Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from universal principles Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 16:30 (Agree/Disagree?) bravo! Introduction by G. Edward Griffin There is nothing more common in history than for oppressed people to rise up against their masters and, at great cost in treasure and blood, throw off the old regime, only to discover that they have replaced it with one that is just as bad or worse. That is because it is easy to know what we dislike about a political system but not so easy to agree on what would be better. For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power. To prevent that from happening, it is necessary to focus on the system itself, not on personalities. To do that, it is just as important to know what we are for as it is to know what we are against. Even today, with so much talk about fighting to defend freedom, who can stand up and define what that means? For some, freedom means merely not being in jail. Who can define the essence of personal liberty? Who can look you in the eye and say: "This I believe, and I believe it for this reason and this reason and this reason also." The world is dying for something to believe in, a statement of principles that leaves no room for misunderstanding; a creed that everyone of good faith toward their fellow human beings can accept with clarity of mind and strength of resolve. There is an old saying that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. The Creed of Freedom that you are about to read is the rock-solid ground that will allow us to stand firm against all the political nostrums of our day, and those in the future as well. The Creed of Freedom expresses the core ideology that binds all members together. This is not like the platform of a political party that typically is a position statement on a long list of specific issues and which changes from year to year to accommodate the shifting winds of popular opinion. Instead, it is stated in terms of broad principles that do not change over time and that are not focused on specific issues at all. If these principles are followed, then most of the vexing political and social issues of the day can be quickly resolved in confidence that the resulting action will be consistent with justice and freedom. Although I have authored the Creed, I cannot claim credit for it. Anyone familiar with the classical treatises on freedom will recognize that most of its concepts have been taken from the great thinkers and writers of the past. My role has been merely to read the literature, identify the concepts, organize them into logical sequence, and condense them into a single page. When you read the Creed, please be aware that it is a summary of a much longer dissertation. It cannot be fully appreciated until after reading the explanations, definitions, and arguments to support it. Although the Creed appears here first, it is recommended that, after reading it, you follow the link at the bottom of this section that takes you to the more complete explanation. THE CREED OF FREEDOM INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty. I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society. SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority. FREEDOM OF CHOICE I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law. EQUALITY UNDER LAW I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law. PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least. THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group. EQUALITY UNDER LAW Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally. FREEDOM OF CHOICE Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property. THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom. For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Issues section of his site. This 21-page document will take 10 to 45 seconds to load depending on the speed of your Internet connection. This page revised on 2006 October 10 (reply to this comment)

from colden Monday, November 10, 2008 - 18:45 (Agree/Disagree?)  The trouble one finds when rebutting this piece(of shit) is you are soo wrong os soo manny things, its.......how shall I put this it is the equivalent of trying to correct a child who has responded "purple, monkey, Nazi!" to the qusetion "2+2=?". Any attempt at correction must start fresh, ignoring whatever their perceived understanding (in this case logical equilivancy and flow as it pertains to debate structure and case bulding) was. I will therefore ignore the body(corps) of your work and instead focus on the minor infractions. Which in point form and in no particular order are as follows; .rabies+infected=rabid .If we nailed the coffin shut on unions and activists does that make the current crop (which incidentaly have never held more power or numbers) undead zombi activists? or maby resurrected unionists? .I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea of the origins of the term "dog whistle politics" it sounds indi cool though .The west maintains its global dominance through socialized health care????????? really? .the United States already has a K through 12 scool system. not sure why that was in there, maby you felt it just wasn't quite long enough .idealist is a term not a definition .you drew not a single parallel between Obamas ideas and socialism(your stated aim) in your entire diatribe .one can never "hold a magic stroke" .Idealism: the act of in visioning things in their ideal form 2elevated ideals or conduct, the quality of of beliving that ideals should be perused. Not "completely utterly absurd lunacy" that my friend sounds like a personal problem I'll stop there but get an education small face! . (reply to this comment)

From I think... Monday, November 10, 2008, 19:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Scarface just got owned.(reply to this comment)

From scarface Monday, November 10, 2008, 20:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not positive trying to whack me or hounding me is having the desired effect. Man power in college will be better invested in studying. May I suggest strategy? Drivers etiquette? Let me know if you need any other suggestions. You know where to find me :P(reply to this comment)

From colden Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 16:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I like you scarface, really I do! I'm sure you have many inteiligent ideas. The manner you have adapted for disseminating them, however lacks structure and assumes agreement on the part of the reader. I know that you have found many who hold a classical education to be lacking in basic commin sence, but do not fault the system for that it only can give you the tools, you choose what you make of it. The library has thousands of books for free and I'm sure if you put even a little of that energy that you enjoy in abundance ;-) you already hold an edge over any who have had a "normal" life why let them have any thing to hold over you? a little polish and the world wont know what hit them! don't ever stop ranting though P.S. I know where to find you? theres a joke in there some where, I'm certain of it!(reply to this comment)

From heir c Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 19:14 (Agree/Disagree?) hello.......guess who?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 20:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Prince C alert!(reply to this comment)

