Posts

Food disparagement laws.

by

Are you a terrorist?  If you criticize the food industry, the answer is yes. The food disparagement laws work with the Patriot Act to put food critics through the Just-Us (Justice) grinder.

Back when we had a constitutional government, the ONLY food law was “In all contracts for the sale of provisions there is an implied contract that they shall be wholesome.”  It was then up to a jury to determine the facts.

But now everything is illegal.  How did this happen?  Let’s take a closer look.

The regulated U.S. food industry IS NOT ABOUT providing you with wholesome foods.
The U.S. FDA allows 1,452 food additives and an additional 47 color additives. Not including the USDA additives. While the European Union allows only 12 additives.

Telling the truth about the food industry is now a crime.  Since I am not a medical doctor, it was already a crime for me to tell you that eating citrus can prevent scurvy, or drinking a glass of water may help prevent dehydration.  But the food disparagement laws take these crimes to a new level. It is now the crime of terrorism if your true statement disrupts the food industry.  Link: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/disparagement-law-the-patriot-act-and-the-food-industry-44263

It might even be a crime for me to tell you that if you eat the typical American diet, you will die a typical American death.

INJUSTICE

Before the Patriot Act existed, Oprah was put through the grinder when she told her audience that she would not eat a hamburger.

And since environmental regulations require most seafood to now be imported, guess what happens when you import Lobster tails, while obeying all known laws. You go to prison . This was also mentioned in John Stossel’s video Everything is Illegal.

Now that environmental regulations regulate hard working fishermen out of business, they can do it to you. Just like they forced family farmers out of business. Just like they forced factories out of the country.  Speak up now while you have a chance. Communism must have government control of the means of production. They already control most of your food supplies and your congress.

Foreign ownership of U.S. farms has skyrocketed in the past two years. Because we are no longer allowed to take care of ourselves, the U.S. has now become the world’s largest debtor. China is our largest creditor, and China will start rationing our food.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN:
  • My free essay on the fishing industry. Here.
  • I don’t have an essay on Genetically Modified food, but here is a movie that explains the controversy. Here.
  • NaturalNews.com has news you can use.  It is banned as fake news by the mainstream media.
  • The book Three Felonies a Day by attorney Silverglate documents that there are so many laws —  the average “law abiding” American now commits three felonies a day
  • And a book One Nation Under Arrest by Paul Rosenzweig explains why everything is now illegal.
  • And a book Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything by Gene Healy.
  • When They Come For You by David Kirby
  • John Stossel essay Everything is Illegal.
  • Due Process when everything is illegal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
  • http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day
  • www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it
  • John Stossel’s investigative report proves that it takes a minimum of 65 days to start a lemonade stand.
  • https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/disparagement-law-the-patriot-act-and-the-food-industry-44263

Oprah was able to hire enough lawyers to defend herself against the cattlemen’s predators. She won her six week trial .  If you are an unfortunate victim, you may also be interested in “How To Win In Court” self-help course”. Learn the procedures and practices that run American courts. If you do not know how to defend your rights in their courts, you will lose.

ADD YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:

Your government’s definition of the word “Must”

by

Your Government’s definition of the word “Must”

You’ve probably been told that you “Must” file a form, or you “Must” disclose a number, or you “Must” show ID. Don’t assume that the official definition really means “mandatory”. Let’s take a closer look.

US Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Minker, 350 U.S. 179 at page 187 explains that an administrative summons cannot compel testimony:

an official command, … has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the … validity by litigation.”

Read that again.  It explains the three reasons why you don’t have rights anymore.  It is either (1) your ignorance of your rights, OR (2) your respect for counterfeit authority OR (3) your reluctance to test their validity by litigation.*

You MUST show ID?

US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, quoted part of an Arizona case Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1: Here is the more complete quote:

The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”

And now you cannot board an Amtrak train or a Greyhound bus without showing ID — in the same America where such repugnant privacy violations have “frightening implications”. Which is the same America where Identification Credentials are abhorrent. Which is the same America where the Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison determined that government officers are not entitled to and cannot be issued identification credentials.  Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen one.

