Uncategorized

Liberty might not be what you were taught. You might need to rethink your worldview.

Is Liberty a blessing?

The framers of the U.S. government wrote in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution that the federal government was established to secure the blessings of liberty.

Although liberty would be a blessing, today we have no blessings of liberty. So, what happened?

The lack of liberty is not caused by the structure of government. The lack of liberty is because almost everyone voluntarily consented to be governed. We were tricked out of our rights by legalities we did not understand. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one.

Failing to stand firm.

The English word “apostate” or “apostasy” comes from the original Greek words meaning failure to stand firm. You had a duty to stand firm. Failing to correct your government abandons your duty to correct them.

Examples:

• Ab assuetis non fit injuria according to Black’s Law Dictionary “From things in which there has been long acquiescence, no legal injury or wrong arises.”
• The US Supreme Court ruled in a 1913 case, German Alliance Insurance Co. v. Kansas, 233 U.S. 389 at page 432 that, by your inaction, criminals can interpret your laws for you: These laws “permitting what theretofore had been regarded both as an ecclesiastical and civil offense. … therefore fall within the rule that contemporary practice, if subsequently continued and universally acquiesced in, amounts to an interpretation of the Constitution.”
  — Notice that it was criminals that interpreted your Constitution, because your great-grandfathers failed to stand firm.
• 13 AmJur Proof of Facts 3d, 21: “Without having been directly authorized, tacitly encouraged, or even inadequately trained, police officers, like other public employees, may fall into patterns of unconstitutional conduct. This can result from a variety of factors not sufficiently traceable in origin to any fault of “municipal policy” in the Monell sense (Monell v Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 US 658, and Soell v McDaniel (1987 CA4 NC) 824 F2d 1380). If these unconstitutional practices become sufficiently widespread, however, they may assume the quality of “custom or usage” which has the force of law…”

Now that almost everyone has consented to be governed, the government can assume that you also abandoned your rights. This is based on our inaction to correct a wrong.

Every tolerated Government overreach only worsens our condition of servitude for everyone. Failure to stand up for traditional Americana only encourages the bullies. By failing to stand up to government bullies you make it worse for your posterity – even though you were told the Constitution would secure their blessings of Liberty. You now have the burden to prove that you did not waive your rights.

Also note that the framers had an alternate agenda when they wrote the Constitution. The original federal government created free and independent States – that the Declaration declared. Five years later, the ratified Constitution made them dependent.

If the framers of government had their clear goal of the blessings of liberty, why is there so much confusion and chaos today?

Why can’t liberty be the answer to all constitutional questions we face today?

First. The word “Liberty” can mean opposite things to different people. Abe Lincoln said so in his address at Baltimore in 1864.

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names liberty and tyranny.”

Second. Those who consented to be governed have no expectation of liberty. Example: those who enlist in the military have no right to their own free-will. And certainly no right to safety.

But you consented to be governed and you still expect liberty. Lose your illusions and the heavens will open up as the haze of confusion disappears.

Third. The U.S. Constitution was written to control the federal government. It was not written to control you. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to you. Examples:

• In 1799 Vice President Jefferson told the people of Kentucky that they were subject to only three federal laws (the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution) and no other federal crimes whatsoever. If more than three federal laws apply to you, try to figure out how you consented to be governed.
• The U.S. Supreme Court tells us that the first eight Amendments do not apply to State citizens (Twinning v. NJ and in Hague v. CIO) . That’s right. The Bill of Rights does not protect you unless you voluntarily submit yourself to such a form of government.
• The U.S. Supreme Court tells us that State governments must protect their people from the federal government. (Ex Parte Mulligan)
• Federal bankruptcy laws do not protect you either, until you consent to be governed and waived all your rights.

Are lawmakers required to obey their oaths-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty?

Yes, lawmakers and judges are obliged to their oaths-of-office to secure the Blessings of Liberty. But they are also obliged to enforce contracts – even presumed contracts. And they are obligated to take away the rights of criminals, paupers and vagabonds. And the executive branch has a duty to prevent injury to interests the state may lawfully protect.

Many people complain about unconstitutional laws. But all unconstitutional laws are null and void from the beginning. And it is illegal for anyone in government to deny you a right, benefit or privilege provided by law. To get a real understanding of what happened to your rights, keep studying.

Lawmakers cannot use their parliamentary procedures to agree to commit mutiny against lawful authority – no matter how many laws you think are unconstitutional.