from conan Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m going to write a response, but am not sure if I fully understand your point of view. I believe that you are a supporter of an Obama presidency, yet you think he’s a socialist. You’re anti-socialism, but also anti-capitalism. You say that socialism nearly came to pass in America, but that movement was unable to overcome communism. The Democratic Party is strongly supported by unions everywhere, much more so than any Republican platform. These perspectives seem to have a serious dichotomy with each other. The Democratic following in the United States of America is much more widespread and diverse than former hippies and effete liberals. I am not convinced that you are even remotely aware of what the roots of the Democrats are or were. The fall of corporate capitalism has indeed been a long time coming, but could easily have been avoided had Congress not put so much faith in the Federal Reserve and specifically, it’s octogenarian head, Alan Greenspan. As we’ve recently seen, Greenspan’s fatal flaw was faith that the money machines on wall street and the banking system of America would try to defend its interests and shareholders for the better of the company and community, instead of for the individuals who ran them and the policies that made the financial institutions commit to investing in faulty loans and bad mortgages, encouraged by years of misguided policy from a Republican ideology that goes back to before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the standard for bad loans and poor investing policy. When bad investments are made to hide worse ones, and CEOs continue to reward themselves with massive bonuses and extravagant corporate retreats, to the detriment of stockholders, (and via trickle down effect, the unassuming American public) it is no small surprise that extensive bankruptcy would be the eventual result. As unfortunate a scenario as this has become, both domestically and due to cause and effect, internationally as well, it could have been avoided with a little oversight and regulation. Not necessarily by the government, as big government is rarely the answer, but an independent panel with salary caps and performance based incentives as the stimulus for such a bureau could have staved off massive losses for the banks and financial institutions, the government, and the general populace. Free market capitalism is not the bad guy here. Greed and incompetence certainly are. Obama is not going to be in a position as the President to yank the rug out from under a financial system that has defined American economics for far too long. For better or worse, that is the system to which our Republic has prescribed, and with a little tweaking can continue to be a boon for domestic and international revenue for many a century to come. Stupidly, the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Federal Reserve are from the school of thought that makes them cling to the idea of hoarding money at the top, in the hopes that a trickle-down effect will actually be a realistic scenario for economic growth which is based on their histories as money-hoarding fat-cats to whom the financial health of the middle class is as foreign a thought as alternative energy sources are to the McCain campaign. The ‘fall’ of the stock market was inevitable only in the sense that stocks rise and fall, based on supply and demand. The demand slowed when prices continued to skyrocket while stagnation in domestic jobs and economic growth stalled due to outsourcing and serious error in the field of energy, or a lack of alternatives thereof. The energy crises perpetuated by big oil and oil related lobbies that have pressured and swayed foreign policy decisions for decades, and an over reliance on a single source of energy for almost all the commerce and industry, not only here in America, but all across the globe demands a serious rethinking and demands massive investments to explore alternative uses and sources. If our energy was not so reliant on Middle Eastern oil, our economy would be free to create hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs pursuing research and implementation of new methods relating to wind, solar, nuclear, carbon emission control and new reusable clean-energy fuels which in turn would generate more money for the average American, as fuel prices would drop, jobs and industry could once again thrive and the average citizen would be better equipped to invest in the stock market, save for retirement, and actually make payments on loans given to encourage the purchase of property and housing, which in turn would prevent multiple foreclosures on bad loans, which would protect financial institutions from selling bad mortgages as if they were worth what they claimed, staving off a loss of equity and keeping the market and banking system solvent and with actual liquid assets. Healthcare: we seem to agree that we need a comprehensive health care plan for the general public. Obama is strongly in favor of that, and I can envision him working closely with Hillary Clinton on trying to accomplish something in that field. I am currently unable to provide myself with healthcare, and my employer does not offer any options to either myself, or the rest of their staff. I’d like to see that change! Education: I don’t really want to get started on this, but I’ll briefly say that Obama is the only major party candidate who seems to care about the education of America’s next generation both from kindergarten through high school, as well as at the college level. The college scenario in this country is in shambles. It’s a joke! There is no semblance of importance on the students’ ability to pay for tuition if they are from middle to low income households. Foreign policy: Let’s hope that Obama means half of what he says about being willing to sit down with America’s ‘enemies’ without pre-conditions. It is the Neo-Con view that opposing philosophies to ours must not be considered or heard, and as such we demonize nations that the average American couldn’t even find on a map. There are certainly factions out there that would love to see the end of America has a global power, but for the average nation out there, America provides a market for whatever they have to sell. We are the world’s biggest importers, but don’t export much at all by comparison, and the simple math of global economics will demand the continuation of commerce with America for the foreseeable future. We’ve seen that the American appetite for war is greatly diminished at worst, and strongly abhorred at best, and that knowledge should help Obama to reshape America’s view from the international community’s perspective. Congress will certainly be more apprehensive in the future to green-light full scale invasions and conflicts overseas after witnessing the financial black hole our current dual war in Afghanistan and Iraq is causing our national deficit. If we are bold enough to save our military might to genuine humanitarian crises such as Darfur and Somalia, the venom many nations and tribes hold for America will be greatly diminished as we will hopefully be able to shed the image as a meddling bully and instead return some of the luster we possessed back when Bill Clinton was in office and we used our force to prove to the world that we would not tolerate ethnic cleansing on the scale that Slobodan Milosevic was carrying out in the former Yugoslavia. We cannot allow our relationships with dictatorships to remain unchecked and cause entire nations (like Pakistan) to resent our presence and our dependency on autocratic governments to fester resentment amongst Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Our haste to pick a side in conflicts alienates and infuriates more than our government is ever willing to admit to and in turn causes an increase in fundamentalists’ recruiting overseas and an increased willingness of angry uneducated youths to join factions that are actively involved in trying to undermine American interests overseas as well as to try and create domestic attacks and fear. While it is all too true that most Homo sapiens are idiotic and not as intelligent as we’d like to imagine our race to be, the overwhelming intelligence of the elite in our species is what makes our race capable of changing the outlook of our future and the pace that we can implode, or reach for solutions that could prolong our domination of the planet and the possibility to explore others. Government spending needs to be checked, drastically. The national deficit continues to grow at an alarmingly staggering rate, which is mortgaging the future before we know our ability to manage it. I believe that Obama is going to be the next president of the USA and hope that he has the courage to follow through with his campaign promises and that Congress will realize their sage responsibility to the nation as a whole, instead of merely the voting constituents for whom they earmark pork-barrel spending out the wazoo for. (reply to this comment)