You Must get a license?

U.S. Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (in 1877) ruled in a marriage license case that:

“ Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943) was a pedestrian sidewalk case:
• “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.
• “a person cannot be compelled to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
• “the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 , 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.”

In other words, a right cannot be taxed or licensed.

You Must obey Government?

U.S. v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d. 767, quoting Goldberg v. Weinberger

It is fundamental that the United States is not estopped by representations made by an agent without authority to bind the government in a transaction….

… [O]ne who relies on a legal interpretation by a governmental official assumes the risk that it is in error…. It has also been held or said that “the government could scarcely function if it were bound by its employees’ unauthorized representations.” ” Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d. 477.

Caterpillar Tractor Company v. U.S., 589 F.2d. 1040 (also see GEHL Co. v. C.I.R. 795 F.2d. 1324):

“Informal publications of IRS all the way up to revenue rulings are simply guides to taxpayers and taxpayer relies on them at his peril.”

United States Supreme Court Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merril, 332 U.S. 380 (1947):

“… Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority … and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”

In other words, it is your duty to not be fooled.  And it is your fault if you are fooled.

Must, May, Shall, Required, Mandatory?

Fields v. U.S., 27 App.D.C. 433:

Words like “may,” “must,” “shall,” etc., are constantly used in statutes without intending that they be taken literally.

Brinkley v. Brinkley, 56 N.Y. 192:

“Must” as used in statutes has been frequently construed not to be mandatory …

it has been repeatedly held that its provisions are directory merely, and a failure to comply with them will not prejudice either party.”

Fort Howard Paper v. Fox River Dist., 26 N.W.2nd. 661:

The word “shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may”, particularly in order to avoid a constitutional doubt.

Gow v. Consolidated Copper, 165 Atl. 136:

If necessary, to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may”.

George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2nd 891:

“Shall” in any statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt.

US Supreme Court, Rail Road Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168, page 170:

As against the government, the word “shall” when used in statutes is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest

Ballou v. Kemp, 95 F.2d. 556:

The word “shall” in a statute may be construed as “may” where the connection in which it is used or the relation to which it is put with other parts of the same statute indicates that the legislature intended that it should receive such a construction.”

Many forms request information from the public.

Example: Employers who voluntarily get an EIN must present to their new employees a W-4 Form (for Estate and Gift Tax) and an I-9 form (for the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Employees Protection Act). Both forms have something labeled as “Privacy Act Statement” that does not meet the minimum requirements of the Privacy Act.

The Legislative History of the Privacy Act, written by congress, explains the intent of the Privacy Act Statement:

Legislative History of the Privacy Act excerpt from page 6963 requires the specific word “mandatory”. Agencies often use the word required to evade the law.

But neither the W-4 nor I-9 forms’ Privacy Act Statement use the word “Mandatory”. Ask your new employer to provide you with a Privacy Act Statement that actually meets the minimum requirements of the Privacy Act (Public Law 93-579). They cannot provide one because it does not exist. And don’t be fooled by the Privacy Act’s section 7 which makes it seem like it only applies to government requests. Your employer is asking on behalf of government. And the Legislative History (quoted in my essay SSNs Are Not Required, linked below), specifically says the Privacy Act applies to private businesses’ requests that are a condition of employment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For more information on legal lingo, read my free essay on Legal Lingo. You will find that sometimes: may means must, or means and, and means or, includes means only. And you will learn some rules of statute construction.

For more information on W-4 and I-9 forms read my free essay SSNs are not required to work in the U.S.

America’s Lost Liberty is my essay is about the injustice. The court system IS NOT ABOUT justice.

For more information about IDs read my book on Identification Credentials.

* If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Add your comments below:

Why does the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT include education.

by

Why does the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT include education, even though all of the founders knew it as a vital part of maintaining liberty?

Steven Miller
· Originally answered Jan 21, 2018

Public schools are the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. Communism cannot recognize individual rights. Public schools have no place in America.

