Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Let’s End The Elections Hoax By Jim Boyer

Without a fair and legal process, we have no rights.

Let’s End The Elections Hoax

Let’s End The Elections Hoax

Can we ever have fair elections?

By Jim Boyer

It is an indisputable truth: election fraud is a pillar of democrat party activism. What is unclear is why no Congress and no Attorney General has ever taken the initiative to guarantee our right to be fairly counted in the process designed to preserve our freedom and our power over government.

While historical accounts of election fraud probably go as far back as elections do, the first fraudulent election I took note of was in 1960 where Mayor John Daly’s mob related corruption machine pulled off a city-wide heist that resulted in delivering all of the state’s 27 electoral votes for the Kennedy-Johnson ticket. One point proved was that bus loads of voters had been transported to multiple polling places to cast democrat votes. The criminal evidence of fraud was staggering, but beyond a couple of dead-end lawsuits, no significant effort was made to deal with it.

In 1996 investigators concluded that democrat California congressional candidate Loretta Sanchez produced an estimated 4,023 illegal votes by not only using the Daly busing tactic, but by filling the buses with unregistered voters mostly identified as illegal immigrants who were enabled to deceive the process by Bill Clinton’s 1993 “Motor Voter Act”. While a congressional investigation proved the fraud, instead of declaring the election invalid they ruled that Sanchez, the democrat still had enough ‘legal’ votes to win.

In the 2004 Governor’s race in Washington, democrat Christine Gregoire was ruled to have won by 130 votes after two recounts in which boxes of ballots were discovered to have been “misplaced” in such unlikely places as behind copy machines. The ballots found heavily favored the democrat candidate.

And who could forget the 2008 congressional election in Minnesota that put liberal buffoon Al Franken in the US Senate by a mere 312 votes after “misplaced” ballots were found in the trunk of a car and 1,009 illegal felons were found to have voted?

To make matters worse, the most liberal districts or precincts where elections are hugely important and where party officials and candidates demand that every vote be counted are the places where we are told these boxes of important ballots are always negligently misplaced. It is not coincidental that democrats are almost exclusively involved in election fraud and the subsequently forced recounts and process appeals are consistently shopped to, and decided by liberal democrat judges or courts like the 9th Circuit in the western district.

But, let’s not put the blame entirely on democrats. We must acknowledge that republicans are their enablers. Without a willingness to turn a blind eye to the law or to stand up and fix this problem incidents like the ones above could not occur. Without the cooperation of republicans, we would not have built in avenues for fraud such as Motor Voter, early voting, mail in ballots and provisional ballots handled by “volunteers”.

The Fix Could Be Simple

While I contend that our politicians on both sides of the aisle enjoy the discord created by each term’s election confusion, we do not have to accept a continuing process akin to setting sail in a leaky boat that has been patched with duct tape. Our elections can be handled legally, flawlessly and fairly.

A first step we should have taken long ago would be to provide a voter ID card upon registration after proving eligibility. There is no argument against this idea that holds water in view of all the other places we must provide a valid ID in order to go about our daily lives.

The second step we should take is to end the practice of voting on a week day when most people work or have families with school age children to manage and reschedule voting for federal and state-wide elections to a week-end along with implementing a return to paper ballots.

Finally, we should call up the national guard to serve during the polling week-end where they would observe completed ballots being placed in a locked box by the voter and subsequently handled by no one until final count. At the end of the polling period, the ballot boxes would remain in the custody of the uniformed NG soldiers and be delivered by them to the court house or county administrative building where they would be publicly counted, tabulated and registered by election officials and representatives from each party. Never would the locked ballot boxes be handled by anyone other than soldiers serving our country under their oath to protect and defend our liberty and constitutional rights.

Without a fair and legal process, we have no rights, we have no security and we find ourselves being governed by people who have proven themselves to be corrupt at their core.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

<edited for typographical errors>

20 Comments on Let’s End The Elections Hoax By Jim Boyer

    • It is not the “elections” that is the problem, particularly if all you stated above was implemented. The problem is that we were NEVER supposed to have political parties, factions.

