Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fascism, by definition, is in support of traditional authority.
Yet Hitler's "Fascism" was more akin to socialism and communism; and all were opposed to private property ownership - traditional values.
Only capitalism explicitly recognizes private property ownership.
"Traditional authority" is NOT government, otherwise every left wing government would therefore be RIGHT WING.
Hitler and Mussolini were socialists of the fascist wing.
Stalin was a socialist of the communist wing.
FDR was a socialist of the American wing.
First of all every virtually every government throughout history has allowed itself the ablity to seize private property one way or another. In fact just about evey damn King throughout history has assumed he can do that - figured it was all HIS private property.
Secondly there is far more to what is "traditional" than just the ownership of property. There is culture and heritage. These were the areas the NAZI's stressed in their view of what was "traditional". This was why they wanted a Germany free of non-Germanic peoples, this was why they held that women belonged in the home (in TRADITIONAL roles - keeping the home up and making babies), why they rejected modern art and modern music in favor of TRADITIONAL versions of each. The NAZI's were VERY CONSERVATIVE in their outlook. Even their anti-Semitism was a pretty traditional viewpoint at the time. Hitler and the NAZI's wanted to return Germany to the old traditional values of hard work, loyalty to the nation and obedience to that nation. Oh Hitler put his own spin on "traditional" to be sure - but such was the nature of the man.
"Adolf Hitler is often used as an example of what happens to a society when traditional Christian moral and social values are abandoned. In reality, one of the reasons why Hitler was so popular with conservative Christians in Germany was precisely because he promised to restore traditional morality. He opposed abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and just about everything else conservative Christians complained were ruining modern Germany."
But - you can feel free to believe whatever garbage you want to believe. I'm through arguing with you. In fact, I'm just about through even listening to you. You can live in your own little world with you own little definitions of what's what - I don't really care.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-18-2009 at 04:03 PM..
Every government has the power to seize private property.
Look, you can re-define these words any way you want to, but they have accepted meanings. No one has to accept the way you are re-defining them.
I'm simply pointing out that you aren't using accepted definitions.
I realize that you're trapped by "New Speak" and are faced with cognitive dissonance.
Other governments may hold sovereign power to seize their subjects' property, but that's not the case in the USA. I realize you may be unaware of that fact, due to widespread propaganda and disinformation. You are a victim, and that's tragic.
Let me rephrase the situation -
If I rely upon dictionary definitions for my terminology and you rely upon colloquial use, who is more acceptable? Or accurate?
Before entering into verbal combat, let us hone our tools of discernment and vocabulary.
Can we agree that we do not wish to be robbed nor killed?
Good.
We share the concept that our right to life, the fruits of our labor and that which we acquire are ours, and not subject to anyone else. Our individual rights are not at the mercy of any one or group of people.
Do we agree that cooperation in support and defense of our rights is a good thing?
Good.
So a government formed in mutual defense of our rights to life, liberty and property is acceptable.
According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern by consent of the governed.
Is that acceptable to all?
If you haven't given consent to be governed, all government is authorized to do is use its awesome power in support of your right to life, liberty, private property and other sundry rights, not explicitly mentioned.
And as part of your right to life, do you have the inalienable right to engage in any harmless activity that supports that right to life?
Yes.
Now we're getting close to the "good stuff".
If you haven't given consent to be governed, and not submitted yourself (and your property) to the government, then the government is your servant.
Is that acceptable?
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
Excellent! The government agrees with us, so far.
But what is a sovereign and what is sovereignty?
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
Who or what is the sovereign power, if the government is not sovereignty?
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463 and they are truly the
Do you agree that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are sovereign?
Good.
Let's figure out what the government is.
"...In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)
What compact?
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground 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 the parties to it....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
The U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled.
Wait, aren't "we, the people" part of that compact?
Not if you're a private person, and one of the sovereign people.
Why?
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Wait a minute - the government said it wasn't the sovereign, and that people were sovereign.
Who is a subject / citizen?
He who has established or submitted himself to the dominion of government is a citizen. He has given consent to be governed, in exchange for political liberties (voting and holding office).
