Gun Control Fosters Democide

English: Skulls of victims from the Rwandan Genocide found at the Nyamata Memorial. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Wikipedia:  ”Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as ‘the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.’  Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars. . . .  In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death (according to Rummel).”

Get that?  According to Rummel, during the 20th century, more people were killed by their own government than were killed by a foreign government in the midst of a genuine war.

Thus, exactly as I’ve argued in previous posts supporting the 2nd Amendment, the principle reason for the 2nd Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” is to protect We the People from despotism and even murder committed by our own government.

video   00:02:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0sujnvIV4g4

 

Machine gun fire from military helicopters flying over downtown Miami Fl.

video     00:03:42

Yes, the machine gun fired only blanks.  Plus, the TV announcer says it’s just a “military exercise” that’s required as training for some sort of foreign deployment.  But I wonder what foreign city that resembles Miami as about to enjoy an influx of American military helicopters?  If there is no such foreign city, what are they really training for?

Make of it what you will.

P.S. here’s another similar story from Houston, Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smmu8DGv7-g&feature=youtu.be

 

Redeeming Legal Title to Property?

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only the designs of the $1 and $2 (the latter not pictured) are still in print. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of this blog’s readers wrote in part, “The federal citizens has a right to hold property, but due to his status and his use of legal tender [Federal Reserve Notes]  it appears he cannot hold the absolute title to or estate in the land as can white citizens and free inhabitants can (if they pay for the property rights with a lawful tender of gold or silver coin I would suspect.)”

My response:

Paying with gold or silver is not necessarily a perfect solution because you can’t buy what another man does not own.

For example, suppose you wanted to buy a house and a piece of land from me. If you paid me with gold and silver, in theory, you could buy both legal and equitable titles to the property.

But what if I had previously purchased the property with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)? I would apparently have equitable title to the property, but I would probably not have legal title to the property. Legal title would probably be held by the federal government and/or the Federal Reserve.  As a result of using FRNs, the land would fall into a trust relationship wherein I was the beneficiary and the federal government and/or Federal Reserve was the fiduciary.  I could “use” my land, but they would control it.

Assuming this “divided title” theory is valid, no matter how you paid me (gold, silver or corn cobs), if I only had equitable title to the property, it seems to me that I could only sell equitable title. I could not sell legal title (even if you paid with gold) because, as beneficiary, I don’t own legal title.

 

English YouTube Interview

Image via Wikipedia

About two weeks ago, Ben Lowrey sent me an email asking if he could interview me for an video to be placed on YouTube.  I said Sure.

When the interview took place, I was much surprised to actually hear Ben’s voice and learn that he’s English (I’d assumed he was American from his email).   I was slightly flattered to have someone in England take an interest in my work.

I was interviewed by CBS’ 60 Minutes on March 16th and a week later interviewed by someone from England.  Perhaps, after 28 years of trying to understand our “system,” I’m on the verge of becoming an “overnight success”.  Or maybe I’m about to get my 15 minutes of fame.  Or maybe life will pretty much continue as it has for the past two decades.

In any case, Ben interviewed me for about an hour and a half.  We (mostly I) talked about sovereignty, trust relationships, etc.

 

What do you “believe” about “belief”?

The following curious email exchange took place in December between myself and a friend who prefers to remain unnamed.  The exchange touches on the difference between “The State” (of the Union) and “this state” (the unincorporated association/territory/implied charitable trust of the singular United States) and especially on the bizarre importance of “belief” in our legal system.

The conclusions (or at least suspicions) about “belief” are somewhat challenging to understand and hard to “believe”.  Nevertheless, I think those conclusions/suspicions may be roughly correct.

In essence, I’m using this email exchange to explain what I “believe” about “belief”.

 

Actions of Account

This may be one of the most important (or perhaps misguided) articles I’ve ever published.  This article describes my theory du jure that virtually all modern court proceedings (from traffic tickets to civil suits to felonies) may be, at base, “actions of account”—and, if so, how those actions might not only be stopped, but stopped easily, almost laughably.

The article is long (23,000 words).  I haven’t proofread it.  And it’s pretty much pure conjecture. I’m not sure how clearly I’ve conveyed my theory, but if you can understand this article, I think you might become as excited as I am.  I could be wrong.  I could be way wrong.  But my intuition is screaming like a woman in orgasm saying:  “Yes, Yesss,  Yesssss!!!”

Unfortunately, I sometimes suspect that my intuition has learned how to “fake it”.  If so, none of us, including me, can afford to absolutely believe the theory I’m advancing.  Nevertheless, for me and for now, this feels more like insight than theory—and important insight, besides.  I wouldn’t bet even money, but if you give me odds, I’d bet we just might be close to the proverbial “silver bullet”.

 

Indictment of Former Illinois Governor Blagojevich

It would be hard to chose the five most illuminating documents I’ve read in the past decade.  But if I had to make that choice, the Indictment of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagovich would be one of the “Chosen Five”.  That indictment has given me more insight and understanding than almost any other document I’ve ever seen.

 

2008 USA v Benson permanent injunction

In A.D. 1985, Bill Benson and Red Beckman co-authored “The Law that Never Was”–a 2-volume book that presented extensive and convincing evidence that the 16th Amendment (which presumably created constitutional authority for the income tax) was never lawfully ratified.  More recently, Bill Benson used that book as part of a package which helped people to stop filing income tax returns.  The IRS, of course, which never welcomes tax resistance activities, filed suit against Mr. Benson.

Attached is a copy of an A.D. 2008 injunction against Mr. Benson ordered by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The file is in PDF format.  I’ve included my comments in the original court order.  The court order offers a lot of possible insight into how the income tax system might work.  If you’re curious about the IRS or how “this state” operates, you might find the attached file fascinating.  To download a copy click on the following link:   090406-benson-injunction

 

“Contracting to obtain labor” vs “hiring for employment in the United States”

The following section of Title 8 (“Aliens & Nationality) offers some very interesting insight into the difference between “contracting for labor” and “hiring for employment”. It appears that “contracting to obtain labor” might take place at law without the singular “United States” while “hiring for employement” may always take place in equity and “in the [singular] United States”.

 

The Social Trust Concept

You can sometimes learn more about our legal system by reading foreign publications than by reading domestic court cases. What is hidden in this country can be common knowledge overseas. What follows is an excerpt (plus my inserted comments) from a graduate paper written in A.D. 2005 by Mwiza Jo Nkhata Jr.–a Ugandan law student.

You might wonder what possessed me to read a Ugandan law student’s graduation paper. On one level I also wonder. But there’s really only one answer. It’ll sound nutty to most folks. But there’s not a doubt in my mind that the Good LORD brings such documents to me (or me to them). The Good LORD essentially says to me, “Hey, dummy, read this!”