From scarface Friday, October 31, 2008, 09:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m going to write a response but I’m not sure what view point I was trying to convey. You found more logic and argument in my outlandishly peculiar article then I would have expected of anyone. Indeed after reading your criticism of the POV you assumed I had I was able to better recognize what it is I was trying to say. Thank you very much kind sir.       Obviously I you don’t understand my POV and in all respectable fairness I was attempting to make an irrational and annoying point if any at all. If all intelligent life (not humans of course) on earth depended on it, I would say that my point was to “insult and befuddle”.       First let me swiftly bunk several obviously uninformed myths. I am no anti-capitalist. I am not anti-communist. I am most certainly not anti-socialist. I would like to see the useful parts of all structures and forms of government combined to facilitate the governing of our country. Here is what I am: fiercely anti-elitist, and pro working class.  I’m voting for Obama not because I am a  “supporter of an Obama presidency” rather because I believe Obama is a supporter of some my values. Obama is not a socialist in the way the uneducated/sucker masses understand socialism. I am making reference to the fact that in American politics anything other then blindly following the “free market” fallacy is regarded as socialist.         From the tone and context of your “response” you imply that you have a vast and comprehensive understanding of the American political process and capitalist economics. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I don’t give a flying fuck about how much you imagine you know or how uninformed you assume me to be. I am interested in your opinion, nothing more nothing less. Would it be unfairly brutal to declare neither of us have demonstrated a great deal of scholarly credentials on the subject of economics or federal politics?         Here are a few of the fatal flaws that I found in your argument. Since you took the insolent liberty of pointing out my foolish inaccuracies (you heartless jerk), if I take the same liberty, I hope you will understand. I won’t mind if you lecture me back as I would be pleased to find out where it is that I am wrong.       “The fall of corporate capitalism has indeed been a long time coming, but could easily have been avoided had Congress not put so much faith in the Federal Reserve and specifically, it’s octogenarian head, Alan Greenspan.”       I have no idea what loony news source you get the idea that a genius like Greenspan (yes he is very, very old, so what?) is responsible for the out of control, fiscal idiocy of our elected officials. Yes our elected representatives are to blame and so are the hopeless imbeciles who elected them, or did not vote. We demand fairy tale answers to life’s problems because we don’t want to accept reality and what do we get? Voodoo economics and politics of course!       “As unfortunate a scenario as this has become, both domestically and due to cause and effect, internationally as well, it could have been avoided with a little oversight and regulation. Not necessarily by the government, as big government is rarely the answer, but an independent panel with salary caps and performance based incentives.”       “For better or worse, (capitalism) is the system to which our Republic has prescribed, and with a little tweaking can continue to be a boon for domestic and international revenue for many a century to come.”       Wrong, wrong and wrongest. How can you describe a 3 trillion dollar hand out (I’m sure its more then that) to big banking and Wall Street as a little “tweaking”. I call it what it is, corporate welfare. Regulation and oversight are redundant in our capitalist system because the regulators can and always have been bought. Yes big government is not the answer, but neither is small government the only answer. I mock your wisdom lacking belief that any panel can ever be thought of as “independent”. A fox cannot guard the hen house, even an “independent” fox. In my opinion rectifying this economic debacle requires more then a little regulation and oversight.  Why is it that only when our nation is in a state of total fiscal catastrophe that we the people start make this painfully apparent observation; in this democracy, where WE decide economic policy is it really ok that the (comparatively) poor majority do the real work and only those at the top collect all the real benefits and never do any real work? I’m surprised that we the American people haven’t stormed the White House and Wall Street with pitchforks and torches as is our glorious tradition and Constitutional right. Fuck knows we would be better off without them.       Free market capitalism is only our economic system because we the people are stupid enough to accept it. When we finally wake up and choose to dump it, then through the power given to us through the constitution and our democratic institutions I believe that “yes we can” and “yes we will”. The president and congress decide economic policy and tax rates. The constitution gives the people the power to elect our rulers. Its time we started acting like we are in charge.     With the more or less unstoppable election of Obama I very much doubt that corporate dominated capitalism will last for many more decades and certainly not centuries. Its not going away overnight obviously, that would be to traumatic and would cause a disastrous anarchy  in which those with resources could swipe the  power regardless of what economic ideology commands the stupid majorities awe. Look what happened in Russia when the communists swept to power. Yes some of the wealthy were executed others were exiled but the smart ones saw which way the wind was blowing and preemptively joined the communists. I know this because my great grandfather was a wealthy merchant who sided with the communists. He was extravagantly rewarded.       Of course all this is only possible if Obama is not yet another charlatan, hoping to make a quick buck by getting elected to public office.  I do not think he is. For one because of his roots, he was raised (relatively) poor and it is hard to become anything other then what you were raised to be. Second because of the choices he made once he worked his way into “elite club”. Instead of making millions working as a lawyer he chose to be a community organizer. Illustrating that either he is a very shrewd politician or he is just a superior minded man. Third because of his associations.  William Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Write and Rashid Khalidi are a few names who come to mind. Obama is a Harvard Graduate (first black Harvard president if I may add) and he is no fool, without question he knew that by associating with those people it would be disastrous for any political career he may have been planning. His associations nearly sunk him in the primary. The Hillary team did him a huge favor by focusing all the attention on Write, making it into a racial issue. Write dominated the air waves for an excruciatingly long period of time.  Inevitably in a world of instant/disposable news cycles the public became so sick of hearing about his associations that the shocking disclosure that he wrote an endorsement for the book of an unrepentant terrorist got lost in the mainstream media in a single days news cycle. The fact that he listens to and can find points of agreement with terrorists and radical ideologists (without being one himself) is a testament to his open mind and brilliance. Last, but certainly not least is the spastic reaction from those in power. I think we can both agree that the reaction from the right wing media the corporate elite and their political stooges has been markedly irrational. They know which way the wind is blowing and they are horrified and mystified that they cannot figure a way set their sails in a way that gives them an unfair advantage. So they throw their toys on the floor and cry and scream about how unfair it is and how brainless those who finally realize that playing along isn’t going to give them anything are. That is proof positive that Obama is going to take this nation in the right direction.         “The ‘fall’ of the stock market was inevitable only in the sense that stocks rise and fall, based on supply and demand. The demand slowed when prices continued to skyrocket while stagnation in domestic jobs and economic growth stalled due to outsourcing and serious error in the field of energy, or a lack of alternatives thereof.”         Really, are you sure about that? Correct me if I’m wrong but is that the good old “blame globalization” for our all our problems argument? It more complicated then that. Why then is the entire global economy stuck in a ditch? If outsourcing is draining our money who is it going to, do tell. We can’t blame it all on big oil, that is too simplistic. I’m not buying that either. In my humble opinion now, as in the 1930s the problem is an atrociously unequal distribution of capital in America (and across the world) that is to blame for our consistent economic calamities. Greed is not the problem. Greed and incompetence are in fact opposite. The only valid argument I can see for corporate dominated capitalism would be that no silver bullet, no brand of voodoo economics can save humanity from its certain tendency to consistently act moronically.       If you think that the stock market falls and rises drastically because of economic conditions you are dead wrong. When the stock market rises and falls by 800 points a day, all the hockey moms and Joe the plumbers in the world could not afford to do that. It’s the billionaires and hedge fund managers pulling strings together to fuck over the working class who have managed to save some money. What you fail to realize is that when stocks move at that volume that fast it is for a reason other than supply and demand.       I could go on forever but I will make one last point.       “While it is all too true that most Homo sapiens are idiotic and not as intelligent as we’d like to imagine our race to be, the overwhelming intelligence of the elite in our species is what makes our race capable of changing the outlook of our future”     I agree, except for I think all Homo sapiens display manifestations of idiocy, some more evident then others perhaps. Most elites merely have access to superior information and resources which enable them to project a generic appearance of superiority. It is unconditionally idiotic that some humans consider it their fate to be dependent on another for direction and inspiration. Your statement that the “overwhelming intelligence of the elite is what makes our species capable of changing” is recklessly irresponsible and foolishly fictitious. Remember what you thought of those older then you when you were young. You thought they were gods, overwhelmingly intelligent and superior. Time and education has probably made you smarter then most of those you admired growing up. It is stupid to think that you are depend on another for salvation, mainly because you will wait forever. It is even stupider to think you are some kind of messiah to humanity because of the position you happened to be born into or worked your way up to. Relying on the elite to solve all your problems is a superb example of a blind man asking another blind man for directions.       I am now more persuaded then ever that humans are an idiotic, pathetic, condemned and hopeless species. (reply to this comment)

From steam Friday, October 31, 2008, 10:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Be very careful scarface. This post is the first one that indicates you might have a brain. A dangerous reputation, and one which (judging from your previous posts) you seem to have until now, studiously avoided.(reply to this comment)