Wait - there's an exception with respect to a "republican form of government"!
Good observation.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
In a republican form of government, the people are sovereign. The servant government, and its subject citizens, are delegated certain powers to secure the rights of the sovereign people.
Is that clear?
In America, the people are sovereign. But by consent, a private person can change his status, and submit himself to government, as a citizen.
Did you think you were born a "U.S. citizen"?
Who told you that?
It's not in the law.
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [14th Amendment, Section 1.]
Uh oh... Sovereign Americans are not persons subject to nor object of the governing power of the servant government.
What proof exists that there are people who are NOT citizens?
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states,..., shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Did you think "everybody" born in the U.S.A. was a U.S. citizen residing at a residence?
What's an inhabitant (as in free inhabitant)?
"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782
"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484
"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences
but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309
U.S. citizens who reside at residences do not have legal, permanent homes. Coincidentally, no state issues "resident" licenses (permissions) to non-resident inhabitants domiciled in their state. In fact, inhabitants don't need permission, because they're not transients and trespassers. They have the RIGHT to be in the state and use the public roads and waterways, marry, own a dog, build a house, enter occupations, and run a business without permission of their servant government.
Check your own state's constitution and laws for mention of the inhabitant and his superior status.
" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4
If your religious opinions forbid you to enroll into national socialism, accept numbering, or engage in usury, you cannot be molested for your choice... in Georgia. And if you think they were not aware of the difference between inhabitants and residents, read this:
"Citizens, protection of.
All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Art 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 7
Recapping, the government is not sovereign, but servant to the sovereign people. However, citizens are subjects of the sovereign government. Since involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (except after conviction), the compulsory civic duties associated with citizenship are empowered by consent of the governed. You DID give consent, knowingly, willingly and intentionally, didn't you? You did sign many government documents where you claimed to be a citizen and a resident, didn't you?
If you were a victim of fraud or constructive fraud, you have the right to object, and change your status at law. But once you leave, don't ever submit again, for then it would be a permanent and irrevocable election, and no objection will hold up.
PART TWO - Disinformation Eradication
America's republican form of government, in which the people are sovereign is in harmony with capitalism. But let us be clear on what capitalism really means.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
A farmer who owns his farm enjoys capitalism. A farmer who does not is a tenant.
A laborer who owns the fruits of his labor enjoys capitalism. A laborer who does not is a slave.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Anything else is NOT capitalism, including usury (which likes to call its nefarious scheme "capitalizing") and limited liability artificial persons (stock corporations).
In American law, we know that the constitutional government has promised to secure private property rights.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
So let us be crystal clear - left wing socialist / communist pirates seek to rob property owners, via taxation and confiscation. And usurers, who also wish to rob property owners, via their scheme, are not part of capitalism. In fact, they are in alliance with these scurrilous scoundrels.
These thieves are opposed to any law that secures property rights, and government that espouses the ideal of securing property rights from attack.
HOW YOU WERE SWINDLED
Form SS-5, application for an account and number with Social Security is explicitly limited to U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the boundaries of the United States of America are ineligible to participate - and would not wish to.
Every participant in national socialism has surrendered his birthright to absolutely own private property, including himself. Each socialist has accepted the burden to be equally liable for the impossible public debt (See the definition for "contribution" in any legal dictionary) via the Federal Insurance CONTRIBUTION Act / Social Security Act of 1935. He has consented to be a "human resource" pledged as collateral on the debt. As one who is eligible for entitlements (charity) from the public treasury, each "volunteer" is a pauper, and thus a status criminal. Failure to pay his "fair share" of socialist taxes, will result in confiscation of his property (no longer protected from being taken for public use), and no just compensation will be given. Socialist Americans are incapable of owning private property.
In case you were unaware, Federal Reserve Notes (aka "dollar bills") are not dollars. They are authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as codified in Title 12, USC sec. 411.
TITLE 12,UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be OBLIGATIONS of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
FRNs are obligations of the U.S. government to pay lawful money on demand.