      Alexander Hamilton: “We are attempting, by this Constitution, to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the general welfare.” (Debates in the Convention of the State of New York on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Tuesday, June 25, 1788. In: Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton (Federal Edition), Vol. 2, New York, 1904, p. 57)

      John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” And he also said: “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

      George Washington, Farewell Presidential Speech: ‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
      It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

      Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” (Federalist 1, October 27, 1787)

      Jefferson said: “The happiness of society depends so much on preventing party spirit from infecting the common intercourse of life, that nothing should be spared to harmonize and amalgamate the two parties in social circles. (Thomas Jefferson, To William C. Claiborne, July 1801) again Jefferson: “You will soon find that so inveterate is the rancor of party spirit among us, that nothing ought to be credited but what we hear with our own ears. If you are less on your guard than we are here, at this moment, the designs of the mischief-makers will not fail to be accomplished, and brethren and friends will be made strangers and enemies to each other.” (To James Monroe, March 1808)

      It also helps to understand our constitutional republic.

      John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;”

      James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

      James Madison, Federalist 51, at 323: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

      James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

      • George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were the aristocratic faction that created a government of factions, so quoting them is ironic.

        Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13 Luther Martin:

        “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”

        Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788:

        “A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”

        To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
        November 15, 1802:

        “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”

        A Farmer, March 7, 1788:

        “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.”

        A voluntary association of independent people in independent states does not inspire factions to fight each other over the control of something checked by the people themselves, through their trial by jury system: rule of law. A subsidized slave business, a fraudulent form of government, a corporate nation state with absolute power to extract whatever is desired from anyone who can produce anything worth taking, is an obvious prize for factions. Absolute power, arbitrary power, is the prize sought after by factions. Factions operating despotic governments include: aristocrats (Adams), banking frauds (Alexander Hamilton), warmongers (George Washington), all those profiting from the slave trade, and other sorted criminal gangs. Factions will be inspired to fight for control of arbitrary power, when arbitrary power is created and in place, and factions will use any means necessary to achieve their goal.

        Actual history is useful for voluntary mutual defense. False history is useful for one faction gaining power over their targeted victims: under the color of law.

  1. Paper ballots, voter ID, ink the fingers after voting, and maybe pay a nominal tax/fee to vote (ostensibly to pay for the election costs); but if you want to inject 10,000 phony votes, you’ll also have to get 10,000 fees into the system — a lot of cash, which is more traceable.

  2. “It is an indisputable truth: election fraud is a pillar of democrat party activism. What is unclear is why no Congress and no Attorney General has ever taken the initiative to guarantee our right to be fairly counted in the process designed to preserve our freedom and our power over government.”

    I think that is the wrong hoax. The worst hoax facing free people isn’t that one faction is guilty of serious felony crimes concerning vote tampering, nor is it the most serious hoax that supposedly the other faction isn’t guilty of serious felony crimes associated with the failure to hold guilty felony criminals to account for crimes associated with vote tampering.

    The hoax is to believe the lie that voting for your favorite dictator to sit atop the dictatorship is in any way going to accomplish anything other than maintaining dictatorship: slaves voting for their own slavery, and paying dearly for it. Just ask Martin Luther King Jr., or Lavoy Finnicum.

    The vote that counts to maintain a free society in liberty is the vote that accounts for the criminals in government: holding them to account for their crimes. Since that vote has been successfully crushed out of our collective memory, in all but a few cases (see the Bundy persecutions for example), the dictatorship will be perpetual, so long as the people fall for this voting hoax.

    “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
    M’Kean, Chief Justice.
    Respublica v. Shaffer
    Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
    February Sessions, 1788

    “The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”
    George Mason, 1787

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”
    Lysander Spooner, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

    “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
    Another Piece of paper published for public consumption.

    Since it is a felony to tamper with voting, or infringe upon the right to be armed, or infringe upon the right to communicate just how criminal the criminals in government have become, then it is the law, and not a counterfeit imposter, that those criminals must be arrested by us, because we are the government, those criminals must be tried by a jury of their peers in the locality where the alleged crime is alleged to have occurred, and face accurate accountability in a trial by the whole people, through their common law trial juries. If we are not the government, then it is a hoax to keep believing we are anything other than subjects subjected to dictators running the dictatorship.

    The peaceful revolution cannot proceed based upon a hoax.

    “In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88”
    88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that “prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function”).
    https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr

    • RE: ” If we are not the government, then it is a hoax to keep believing we are anything other than subjects subjected to dictators running the dictatorship. ” — POINT MADE!

