common knowledge among criminals. This knowledge is carefully preserved trade secrets. Victims are not supposed to know this knowledge. Victims are supposed to assume that the leaders of the free world are all good and never bad and they too make occasional, reasonable, justifiable, errors in judgment from time to time.

Here in this information recorded in the form known as Elliot's Debates Volume I are the facts the prove beyond reasonable doubt when the criminals took over defensive government as a demonstrable event in time and place. Guilty minded criminals choose to lie, threaten, and violently injure innocent victims as their chosen vocation each and every time a guilty minded criminal perpetrates a crime upon an innocent victim in time and place - with malice aforethought - even when the criminals claim (falsely) that they are volunteering to help defend everyone from the criminals such as, in this case, the Criminal British Red Coats.

Get that straight. The Criminal British Red Coats are named as such in the document on the table at this time. Struck out of the document on the table at this time are words that banish the crime of slavery from America as the United States of America is formed and Statute Number One is on the table as the Continental Congress is in session for the expressed purpose of mutual defense of all against the Criminal British Red Coats.

Perhaps some of us now living are ignorant concerning the meaning of rule of law. All are protected under rule of law or, if not, it is counterfeit rule of law, not rule of law. Criminals are protected under rule of law, as rule of law protects criminals from other criminals, as rule of law, the real thing, not the counterfeit version, protects all, including criminals, from criminals.

If that is sadly not your understanding of the genuine meaning of rule of law, then what sentiments are you sentimental about, while July 4th rolls around once again this year?

"Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Are you feeling a little tender concerning the possible loss of some slave trading profits arriving in the mail which are then deposited in your personal retirement account?

 

[Josf]

Independence can be understood, realized, reasoned out, employed, beneficially, for those who gain, maintain, and defend their independence as they see it.

Benefiting from a connection between one who is dependent and another who is not dependent ought to be understood by both individuals, and of course it stands to reason that many individuals are collectively understood as individuals even when they share dependence or independence.

Benefits transfer from one to another.

One depends upon those benefits as those benefits transfer from one to another one.

Reasoning this out may help if the idea is to understand what is celebrated on Independence Day.

One dependent is one who depends upon the loss of independence of another one, as benefits are realized by the dependent and costs, not benefits, are realized by the other one who is no longer independent.

If the nature of the dependency is criminal, then the accurate word in English is slavery. The benefits flow from the slave as the slave produces beneficial goods, services, value added to nature, wealth, riches, commodities, the stuff that money can buy, as those benefits flow from the slave, who is no longer independent, and those benefits flow to the one who depends upon the enforcement of slavery as a form of occupation, vocation, employment, life "style."

If the nature of the dependency is not criminal, then the nature of the dependency is, in a word, voluntary.

That was the message offered by the congressmen who formed a voluntary mutual defense association based upon a federal model of voluntary government agreement, or duty bound trust, where benefits of mutual defense are shared by all people all the time, so long as the voluntary association remains voluntary, and so long as the association is not turned into just another form of enforced slavery of some people by criminal people.

Here again:

"That the question was not whether, by declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the hone ceasing when the other is withdrawn:..."

My words are not as good, certainly not as official, as those words above, but I am not a fat cat aristocrat living in 1776, and I do not depend upon benefits flowing to me from slaves that are forced into slavery by criminal fraud, criminal extortion, and criminal, aggressive, violence perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims.

My words are offered voluntarily as a form of olive branch from someone who has done some homework on the July 4th Celebration, to those whose idea is shared, where the idea is independence FROM criminal slavery, rather than a shared idea where criminals maintain independence FROM rule of law.

1. Independence as a shared idea in defending against rule by criminals who always find ways to enslave innocent people if innocent people do not wise up.

2. Independence as a shared idea in maintaining freedom, and independence, from any effective defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals.

How can a guilty criminal be discovered as a guilty criminal in time to effectively defend the next innocent victim, so that the innocent victim is not placed into the crime scene where the guilty criminal perpetrates the intended crime, with malice aforethought, upon the innocent victim in that place at that time?

One thing that helps is an example of an innocent victim declaring their independence FROM the idea that is shared among the guilty criminals. The innocent victim no longer accepts the false dependency idea whereby the guilty criminals claim that the innocent victims NEED their masters. The innocent victims no longer accept the shared idea that guilty criminals MUST be allowed to run amok in this country rioting in the blood of the innocent with impunity as the innocent victims are defenseless against those guilty criminals who share that idea of that form of dependence called slavery.

"Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

Accuse the slave trader. The accusation is acknowledged by other people who share the idea that the innocent victims ought to be EFFECTVELY defended: against the guilty criminals. So a random selection of Grand Jurists are assembled in order to acknowledge the accusation and to then put the alleged criminal, who is presumed to be innocent, since presumption of guilt without trial by jury is against the common laws of free people, and the whole country, through those jurists, in the trial jury, must unanimously determine the facts discovered during the trial, and the whole country decides if slavery is a good idea, or slavery is not a good idea, rather than having slavery dictated upon the slaves by aristocrats, fat cats, growing fat on their benefits they gain from slavery.

 

[Josf]

No one dares to question the official record dictated into enforcement by the criminals who took over voluntary defensive government because the truth is rejected as the slaves now love their chains and their criminal masters?

There are exceptions. I had this idea. The idea was to actually look for and see if I can discover the words that were struck out of Statute Number One (Declaration of Independence) to see what Jefferson wrote in that document. I had this idea to find and see for myself which words caused "northern brethren" to feel "a little tender" about those words written by Jefferson in the original Declaration of Independence. You, any of y'all can see for yourselves too.

Here is what I found:
Jefferson s original Rough draught of the Declaration of Independence The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

For a few dollars more the aristocrats sold out the actual volunteers who left their small farms to join forces in defense of independence FROM slavery.

The farmers were defending their independence from corporate masters who bought and sold people as slave labor which subsidizes the price of farming goods on the open market pushing small farmers out of business as the slaves bear the burden and the slaves receive no benefits UNLESS someone claims - with a twisted mind - that a whip, and chains, are benefits given to the slaves by their masters for their own good.

"He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor."

"For every man shall bear his own burden."

 

[Josf]

The criminals who take over governments do not do so out in the open. Deception is the working rule. Criminal government operators, as a rule, employ deception. Deception is the boundary that cannot be escaped once an individual, or once a group of individuals working cooperatively, endeavor to take over government.

Even so, actions speak louder than words, and even while deception is the rule when criminals take over governments, the criminals often confess by word of mouth, and by written words too, despite the absolute necessity to remain inside the boundaries of deception.

Above, clearly, unmistakably, the criminals have shown their true colors, and the concept of trading with the enemy is now clearly mixed in with the concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is clearly within the boundaries of falsehood, or not so clearly within the boundaries of falsehood, depending upon how deep inside the boundaries of falsehood an individual may exist in time and place.

Many of you who read this type of exposure of the facts as they exist are going to fail to understand the significance of information condemning, or inculpating, criminals who routinely take-over moral, defensive, governments, known as voluntary associations, as criminals turn those voluntary associations into organized crime under the color of law.

Outside of falsehood are viewpoints that look into the boundaries of falsehood and accurately account for the significance of those clear and present dangers hatched within those boundaries of falsehood.

Next up is a return to the criminal take-over of the effort to finance a working, voluntary, federated, mutual defense association, set-up as a free market of government services, because Americans at that time understood the stark difference between voluntary association, or free market government, in truth, according to accurate accounting practices such as honest money, and trial by jury, as opposed to tyranny, dictatorship, and other forms of governments run by criminals, which always exist inside the boundaries of falsehood.

 

[Josf]

A voluntary gift to all from one is not necessarily charity when all are threatened with enslavement by a very large criminal gang of thieves.

The British Red Coats constitute the very large criminal gang of thieves as those criminals are said to be rioting in the blood of innocent Americans at this 1776 time.

Many were sitting on the fence of their own construction because there was no fence. The stakes were federated (voluntary) association among those who volunteer to defend federated voluntary association, and failure to defend federated voluntary association was absolute despotism for some much sooner than for others.

I suppose that the fence could be fashioned from the lives of the innocent as the guilty stand behind or push ahead those who will be subjected to the worst: first.

The fence is built by those who allow others to pay the ultimate price while fence builders reap the remaining rewards of Empire. That is the rats on the sinking ship scenario as the number of slaves dwindle while the number of rats increase past the point of diminishing returns and there is fewer, and fewer, rewards, benefits, booty, loot, wealth, goods, food, shelter, security, health, for anyone, and the worst of the worst get the most of the least, as the fence builders sit on a fence fabricated from lies that cover up the next victim, the next victim, and the next victim, drawing ever closer to the fence builder, until the knock on the door removes one door as the final fence before the rat bores through to eat the rat fence builder.

The least able to defend themselves are obviously going to be pushed ahead first by the rats who build the rat fence.

Here have another child, put that one on the fence, and I can get back to work to pay my fair share of the expenses required in consuming posterity.

You don't see that in the words quoted, but that does not mean that those who write those words are sharing your viewpoint.