Why are so many people confused by this blessing of liberty?

As George Orwell predicted: freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. Actually the Bible predicted that wrong will be right, and right wrong. Orwell also warned us that the future of mankind will be a boot stomping on your face forever.

Just as the word “Liberty” means different things to different people — The word “justice” also means different things to different people. As does mercy, equality, equity, duty, and even truth. Do not be confused. Laws, as written, must be clear. Laws are void if ambiguous or vague. Laws that seem overly broad to effect a lawful goal must not be interpreted as such.

So how do we know what the lawmakers really intended when they legislated the blessing of liberty? – Answer: study the legal words of statutory construction. You might find that the law you are studying does not apply to you, or that it is enforced in an overly broad manner.

Many people think that liberty is freedom from a restriction. Although it includes freedom from restriction, it was originally freedom from compulsion. Liberty is the God-given right to your free-will. The three rights of all mankind are freedom from all known methods of compulsion. YES, when you were created equal, you had liberty from tyranny. If you had remained equal, courts would protect you from Government.

Government agents are restricted by the bonds of the Constitution. You are not restricted except you are bound to what you agreed to, even if you don’t understand what you agreed to.

Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s partial definition of the term Liberty in Meyer v. Nebraska:

US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399:

The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

Liberty from Tyranny.

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins”. (John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, paragraph 202)

Liberty from tyrannical government is built into the structure of government. The Constitution has powerful constraints on the federal government, such as separation of powers.

One of the checks and balances in the constitution was required by Article 2, Section 1 “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be President, … after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be Vice President.” (this was later clarified by the 12^th Amendment)

That’s right. the President of the United States and the Vice President were to be selected from the same list of presidential candidates. When someone is running for president, he might just as easily end up as vice president in the administration of a rival who got more votes than he did. The second runner up in the popularity contest would be Vice President. What a concept. A strangle-hold on unlimited power.

And the 14^th Amendment section 2 requires the census count to be reduced by the number of voters who cannot vote to elect people to the electoral college. What a concept. Representatives in congress (and direct taxes) would be very limited to only representing voters with real power. This is not what we have today. Today, you cannot vote for an elector to the electoral college.

After the 14^th Amendment, States were obligated to allow federal control of “courts” by the Supreme Law of the Land. More about this later.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights says that it imposes further restrictions on government. The Bill of Rights only lists a very few of the thousands of unalienable rights that are protected against government intrusion. And even those are not understood today. Freedom of speech is restricted. Freedom of religion is restricted. Gun keeping is restricted. Miranda’s famous right to remain silent isn’t so clear anymore. Fourth Amendment restrictions on Searches and seizures do not seem to apply to civil asset forfeiture or to certain currency transactions. And when your debtor declares bankruptcy government will impair the obligation of your contract.

Liberty from invasion?

Liberty from our own government’s oppression would be useless if we are conquered by invaders. So the Constitution also provided for the common defense.
Throughout history, the U.S. government had the power to draft men into the military. You had to submit to being drafted into the military where you have no liberty. This complete loss of the blessings of liberty is Constitutional.

Obviously during time of war (and later – national emergency) government must restrict domestic liberty, and impose indirect taxes to pay for the military. This restriction on liberty is consistent with the Constitution’s “secure the blessings of liberty”. After all, men created government to help them protect their families. In the former British Colonies the nobility had to provide soldiers and knights and castles to defend society. But when we created a government – we became responsible to protect what we created.

Today’s people didn’t want this. They wanted it to be the other way around. They wanted to be protected by government.

Drafting men to involuntary servitude to fight in wars is a restriction on personal liberty. This would be perfectly Constitutional if they draft you the Constitutional way, the way Lincoln did. They don’t do this anymore. You are expected to volunteer.

Other restrictions on liberty

The fourth amendment allows reasonable searches and seizures to protect us from criminals taking our liberty. But who determines what is “reasonable”?

The fifth amendment allows private property to be taken for public use if the government pays “just compensation”. You can be thrown out of your family’s house. This is certainly a restriction on the not so secure blessings of liberty.

And the Commerce Clause is overused to control almost everything.

Even growing crops on your own farm can be prohibited if you accept crop subsidy (as in Wickard v Filburn 317 US 111 “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”).

Government can also deny government granted privileges such as welfare or licenses. These are not the certain Creator-endowed unailenable rights that are secured by governments instituted among men.

