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.
Picking up the check: I'm hoping that most folks would want the answer to be fully employed Americans, being paid fair wages. I'm not so sure, however, that either party is sufficiently committed to bringing that about, for reasons which are apparently not much more sophisticated than serving their own respective special interests. What do you think?
Bases in Okinawa: interesting that you should ask. I was waitig to cross a street in Sannomiya last weekend, when I was apporahced by a Japanese petition canvasser and asked if I wanted to sign a "US Out of Okinawa" petition. I replied in Japanese "America, sayonara; chugoku, yokoso!" (Goodbye America Hello China!). He was not amused. And that's the problem...
Have you read Chalmers Johnson? He writes some interesting things about Okinawa, but that's for another thread I guess. However, it does demonstrate that we are NOT wanted everywhere and so I have to question why we ARE everywhere. It costs a lot of money to be everywhere. And I do imagine that Japanese was NOT amused at all, even if your statement is true.
As to picking up the check, well, we do owe the money, right? And I've always believed in paying my own debts. The only tiny problem I see with this is that we've OUTSOURCED a lot of good jobs and they ain't coming back (thank you Capitalism!).
As much as I'd like to think Americans would want to pay the check, I don't know that Americans will be ABLE to pay the check. Therein lies the rub.
Eminent domain is the absolute power of the state. This is in direct contradiction to private property rights where what you have is what you own and no one, or state, has the rights to it.
Not correct.
The government may take private property (which is defined as absolutely owned by an individual) - BUT it must pay JUST compensation - in lawful money.
Since 1933, there has been no lawful money in circulation - thanks to FDR.
But since 1935, there has been no private property ownership - thanks to FICA.
Legally speaking, "real estate" is not private property, and is not constitutionally protected. Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.
Estate is defined as qualified ownership, unlike private property.
The State does NOT have absolute power over the people's property. Because the government is not sovereign - except over its own citizenry.
So, you're half right in that subject citizens may have their estate (real and personal property ) confiscated for any reason - and not get just compensation.
But you're half wrong if you presume that the sovereign people's private property rights are at risk from servant government - at least as long as the republican form is still in force and effect. (See: Art. 4, Sec 4, USCON)
Of course, that's the reason why 'our government officials' appear to be deliberately steering the Ship of State onto the "rocks". They have to scuttle the United Socialist States of America, abrogate the pesky USCON, and then institute the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
Do not believe me - go read the law.
It's in print, in the public record, in any county courthouse law library.
But wear knee pads. For you may find yourself falling to your knees, and weeping uncontrollably, bemoaning your fate, as a "voluntary" slave of the State.
There was no abstract question. Go back and read the post history and it was YOU to mention the CIA first, not me. I still haven't a clue what you are talking about and I imagine you don't either.
What, I am supposed to read an entire CIA book when you can't even back up an odd statement with a simple paragraph? Methinks no.
You're the perfect example of why 150 million people died in vein. I didn't ask you to read an "entire CIA book" but just to research those bastions of hope for the socialist agenda. The very few instances where socialism works, for the time being.
On the other hand the "S" word still reigns supreme in holding the title for the largest number of causalities in the name of an economic ideology.
Since 1935, there has been no capitalism - at least for those who signed up with FICA / Socialist InSecurity. What you object to IS socialism - America's flavor.
Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.
Go look up the LEGAL definitions for terms like "capitalism", "sovereignty", and "private property".
You will find that FDR abolished the requirement for the Pauper's Oath, after 1935. Before that time, anyone who was a recipient of government charity had to make an oath. After 1935 - no oath.
Why?
All participants had volunteered to be paupers at law. Paupers own NOTHING, by law. That's why "free Americans" have to pay a tax for "owning" land, houses, cars, or any large ticket item... it's not really theirs.
The most shocking discovery you will make is that you've been lied to, from cradle to grave, by the world's greatest propaganda ministry. And that the facts are in print, in the public record, yet MILLIONS will not bother to go read the law for themselves.
I guess they want to be like Congress, a body of "statesmen" who enact laws that they don't read nor bother to comprehend.
Interesting points, however still disagree. If having some safety net in place makes us a "socialist" country, your premise is valid. But we are in no way a true socialist country. If we were, you would not see corporations owning politicians and so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few. I think the word oligarchy is more appropos.
You're the perfect example of why 150 million people died in vein. I didn't ask you to read an "entire CIA book" but just to research those bastions of hope for the socialist agenda. The very few instances where socialism works, for the time being.
On the other hand the "S" word still reigns supreme in holding the title for the largest number of causalities in the name of an economic ideology.
And you still refuse to provide one simple paragraph, IN YOUR OWN WORDS (know this can be a challenge for some folks) to explain your odd statement. And what do you mean "bastions of hope?" This has nothing to do with your odd assertion. And it's died in "vain."
Interesting points, however still disagree. If having [1] some safety net in place makes us a "socialist" country, your premise is valid. But we are in no way a true socialist country. If we were, [2] you would not see corporations owning politicians and so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few. I think the word oligarchy is more appropos.
[1] Socialist primer here
The key factor that proves socialism has supplanted capitalism is the abolition of private property ownership. (Contrary to popular belief, real estate is not private property. Read the law for yourself.)
[2] What leads you to presume that government sanctioned artificial persons are any different from artificial persons acting as governments?
American governments are corporations, whose existence is independent of the lives of the participants.
You are being misled to assume the tail wags the dog. What you perceive as bribery from corporations is the "skim" taken by their master, the politicians.
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
Likewise, the state governments are corporations in their respective states. Their "home office" is in the state capital. Private corporations ultimately owe their existence to the supreme corporation - the government. The corporations do not "rule" the government corporation - it's the other way around. But they're so clever to make it look like corruption is the fault of the private corporations.