From scarface Saturday, November 01, 2008, 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Danger? I am Scarface, I laugh in the face of danger. Ha ha ha!   If you still don’t get it watch this vastly entertaining video.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVd58d7OJ0k   I wouldn’t have bothered to react to what I see as a unmistakable slur if a certain anonymous AP reporter didn’t have his hand glued to the enter button.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, November 01, 2008, 07:32 (Agree/Disagree?) "Fuck the System"?  Didn't Berg write a MO Letter with that title?(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, November 01, 2008, 09:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Seeing as you were hardly in the Family. I don't think you are very well qualified to remember what Berg wrote and what he didn't. For someone who spent little time in a Family home I find your fascination with this site a little disturbing. (reply to this comment)

from scarface Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 10:32 (Agree/Disagree?) It sounds as if me and burg ain’t the only ones talking crazy.   “The neo-liberal economic model was always intellectually vacuous, but now we know it is also dangerous and destabilising.”       BBC News is running a series of commentaries this week by economists on the challenges facing the global financial system. Today, Jayati Ghosh considers the implications for India. The financial crisis has drawn attention away from an important feature of the preceding boom: it created much more inequality, with the poor effectively subsidising the rich. This was true internationally, as central banks of developing countries parked their growing foreign exchange reserves in the US, so that the South provided net finance to the North, instead of using such resources for its own development. It was also true within countries, as profits soared but wage shares of national income declined sharply and agrarian distress persisted. India is seen as a big success story of globalisation, but only a minority of Indians benefitted materially from the high growth. Formal sector employment stagnated, real wages for most workers actually fell, nearly 200,000 farmers committed suicide in the period of 1995-2006 alone, and there was an increase in the millions of hungry people and malnourished children.   So the recent growth was not inclusive. But unfortunately the slump will be only too inclusive, forcing those who did not gain earlier to pay for the sins of irresponsible and unregulated finance, through their own loss of livelihood and reduced living standards. To prevent this, globally we need a clear change in economic strategy. Obviously, finance must now be controlled and directed. But it is equally important to increase public expenditure: to revive demand in flagging economies, to manage the effects of climate change and bring in widespread use of green technologies, and importantly, to provide minimally acceptable standards of living for citizens of the developing world. We must promote redistributive taxation and other policies to reduce economic inequalities, both within and between countries. The neo-liberal economic model was always intellectually vacuous, but now we know it is also dangerous and destabilising. The world has a real opportunity to abandon this bankrupt paradigm and replace it with more sustainable and democratic alternatives. (reply to this comment)

From scarface Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 10:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Here’s the source.   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7680513.stm(reply to this comment)

from ........... Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent speech, I just wish people would start to WAKE UP!!!! It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. —Thomas Paine http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOp_9VfR6o (reply to this comment)

From Fish Thursday, October 16, 2008, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) This has got to be the all time gayest comment posted on Moving On, complete with doucheball caps, excessive exclamation marks and of course, the mandatory pithy political quotation, as if that somehow legitimizes the anonymous poster. In a word: dumb.(reply to this comment)

From Rage Thursday, October 16, 2008, 07:47 (Agree/Disagree?) WAAAAAKE UPPP!!! WAAAAKE UP! I think I heard, I think I heard a shot!(reply to this comment)

From e-book Thursday, October 16, 2008, 03:00 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf taken from http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/ (reply to this comment)