Government cannot convert a right into a privilege and charge a fee (According to the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 ). So how come you need to get ID to have a right to contract? Answer: they cannot require an ID. Requiring an ID would be abhorrent in the United States. Nor even require a wage authorization number.

The Commerce Clause in Article 1, section 8 says the federal government has the power: “to regulate commerce … among the several States…”

Did the framers of the Constitution really intend for governments to regulate what you make and sell to others?

For a long time people thought the Constitutional words “regulate commerce … among the several states” referred ONLY to promoting commerce, not restricting commerce, after all, “one of the objectives of the Philadelphia Convention was the promotion of commerce” (according to an analysis of the Constitution published in 1996 by the Congressional Research Service in Senate Document 103-6). Example: the first agriculture department in Pennsylvania was created to help farmers sell eggs OUTSIDE of the Commonwealth, and to run a state fair, promoting Pennsylvania grown produce. THAT’S IT! That was the understanding of the Constitution clause regulating commerce among the several states

Personal rights

Where do my rights stop and yours start? The Constitution does not tell us.

I have no right to violate your God-given rights. But Government CAN violate your God-given rights.

So why can an artificial entity, created on paper, violate rights? “We The People” did not have the right to violate your rights, so how could “We The People” delegate a right they themselves did not have? I don’t have an answer. But I do know that 1. the Laws of Nature entitle the government to exist, and 2. according to Blackstone’s Commentaries (a popular law textbook in 1776 that was considered by the Supreme Court to be part of the received-law-of-the-land) “neither could any other law possibly exist… for we are all created equal…”. And 3. Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.

“… 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.. … 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.”

– Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, introduction to law

People disagree about what rights should be protected from others, such as by employers, local governments, or corporations that want a monopoly.

So what did the framers do to secure the blessings of liberty from intrusion by others, employers, municipal corporations and corporate monopolies?

FIRST. Although they mentioned certain rights in the Bill of Rights were restricted from government intrusion, they gave courts the duty to settle disputes. THEY DID NOT GIVE courts a role in redefining these rights.

SECOND. The Constitution gives federal lawmakers and State legislative tribunals a major role in defining what liberties are allowed for 14^th Amendment citizens.

THIRD. The structure of government had separation of powers so no single branch of government can restrict liberty. The hue-and-cry of the oppressed was expected to enrage the populous into immediate reaction to correct their government.

FOURTH, they left liberty at the mercy of a political process that they never thought would get out of control. They expected great local debates to solve the local violations of natural liberty. And larger debates to solve larger violations. Slavery was a great violation of liberty – eventually abolished by the political process. A great civil war was conducted by elected officials – as Lincoln said – testing whether any nation conceived in Liberty can long endure.

The framers did not want people’s decisions about our lives to be made by government. But it is too late now. You cannot make your own decisions on what business to start, whom to associate with, what prices to pay, how much water flow you can get from your own shower, or how much gasoline your car can guzzle, or how much electricity your light bulb can use. You must now beg for a permit to repair your back porch – in a nation where your great-grandfathers blasted through mountains to build a railroad from sea to shining sea. You are protected from unlicensed dogs, and unlicensed barbers and lemonade stands. There is hardly a blessing of liberty in sight anywhere.

Any puddle on your own land that lasts for 6 weeks a year is now a protected wetland habitat. Government can force you to fence off a 100 foot buffer around your own puddle – and keep you off of 95% of your own property without any hope of just compensation.

Were you much freer, richer, safer when you made your own decisions? Can you pursue your own dreams?

The framers wanted the tough questions about liberty to be left to the political process, But NOT BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. A democracy is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD DEMOCRACY. Democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others because we are all created equal.

Should government impose as few restrictions on personal lives to secure the blessings of liberty? Or did the framers want a bigger government to make every decision about your safety?

The framers wanted a political debate to solve the local emergencies, and the courts to resolve disputes.

If you consent to be governed and still want your ideas of liberty to prevail, you must now use elections to select your representatives. BUT BEWARE, your representatives can enslave you, and you cannot complain. Once represented Procurationem adversus nulla est proæscriptio. There is no prescription (cure) for procuration. If you are represented, then you cannot be damaged by your representative. Your submission must be a complete submission with the full understanding that you cannot be damaged by your representative.

Your birth did not voluntarily submit yourself to such a form of government. You were created equal.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

• Why I am not a Constitutionalist.
• Beware of Legal Lingo.
• Founders’ intent
• How much is your liberty worth?
• Identification Credentials
• The changing definition of the term “license”
• On online law course.

