The Story of Your Enslavement

"To see the farm is to leave it."

unless the vatican owns your mortgage

People are so horrified by the truth of this they would rather talk about a fish with a transparent head. lol oh well.

*find sand-insert head*

Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix

[link to www.youtube.com]

Statism is Dead - Part 4 - Free Range Empires

[link to www.youtube.com]

Statism is Dead - Part 5 - Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics

[link to www.youtube.com]

And now for the next level of freedom...

Liberty and personal freedom, isn't that what America is all about?

Do you agree that if you are truly a free American, your status is the same as a King?

Is your house your castle? You are the Sovereign, right?

So you are then truly a member of the sovereign People. In more common terms, you are a King among Kings in this country.

A quick review of how that happened, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, all the People in the colonies changed from being subjects of (belonging to) the King of England, to being free, and they became Kings themselves, Sovereigns among equals.

As the descendants of those People, born on this free land, Americans are all free right?

Every 4th "Independence day" I hear that song that says "where at least I know I'm free..." and "I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today...".

So you know you are free. There's no King anymore, You don't have to report in every year directly to the King and give him his due like the subjects had to.

You own the government, it never tells you what to do. They work for you, they are the servants not the other way around. They don't take your hard earned money DIRECTLY from you and spend it any way they please.

Dammit, we are charge! So why don't we act like it?

So what is this liberty and personal freedom stuff People talk about?

You are truly free. You don't have to ask permission from the King to do basic things, like travel from place to place to get food for your family, all you need is a license, which really isn't like getting permission from the King to use the roads that the People already paid for and ultimately own.

You don't have to ask the King for permission to get married, that would only apply to the Kings subjects, right?

At least you know you are free when so called government representatives do whatever they want, instead of listening to the "free" People.

You don't have the Kings' property tag on you, like a subject, property of the King. You don't have a serial number so he can know where you are so he can come and get his due if you don't pay, like 987-65-4321. You're not a numbered item/person, no way!

At least you were free before you were tricked into telling the government you are indigent, wanting to be a "ward of the state" because you are too incompetent to make your own arrangements to take care of yourself in your old age. (social security, you signed up! or parents did)

So basically the media is saying that YOU and every American are a "extremist", and part of some wacky "right wing" group. How do you like that?

Would you have knowingly and willingly signed away your freedom for servitude under the King (government)?

Will you now "gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today..."?

Some "extremist" big government and big central banking type of people have taken your birthright from you, they've taken your sovereignty from you by fraud, deception and word trickery (thank attorneys).

What are you going to do about it?

You can get that personal freedom and liberty back, you can do it personally and as a group by simply acting like the sovereign People you truly are.

Please watch this 10 minute video to see what happened, then when you get more time away from mainstream TV, read some of the other info sites. If you don't believe it, look it up yourself at your local library.
[link to www.youtube.com]
YouTube - admiralty law, common law and the sovereign

Don't worry, there's a way out. But you have to learn a few basics first.

Here's some other good starter info:
[link to restoreamericaplan.blogspot.com]


Please post this info far and wide.


Want more?

Why does the govt use the "interstate commerce clause" to force things down people's throats when People, human beings, are not "interstate" or in commerce? And why doesn't the govt just say to the People that "you must do this or that or else", and just forget the "interstate commerce clause"?

If the govt did have all this power then the govt wouldn't care about any laws or the constitution. Why does the govt always have to play lawyer word tricks, the "interstate commerce clause" or stretch the law as far as they can when they have all this supposed power?

Because the govt still has to follow law, they are very consistent about this. And the law here is that we the People are sovereign.

They had to trick you into signing yourself into servitude. Voluntary servitude it's called, and it's all legal. (except the trick / fraud part)

If you go into their court or do anything with them with the standing/status as one of their subjects, you really have no say. They are your masters and you better kiss their feet and do whatever they say. That's the law.

A King doesn't have to listen to his subjects, he can do what he wants. Isn't that what congress is doing? Doing what they want and not listening to the subjects?

How do you like that? Is that Liberty and freedom?

Study and learn more. Your govt run high school failed you.

If you truly want the liberty and freedom you think an American has, it starts with each one of us being a member of the sovereign People, standing up as that status, holding firm, asking the govt to prove you are not of that status, out in the open, out in the light, on the record.

And a little more advanced:
[link to www.youtube.com]
YouTube - Donna Kozak can help you become a Secured Party Creditor and break the corporate USA Matrix

But don't we pay taxes for the illusion of security and freedom?

This should be permanently pinned. There is no more important a message to impart to those searching for the truth.


But it won't be.

If you truly want the liberty and freedom you think an American has, it starts with each one of us being a member of the sovereign People, standing up as that status, holding firm, asking the govt to prove you are not of that status, out in the open, out in the light, on the record.

Everyone attempting to "assist" with this process, is making money off us "slaves".

Why can't there be a "system" or "procedures" a "slave" can go to and/or through that is beneficial for the "slave"?

Why does the "slave" HAVE to deal with a corrupt corporation?

in conclusion: We the People of the USA will always be SLAVES > one way or another < UNTIL ALL of We the People HELP and/or ASSIST one another >>> FOR FREE (!)

But none of this tells me how to get un enslaved

Wunderbar video!

Free Men own guns.

Slaves do not.

+1

A Handout for Statists

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'

Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

[link to www.strike-the-root.com]

Imagine if we stopped paying taxes! There would no longer be that silly illusion.

Only if your are allowed to use those guns for keep your freedom...

'


Good Video OP!

Only if you are allowed to use those guns to keep your freedom...

SEEK the TRUTH!

TRUTH shall set you FREE!

This is good stuff.

This thread really gets to the root of our problem...