Why does Stewart have that flag with the "Gold Fringe" on it?
For God's sake IATL, do you see an ulterior motive behind everything? There are certainly enough conspiracies that ARE in fact true, we don't need to see something sinister in things that aren't.
There's no legitimate evidence which indicates the claims that the fringe means anything special are true.
We all live our lives based on falsehoods, myths and misunderstandings. Who knows the truth anyway about anything?
My latest wakeup call was a Larken Rose video clip about the Constitution. It was like being slapped while asleep and I am near 60. What have I been thinking all this time? Where exactly is the human refresh button? 'Want to see what I mean?
As fine of a dramatic exercise in futility that Larken Rose presents in the video you posted, it stinks to high heaven.
Larken makes the claim of "moral right to steal" between the basis of the US Constitution and himself granting the same to himself as a function of a piece of paper or script. If he had chosen "immoral right" Larken would have been closer to the truth but he didn't; in fact, he avoids the term altogether, yet "immoral right" is the underscore of his presentation.
The fact is, the US Constitution grants POWER to Congress to levy AND collect taxes ... the concept of morality is moot to any issues regarding POWER much less considering nonsensical considerations of moral equivalency; government has no conscience; government is power.
The fact is, the US Constitution grants POWER to Congress to levy AND collect taxes
I was not addressing morality when I questioned your statement. How is it a "fact" that the Constitution grants power? What makes the grant of power, a fact?
How is it a "fact" that the Constitution grants power? What makes the grant of power a fact?
Government (any government) is nothing more than raw, brutal POWER or FORCE of exercise in action. "POWER" is distinctive of "rights" although all too often some folks think the two concepts are the same.
That is because you are avoiding the basis of POWER for any government; for the US government the various state assemblies at the time of US Constitutional ratification did not represent each of their own entire constituency; those being represented were those already occupying positions of respective POWER in their own communities.
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) was a lawyer, writer, entrepreneur, and libertarian activist.
for the US government the various state assemblies at the time of US Constitutional ratification did not represent each of their own entire constituency; those being represented were those already occupying positions of respective POWER in their own communities.
Of course, no one signed anything other than an authentication process controlled by just the POWER elite.
Just as our paper money is fiat with no backing so, too, is the Constitution without backing. Only those who voluntarily agree to honor should be expected to do so. If a soldier, elected official, bureaucrat or law enforcement officer who presumably signed up feels motivated to honor the promise then, so be it. But, those who have never agreed to play ball are under no obligation to walk onto the field. They are sovereign and free of any obligation. Force is used to the contrary, as we have seen.
Just as our paper money is fiat with no backing so, too, is the Constitution without backing.
Again, POWER is the core.
Only those who voluntarily agree to honor should be expected to do so. If a soldier, elected official, bureaucrat or law enforcement officer who presumably signed up feels motivated to honor the promise then, so be it.
This is one of the problems of voting in America. Lysander Spooner spells it out succinctly in one of his many papers and it is quite the eye opener. I am recalling from memory: voting in America is uncontrolled by the US Constitution; anyone can vote; there is no loyalty or oath sworn or otherwise to the same voting rights that the voter makes.
But, those who have never agreed to play ball are under no obligation to walk onto the field. They are sovereign and free of any obligation. Force is used to the contrary, as we have seen.