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.
The only invasion scenario that may be truly realistic would be a Chinese invasion of Guam and maybe the Northern Marianas or American Samoa. True, these are places that most Americans are barely aware of...but hundreds of thousands of Americans do live in these places and, at least in the case of Guam, they do have great military significance.
The only one that seems even wildly remotely plausible involving the fifty states would be Russia and China teaming up and crossing the Bering Strait and down the Pacific Coast into Waahington, Oregon, and Cali. The logistical challenges would be huge...and by the time they reached the lower 48 the US would have had time to concentrate massive defensive forces. Then there would be the matter of penetrating the passes in the mountain chains to reach the rest of the country.
Probably inpossible
No probably about it, it is. If you've ever visited western Alaska, you'd know why.
Yes, we do live under a government of force, not law, [NO, we do not - ignorance of the law is no excuse] and you still have not answered the question. It is not incorrectly worded, it is simply worded. A yes or no answer. Anyway, let me rephrase it to reflect your response. Are you saying that you do engage in all the things you speak of? [Engage in what things?] Do you live on private property? [Not at this time] Are you exempt from state codes? [Regarding what?] Do you eschew bank accounts and credit? [I do not engage in usury - it's an abomination.] How do you pay for your access to the internet that allows you to post here? [Does paying for internet imply that I have surrendered my endowment? Are you claiming I waive my right to life and liberty by using the internet?]
Understand that I am not arguing that most of what you post is incorrect, merely that it is not practical or workable for the average person in today's society, [voluntary slavery is far more practical and simpler] and that the lifestyle makes you likely to undergo constant harassment by the agents of the state. [It may be impractical or difficult, but I have never been harassed by any agent of government. In fact, I was the irritant, with my polite questionnaires.]
You know as well as I, [No, I do not know as well as you do] that those who populate government agencies are generally every bit as ignorant of history and natural law as their average civilian neighbor, and human nature makes harassment of what is not understood nearly a given. Hence the questions. Are you practicing what you preach?
There is nothing "simple" about this question:
Quote:
Jetgraphics, are we to assume that you don't pay taxes [i.e., tax protestor] or pay attention to your behavior [i.e., law breaker] as it relates to the laws of your town, county, state, nation?
Again, the question is not a question, but a sly accusation to impugn and disparage me.
"Obviously" everyone owes taxes, or so they would have us believe. I pointed out that government instituted to secure rights cannot tax those protected rights. And "paying attention to behavior" implies one is "governed."
So I repeat, WHICH revenue taxable privileges are you inquiring about that I should owe an excise tax?
Absent an injured party, whose person, liberty or property was injured by me, what rule or regulation did I consent to, to be held liable for its breach? For if I have natural and personal liberty, there is nothing for me to violate, as long as I do not trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another. A free man cannot be charged with "civil disobedience."
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
- - - Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.”
“He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
If freedom was easy, why would it be so hard to keep?
With respect to socialist insecurity, I left it in 1993. Against my religious beliefs to participate. No socialist tax liability. No revenue taxable privileges, thus no tax liability. Not an obligated party on the 19+ trillion dollar public debt. Not funding the unWars in Asia. Not engaged in usury. Not hassled by the Eye Are Us, nor any other oath bound public servant.
As to the millions of voluntary socialist serfs and minions of the bankrupt collective State, he who consents cannot object - sit down, shut up, pay and obey.
There is nothing "simple" about this question:
Again, the question is not a question, but a sly accusation to impugn and disparage me.
"Obviously" everyone owes taxes, or so they would have us believe. I pointed out that government instituted to secure rights cannot tax those protected rights. And "paying attention to behavior" implies one is "governed."
So I repeat, WHICH revenue taxable privileges are you inquiring about that I should owe an excise tax?
Absent an injured party, whose person, liberty or property was injured by me, what rule or regulation did I consent to, to be held liable for its breach? For if I have natural and personal liberty, there is nothing for me to violate, as long as I do not trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another. A free man cannot be charged with "civil disobedience."
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
- - - Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.”
“He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
If freedom was easy, why would it be so hard to keep?
With respect to socialist insecurity, I left it in 1993. Against my religious beliefs to participate. No socialist tax liability. No revenue taxable privileges, thus no tax liability. Not an obligated party on the 19+ trillion dollar public debt. Not funding the unWars in Asia. Not engaged in usury. Not hassled by the Eye Are Us, nor any other oath bound public servant.
As to the millions of voluntary socialist serfs and minions of the bankrupt collective State, he who consents cannot object - sit down, shut up, pay and obey.
Do you earn an income? Do you pay taxes on that income? If not, what legal mechanism do you employ that allows you to not pay income taxes?
Do you earn an income? Do you pay taxes on that income? If not, what legal mechanism do you employ that allows you to not pay income taxes?
Well, simply put (& no offence intended) but "no taxation w/out representation" is the call. And since the "representation", if you want to call it that, is scant & biased -- then why donate to a socialist aka Venezuelan cause? We all see how wonderful that country has worked out, no?
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.