The United States Supreme Court keeps persisting, over and over and over again that it is the parents’ duty to educate their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, and there are dozens of cases on family privacy.

Parents’ have a duty to educate their own children. Those who fail to educate their own children will lose their children to state custody where they will be forced into public schools. The received-law-of-the-land as described in Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book 1, chapter 16, entitled “The Rights of Children” tells us that: “The duty of parents for the maintenance of their [legitimate] children is a principle of natural law… The establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation… The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life… Yet the municipal laws … constraining the parent to bestow a proper education upon his children… made a wise provision for breeding up the rising generation… [these neglected children] are taken out of the hands of their parents.”

The State’s Children

That’s right!  By institutionalizing “your” children, you have confessed that you are incapable of raising your own children. You lose your parental rights. The children become wards of the state. It is no wonder family courts are so sure that they have jurisdiction over the state’s children. Activist judges no longer fear that they will be charged with kidnapping, genocide, and depravation of liberty under color of law. But, for un-surrendered children, state protection would be severely limited to a compelling state interest.

In 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488:

“a parent’s right to rear their children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeated Blackstone’s principle of natural law in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, by concluding “it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life…”

Enrollment in Public School

Interestingly, in my local school district, the registration form for enrolling a student does not need a parent’s signature. If you are so incompetent that you cannot educate your own children, then you are deemed to be too incompetent to sign over your children. They don’t even need to ask for a signature.

You should also be interested in:

For much more information read my essay on Public Education.

 

What’s happening to American democracy?

by

Answer: The chaos and violence that you are witnessing is the inevitable conclusion to democracy.

Democracy has no place in America. The word Democracy is not in the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason that the writers of the Constitution left it out. The founders of the government knew that democracy would create turbulence, contention, and chaos. The chaos that you see around you is the result of your tolerance of democracy.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure rights. The Constitution secures the blessings of liberty. Every congressman swore an oath-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty. The Constitution guarantees a republic form of government, NOT a democracy. No form of collectivism can respect individual rights.

Collectivists cannot recognize individual rights. Collectivists covet their neighbor’s wealth through taxation and usury. Once the cancer of covetousness metastasizes into a democracy, no society can recover (Thomas Jefferson, quoted below, says it eats to the heart of the Constitution). There is no amount of government regulations that can cure the corruption, greed, sloth, deception and perversion that is spread by democracy. If you insist on participating, you will find yourself dominated by those who refuse to manage their own lives.

Learn from history.

The writers of the Constitution knew what would happen to a government that allows the greedy to vote. Voting for welfare is a conflict of interest. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, section 222, tells us that when government officers corrupt society, the result is

“to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

Every July Fourth Americans celebrate another anniversary of the signing of a famous document that told the world we had a right to be free and independent because we hold the truth that all men are created equal. The truth that we are created equal is the received law of the land in America. Love your neighbor as yourself, there is no greater moral commandment. This is the essence of being created equal. You do not love your neighbor by taking from one neighbor to give to another. Forced charity is not charity, it is violence. Taking from others is theft, even if legalized by the mob.

Frederic Bastiat in Economic Sophisms, Second Series, Chapter 1, The Physiology of Plunder, 1845:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Democracy denies that we have a right to be free and independent. Instead of equal, a democracy holds the truth that the mob is King.

You have no right to take from others just because you want to live more comfortably. You have no right to crate a mob to take from others. Coveting your neighbor’s wealth is still a sin — even if done by the government you hired to take from your neighbor.

Domination is the opposite of being equal.

Thomas Jefferson was “against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”. You welcomed tyranny when you were the tyrant, and now you complain. Collectivism in any of its forms cannot recognize individual rights.

Do not be fooled by misconstruing the Constitution.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD DEMOCRACY because democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others. Others have very limited right to dominate you.