from birth certificate and freeman stuff Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) It is a miracle of a time, and when you are all excited about having your baby, the government social worker that works at the hospital will approach you with some registration forms, telling you 'you have to register your baby'. She will hand you a form and on the cover it says in bold language, 'Every Parent must register' and 'After a baby is born every parent must register the birth and legal name of their child'. Inside it says: This brochure contains an IMPORTANT form which parents must complete for every baby born in British Columbia. The Registration of Live Birth form is the official Provincial record of the birth and the registration of the child's legal name. Everything you need to complete the form is provided including detailed instructions and a pre-addressed envelope.' (It is designed to make you believe you have an obligation to register and if you don't the law will get involved and you will be in big trouble.) Next paragraph reads: By law, you must register the birth and legal name of your child within 30 days of the birth. Naming a child and registering the birth are your important responsibilities because registration is the only way of creating a permanent legal record of a person's birth. There is no fee to register a baby's birth so long as it is registered within 30 days. Simply fill in the registration form and mail it in the envelope provided, or bring it to any BC Vital Statistics Agency office. See back cover of this brochure for our office locations and telephone numbers. It then states: At the same time as you complete the mandatory Registration of Live Birth form, you have the option of ordering a birth certificate for your newborn. Now lets take a very close look at what they are actually saying. This brochure contains an IMPORTANT form which parents must complete for every baby born in British Columbia. – this tells us ONLY the parents can complete it. The government cannot do it on your behalf. They use the word 'must'. Notice they do not use the word 'obligated' or 'obliged'. Must is a very tricky legal word, and when you find out its true meaning in a later bubble is burst, you will see what I mean. Here they use the word 'baby'. They are referring to the human being; blood, flesh and bone vessel of the spirit. The Registration of Live Birth form is the official Provincial record of the birth and the registration of the child's legal name. - Here they tell you the form is the Provincial record. Not yours. Theirs. They have also now slipped in the word 'child' instead of 'baby'. The reason is, there is no doubt in law what a baby is; there is ambiguity when you start using words like 'child'. The 'child', legally is the 'person'. Notice how also they tell you that you will be creating a 'legal name'. Not a lawful name, but a legal one. There is a big difference between the two, and it is one bubble that will be burst in following chapters. By law, you must register the birth and legal name of your child within 30 days of the birth. Again the word 'must'. And why must you do it within 30 days? What exactly is the penalty for registering late? Notice also the use of the words 'child' and 'legal name'. Naming a child and registering the birth are your important responsibilities because registration is the only way of creating a permanent legal record of a person's birth. - Now the trap is almost shut. 'Responsibility' refers not to what one is obliged to do, but who is to blame after the fact. Notice here also how they are using not the word 'baby' nor 'child' to describe your offspring, they are using the word 'person' and they may not be describing your offspring at all. They tell you straight out, by using the word 'person', that you will be creating a permanent one. There is no fee to register a baby's birth so long as it is registered within 30 days. – Ah-Ha! Here is why you have to do it within 30 days! To avoid paying a filling fee! Wow so scary! That is why they can get away with using the word must when there are no actual obligations. Next paragraph, we find this: At the same time as you complete the mandatory Registration of Live Birth form, you have the option of ordering a birth certificate for your newborn. –They also use the term 'mandatory'. Notice what it is referring to; it is referring to the noun not the verb. The action is not mandatory; the form is, if you choose to register. Now we also apparently have some sort of option about ordering a Birth Certificate. Ask yourself this, if you have an option now, what makes you think you didn't have one to begin with? Do you think they have an obligation to tell you what all your options are? Here is the biggest question of all: If what they are selling is such a good thing, why do they use so much obvious deception to get us to buy it? So this is essentially what is happening. When you register your offspring, you are creating a legal entity, or person, you are associating that person with your offspring and then you are abandoning that entity to the government, who appears to be seizing it under the laws of maritime commerce. This 'person' is in fact chattel property and can and is used for collateral on loans. Your registered baby is in fact a form of pledge and is worth a lot of money. Also, if they ever come for your baby acting under some legislation, it is that chattel property they are acting upon, not your offspring. But because it was all done apparently lawfully and legally, and you maintain the association between that entity and your baby, they have the right to affect your offspring. The Birth Certificate is not just evidence of the birth; it is evidence that you have abandoned the king of documents: the Record of Live Birth. They will not accept a certified and notarized true copy of the original. Nope, they need the original itself. Imagine creating a raincoat for your offspring, the record of creating that raincoat and evidence of ownership you give to your neighbour. He then comes over and claims the right to remove the coat, with your child still in it. That is exactly the legal mechanism they use to remove our offspring. BIRTH. The act of being born or wholly brought into separate existence. Black's 1 st . See Note, and Note at birth record. Note: A man or a woman is "born," straw men are "wholly brought into separate existence." Each event qualifies as a "birth." The birth certificate documents a muddied mixture of the two events that allows the system to both claim that it is "your" birth certificate yet also claim to hold title to (not ownership of) the corporately colored straw man. BIRTH CERTIFICATE. A formal document which certifies as to the date and place of one's birth and a recitation of his or her parentage, as issued by an official in charge of such records. Furnishing of such is often required to prove one's age. Black's 6 th . See Note, birth, birth record, document of title, field warehouse receipt, bond. Note: A birth certificate is a negotiable instrument, a registered security, a stock certificate evidencing, or representing, the preferred stock of the corporation and against which you are the surety; it is a pedigree chattel document establishing the existence of your straw man, a distinct artificial person with a fictitious name; it is a document of title to a straw man; it is a warehouse receipt for your body; delivery receipt; industrial bond between you (flesh-and-blood man or woman) and the industrial society and corporate US Government (artificial person). In Canada, the original birth certificate is generally created at the PROVINCIAL level (in rare instances city level) via birth documents from the hospital (for which the hospital receives $$$ from the PROVINCE for causing the registration of the birth) and passed to the Provincial and Federal levels, and likely elsewhere. Per the definition of "birth" above, the document references both the newborn and the straw man. Certified copies of the birth certificate may be obtained at the Vital Statistics Office. Your birth certificate is one of the kinds of security instruments used by the Government to obtain loans from its creditor, under which it is bankrupt. According to a researcher who worked on a research project for one of the world's largest brokerage houses he discovered that in the year 1936 each American birth certificate was assigned a value of $630,000.00. The investigative journalist's report beginning on page xxiii confirms that (new) birth certificates today carry a value of $1,000,000.00 and that upon notification of the receipt of a new birth certificate at the Ministry of Finance, it takes out a loan for $1-million and purchases a bond, then invests the funds in either the stock market or bond market. The collateral for the loan for the bond issued against the birth certificate is you; i.e. your body, labor, and property. A man in Santa Barbara, California who obtained his original birth certificate from the Department of Commerce some years ago via a Freedom of Information Act request reported the endorsements of 17 different foreign countries thereon. There may also be other types of birth documents used by the Government, or others, to obtain loans/credit. BIRTH RECORD. Official statistical data concerning dates and places of persons' birth, as well as parentage, kept by local government officials. Black's 1 st . See Note, birth certificate. Note: Under "birth certificate" the definition refers to "one's birth," and under "birth record" the definition refers to "persons' birth." "One" means flesh-and-blood man or woman; "person" means artificial or juristic person. See individual. All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire (1694 - 1778) Maxims: If you know not the name of a thing, all knowledge of that thing perishes. The name is the note of a thing. April 2, 2007 NOTICE To: Allan Tocher CC: TWIMC Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard a Freeman-on-the-Land in this common law jurisdiction. We met a few days ago when I was acting lawfully for my friend Ross. You invited me into the offices where we had a little discussion. At that time you informed me that you had looked at my account and found that I had not filed in many years. I informed you at that time that I did not have an account with you and that I did not have a Social Insurance Number. You then told me that I did have a number thus an account with you and you stated that you had looked in a file. However, I had never given you a date of birth nor did I associate myself with any number nor did I authorize you or anyone else to act on my behalf. So how do you know you were looking in the right file? I know for a fact that you weren't looking in the right file as whoever's file you were looking at is someone who consents to being represented and governed and has an account with you and has a Social Insurance Number. I have no account with you nor do I have a SIN. I am not a SINner. You also informed me that it was possible to file income tax returns without a SIN. However since the SIN is also the account number and I don't have an account with you, why would I file? Additionally, the collection of taxes is a function of government and I have chosen to revoke consent to be represented and thus exist free of government. I know that as a government agent you do not like to think that people can do such a thing. I believe this is the case because those who benefit from any societal mechanism rarely wish to understand that mechanism, especially if it appears to grant them power, control or authority over their fellow man and actually understanding that mechanism would remove, diminish or erode that apparent power, control or authority. During the meeting, you seemed to threaten me with legal action and you spoke of how the courts have previously ruled against others. You said some of them were still in jail. For the record when you said that you had an arrogant smirk and spittle on your chin. I point out I am not others, I have revoked consent and I do not have a government. Furthermore I would be willing to guess that not a single one of the people whom you referred to are in possession of a document like the one I have. It is signed by a Queens Counsel who works for the Department of Justice and in it she clearly acknowledges me as a Freeman-on-the-Land who exists outside of the legislated framework and over whom they claim no statutory