==== ::::: ====

Subscribe to my free email list and get a copy of my article on Anti-Privacy Technology. Click Here.

==== ::::: ====

Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com
LibertyContentWriter.com

During the Presidential Debate of Oct. 22, 2020:

Biden: “every single state out there finds themselves in trouble. They’re going to start laying off, whether they’re red or blue. Cops, firefighters, first responders, teachers — because they have to balance their budget. And the founders were smart. They allowed the federal government to deficit spend to compensate for the United States of America. “

These are  LIES. Except for the part where States must balance their [sic] budget. And South Dakota is not in trouble because they never shutdown.

Here is the TRUTH.

• The founders NEVER HAD SUCH THOUGHTS
• The States created the federal government. They cannot delegate an authority they themselves did not have.
• Joe has a law degree. He should know that every Law Dictionary tells us: Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. There can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals.
• Biden thinks it is smart to live beyond your means.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A BUDGET SHORTFALL TO BE PAID BY DIRECT TAXATION

The ongoing normal, everyday costs of government are to be met by ongoing indirect taxes of Imposts, Duties, and Excises (Article 1, Section 8), But, to keep the budget balanced to meet emergency costs, Congress is to resort to the other method of taxation: Congress is to tax the states by sending an apportioned tax bill to the governors. Article 1, section 2, clause 3 is a direct tax which was intended for emergencies ONLY. You can read about this in the Federalist Papers Nos. 10, 21, 35, 36 and 51 — and in the debates of the 1787 constitutional convention on July 12 and 13. — and in the ratification documents submitted by Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. It was used, as emergency taxation, to extinguish a part of the Revolutionary War debt, it was used during the War of 1812, and it was used by the Union to meet deficiencies during the Civil War. Direct tax was never intended as an everyday tax to meet ongoing expenses.

Thomas Jefferson boasted of his achievement in eliminating direct taxes.

“The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states, and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state. In time of war, if injustice, by ourselves or others, must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be increased by population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year, without encroaching on the rights of future generations, by burdening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.” 

— Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1805

The budget must be balanced — the deficit paid — by the end of the year that the expenditures were made.

But your covetous practices have cursed your children.

As an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from, so must it be with a government.”
Abraham Lincoln — campaign circular from Whig Committee, March 4, 1843

Article 1, section 2, clause 3 requires states to pay these emergency direct taxes, NOT people. This is a check-and-balance that was put into the Constitution to make overspending VERY painful to politicians. Constituents would be outraged at their representatives overspending. State political machinery would not tolerate federal depleting of the state treasury. Federal Tax collectors could NOT harass the people, it must deal with the state political machinery. And congressmen would be asked to answer to us why they overspend on our behalf. If the constitution were enforced, it would — via strong political pressure to recall congressmen — require a balanced budget, force congress to limit their spending to constitutional matters, and provide congress with strong political incentives to represent the true interests of their constituents. The federal government would be forced to remain subservient to the citizen creators of government. Which, after all, is the reason why “we the people” authorized government to exist.

And NO, the 16^th amendment did not change this, for many reasons.

• Government exists to protect rights. A right cannot be taxed.
• The US Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1915) determined that “… the 16^th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation.“
• No one who had a duty to uphold the constitution could propose to change it, which is why Article 5 only allows “amendments to” but never an “amendment of” the constitution*.
• The original proposed 16^th amendment in Senate Joint Resolution 39 as published in Congressional Record June 11, 1909 page 3377.”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population”
  The Senate Finance Committee then revised it as Senate Joint Resolution 40, to what we have today. (published on Page 3900 of the Congressional Record of June 28, 1909)
  The word “direct” was removed from the original proposed amendment.
  The words “from whatever source derived” were added.
  THEREFORE: It can NEVER be argued that income tax is a DIRECT tax. It can only be an indirect tax on YOUR revenue taxable activities. A right cannot be taxed.

I repeat: the word “direct” was removed from the “direct taxes” that were in the originally proposed 16th Amendment before any State ratified it.  What does this mean to you? It means NO STATE EVER RATIFIED THE 16TH AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE UNAPPORTIONED DIRECT TAXES ON PEOPLE.  On August 2, 1909, Alabama was the first state to ratify the 16th Amendment after it was revised with the word “Direct” removed. See NY Times front page article here. It was promoted as a tax on the wealthy — it would only tax bank interest of the wealthy. Bank interest is a government granted privilege, never a right.  See my essay on Usury.