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
Federal Reserve Notes are issued under the authority of Art 1 Sec 8 power to borrow on the credit of the United States.
Article 1, Section 8. U.S. Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power
...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
But the notes were repudiated in House Joint Resolution 192, (June 1933). Congress will no longer guarantee the 'exchange rate' of the dollar (for each FRN). But the law still defines the national debt (in excess of 10 trillion dollars) in terms of gold. That computes to a sum of 500 billion ounces gold. Which is 100 times as much gold as is estimated to exist, above ground, in the world (5.5 billion ounces). Fort Knox depository has only 147.3 million ounces.
And Congress cannot question the public debt because of the 14th amendment, even when it is insane.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, ..., shall not be questioned.
Amendment 14, Section 4.
Now if you've followed this so far, you're aware that somehow, Americans were all persuaded that they needed to "join up" with national socialism before they were allowed to work in their own country. And that government "gave away" entitlements to all enumerated Americans. And that all we need to do is just elect the RIGHT group of public servants and everything will be fine.
Hopefully, you now will be better able to discount the propaganda and disinformation that has been fed to you from your birth.
The servant government is incapable of resolving the problems that are propelling the USA into collapse. Partly because of the constitutional limitations, and partly due to their contracts with usurers.
Partisan fighting and "wing" alliances will not resolve the problem. Since 1933, the U.S. Congress has been bankrupt. Since 1935, the USA has been marching to the tune of national socialism, slowly eroding the memory of absolute ownership and inalienable rights from the minds of each successive generation.
We are at a threshold of collapse. And after we pass that portal, I fear that too many people are so ignorant of their American birthright, that the enemies of the sovereign people will be victorious. Do not be deceived, government has acted helpless to make the problems worse, not better. It was all part of the plan to destroy the compacts that created the United States of America and substitute a new and improved "Socialist" compact.
Either you are FOR private property rights, or you are a pirate (socialist / communist), seeking to TAKE private property rights. No matter what label, flag or doctrine is raised as the goal - either you are a harmless producer or you are a harmful predator. Choose carefully.
The REAL law protects property rights. And EVIL hates that law, and seeks to replace it with policy that is built upon fraudulent consent.
Sovereign people do not care who is the servant as long as he complies with his oath of office, and restrains himself within the limitations of the explicit delegation of power.
But if you're one of the subject peoples, be aware that your subjugation was entirely YOUR FAULT - according to the public record. Fighting about the inequities, tyranny, and unpleasant conditions of your servitude is futile. He who consents cannot complain. The government is absolved of all blame - because they have the written proof - in the public record.
The only nation on this planet with a republican form of government is the United States of America. And America is the only nation where the people are sovereign, and not subjects of servant government. If the people do not educate themselves to their lost heritage, this solitary experiment in true self government will pass into history, and be forgotten.
Go read the law, yourself.
It's available in every county courthouse law library.
I don't know about you, but there is no sum of money nor title of nobility that would ever persuade me to bend a knee or bow in subjugation to another monarch or sovereign, now that I know what my true birthright is. Americans were born to be Kings and Queens, monarchs of our lives and destinies.
Our enemies have perverted generations, and polluted our language so that we may not recognize our tormentors. But I hope that someday, enough Americans awaken to their lost heritage. For when that day arrives, the heavens will rock with their exultation.
First of all every virtually every government throughout history has allowed itself the ablity to seize private property one way or another. In fact just about evey damn King throughout history has assumed he can do that - figured it was all HIS private property.
That is the case with any sovereign.
And in case you didn't read the preceding post to this one, AMERICAN PEOPLE are sovereigns, individually.
That is why no constitution in the united STATES of America lists private property as subject to the taxing authority of the State government.
(The U.S. government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state, but even it restricts its 'taking' of private property with the obligation to give JUST COMPENSATION.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Secondly there is far more to what is "traditional" than just the ownership of property.
I must disagree. If you can't own your land, your labor or yourself, nothing else matters much - you're someone's serf / peon / slave.
All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy requires consent.