In a democracy, a majority votes to force their will on others. But in a nation where everyone is created equal, those who know right from wrong will never covet their neighbors’ goods, will not plunder the innocent, will not exercise dominion over others.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

HISTORY

Alexander Hamilton:

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. … Theoretical politicians who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions”

Of course democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” They are only for those who would take the risk of loosing their rights in exchange for the chance to dominate others.

Patrick Henry:

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”

Fisher Ames, who was the author of the words of the First Amendment, said:

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”

John Adams, 1815:

“Democracy … while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

“Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Greek Historian Polybius The Histories Book 6, section 9:

“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence . For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”1,2

1.This must have been a popular saying. This quote is often attributed to several American patriots. Most often to Benjamin Rush, or Jedidiah Morse (the “father of American Geography”), but it was actually written by a Presbyterian pastor. L.H. Butterfield, ed., The Letters of Benjamin Rush, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 454, quoting John Joachim Zubly, Presbyterian pastor and delegate to Congress, in a letter to David Ramsay in March or April 1788.

2. William Elder, Questions of the Day, (Philadelphia: Henry Baird publisher, 1871) page 175, attributes the quote to Thomas Jefferson.

A CANCER SORE WHICH EATS TO THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787.  In the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 290:

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

[Venality is the condition of being susceptible to bribery or corruption. The use of a position of trust for dishonest gain. The American Heritage Dictionary]

Why would he mention subservience?

SUBSERVIENCE.

Actions speak louder than words. Once you salute your new master you have acknowledged that you are the inferior, no longer equal.

Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum, secular new world order.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Those with a conflict of interest will insist on dominating their neighbors.

`Conflict of interest’ is legal terminology for those who can influence a government decision to enrich themselves. This is not limited to Elected Officials or civil servants. Welfare partakers are, by voting, also influencing government to receive their check. Anyone who receives a government check, be it a paycheck or an entitlement check has a conflict of interest that morally prohibits them from voting. Voting becomes, for them, a government granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. On the other hand, Government’s sovereign masters have a right to control their servants — they are the Jura Summi Imperii.

Democracy cannot be considered as a form of government. Although it starts as a form of government, it quickly dissolves into corruption. The moment a politician makes a promise, is the moment democracy ceases to be a form of government. To use a public office to grant favors to those who elect you is corruption. It is the very definition of corruption. Go look it up in a law dictionary. DEMOCRACY IS CORRUPTION. According to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government section 222 the use of a public office to influence your electors will “cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security…”

Ben Franklin, closing speech at the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Government exists to secure the blessings of liberty. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

For more information read my free essays.

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Jan 27, 2019

Leave your comments below:

New IRS power to destroy you.

by

A new law was passed that gives more power to the IRS to collect unpaid taxes from American citizens. The new power was deeply hidden in a transportation bill stating that your freedom to travel could be taken from you if the IRS alleges that you owe back taxes.

The New Law

The new law, entitled “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies,” states that anyone owing the IRS $50,000 or more can have his or her passport cancelled by sending a message to the State Department. No hearing is required.  The Internal Revenue Service can simply cancel your passport just by falsely alleging that you owe them money. There are no courts, hearings, politicians, lawyers, or judges to stop them. Taxpayers DO NOT have a right to fight the decision in court before the passport is taken. The IRS uses their “guilty until proven innocent” rule.

Not controversial

The Controversy is not about their modus operandi, but their immunity from intentional crimes.
The IRS bullies enjoy destroying innocent people. The IRS has seized bank accounts even though no charges are filed. They don’t need to follow the due process of law because they are not an agency of the United States.  They like to seize bank accounts of small businesses without any warning. Often based on whatever is deemed to be a “suspicious” transaction  — which get more restrictive every year. Even irregular daily bank deposits, or cashing a large check.  And now banks must ask for valid ID if you deposit more than $500 cash into a business account. IRS power is often based on the public’s fear of the IRS. The chances of recovering from an IRS seizure are slim to none — and all done without lawful authority.

It is estimated that there are four to six million American citizens living abroad. Most rely on their passports as identification to get a hotel room, traveling, using their credit card, and other everyday uses.