I have yet to dive back into the timeline in Elliot's Debates Volume I to find that original copy (or copy of a copy) whereby financing was based upon land titles. The words are not direct, the words are indirect, as the idea was to afford all the people in one state one federal vote, and then the means by which financing will be processed for federal expenses are based upon the collective votes of each single vote of each single state. Those who vote against something retain the option of secession in any case where their vote is overruled. If other states combine to overrule the people in one state, the people in one state can abide by the unwelcome rule, or, not.

Pay for, or not pay for, that which you want, or that which you do not want, and if you really do not want to pay for your own demise at the hands of the criminals, then your vote may also be overruled. And if you think you have a fence to sit on, time will tell, as you use children as your human shields.

 

[Josf]

Summing up some:

People fled as runaway slaves from a former home where their liberty was once defended securely with voluntary investments in a shared duty to defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals through rule of law in the form of common law trial by jury.

People fled to America where the land was once densely populated by Indian tribes yet those Indian tribes had been wiped out by diseases and therefore America was more so a place where people could flee from tyranny and start a new life in a so called new world, so long as the remaining Indian tribes agreed to form voluntary mutual defense associations, or honorable, honest, true, treaties.

People in America federated with the English Monarchy as independent people who formed their own, federated, colonial governments until such time as the parent government began a criminal war of aggression upon the free people, the honest people, the productive people, the independent people, the trustworthy people, in America; all the while there were among the good people in America a number of criminals seeking to gain criminal control of government in America.

Stop here and revisit the words that confess the existence of a voluntary association between the good parts of the English government, which was common law due process in the form of trial by jury, whereby it is recognized as a fact that good people MUST defend their liberty (their ability to remain good) for that power to defend each other is necessary for free, independent, people, in free, independent states, and failure to do one's duty in defense of liberty will result in inevitable tyranny, inevitable despotism, at the hands of the criminals who take over governments.

The source used now for finding documented evidence exculpating the good people in America, along side the inculpatory evidence proving, by confession, the criminals among the good people, is the source known as Elliot's Debates Volume I.

Source:
Elliot s Debates Home Page U.S. Congressional Documents

Oct. 14, 1775
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, "that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law."

What does that mean? Someone unable or unwilling to do anything at all in defense of the weakest among us may care nothing about the meaning of those words above, while someone knowing what due process means may see the meaning of those words in the official record in October of 1775 while the criminal British were perpetrating the beginning of a violent war of aggression so as to subjugate all people in America under absolute despotism.

Know what that means, and here is an example of the meaning of those words where those words confess the facts of common law trial by jury as the means by which good people remain good people and good people do not choose to become bad people even under the worst of circumstances such as a time and place when the largest criminal army on the planet is currently rioting in the blood of the innocent for fun and profit.

What does that mean, and an example helps if the question is asked honestly, honorably, sincerely, where the one asking for meaning concerning "inestimable privilege" afforded to everyone including the worst criminals among us.

Here is an example:
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

People caught red handed, aiding, abetting, lending moral support to, and lending material support to the criminals among us are, in demonstrable fact, criminals among us, and rather than each of us, in turn, electing each of us, in turn, as judge, jury, and executioner on the spot, when we the people catch someone red handed handing posterity to organized criminals, for fun, for profit, for a piece of the action, or for a luxurious position within the criminal organization, we the people afford everyone their opportunity to defend themselves against any accusation, and the whole country passes judgment through their representatives chosen by lot (chosen randomly) in both a Grand Jury to legitimize the accusation, and in a Trial Jury if the people in the Grand Jury, representing the whole country of people, demand a trial based upon the facts known in their investigation of the accusation, and if the people in the Trial Jury, representing all the people in we the people, find the presumed to be innocent accused actually guilty as charged, and their judgment must be unanimous, as if the whole country of people agree that the one charged is in fact guilty, and the whole country then decides what is to be done as a penalty for the guilty criminal in that case, through those 12 people charged with that responsibility, which is government by consent of the people; which is expressly NOT government by dictates dictated by one dictator. There is more to that than what meets the eye at first blush; but there is the connection between rule of law confessed as our means of defense against criminals, and a competitive example of how rule of law is exemplified in difficult times and difficult places BECAUSE the enemies of liberty are past the gate, in your face, and rioting in the blood of the innocent, because they have enough investors investing in their crime spree.

The free people forming the free and independent states voluntarily agreeing to create and maintain (finance) a federal union confessed the meaning of federation. I have to get to work, to be continued...

 

[Josf]

Oct. 14, 1775 - Reforming United Colonies of America into United States of America severing involuntary connections with a criminal English government
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, "that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law."