Or as the Declaration of Independence puts it - job #1 : secure rights, job #2 : govern those who consent.
If you think that anyone is reading all that verbal diarrhea you copy and then spew back out as if means anything you are seriously deluded.
LOL
Ken
Thank you for the compliment.
Does it mean you can not refute the dictionary definitions, court cites, nor the conclusions presented?
Does it mean that facts are too painful to your eyes?
And that your only recourse is to stamp your feet, cover your eyes, plug your ears, and go "la la la la la la la..."?
In relationship to the original post - extremism in the "right wing", I think I have shown enough data that refutes the "wingism" rampant in partisan politics.
In short, both republican and democratic partisans are left wing SOCIALISTS and are opposed to the "TRADITIONAL" opinions expressed in the organic documents that founded these united States.
And if you doubt that the founding generation knew it, read this from the VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION of 1776.
SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.
Do you disagree with the founders?
Or do you agree that ALL MEN cannot be deprived of their property, or taxed, without consent, nor bound by any law not for the public good?
If you agree, then you must cease volunteering to be a socialist peon, and reclaim your lost birthright of sovereignty, freedom, and independence.
So?
What does that have to do with the matter at hand?
LOL
The point, made earlier, is that arguing over "wingism" and partisanship is a nullity, when all horses in the race are owned by the same gang of thieves (socialists).
Remember, the original compact states that government was instituted to secure YOUR right to life, liberty and property ownership... not deny your right to life, liberty nor property ownership. And if you have to pay a socialist tax to work, to travel or to hold (not own) property, you're a peon / serf / slave. And since there is no compulsory law to join national socialism, the government can excuse itself from blame.
So, those who are tarred with the label "right wing extremism" are actually part of the left wing.
In the OP, he stated:"violent anti-abortionist, white supremacist, or general ultra right lunatics."
[] Since fetucide is still a crime, and abortion is not, a "law abiding" supporter of traditional authority would not practice assassination as a means to achieve justice.
[] A white supremacist (aka "sovereign white citizen") is an oxymoron, since "citizen" by definition is a subject.
[] "Right Wing" lunatics are generally pro-socialism.
[] "Right Wing" lunatics are not anti-usury.
I have rarely found any one, who claims to be "right wing", to be diametrically opposed to socialism. I haven't noticed any "right wing" lunatics denounce Social Security and renounce any claims to the "benefits". Even the "extremist" polygamist Mormon sects (ex: Warren Jeffs) were actively participating in the socialist entitlement programs.
If there ARE such partisans who have left SocSec, I apologize for my sweeping generalization.
And last, but not least, is usury - a scam that has been denounced for over 3000 years, by every religion and philosophy on the planet. Aristotle called it one of the worst schemes. Ezekiel 18:13 KJV denounces it as a capital offense. The sole report of violence by Jesus the Christ is when he whips the usurers from the temple. All the religions I've checked categorically denounce usury as an abomination - even Satanism (or so I was told by a Satanist!).
Usury is not just excessive interest, but ANY interest.
Have you noted any "right wing lunatics" renouncing interest bearing bank accounts, bonds, stock corporations, and mortgages? Do you hear of any "right wing lunatics" offering zero interest loans?
(Technically, usury is anti-capitalism, in that it preys upon property owners. It is ironic that they call themselves "Capitalists" and their usury "capitalizing".)
In other words, the lunatics of both "wings" are actually part of the radical left. And setting them to fight each other, keeps the hoi polloi from noticing that the real predators are robbing us blind.
The point, made earlier, is that arguing over "wingism" and partisanship is a nullity, when all horses in the race are owned by the same gang of thieves (socialists).
If ownership is equally shared (ideal socialism) how does one steal from oneself?
If ownership is equally shared (ideal socialism) how does one steal from oneself?
Ask the collective - they're the ones who will decide who can own what.
It's like a public park - 'everyone' owns it - but 'everyone' doesn't make the rules.
Ultimately, the "power" limits access, sets boundaries, permits and forbids.
In Socialism, individuals have no power, right, nor liberty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