      *******

      “If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.” – Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788

      “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” – Federalist Papers, No. 62, February 27, 1788

    • RE: “The hoax is to believe the lie that voting for your favorite dictator to sit atop the dictatorship is in any way going to accomplish anything other than maintaining dictatorship:…”

      I think the voters may have opened the door to rising against that theory by electing Donald Trump. All indications so far are that his only objective for taking that office is to work for the betterment of the people and the strength of our nation.

      • At least that’s my impression and I hope I am proven correct over the next congressional term and he is elected again instead of being replaced by a swamp dweller.

        • I would like to know a lot of things, so I ask questions, and I keep looking for accurate answers. This is a case in point, as to what might prove? the validity of the statement repeated now: “I think the voters may have opened the door to rising against that theory by electing Donald Trump. All indications so far are that his only objective for taking that office is to work for the betterment of the people and the strength of our nation.”

          The proof required might not be the same proof to me as to anyone else, but I can offer a possible proof concerning the goodness of Trump as President of the Nation State: which is a profitable monopoly serving the few, at the expense of the many by design.

          If Trump honors his campaign promise concerning the crimes alleged against Hillary Clinton, and if there is an actual trial according to the common law, as the law that gives Trump power states (in so many words that can mean just about anything imaginable), then the proof of the goodness of Trump would be available for anyone to read in those court trial transcripts generated during those trials that were promised by Trump, so as to elect Trump, giving power to Trump, such as the power to do his actual job: protect and serve the American people, not protect and serve criminals in government.

          There are a few trial transcripts that illustrate this point, such as the Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr. A trial like that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Nation State is guilty of conspiracy murder, and since none of the perpetrators were ever put on trial, the Nation-State fails an indisputable mandate.

          “7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

          …be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…

          “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

          “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

          …shall hold their Offices during GOOD Behaviour…

          “3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

          “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

          In all that legalese above are words that constitute an obvious, undeniable, mandate, a self-evident truth if you will.

          If the worst criminals are doing the most damage while occupying government offices, such as conspiracy murder, or aggressive war for profit, or ignoring those crimes while it is your job to prosecute those criminals, then proof of the goodness of someone occupying the highest government office in a Nation-State profitable monopoly would be that the said President would hold the worst criminals to account in the lawful way, according to the law of the land, which supposedly gives that President the authority to do anything while that individual occupies that public office.

          A benevolent dictator may not be better than no dictator, but a benevolent dictator is certainly better than a malevolent one: see for example, Marcus Aurelius.

          “The best revenge is not to be like your enemy.”

          What constitutes proof of the benevolence of Trump in anyone else’s mind?

          • I can’t argue with you on any of that and wouldn’t want to.

            I’d just add that I think political common sense would say that Trump can’t make any moves against Hillary before the 2020 election. However, to shoot a hole in my own theory comes the fact that she is running out the statute of limitations on all her criminal activities while the dems keep the hapless and compliant media running in circles.

            But, just maybe there is a new AG on the way who believes in accountability.

  3. Week long voting NG! Too much opportunity for shenanigans.

    When I was young (1950’s, at least) in New York, one had to register for EVERY election. For the general election the registration period was three weeks in October. And it was good only for the upcoming general election. Next election you had to register anew.

  4. Someone once said (Will Rogers?) that there ain’t a nickels worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    I agree. And, I may add, Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Anarchists, Universalist Alien Rainbow Surfers, you name it.

    They are all…..Politicians. They will tell you what you want to hear, drip honey in your ear, sell you the snake oil that will cure all.

    NOT! It’s all a ruse to make you think you have……options. That you have a choice, a coin toss.

    Everyone from pope to president to pauper has to take their pants off to poop.

    The “vote” is just the balm, the rub, the feel-good that you are making a difference. The best of intentions are the devils handiwork. And best intentions of candidates vaporise in the fine air of power, status and authority.

    You will still be taxed. You will still go to war. You will still grumble about whatever the ill-du-jour is.

    Until when? Here’s to the new boss same as the old boss.

    The concept of political parties, ideologies and politicians has never worked. But you still want to believe in the myth that you have a choice with your “vote”.

    Time to change. Keep it local. Unless you like big bro gov to tell you where to go, what to do…..oh, and by the way……we are moving in these poor destitute refugees who have different values, religion, cultures, etc move in with you…..and you will do what you are told! and cheer!

    And the band plays on…..