No one can ever claim that the 16th Amendment authorizes an unapportioned direct tax on anyone’s wages (except government employee’s wages).  The words “from whatever source derived” means what it has always meant.  Nothing changed. After a judgment, they can collect what is owed by garnishing wages, seizing assets and bank accounts, or collecting from creditors from whatever source derived, not just the revenue-taxable activity that created the tax liability.

Nothing was changed by the 16^th Amendment. The Supreme Court confirmed that there is no new taxing authority. The amendment DID NOT eliminate apportionment, nor convert direct taxes into indirect taxes. Since the word direct was deleted, it can never be argued that it authorized a direct tax that is unapportioned among the States.
There is not now, nor can there ever be an unapportioned direct tax on incomes. (except for federal employees who are already subject to federal jurisdiction — and who’s wages were taxed since 1862 — long before the 16^th Amendment).

Senate ratification debates in the Congressional Record, August 28 1913 insisted that the word “income” referred only to earnings on savings accounts.  See my essay on Constitutional Taxation.  (Note that interest on bank savings accounts is a government granted privilege that can be taxed.)

By the way, the Article 1 section 8 power to borrow money was intended to be short term debt to be repaid when the states remit their payments. This was never intended to grant the power to issue debt currency. It remains unconstitutional to “emit Bills of Credit” per Article 1 section 10.

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Banks are the enemy of Capitalism.
and don’t miss the Bankruptcy discussion in my essay Liberty and Justice for all who can qualify.

“if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be,”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (6 January 1816) 

Originally answered by Steven Miller · April 28, 2018

Socialism cannot recognize individual rights.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wealth.

Christians voluntarily take care of the less fortunate. They do this out of love. Christians love their neighbors as they would love themselves.

Liberals force others to take care of the less fortunate. They use force, threats of fines, garnishments, violent evictions and asset forfeiture.

I can spot the difference between love and violence. Why can’t you?
I can spot the difference between responsibility to your fellow man, and avoidance of responsibility.
Christians cannot associate with freeloaders. Second Thessalonians 3:14 (start reading at verse 6).

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

Regulated healthcare is un-American.

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, during the Constitutional debates in 1787:

“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medcal freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”

Before the original 13 State Constitutions were written, the ONLY prescription drug law was for slaves. Slaves needed their owner’s permission to take drugs. When America became a free country, the Constitution abolished the only drug law that existed, even though the slaves were not yet free. Law textbooks said that Slave rights had been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow”. (quote is from Tucker’s 1803 Virginia law update to Blackstone’s law encyclopedia Book 1, Part 2, Note H “The state of slavery”)

Government has a right to regulate what it funds. This gives them jurisdiction. But Socialized medicine cannot work. This has reduced America’s infant survival rate to 34th in the world and American’s life expectancy to 35th. U.S. regulated “healthcare” is no longer about healthcare.

England has socialized health care. Hospitals make millions euthanizing patients http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/Europe/item/13477-british-hospitals-make-millions-euthanizing-patients

If you think others should be forced to pay for your problems, then you just might get what you deserve.

The document Shattered Lives has one hundred horror stories of the misery promised by socialized health care in Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Sweden and New Zealand.
Link: https://nationalcenter.org/2009/09/09/100-stories-of-personal-struggles-with-the-health-care-system-you-wont-hear-from-president-obama/

Hitler was a socialist. He had a solution for useless eaters.

Communist China has death vans. 24 death vans in every big city. Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
By the way, China is our highest creditor and you are the collateral for our national debt.

HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT REGULATED HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA

The General Welfare clause in the Constitution DOES NOT provide for individual welfare.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed our nation’s first health care bill — a 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.”

And Congress cannot impose health care costs on employers according to the US Supreme Court in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. 295 U.S. 330:

“The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety by proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.” [May 6, 1935]

If health care costs are out of control, it is because Congress wanted the problems. Hospitals are forced to give away their best services to people who will not pay. You end up paying. This is outright socialism. Government interference with health care is part of the planned destruction of America.

• Food is a human necessity. What would happen if congress forced the best restaurants to give away their best food to people who will not pay?
• Shelter is a human necessity. What would happen if congress forced the best hotels to give away their best suites to people who will not pay? We are already half-way to outright socialism. (housing is a necessity of life according to the Supreme Court Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, etc.)

The problems caused by too much government interference are not a logical excuse to demand more government interference.