authority. Since a lawyer with the DOJ recognizes me as a Freeman-on-the-Land and not subject to the ITA why do you not wish to do so as well? I believe it is because you are concerned not with truth, justice or law, but with your own personal power and place at the trough. This is made very apparent in the recording of our conversation when you rejected outright without first considering a lawful and just position. You rejected immediately without looking at the law or the logic or the reasoning behind the position and you did so for no other reason than because if true you lose power to demand, order and intimidate. It was not wise to threaten me. To be a bully and to threaten me is stupid. To be a bully I can easily outrun and threaten me is next to suicide. You seem to think that either you directly or the people who hired you have some lawful right to govern me without my consent. Are you operating on the belief that you are morally or physically superior to me and therefore you may govern me without the benefit of consent? Were you appointed by God? Or was the party that hired you as an agent claim to be appointed by God? You also mentioned that the courts have sided against previous 'natural persons' although I never identified myself as one. All cases are different and I draw your attention to the case of R v. Lutes. In that case the court found that because there was no joinder created by Lutes between him and a SIN and established by the prosecution that the accused owed CRA nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Squat. Yes, Allan, in this case the court ruled that if someone did not have a SIN, they did not have an account with CRA and if they had no account with CRA they did not have any obligation to file. It all boils down to the SIN and how it is evidence of an association of an employee/employer type between the federal government and the individual. Your ability to demand payment or performance is limited to those who are federal government employees by virtue of their SIN. You also asserted that it was not allowed to abandon a Social Insurance Number yet you were completely incapable of telling me where it says that a human being in Canada may not choose to abandon a SIN nor could you establish that those words, if they did exist, had anything to do with me. According to Human Resources, the people responsible for issuing a SIN, they told me that it is an employee identification number and they agreed there was no legal difference between 'working legally in CANADA' and working 'legally for CANADA." Since when is it lawful for any entity to demand I work for them without contract or agreement? I once was a government employee and when I was I had a government employee identification number or SIN. I am no longer a government employee and therefore no longer have a number. I have taken the liberty of posting a recording of our conversation on line at my website along with a PDF copy of this letter. In order to allow others to do their own due diligence, I am also posting your phone number so people can call you directly and hear for themselves how you are incapable of showing where it says we have to have a SIN nor can you show where there is an obligation to file if we do not have one. Hopefully you will when speaking to them use your analogy that someone abandoning a SIN is the same as dropping a brick on your head. That complete and utter lack of reason and logic is quite funny and demonstrates the mindset of the average government employee. You don't want anyone overturning the trough do you? You simply can't imagine anyone not existing under your thumb and accepting your 'services'. Incidentally if any gigolo tried providing sexual services to a woman the way the CRA and their agents provide services to the people of Canada, they would face charges of rape. Can you tell me how we go about telling you we do not want your services or are you like a rapist who thinks that his victims received services? The greatest danger facing Canadians is in fact people like you who as government agents are so full of their own arrogance and ignorance that they feel they can make demands and extract energy without recognizing the need for consent. You are not a lawyer and therefore your words were merely your untrained opinion and not a lawful legal determination and thus created no obligation, agreement or contract. I do not contract with those who are deceivers and bullies. You I feel are both. I am in possession of correspondence signed by a lawyer and Queen's Counsel employed by the Federal Ministry of Justice. In it they acknowledge my status as a Freeman-on-the-Land and that I exist free of all statutory obligations such as those found in the Income Tax Act. But as I said before, you and the people who work for CRA don't like thinking people can say no to you do you? Incidentally, the fact that every agent I saw in your office was morbidly obese while all your so called clients were thin and gaunt was not lost on me. The parasites grow fatter than the host and do not care about its health. I know my business better than you or your principal. Speaking of them, In order to confirm and support my beliefs, I made some phone calls to HRC. That's Human Resources Canada. This led me to wonder what difference HRC has with a Human Resource Department with a corporation and I have come to the conclusion there is no difference as each deal with their employees. I called HRC and spoke with a nice lady. I told her I needed a Federal Employee Identification Number and was informed by her that a Social Insurance Number is the same as the federal Employee Identification Number as they refer to a SIN as an Employee Identification number. I then called CRA and asked a lady to see if she could open a file with only a name and no date of birth provided or Social Insurance Number and was informed by her she could not check records properly with only that information. I told her I did not have a SIN and she informed me that if I did not have a SIN I did not have an account with them and I would have to apply for a SIN with HRC. So I called them back. I asked HRC why I should have a SIN and was told by the lady on the phone that I needed one to work legally in Canada. I asked if there was any difference between working legally in and working legally for Canada. She did not know that there was. She confirmed that in order to pay into the Canada Pension Plan one needed a SIN and she acknowledged that a SIN is referred to as an Employee Identification Number by them and she further agreed that her organization is called Human Resources Canada and further that all other HR departments in the private sector deal with employees. She agreed with me that the evidence clearly indicates that having a SIN means that one is an employee of the federal government. II then asked her where it said that we could not abandon our SIN and she could not show me where it said we could not do such a thing and she then agreed that if the number was in fact indicative of an employee/employer relationship we have to have the right to abandon, or else we are merely slaves to our employers. She agreed that an employee has a right to quit and no longer associate with an employer, regardless of who they may be, and that if they did not wish to be a government agent or employee it would be unlawful to force them. She seemed rather open to being persuaded by logic and reason. You stated in our conversation that "we exist in a statutory framework". I remind you that I have never given you the right to speak on my behalf and when you use the word 'we' you must be speaking about yourself and other government agents. I agree YOU people do exist and operate within a statutory framework. As a Freeman-on-the-Land I do not exist within your statutory framework and therefore you have no right or basis to make any demands upon me. It's really very simple; you have chosen to exist and operate as a government employee and I have chosen to not. You are bound by the rules that are applicable to government agents and I am not. You made your choice and I made mine. You don't like my choice however because it means you have no authority over me and the ITA is not applicable to me. Over the next few months, thousands of people will be abandoning their Social Insurance Numbers and closing out their accounts with you. Many may choose to become Freesouls-on-the-Land and fire their representatives and exist completely free of all government. Many will do so due to the unending arrogance and and smarminess of those who claim to be providing us with services. We can and will say no to your services and then as a service provider you will go hungry. Although there is nothing I can do to stop you from holding Ross's money, I can lawfully engage in a course of action in the hopes of hastening your performance of duties. Towards that ends, I will distributing thousands of newsletters of the type you have already seen, as well as engaging in a Nationwide education campaign to see how many people I can teach about the benefits of not working in or for the federal government. In your case the concept of winning the battle but losing the war comes to mind. What will it cost the CRA when 18,000 people abandon their SIN's and escape the obligations found in the ITA not only in terms of money but in terms of ability to instill fear? I think when that happens you will know that it is only a matter of time until 100X more do the exact same thing and then CRA and people like you are finished. Well not exactly finished, but you will be limited to governing not the populace of a country, but only those who have secured employment as a government employee. And this is how it should have been all along. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, Robert-Arthur: Menard Freesoul-on-the-Land All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended by The Grace of God. Feel free to check out the challenge found on www.thinkfree.ca Namaste Bubble #1 - Man or Fiction? Do you know what you are? Are you a 'person'? Are you sure? So you think you are a 'person', eh? According to Black's Law dictionary, 'a human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically, the person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes. But not every human being is a person, as was the case in Old England when there were slaves'. You see, you as a human being have certain inalienable human rights. Your person has certain inalienable civil rights. Believe it or not, you are not the one paying taxes, your person is. Its not you that votes, your person does. You don't get a ticket, your person does. The best way to imagine it is to imagine a human being wearing a coat. The human being is a 'man' or 'human being' or a 'natural person'. The coat represents the 'legal person'. The two together is referred to as 'individual'. (Indivisible duo). If you can understand that so far, you can understand the next as well. You have many 'persons'. They all have the same name, but have different personalities or functions. See, a person is not determined solely by the name, but by the rights and duties ascribed to that person. When you get a traffic ticket, it is almost as if they are creating a person right there solely to deal with that issue. Once dealt with, the person is no longer bound by it. Say you go to vote and on the way you get a ticket. Can the person who got the ticket vote? Can you show them the ticket and use that to secure your right to vote? No you cannot. The two entities, although having the same name, have different sets of rights and duties, and therefore are in fact different persons or at least different facets of one. Now ask yourself, where does it say that you have to have a 'person'? Are you obliged to have one? If you do have one, can you give it up? Why have they gone to such trouble to hide from us the fact that they act upon our persons? The reason is simple; they need us to be ignorant for their deception to work. Without ignorance, all the deception in the world won't help them hold onto their power. The person exists not so they can have power over us, but so we can escape the power they claim if it gets too onerous. If all they can act upon is our person, and we can disassociate from that thing anytime we want, we can be in control. If we are never aware it is there, we are slaves. That which YOU will be is entirely up to you. more at thinkfree.ca (reply to this comment)