Another "Socialist" concept - - - public duty to the State
In the "bad old pre-socialist days", Americans didn't owe a "duty" to the State.
"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 (*common law) 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.
Inalienable rights, like the right to life (and all harmless activities in support of that life), liberty (as in personal and natural liberty), and private property ownership (upon which land, you can pursue happiness without asking permission), are your birthright and endowment of your Creator.
Government granted privileges, deliberately mislabeled as "Civil rights" and "Political rights", are inferior grants, subject to the government. Ever wonder why there's no "American Natural Liberties Union"?
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
When Patrick Henry uttered, "Give me liberty or give me death," his audience knew that there were four forms of liberty: natural, personal, civil, and political. The latter are privileges from government. The former are endowments from our Creator.
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is another word for FREEDOM - the power to act without any restraint or control. And it is your birthright - until you surrender it for "entitlements" from the Socialist Government.
Coming from a conservative (as you are, I am guessing), the bolded is a problem why? Even I agree that one birth parent should be a citizen of the country. That would solve a LOT of our problems if it were set up the same way in the US.
Like I said, on the happiness meter, US ranks 14th and far more struggle. Go read that link again for further clarification.
The US is not set up like that. Any baby born on US soil is a citizen and automatically qualifies for any social services.
Imagine what Norway would be with that type of citizenship rule ?
Actually that is not a problem for me..I would love to see that citizenship rule place here in America..would eliminate one reason for illegal immigration although I guess a market in quickie marriages would spring up.
so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few.
I think you are presuming that a mass of money tokens equates to wealth.
Unfortunately, the law says otherwise.
In fact, "dollar bills" are not money, do not alienate title, and anyone who thinks they "own" anything they bought with said notes, should reconsider.
Failure to pay tribute (taxes) to the Collective State, will result in confiscation of one's property and currency...or worse - loss of liberty.
Read the fifth amendment, and consider the protections afforded to "private property".
Then look up the definition of "estate" (as in real and personal property), and the manner in which estate is owned.
Check your own state's constitution and the explicit delegation of power to tax. It will only specify "real and personal property" (estate). No mention of private property will be found in any taxing statute - for private property is not subject to taxation.
Since 1935, all enumerated Americans lack the legal status to absolutely own private property. All they can do is hold property with qualified ownership - for a fee.
In fact, each enumerated American is worth a minus 14 trillion dollars. Bill Gates may count his wealth in dollar bills, but they're worthless. All the property Mr Gates thinks he owns, is subject to confiscation if ever Mr Gates fails to perform to the demands of the Collective State (obey and pay).
Have you read Chalmers Johnson? He writes some interesting things about Okinawa, but that's for another thread I guess. However, it does demonstrate that we are NOT wanted everywhere and so I have to question why we ARE everywhere. It costs a lot of money to be everywhere. And I do imagine that Japanese was NOT amused at all, even if your statement is true.
As to picking up the check, well, we do owe the money, right? And I've always believed in paying my own debts. The only tiny problem I see with this is that we've OUTSOURCED a lot of good jobs and they ain't coming back (thank you Capitalism!).
As much as I'd like to think Americans would want to pay the check, I don't know that Americans will be ABLE to pay the check. Therein lies the rub.
STOP BLAMING CAPITALISM.
Capitalism was killed off in 1935, by FICA. Since 1935, the United Socialist States of America have incrementally enacted all ten planks of the Communist manifesto, and basically dismantled the once wealthiest nation on Earth.
[1] Socialist primer here
The key factor that proves socialism has supplanted capitalism is the abolition of private property ownership. (Contrary to popular belief, real estate is not private property. Read the law for yourself.)
[2] What leads you to presume that government sanctioned artificial persons are any different from artificial persons acting as governments?
American governments are corporations, whose existence is independent of the lives of the participants.
You are being misled to assume the tail wags the dog. What you perceive as bribery from corporations is the "skim" taken by their master, the politicians.
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
Likewise, the state governments are corporations in their respective states. Their "home office" is in the state capital. Private corporations ultimately owe their existence to the supreme corporation - the government. The corporations do not "rule" the government corporation - it's the other way around. But they're so clever to make it look like corruption is the fault of the private corporations.
Another "Socialist" concept - - - public duty to the State
In the "bad old pre-socialist days", Americans didn't owe a "duty" to the State.
"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 (*common law) 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.
Inalienable rights, like the right to life (and all harmless activities in support of that life), liberty (as in personal and natural liberty), and private property ownership (upon which land, you can pursue happiness without asking permission), are your birthright and endowment of your Creator.
Government granted privileges, deliberately mislabeled as "Civil rights" and "Political rights", are inferior grants, subject to the government. Ever wonder why there's no "American Natural Liberties Union"?
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
When Patrick Henry uttered, "Give me liberty or give me death," his audience knew that there were four forms of liberty: natural, personal, civil, and political. The latter are privileges from government. The former are endowments from our Creator.
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is another word for FREEDOM - the power to act without any restraint or control. And it is your birthright - until you surrender it for "entitlements" from the Socialist Government.
While I appreciate ALL the effort you put into this post (and know it's not just for me), it comes from the book of YOU. Or at least what you linked to.
And politicians ARE owned by corporations, whether you believe it or not. It's the big money that funds that political campaigns and the powerful lobbies in DC who run things. Politicians are bought and paid for.
Furthermore, we are NOT a socialist country. This assertion is just ridiculous. Yes, I am for health care for all and ending wars and protecting our borders and the like. This to me, is socialism. I am quite sure people own property in socialist countries and, while subject to eminent domain, so are we!
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.