That voluntarily confesses certain knowledge of what is rule of law in fact. What is due process in fact? Rule of law, due process, the law of the land, is, in fact, common law trial by jury, and the confession of that certain knowledge is recorded as such on Oct. 14, 1775 by those who are trusted to represent free people in former federated colonies which are federated into a voluntary association with the people in England.

Federation means something as confessed by representatives who have formed a new federation known as the United States of America.

"That the question was not whether, by declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us - a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the hone ceasing when the other is withdrawn:..."

Note the confession having to do with the meaning of the word federal, as the meaning of the words is clearly stated in English language. A federal union, as a matter of well established fact, "a fact which already exists," is a voluntary union among independent people, whose union is "deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only," and therefore it is not only the right, but the duty, of free, independent, people to declare their factual independence, and defend their independence, in time and places where one group of people have demonstrated their malignity as one group of people set about their criminal actions with malice aforethought, as one group of people begin aggressive, violent, attacks upon the other group of people in America. Free people attacked by former free people as one group formerly federated voluntarily become criminals perpetrating war of aggression; thereby ending the voluntary federal union BECAUSE "allegiance and protection are reciprocal," and therefore the aggressors seeking imperial subjugation of their former mutual defense partners BECOME the cause for action in defense of the innocent, targeted, victims of said war of aggression for profit of a few, where the debts incurred by the criminals are charged to the subjects of imperialism.

Those whose duty it is to defend the innocent through rule of law, common law trial by jury, confess also that they are themselves duty bound to be accountable to that same lawful duty.

July 9th, 1778 - Articles of Confederation recording the founding of a working federation replacing a former federation ended as English criminals take over England
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on, Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."

There are two missing elements in that time frame having to do with financing the costs of defensive war and leadership responsibilities GIVEN to (or taken by) individuals who are then either held accountable accurately, or their records of deeds done are falsified in demonstrable fact.

1. Trial by jury is the law of the land.
2. No one, not even the President of The United States of America in Congress Assembled, is above the law
3. How are defensive costs financed?
4. Who (friend or foe) commands the responsibilities of military leadership (and is held accountable for those responsibilities)?

 

[Josf]

Before citing the two missing elements in the time frame having to do with financing the costs of defense of liberty in federation there may be good cause, good reason, to explain the roots of two terms that later (after 1776) became part of the divide and conquer war of aggression against those whose duty it is to defend each other.

What was once a shared idea to be duty bound to each other in defense became a confused and misunderstood idea instead.

In order to be independent, and therefore to be powerful enough to defend oneself, and therefore be powerful enough to add something to a pool of collective defensive powers, one had to be capitalistic. The term capitalism can mean, if you consider this idea yourself, as an individual, without confusion in your own individual mind, as your mind may be experiencing the ill effects of other ideas invading your mind, causing said confusion, from external sources, dividing the idea - destroying the idea - the idea can mean one individual among many individuals exemplifying individual productive capacity as if people were merely individuals.

Capitalism can mean: an individual example of people whereby the individual example of people is individually capable of increasing the total productive wealth available on this plant in this solar system, as if people were nothing but individuals.

The idea works if you imagine a contrasting idea whereby each individual was not independently capable of surviving alone, and not independently capable of producing more than consumption, and not independently capable of increasing total production, in the form of savings, and therefore each individual on planet earth, from the opposite idea, is incapable of producing enough for the survival of one individual, and each individual is dependent upon other individuals, and no individual can ever survive alone, because no individual is ever independently capable of survival, at all, let alone surviving well, and let alone producing enough to save productive capacity sufficient to feed children who cannot produce enough for their own existence until they too become independent producers, survivors, savers, additions, and multiples of additions to the total capacity to produce the stuff needed for survival on earth.

So that can be a working understanding of the word capitalism, which is associated with the word conservative, which is associated with the word individualist, which is associated with the word independent, which is associated with the word liberty.

Another word that is easily confused with the exact opposite of the genuine, or original meaning of the word, is the word socialism, which can mean the idea that the total productive power of any group of cooperators is more than the sum of the individual parts, and all that is needed for that power to be unlocked is one obvious obstacle overcome, which results in a condition of life known as liberty.

One individual acts in a manner as if one individual were part of a species of individuals, where all individuals work (each on their own) effectively at increasing the quality of life, while reducing the cost of life, because each individual can do so independently in liberty (on their own capitalistic self interest, and as part of a whole number of duty bound defenders of their own voluntarily agreeing to federate into a social whole), and therefore if liberty is secure by that individual and collective power of defense, the sum total of productivity reaching for the same goal is much greater than the sum of the individual parts, and that accelerated productivity becomes an absolute deterrent against any force seeking to end liberty.