FREE EDUCATION

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 children.
In 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488: “Parents right to rear 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…”

For more information read my essays at www.NotFooledByGovernment.com

The purpose of government does NOT include support for people. There IS NO legitimate government help except for those near death. Not even Social Security. The Constitution does not allow Government help to individuals.

Governments are instituted among men to secure Creator-endowed rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Government did not even pave the roads, except for post roads (Article 1, section 8 was for government to government posts). The first paved road in America was paved by breweries to keep their wagons from sinking in the mud.

Constitutional post offices were only for government-to-government posts. There was no home delivery of mail. Mail was delivered by your neighbors, and you delivered theirs’.

Private funds built jails.

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.”

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”.

That’s right! Your Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed our nation’s first health care bill — a 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.”

For more quotes from various authorities, and for more information on the sad story of how your government was overthrown read my essay Welfare . Government aid to people was only for those who are destitute and near death with no friends, relatives, neighbors, or church willing to help.

Originally answered by Steven Miller · January 7, 2019

The Democratic political party tries to represent the poor oppressed minority. In November 2020 they ask voters to elect a rich old white guy (with 46 years of perpetually promising to fix problems) and a ruthless law enforcer (who refused to prosecute sex abusers and gang members) from a wealthy slaveholder family.

Kamala Harris was never a descendant of slaves, but her great-grandfather was a slave owner. Here is the proof. And here is an article about her ancestry from Jamaican Global https://archive.fo/907zm

Kamala Harris is so politically ruthless that the Three Trillion dollar Virus bailout contained a $4+ Million donation to her alma mater (CARES Act, page 121).

While she was a prosecutor she refused to prosecute a known MS-13 gang member, illegal immigrant Edwin Ramos. Three months later he murdered three people in 2008.

Here is a history of the Democratic Party: Owned Slaves, Fought to keep them, killed reconstructionists, ran Jim Crowe, belonged to the KKK, stood in the school house door to oppose the 1964 and 67 civil rights bills, drove black fathers from their families with child welfare for single mothers, used the press to divide the US by race, supports the Number 1 killer of Black Lives (Planned Parenthood), Opposed Police, nominates an old white man and a woman who pretended to be black…and who’s ancestors owned slaves in Jamacia to get the Black vote, Overwhelmingly favored by Black People ever since LBJ created welfare chains to keep them on the Democratic plantation.

Here is a video from 1969 (only 6 minutes) that tells us the Democrat’s welfare agenda ever since LBJ’s Great Society. It explains why everything is happening today.

Here is the Democratic Party Platform in 1868, and ever since.

ICONOCLAS’TIC, adjective Breaking images.

Webster’s Dictionary, first edition

There are people who want to tear down our history.

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Statue

Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation statue was entirely paid by freed slaves. It was unveiled in 1876 for a dedication speech by Frederick Douglass. It depicts a freed slave, portrayed by Archer Alexander, kneeling before Lincoln, when Lincoln told him “Don’t kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only and thank him for the liberty you will hereafter enjoy.”

And now we are faced with an unreasoning mob who demands that we tear down this statue. They refuse to have a conversation.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Statue

And now they want to tear down Teddy Roosevelt’s statue.
In 1901 Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invited his adviser, the African American spokesman Booker T. Washington, to dine with him and his family at the White House, which provoked condemnation from southern Democrats and the press.
The Democrat controlled press published a poem about it. First published in the Missouri Democratic Leader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggers_in_the_White_House

Most slaves were white

The history that iconoclasts want to totally obliterate is the fact that most slaves were white.
Instead of explaining that all races shared in the horrors of slavery — which would bring us together, the fake news industry wants to agitate and divide.
These same people openly embrace Muslims where slavery flourishes as an important part of their culture. Yet not one peep from the fake news industry.
And they also ignore that the 1840 U.S. Census proves that 29% of free blacks owned slaves. Yet U.S. never had more than 1½% of whites owning slaves.
The very meaning of the word slave refers to white slaves.
Also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery
It was not until 1904 that there was an international treaty. International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic. Yet, There are 167 countries today that have slavery.
Here is a 37 minute video on slavery that every student should watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=MwN-Pdfd-Qo&feature=emb_logo
And don’t miss my essay on Slavery.
The same story continues in the U.S. — Here is an article The Clintons, Laura Silsby, Haiti, Amber Alerts & Human Trafficking

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

— George Orwell