    • Somewhere along the line I formed the opinion that with very few exceptions politicians are akin to actors; some choose drama while some choose comedy and their popularity depends on how good they sell their script and refine their ability to move people emotionally.

  5. “You will still be taxed. You will still go to war.”

    The aristocratic vote, or electoral politics vote, was known (once upon a time) to be anti-democratic, and thereby anti-republican, but that was before a whole lot of brainwashing done to many generations of slaves.

    Some exceptions, such as Ron Paul, prove the fallacy that politics, as a rule, must be bad, or even that all men are bad.

    The vote that counts, if people are to rule themselves as one, is the votes made by the volunteers as the volunteers face those who are clear and present dangers to peace in a perishable liberty.

    Deception is a very powerful force.

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

    “Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.”
    Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”
    George Mason against the Constitution of 1787

    Page 40
    Private Prosecutors
    Roger Roots book The Conviction Factory:

    “For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions – the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state – but for their own vindication. The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name – even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.

    “Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they …repair the injury.”

    How much brainwashing was done in order to convince (con) the people into believing their costly defense of rule of law (common law with trial by jury) during the Revolutionary war was instead a war to copy the British model of Empire Building through subsidized slavery, enforced and funded with central banking fraud, and extortion claimed to be a tax in the National Interest? Even a modern-day patriot, like Roger Roots, is apparently unaware of the fact that the Consolidated Nation State was the beginning of the end of American free market government: freedom defended by volunteers, using common laws of free people, in a perishable, but effectively defended liberty.

  6. Pointless to refer to historic precedence presented. That was then. All that has been relegated to the dust bin of history and those “elected” in charge have ridden rough-shod over any law in order to achieve their aims. If the pen or spoken word is mightier that the sword, then tell that to anyone with a restraining order that violence or abuse can thus be shielded. Tell that to the natives about the treaties. (“….as long as grass grows, wind blows and sky is blue….”)
    Law is only effective when all consent and abide accordingly. Then we could have a just society. However, we are not living in a Hegelian commune nor Plato’s republic. What we have now is a moral and ethical swamp of putrid decay that we have become accustomed to and grumble when more is heaped on. Those on the top of the layer cake have flown above the bulls**t and have forgotten what the unwashed masses smell like thanks to our having voted for them in the hope that we the people will be raised and rinsed off.
    We were given the only law necessary by the highest power: “Do unto others, as you would have them done unto you”. So simple and so neglected.
    I for one, see no exit from the morass we all created willingly.
    Short of throwing out the baby with the bath water I see no recourse for humanity short of all-out conflict and start from scratch. By all indications it seems we are in the end-game and the rules keep changing. There is only one option left. It ain’t pretty and everyone ignores the gorilla in the room.
    Hopefully, those left will be just men and kept note of past transgressions with continual vigilance to prevent any repeat with extreme prejudice. But who among us is without sin? who will cast the first stone? Who will fire the first round?
    Which is why many believe in an afterlife and heaven, because we certainly are in a living hell.
    Getting back to the original point – your vote don’t mean s**t.
    The soap box and the ballot box are broken…..that leaves the ammo box.
    Who among us has the stones, stamina and sacred honor to do what has needed to be done. WE have been lulled into a stupored complacency of promises, intrigue, drama, distractions and compliance.
    When you keep repeating the same process expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We all play this game. End the game? stop repeating the process. (oh no! then we will have chaos and anarchy! and cats living with dogs! oh the horror!)
    When we see no alternative we keep on keeping on no matter how insane and know that nothing will change because we are comfortable in our misery and are truly afraid of real freedom. We wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves. Human nature is such that we are addicted to having someone tell us where to go and what to do. We have been conditioned for centuries by church and state that we NEED to have someone in charge. The “vote” gives us that warm fuzzy that we have some voice in the matter. Fact is….we never had.
    There is a simple and difficult solution, no wise choices. There is no painless way for us to get out of this, for many at least, not alive.
    The dangerous person is the quiet one. For he has a plan.
    I have been reading and hearing the grumbling since I was a child and the s**t still rolls downhill. Voting just rearranges the deck chairs.
    And the band plays on…..

  7. The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.

    Example:

    “Machiavelli’s outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine’s thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: ‘all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity’. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.”
    Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

    The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to reword a natural law beneficial to mankind and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead. Failing to account for deception as deception – as a rule – dooms the deceived to be controlled by that deception: a lesson worth knowing, it never loses validity not matter how much time passes.