So there is your missing information missing from your brain. The military is the perfect example of socialism, where individuals who could be out-producing every other individual, if they were in liberty, and on their own, adding the greatest amounts to the total productive capacity, because they are the best and the brightest within society, yet their productive capacity must be duty bound to meet any threat to liberty, from any quarter, foreign or domestic, since failure to defend liberty results in those same, most powerful, individuals being misled by criminals whose goal is absolute tyranny, absolute despotism, absolute slavery, and therefore the destruction of capitalism, the destruction of socialism, and therefore the destruction of liberty is inevitable without that individual, and without that collective defense, because those whose duty to defend liberty are misled, and those individuals are employed into enforcing the enslavement of all by a few very powerful criminals whose claim to fame is always based upon lies.

That is simple enough to prove as those who currently are the best at deception are the ones gaining the most power fastest, while the ones who offer any accurate records of any kind are often assassinated quickest.

Before linking the next link, which is before diving back into Elliot's Debates Volume I so as to revisit the two factors affecting financing mutual defense of all by individuals whose duty it is to defend themselves, and each other, it is vital to understand what was at stake as the criminals struck out of The Declaration of Independence the references written by Thomas Jefferson concerning the vile crime known as slavery, which earmarks, bookmarks, and puts a headstone on Liberty in America as the criminals thereby took over this working federation from that point onward. What was at stake was both individual capacity to produce enough for self defense AND collective capacity for each individual to voluntarily add their productive capacity to a social collective funding of federated mutual defense. Both of those ideas, both individual, and collective defense was at stake at that moment when those criminals infecting the leadership of the founding moments struck out the vital words written by Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence.

 

[Josf]

Days leading up to July 4th, 1776:

Jefferson s original Rough draught of the Declaration of Independence The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Quote:________________________________________________________
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. a prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of 12] years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of liberty.
______________________________________________________________

The most damning testament to indict a criminal in charges of the worst crimes against humanity, presented to the world in a form of a declaration of independence from those named criminals, and that part of the presentment is struck out?

Quote:__________________________________________________________
One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
_________________________________________________________________

Had there been no criminals infesting the rank-and-file American defense of independence from criminals who perpetrate crimes under the color of law there would have been an immediate about face on the crime known as slavery. There would have been no power in America by which a civil war would have been financed, because slavery would have been outlawed for good.

How did the criminals manage to finance their wars of aggression for profit? They made slavery legal for them to enforce and for anyone else the same dirty deeds were taxed so as to funnel the profits into one FUND used to finance one and the other (war of aggression and slavery) at the same time, and the devices used was the twin heads of involuntary taxation and fraudulent central banking; both of which are merely extortion and fraud. So extortion (involuntary tax) and fraud (central banking fraud) is the finance mechanisms used to enforce aggressive violence in at least two major forms: aggressive war for profit of a few at the expense of everyone, and enslavement of everyone under absolute despotism, tyranny, or organized crime under the color of law.

 

[Josf]

If a criminal is planning to take over an area of land where other criminals are also perpetrating crimes the obvious problem of potential competition is known in advance or soon to be discovered as the criminal perpetrates crimes upon the existing victims in that area of land.

If a defender against any crime, from a foreign criminal, or from a domestic criminal, is planning on defending an area of land where other defenders are also defending the same area of land, or defending an area of land adjoining the same area of land, then the obvious benefit of potential competition is known in advance or soon to be discovered as the defenders effectively, or not as effectively, defend the innocent people from harm in that land, or those adjoining lands.

I'm going to offer those words above to all who may be reading this Topic, in advance of the effort to tie into the question of independence or failed independence the factors of finance. Those words above clearly show the opposing concepts of competition so as to then be better able to understand the stark differences between immoral, criminal, methods of financing, on one clearly defined boarder line, and clearly not on the immoral, criminal, side is a distant moral method of financing. People on one side are on that side because they voluntarily choose to be immoral by their immoral actions. People on the other side clearly decide to volunteer to be on the moral side. One side is focused in determined effort to consume people on all sides, on their own side, their criminal side, as well as on the other side where the defenders choose defense instead of crime. One side becomes a side because criminals decide to reject cooperative, honest, productive, mutually beneficial competition, opting to perpetrate crime instead, and crime is therefore ubiquitous on that side as that side swallows up all places where people exist, annexing land, capturing land, capturing people, and subjecting people to ever greater horror, sickness, torture, murder, and worse. On the side of defense those who defend best set the example for all other competitors to emulate or improve upon that constantly adapting standard of excellence.