from hello NWO Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 05:54 (Agree/Disagree?) send this to everyone you know http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwUG0_E9PM think free- a must see all segments http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE economic hitmen bit is very interesting then it diverges into the new world order agenda misinfo. says nothing about the strawman. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gDA_n-Ohf4Q&feature=related good film-NETWORK 1976 (reply to this comment)

From scarface Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 06:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck off idiot. No one is being brainwashed by Obama. What is wrong with a one world currency and government? Screw you!(reply to this comment)

from news site Monday, October 13, 2008 - 08:55 (Agree/Disagree?) also good radio stream http://www.hearitonline.com/#Other (reply to this comment)

from think free Monday, October 13, 2008 - 08:02 (Agree/Disagree?) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE (reply to this comment)

from great quote Monday, October 13, 2008 - 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Whenever, therefore, people are deceived and form opinions wide of the truth, it is clear that the error has slid into their minds through the medium of certain resemblances to that truth.- socrates found this on obama -http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/17-certificate-of-live-birth-analysis-part-one#comment-160 (reply to this comment)

from timely info Monday, October 13, 2008 - 07:16 (Agree/Disagree?) But how many of us out there wonder if these failures (called adjustments) are a result of deception and dishonesty. The main dishonesty is the legality behind the central banks (Federal Reserve) authority to print money and set its value versus the constitution's definition that congress should coin money and set its value. Then there is the deception as to the Federal income tax, constitutionally it has no legitimacy. The federal income tax is used primarily to pay off the interest on the national debt that occurs from our government borrowing money from the central banks. If congress were to coin money and set its value then both problems would be solved. At least amend the constitution and clearly set out the Federal government's legal authority to tax personal incomes and end the deception and confusion. A sound economic policy does not begin with deception it begins with honest and straightforward policies. see money masters-how banks took over the world http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=wVXzSN_KA5KsiALlvvHuDg&q=money+masters and for the children money as debt http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&ei=ClbzSIzuEoHCjgK-jYjjDg&q=money+as+debt relevant info http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/01416.htm#summary Electoral College Subverted Even though the framers went to great length to protect the State rights of the private citizens, and primarily the property rights of the "land owners and business people," they obviously didn't think about, or else overlooked, the fact that these "land owners and business interests" they counted upon as chosen members of the electoral college would rule with an "iron hand"-the same as the Parliament in Great Britain. Yet, that is exactly what did happen, because the "land owners and business interests" united with the English barristers (lawyers) and bankers. The conspiracy to overthrow the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution began when the "land owners and business interests" became concerned with piracy on the high seas. The loss of their goods was devastating and something had to be done about it. At that time the "law of the land" (Constitutional law) and "law of the sea" (Maritime (Commercial) law) were at odds with one another. Just as the "land owners and business interests" became united into one alliance, they felt that U.S. Constitutional and Maritime law had to unite if they were to protect their goods on the land as well as on the high seas. The pirates would wait until the ships left the shore before they stole the goods because here they were harder to catch, and they feared the "land owners and business interests" having the power to enforce the law. So, with this in mind, the "land owners and business interests" united in making certain that the members chosen to the electoral college would vote for the President they felt would protect their interests above and beyond the interests of the private citizen. Furthermore, they went as far as to ensure that the other members of their united force (cartel) were put into the elected offices of U.S. and State representatives by buying the votes of the private citizens. Today we call this habit lobbying, and running for office through the art of persuasion and compromise, deal making and pork barrel projects. In other words, the politicians are to tell the people what they want to hear and promise them everything, but the politicians must not vote against the concerns of "big business, banking and oil cartels." By the late 1800's the "land owners and business interests" had united to such a degree that these "powers that be" had nearly subverted the original intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you read the sacred documents you can't help but realize they were written in plain English. In order to subvert the sacred documents the lawyers had to come into the power of the elected office, as State representatives and members of the judicial branch, where they could twist the meanings of the words as it applied to the rights and privileges of the private citizens. This action distorted the spirit of the U.S. Constitution as intended by the framers, because they thought the "land owners and business interests" would keep in mind the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for one and for all. As it turned out, they did the opposite. What they did was unite as a powerful family cartel that sought the Parliamentary rule, the same as did the Lords and Barons in England by the signing of the Magna Carta. And we wonder why the Office of the President is called the Imperial Presidency, and the U.S. Congress is called the Parliament or "Old Boys Club." The U.S. Constitution was slowly but surely subverted by incorporating the tenets of Maritime law as though they were one and the same. Yet, the two purposes are as different as night and day, because Maritime law is commercial law for business concerns while Constitutional law is public law and concerned with the private rights of States and the private citizens of the States. And the way it was done was through "slick legislation." The legislators used what is termed "legalese" - a jargon of language used by the legal community that keeps the layman wondering what is truly being said in print. The incorporation of commercial law into the U.S. Constitution desecrated the Bill of Rights for all practical purposes in matters of jurisprudence because the private rights of the State citizens were subjugated to the commercial interest of business and banking cartels. The legalism of today invalidates the constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Commercial interests are a priority above and beyond the welfare of the least in the human community. Yet, it was Jesus who said that what is done to the least of them is done unto Him. Very interesting, as the courts today most people think are bound by the constitution but are not because they are maritime administrative law courts. They are a foreign jurisdiction operating inside our borders and guilty of treason by so doing. But this sounds so outrageous to people that we could be duped so badly they won't even consider it a possibility much less do a little study on it. They enforce merchant admiralty or maritime law. That is why if you have ever been to court recently and tried to claim some constitutional right they feign that you have it but ignore actually giving you the benefit of it by some technicality of law that you don't understand any ways. They do throw a bone once and a while to keep the deception alive. This I why I say pleading the 5th won't matter. Truth is they are not bound by the constitution and they know it but they don't want people to know as it would destroy their craft. But it is the constitution that left the door open for all this extra constitutional stuff such as maritime law. You are sold into this system on day one by the "birth certificate" A "birth" is a place where a ship is docked. So when your parents unwittingly signed the birth certificate they made you a commodity in merchant shipping. You are a vessel docked in their system so to speak. This is why in the past you have heard me say we have all already taken the mark of the beast. The computer implants etc. are just more efficient methods of inventorying their assets. The beast system was implemented along time ago very subtly. Now as they gain power they are getting more blatant about it. The adversary wasn't going to take any chances on implementing his system he can read the scriptures he knows its prophesied that he will loose in the end he means to prove that prophecy false. So has subtly implemented his system upon all of us without us knowing it. But the good news is we can repent since we were deceived. look up maritime law as it effects you (reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 13:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Buffoon! A 'berth' is a place where a ship docks...as a result, I feel obligated to disregard anything else you have to say, as your grasp of the English language is so feeble, that your communique can hardly be considered intelligible or worthwhile. (reply to this comment)

from **Daniel** Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Bergs prediction and Bible prophecy is coming to pass!! Its the Crash!! (reply to this comment)