Travelers who owe the IRS should not plan to live a normal life.  Or even return home. Their bank accounts will be closed, their home auctioned off, and other assets seized.

Those U.S. citizens who live abroad are never safe. There are only two countries on the face of the earth that tax their own citizens who live elsewhere.  The United States is one.  The other is Eritrea — a small mid-eastern military dictatorship. Yet most Americans think they are free. According to Human Rights Watch, the Eritrean human rights record is among the worst in the world.

If you want to learn the IRS dirty tricks, you might have a feeble chance to defend yourself. Read my free essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com — but you will have to dig deep into my links. Hint: start with The slothful will be under tribute.

If you are interested in the “requirement” for passports, read my eBook on Identification Credentials.

If you are interested in your freedom to travel, read my free essay on Personal Liberty.  It is one of the blessings of liberty that every congressman has sworn an oath-of-office to uphold.

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Add your comments below:

Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?

by

Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?

Steven Miller · Originally answered Feb 26, 2019

Presidents could not find anything in the U.S. Constitution to allow socialism or any kind of welfare for individuals. Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.

To counter those rumors that the “general welfare” clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”.

In 1792 congressman and future President James Madison voted against a congressional appropriation to assist war refugees who had fled to America. He said:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

This was still true when Congressman Davy Crockett made his famous “it is not yours to give” speech. It is not their money to give, not even for disaster relief in a federal territory.

In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, Title 81 Federal Reporter page 358, the court held that Mr. Sauer, although an industrious and law abiding man, could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist. That’s right. SOCIALISTS CAN NOT BECOME U.S. CITIZENS.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed a health care bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said:

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858:

“Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.”

Abraham Lincoln, second Inaugural Address, 1865:

“It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces …”

Grover Cleveland’s veto of government pensions, June 21, 1886:

“… encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. This is the demoralizing lesson taught [to]the people … against the public Treasury …”

1897 President Grover Cleveland vetoed an appropriation to provide disaster aid to victims of a Texas drought. His veto stated:

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds… I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution. The lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people should support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Footnote: 1897 was 2 years after the Supreme Court ruled that income tax was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Co. (157 US 429, 158 U.S. 601)

Teddy Roosevelt speech to the New York City Chamber of Commerce November 11, 1902:

“the traditional American self-reliance of spirit which makes them scorn to ask from the government, whether of State or of Nation, anything but a fair field and no favor; who confide not in being helped by others, but in their own skill, energy, and business capacity to achieve success. The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight that he shall not be a mere passenger, but shall do his share in the work that each generation of us finds ready to hand; and, furthermore, that in doing his work he shall show not only the capacity for sturdy self-help but also self-respecting regard for the rights of others.”

For more information on how you waived your rights, read my essays at Essays Do Not Be Fooled by Government

 

Can you drive without a license?

by

Can you drive without a license?

Most Americans waive their right to travel on the roads by getting a driver’s license.

Licenses are for commercial use of the roads. Government has a duty to regulate commerce. Government also has a duty to secure the blessings of liberty. There is no conflict between these two duties. Traveling without a license is a liberty that government officials are sworn to protect.

Commerce restricts travel. Examples:

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516 “ … For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”

Washington State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864:“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”

Willis v. Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928): “On that point the opinion is not controlling here, as no person has a vested right to use the public highways for a commercial purpose, and a denial of the mere license to do so takes from him no property or property right.”

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “ Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v Kuykendall 267 US 307 at page 314:“The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35” . . .
“A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144“

How do you like that? The U.S. Supreme Court says that a federal citizen may have the right to travel interstate by auto vehicle. Today’s judges tell you the opposite.

Don’t be fooled by the legal term “motor vehicle”. This is a term that originated in statutory definitions 100 years ago but in wide usage has become known to mean something else. Do not assume these old legislatures intended to use today’s common misuse of their language.

Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:“ Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled”

The federal definition of Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 31 definitions:
“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…”
“(10) “Used for commercial purposes.” Means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”

For more information read my essay on Driving here. But don’t blame me for corrupt courts that have no respect for your rights.