    The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplified recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a “nation state”) set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors: aggressively to hold the violent, criminal, aggressors to account for their crimes.

    Aggression, in the context of a speedy trial, is not aggressive violence in the context of might somehow making right. There is a truth, and then in opposition to the truth there is a counterfeit version of the truth. Which is true? Is there a process by which people can agree to accurately discriminate the truth from the counterfeit versions of the truth, or is it good enough to just obey the “truth” in the form of orders that must be obeyed without question?

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ”

    “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
    STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF SCOTT
    First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
    vs
    Jerome Daly, Defendant.
    12/18/2003

    It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.

    “For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”
    Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

    The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn’t that hard to do.

    Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.

    1. Declaration of Independence

    2. Common law solemn recognition of mixed war

    3. The polar opposite difference of how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malevolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).

    Help to the needy:

    “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & 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.”
    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

    “9.2 – Escalation
    Further:
    A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
    When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.”
    https://www.scribd.com/document/258949166/The-Uniform-Bonding-Code-doc

    “To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

    “That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

    “Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.”
    http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/secret%20journals%20of%20the%20acts%20and%20proceedings%20of%20congress%20-%20volume%201.pdf

    “He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.”
    https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty

  8. “Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
    …..Deuteronomy

    “History teaches us that history teaches us nothing”
    …..Hegel

    “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”
    …..Mark Twain

    “All that has been relegated to the dust bin of history and those “elected” in charge have ridden rough-shod over any law in order to achieve their aims…..”

    “The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.”

    How has this worked out for us?

    “The past provides a number of rules”
    One rule for thee, another for me. Rules are for the ruled, not the rulers. (insider trading?) Unicorns and rainbows are one thing, reality kicks you in the teeth.

    “…preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.”
    How has the preserved power defended US, We The People, against certain(?) relentless evils? What are those evils?
    Islamists are welcomed into our country and LBGTs waving their freak flag in your face.
    Don’t even mention the snake oil of “….our troops are fighting “over there” to protect our freedoms”…..Really? How? Why? How has that worked out for us? Did pre and post 9/11 protect our freedoms? Do we have more or less freedom since then?

    We keep “voting” in the same evils, expecting a different result?
    Yes, we do. As long as our bellies are full and we have the NFL, NASCAR, NBA, soap operas, cell phone, aps, social media, Black Friday and a partridge in a pear tree.

    We prefer the “comfort” of our present condition and would gladly sacrifice liberty for security. Freedom requires you get off your ass and be proactive, not expect someone else to do it for you.

    Are you happy with your current condition?
    Then follow the rest of humanity as has been done for the last two-plus millenia. Hopefully not to get on the cattle cars en route to Adolfs Holiday Camp.

    My questions are:
    How do we stop this cycle?
    How do we prevent this from continuing?
    What is the replacement for this?

    We may quote what others have written and said, but the issues remain.
    A piece of paper “Peace in our time” will not stop a bullet.

    In my humble opinion, we’ll all bitch about our current condition, but no one is going to do anything about it.

    Finito la musica. The band has packed their instruments, and with Elvis, have left the building.

    I wish you all God-speed and keep your powder dry.
    This is the last of my replies.

  9. “How has this worked out for us?”

    If the question is asked honestly, not deceptively, then the question ought to be specific, and not ambiguous. What exactly is the matter, what is “this”?

    “Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
    …..Deuteronomy

    Parents reproduce with 6 children. The first is thrown in the pool as a method of teaching posterity how to swim. The parents witness the first drowning; a terrifying death. The parents wake-up to a new day with 5 children and they (both parents) appraise the following advice in this situation:

    “History teaches us that history teaches us nothing”
    …..Hegel
    “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”
    …..Mark Twain

    The parents take their remaining portion of collective posterity to a collective brain trust, a meeting of the minds, a local assembly of people in the local area where it has been discovered that many children are suddenly missing and evidence points to a possible ring of kidnappers, and these alleged kidnappers claim to be serving and protecting the collection of individuals collected into the collective brain trust this day.

    Most everyone assembled at the collective assembly of people are people who just want to live and let live. The concern is many missing children, empty chairs at the dinner table, empty beds. Is this it? Is this the matter inspiring people to participate in the voting hoax?