From berg... Monday, October 13, 2008, 07:48 (Agree/Disagree?) and his cult were just another 'holding pen' for sheeple so they didn't wake up fully -a few truths and lies thrown in. disinformation. the lie sandwhich. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, October 11, 2008, 06:09 (Agree/Disagree?) No, it's not!  Did you even read the article I likned to?  The Dollar is climbing against the Euro. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/10/markets/dollar/index.htm?postversion=2008101016 The stock market?  Don't worry about it, it has it's ups and downs.  And don't feel sorry for the investors either.  They should have rid the market out instead of selling their stocks.  If you are investing for something that you weill need in the next 10 years, whether that be college, retirement, or a house, you shouldn't have it invested in the stock market.(reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 13:08 (Agree/Disagree?) You clearly understand capitalism, and the free-market approach that led to the current 'collapse' of the US economic policies...moron!(reply to this comment)

from scarface Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 19:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m making a correction/climb-down for a statement on my article.   “I have seen the end results in my survivor peers and there is no way in gods green earth I want to end up like them. If push I myself hard enough, sure I can achieve anything. But at what cost, my sanity, my empathy?”   I recognize that those who I referred to experienced the crueler more extremist side of the cult. That is more likely the reason for behavior I described. I now recognize how offensive and distasteful those remarks were. I was expressing my irritation, not attacking your integrity. Please accept my sincerest apologies.   (reply to this comment)

from scarface Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 15:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Time is running out.   Dow plunges 679 to fall to lowest level in 5 years   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 10, 2008, 17:07 (Agree/Disagree?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/10/markets/dollar/index.htm?postversion=2008101016(reply to this comment)

from Samuel Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 04:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Well if it's not Captain Obvious again!  Anyone who has read Obama's writings, or even listened carefully to some of his speeches, knows that he is a Socialist.  Unfortunately, he has a decent chance of making the White House.  I wouldn't worry about it too much, though.  Think about it this way, the current Democrat controlled Congress has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history, and all they want to do is blame all the problems on Bush.  If Obama wins, and things get worse, who are they going to blame things on? If I were a Democrat in Congress right now, I'd be a bit scared about the prospects of losing my scapegoat if Obama wins. (reply to this comment)

From ........ Monday, October 13, 2008, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) jordan maxwell misinformation details http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8856218871691609737&ei=p1nzSMaCOIuWiQLn8ITnDg&q=jordan+maxwell+debunked zeitgeist refuted http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775 kent hovind http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162&hl=en human rights advice http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ bursting bubbles of goverment control- a must see http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3SLwp_2bHg are you a real person or a corperate capitalised fiction, strawman? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, but was this comment really leveled at me?  I'm assuming it was, because you placed it under my comment, but it is a bit confusing since it has nothing to do with what I said.  May I ask who you are? I do not need to be told that Zeitgeist is bunk, anyone with a basic knowledge of astrology, statistics, and propaganda techniques can figure that out quite easily.  Unless they want to beleive Zeitgeist is true for some reason or other, in which case they might throw logic to the wind and suck in the trash.  I have no idea who Jordan Maxwell is.  I never listened to Kent Hovind, and I certainly don't listen to him now that he is in prison for tax evasion.  He's a Young Earth Creationist, you know.  Not that that makes him a bad person, but I don't really like the tactics YECers use when they claim that their interpretation of Genesis is the only true interpretation.  It can become a religion in itself.  No one has a Monopoly on interpretation of scripture.  If you are a Young Earth Creationist and would like to discuss this with me privately, rather than on this site where our discussion could seem like preaching, do e-mail me. The next videos is about Canada's tax system, and their foster care system.   Let me start by saying I don't really care for Canadian politics.  You cannot really compare the Canadian tax system to the American tax system because Canada has Socialized medicine, while the US does not.  One thing you have to worry about with speakers like these is that they can be very emotional, and they often twist facts and don't tell the whole story.  I mean, come on.  Do you really beleive that the Government just showed up at this guy's house a few days after his baby was born and just took the baby away for no reason?  And when he threatened legal action they said they would see it to that the child would spend the first five years of her life going from foster home to foster home?  Don't you think there just might be more to the story that he isn't telling us?  Did they have a warrant to enter his home?  If so, what was it for?  What caused the authorities to believe that the home was unsafe for that child?  These things and more, we have to find out for ourselves before we can make an educated decision. I am a real person.  I know who I am, but who are you?   (reply to this comment)

From scarface Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 14:08 (Agree/Disagree?) here you go dumb ass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFyIaybXbU(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Aha, I should have known it was you posting all these weird YouTube's on the site.  What is your problem, man?  Chem trails?  Your crack pipe emits more "chem trails" than any secret government project ever could!(reply to this comment)

From figaro Thursday, October 09, 2008, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) "If I were a Democrat in Congress right now, I'd be a bit scared about the prospects of losing my scapegoat if Obama wins" If you were a Democrat in Congress right now, I would move to Canada!(reply to this comment)

from Fish Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I read the first paragraph, but could go no further, as your "style" of writing is simple too painful. Another sentence and I would have shoved chopsticks into my eyes. Perhaps you should focus more on making a clear argument and less on trotting out tired metaphors. (reply to this comment)

From scarface Thursday, October 09, 2008, 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) “Hopefully y’all will find this to be as insulting and befuddling as I intended it to be.”   “I read the first paragraph, but could go no further, as your "style" of writing is simple too painful. “   Insulting and befuddling: Premeditated.    Prodigious typo while lecturing on substance and style: An unforgivable sin.   Your comment gives leaves a meager, unworthy impression of your intelligence. How can I gratify your lust for clear argument if you refuse to grant me the courtesy of reading my argument? You have an inexcusably short attention span. I can copy-paste the argumentative portions of my very short article under your comment. Fuck that, I’m too lazy. If you are curious as to what my argument is, I suggest reading, it can be most helpful.   Remove the chopsticks from your eyes, before you attempt to reveal the log in mine. :P    An exotic specimen of fish you are indeed. (reply to this comment)

From scarface Thursday, October 09, 2008, 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I was waiting for my article thumbs down. Just wondering what took thumb enthusiasts so long. I knew y’all wouldn’t disappoint my article or my comment. Cheers y’all! xoxoxo(reply to this comment)