Steven Miller · Originally answered Jul 10, 2017

Is it important that people abide by the law?

by

Someone tried to tell me: If everyone is free to do as he or she pleased society will quickly dissolve into chaos. Is it important that people abide by the law?

Here is my rebuttal.

Your question is wrong. You don’t understand what law is.

The laws that you expect people to obey are written laws created by artificial (graven) entities.  The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that it is the divine laws of nature that entitle the United States to exist. The laws that entitle the U.S. to exist do not need to be written. Everyone is bound to the divine laws of nature. Maxim of Law: Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat Ignorance of a law, which every one is bound to know, excuses no man.

We did not have a central government for the first ten books of the Bible. It was evil in the eyes of the Lord to elect a King to rule over us. (First Samuel 12:17).  Christ at the Last Supper (Luke 22:25) told his Apostles that they are not to be like the princes of the pagans that take orders from “those who exercise authority over them”.

The Declaration of Independence also says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that to secure these God-given rights governments are instituted among men.

Just what is the divine law of nature? Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law was a four volume law textbook that existed in the American Colonies when the States were writing their Constitutions. Blackstone’s Commentaries 7 page introduction to law says, among other things:

“… no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original..[divine law of nature] … Neither could any other law possibly exist; … for we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”

Now you know why we are all created equal. An equal will not take orders from another equal.

Your words “free to do as he or she pleased” must necessarily exclude any acts which violate the rights or property of others. If your rights are violated we must revert to the laws of nature. Maxim of law: When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature. Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege natureae utendum est.”

We will return to the laws of nature. This is what gives us the right to hang cattle rustlers, murderers, child rapists, etc. Maxim of Law: Peccata contr naturam sunt gravissima. Crimes against nature are the most heinous.

If we don’t waive our rights, then we have all the privileges and immunities of all other Citizens, just like it says in the Constitution. We have the same equal right to duel to the death, just as equal to other Citizens like President Jackson, Vice President Aaron Burr and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Senator Broderick and California Supreme Court Justice David Terry. And government cannot interfere with your right to the natural law that entitles government to exist. To do so would be to question the legitimacy of their own office.

When laws imposed by the state fail, people will be much more respectful of the rights of others. Why do you call this “chaos”?

For more insight read my essays at NotFooledByGovernment.com

Steven Miller · Originally Answered Aug 9, 2018.

Revised 8/28/2019

 

Will you be deceived into getting the Mark of the Beast?

by

Will you be deceived into getting the Mark of the Beast?

  • There are many places in the Bible where people were instructed to discern truth from deception.
  • Will deceptions be any different than it was for those living in Biblical times under the brutal Roman Empire?
  • Do governments today issue the Mark of the Beast?
  • Do you have the mark?

Join me in pondering these questions.

DECEPTION.

Will the Mark of the Beast be something obvious that everyone would know to avoid?  Or, can you take the mark of the beast accidentally?  There are many hints that the endtimes will be confusing.

  • Revelation 19:20 says the false prophet deceived those that had received the mark of the beast.
  • When asked about the end time, Christ said “take heed that ye be not deceived.”
  • Revelation 20:3-4 says that those who receive the mark will be deceived.
  • Revelation 13:18 says that it takes wisdom to understand the number of the beast.
  • Specific prophecy for today.  Second Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means…”
  • Second Timothy 3:13 tells us that evil men and imposters will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
  • Revelation 13:9 “he who has an ear let him hear” proves that you must be receptive to its message.
  • Revelation 17:9 says it takes wisdom to understand the beast’s identity.
  • Second Thessalonians 2:9-10 speaks of deceivableness and delusion in the end times.
  • And in Revelation 13:14 the two horned second beast “deceiveth them that dwell on the earth” to cause them to worship the first beast.
  • Christ warned (in Matthew 24:24) of an endtime false religion that if possible, would deceive the very elect.
  • And there is a false prophet that issues forth spirits who will influence the kings of the earth.  And men will turn to cleverly devised fables.
  • Second Peter 2:3 warns that through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Today we have a term for this. We call it Human Resources. You will need a wage authorization number to sell your labor.