    Individuals at the brain trust break the dead silence with 3 forms of information offered to each individual in the brain trust of parents collected in concern for posterity.

    1. Wait for election day, vote for a better leader of the collective.

    2. Look into similar situations in the past, find possible solutions from the past whereby people in the past found solutions to similar problems, and also discover those actions that were taken in the past that not only failed every time to solve similar problems, but turned out to be the cause of similar problems every time this solution was tried, and think very hard before trying those past failed actions that always fail. Who in their right mind would expect those actions to solve the problem this time for the first time? Many do, for some strange, allegedly evil, reason.

    3. Volunteer to investigate the available evidence to judge probable cause to indict individual alleged kidnappers who, according to the evidence found so far, are potentially guilty of kidnapping, and then offer the accused a method by which the accused can clear his name and reputation, or if guilty to redeem himself, and do these actions with discretion so as to minimize the potential harm done in any case where the evidence so far found, in this speedy trial, is inconclusive as to guilt or innocence. Volunteer also for jury duty to try such cases and vote according to your moral conscience as an individual representative of the whole country seeking remedy and defense of the innocent against the guilty, which matters in fact.

    “The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.”
    Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

    “They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.”
    The People’s Panel
    The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 – 1941
    Richard D. Younger

    “It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)”
    Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican (Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled November 30, 1784, to November 22, 1785)

    “How has this worked out for us?”

    It hasn’t, and that is the point, because the criminals took-over in 1789, turning the people power to govern ourselves with our common, moral, laws, and instead of the power of deterrence through accurate accountability there is an ever-growing army of sycophants clothed as patriots defending subsidized slavery enforced through kangaroo courts hidden behind a legal fiction: a pyramid scheme clothed with the mere color of law; the Emperor has no clothes.

    “How has the preserved power defended US, We The People, against certain(?) relentless evils? What are those evils?”

    Someone, perhaps unaware, perhaps playing a part such as the Devil’s Advocate, offers the following question in the context of this voting hoax matter:

    “What are those evils?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttT6FrMosBk

    A mountain of evidence suggests that Human Trafficking is now a profitable monopoly, and the human traffickers are the same people extorting all that wealth precisely accounted for on (fake) Federal (National) Income Tax forms.

    “Federal” Income Tax is a hoax, it is a necessary part of the recipe to maintain a central banking fraud. Taxes are enforced payments (extortion) of a single form of money, and so people are forced to work to get paid with that monopoly money which creates the demand for that monopoly money.

    Once the demand is created the “Federal” Reserve does not need to collect any wealth through Taxation, since the “Federal” Reserve can merely add zeros to their bank account at will. They need to keep up appearances, so they keep the “Federal” Income Tax going, which is also very costly, which is also subsidized: you pay for that too. They create no wealth as they consume posterity and if that is not an example of evil, then who is doing the appraising?

    “Unicorns and rainbows are one thing, reality kicks you in the teeth.”

    Moving to legitimate or rhetorical questions depending upon individual interpretation:

    “How do we stop this cycle?”

    We don’t, you do, and if you don’t, then other’s must, or this cycle perpetuates.

    “How do we prevent this from continuing?”

    In the past, as shown, people assemble into grand juries, and the evidence of this is a mountain, but the mountain is not nearly as high as the mountain of lies that cover up the fake government, people have been rendered sheepish, or gang members, for some time.

    “What is the replacement for this?”

    This, if speaking about the fake federal government, is organized crime under the color of law, also known by many other names: despotism, corporatism, monarchy, oligarchy, empire, nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism, the list is as long as needed to keep the victims guessing, at each other’s throats, and powerless in their own defense against it.

    The replacement for any crime, including despotism, is rule of law, also known as equal protection under the law, and the foundation is simple, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, so if you want to foment violent aggression, then what can you expect in return?

    A solemn recognition of mixed war is a common law (moral law common to all moral people) example of “what replaces” that which is now being discussed as a hoax: despotic electoral politics.

    The simple answer, in sufficient detail, is that the hoax is replaced with a clearly defined, age-old, time-tested, and adaptive process that finds and employs the truth.

    The problem is ubiquitous deception, the solution is for individuals to insist upon the truth, and it just so happens that, in truth, there is a method to accomplish that goal already on the books. Special thanks to people like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, and many other whistleblowers, and defenders of the truth, who offer the tried and true solution instead of fake government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*