YES, YOU CAN ACCIDENTALLY TAKE THE MARK.  Falling for deception has grave consequences today, just as it did for Adam and Eve.

WARNING

The word Revelation means revealing.  Revelation 13:17 says that a mark, name or number will be presented as something that authorizes you to buy or sell.  This is the ONLY hint we are given (other than noticing that prophecy has become history), as to why someone would take the mark.  Should your banking authorization number be suspicious? If you want to sell your labor, is your wage authorization number suspicious?

Yes, you are living at a time in history when nobody can buy or sell in normal commerce without a banking authorization number. Or sell your labor without a wage authorization number.

COUNTERFEIT GOVERNMENT?

Most Americans have been systematically deceived bit by bit, precept upon precept, that they might fall backward and be snared* into accepting a counterfeit government.  By accepting small incremental compromises, America was transformed from a Holy nation into a nation that will receive the due penalty for its perversion.  All the circumstances involving the mark are circumstances created in small incremental steps by deceived socialists who received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.  Throughout the history of mankind, an unchanging God has seen fit to allow brutal pagans to take captive any nation that obeys a counterfeit authority.  God has always used pagan nations to punish his people.  In the Bible, brutal nations enslave those who turn their backs on God.  Brutal pagan conquerors are instruments of His discipline (Isaiah 8:4-10, 10:5-6, 45:1-3, Jeremiah 5:15-18, 20:4-5, 24:10, Ezekiel 21:15-23, 30:24-26, 32:11-15).  IS AMERICA GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT, OR DID GOD CHANGE?

Many people cannot believe that God would punish them just for getting a silly number.  They are under a strong delusion.  It is not just a number.

Revelation 14

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

Revelation 15

2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are your works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are your ways, you King of saints.

 

FOOTNOTE

* Paul repeated King David’s warning that government benefactors would be a snare to trap you; Romans 11:9.

For more information read my essays:

Should a Christian Obey Government?

Things the Government forgot to tell you about Social Security Numbers.

666

Can a Lawyer be honest?

Business is a peril to the soul.

Or post a topic on the Community Forum at NotFooledByGovernment.com/community

Do you trust your lawyer?

by

Do you trust your lawyer?
Is he colluding with opposing counsel?
What are your rights?
What I would do.

DO YOU TRUST YOUR LAWYER?

The American Bar Association (ABA) reports:

  • 60% of the public can’t afford a lawyer.
  • 20% simply don’t want to spend the money.
  • 50% just don’t trust lawyers!

That is why ½ of all court proceedings involve at least one pro-se party.

IS HE COLLUDING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL?

Once you understand the procedures that run the courts, you can know exactly what your lawyer should be doing. And know enough to push him in the right direction. I recommend a self-help law course for those who do not trust lawyers.

  • If you have a lawyer — understand what he should be doing, so that you can control him, and know when to fire him.
  • If you don’t have a lawyer — understand what YOU should be doing. All the basic courtroom procedures are explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course. This is a step-by-step guide on how to win in court. It has Pro-Se tactics, and forms for civil cases.

You can understand why lawyers cannot be trusted by reading my essay at Can a lawyer be honest?  My essay will tell you the history, the conspiracy, and you will also learn that:

  • The Supreme Court said that the bar was associated with rude and degrading barbarism.
  • U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said that 50% of American Trial Lawyers are too incompetent to represent anyone.
  • TIME Magazine April 10, 1978 quotes Chief Justice Warren Burger warning us:

“We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.”

  • The same TIME article also tells us:

Chesterfield Smith, a former president of the American Bar Association, said that he would not trust 20% to 25% of all lawyers”

WHAT I WOULD DO.

All the basic courtroom procedures are explained in “How To Win In Court” self-help course.

 

Steven Miller · Originally posted January 31, 2019
revised 8/24/2019