Who Runs Bartertown?

145
6120
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Property taxes make it hard to own property. Impossible, actually – which is exactly the point of property taxes.

They aren’t merely a means of mulcting us, as other taxes (such as the income tax) are. Property taxes are the means of assuring that we never truly own anything by making us pay for the thing in perpetuity.

The true owners of the thing in question being those who collect this rent in perpetuity.

But don’t take my word for it. Read about it. In The Communist Manifesto. Here.

You can stop paying income taxes and not go to prison. Just stop earning income. But you can’t stop paying property taxes – without being homeless, at any rate – and so are forced to continue earning income in order to pay both income and property taxes. In order to keep you working, you see. So that you are never at ease; never secure.

Property taxes are also enormously regressive – ironic, given their “progressive” genesis.

I just received the annual property tax bill for my 16-year-old truck. Another $100 must be sent to its true owners. This may not seem especially onerous until you consider that it’s $100 every year, ongoing – and was more when the truck was newer, the tax being based on its retail value.

At one point, it was several hundred dollars each year.

It’s “only” $100 now – because the retail value of my truck has declined to about $3,000 (according to the mulcters and true owners of my vehicle, who decree its value as well as how much they’re going to mulct me for).

But, consider (and leave aside for the moment the moral obnoxiousness, as such, of perpetual taxes on property) … that $100 times ten – encompassing the past ten years of mulcting. I am deliberately low-balling the total amount mulcted, in order to strengthen my objection and increase the outrage I am hoping to conjure.

Okay.

$100 every year for ten years is $1,000; my truck is now worth about $3,000. I have paid one-third the current retail value of my truck in taxes – in return for the privilege of not having government thugs come to my house (which they also own, even though I paid the mortgage off years ago) and take possession of it.

Put another way, I am taxed at about the same rate on my 16-year-old truck as someone in the highest income tax bracket is taxed on their income. It doesn’t get much more regressive than that – unless you want to talk about the regressive taxes applied to  motor fuels, which are more than a third of the cost of each gallon of fuel.

Note the pattern.

And keep in mind that the mulcting never stops – even as the value of the vehicle drops. If I own the truck long enough, they will have fleeced me of half its value, probably.

Taxes this extortionate are more than merely taxes. They are tools. Negative incentives. Designed to make owning things burdensome by making it onerously expensive.

Perpetually.

These taxes – along with mulcting by the insurance mafia – tamp down interest in owning vehicles, especially multiple vehicles.

The funds ripped from my hide as punishment for owning an old truck  (well, attempting to maintain the fiction of ownership) and a house, too, no doubt prompt old Karl to smile – wherever his loathsome bones are mouldering. One thousand bucks – lowballed – on the truck, so far.

Plus almost $30,000 on the house, so far.

Over say 30 years, it will amount to nearly $100,000 – and that’s assuming the “landlord” does not raise the “rent” over the next couple of decades … which is as likely as a baby brontosaurus showing up on my porch looking for some grub.

And what I pay in “rent” on my paid-for house – about $1,800 annually for the privilege of being allowed to occupy the home I paid for but which the government in fact owns – is a pittance compared with what  many others pay. My sister, for instance. She lives (god help her) in California and so pays in excess of $10,000 every year to the state in order to avoid the government sending armed thugs to evict her from their property.

But for me, it’s only $31,000.

I sometimes think about what I might have done with that money. Assuming a very modest 5 percent return – if I had the money rather than the government – I would now have almost $50,000.

I could easily live on $50,000 for the next several years. Or set aside the money in a just-in-case fund for any health issues that come up.

Or – hell – get my Trans-Am repainted.

Instead, I pay the government, the true owner of all my things.

And yours, too.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

Share Button

145 COMMENTS

  1. It’s ironic how this doesn’t bother me nearly as much as it did when I was living in California. I was paying close to $4k on just one of three properties, but when I discovered that I could buy a bigger place in a better neighborhood for less money, AND NEVER pay property or state income taxes. I paid around $200.00 to $250.00 a month for utilities on one property which didn’t include garbage. I was able to get around that by claiming not to live there long enough too produce any garbage.

    Now I have one electric bill that rarely gets close to $100.00 a month. I don’t need insurance for my motorcycle, if I opt to wear a helmet.

  2. Eric, you are lucky you live in VA. In some places like WA state vehicle taxes are $500 annually and up. There are WA state initiatives being held to try to limit the car tag taxes, but so far they are collecting. On the plus side WA doesn’t have a state income tax, one of the few.

    Years back many Washington residents would license their cars in Oregon via mailbox drop addresses or services, saving hundreds or more each year. Finally WA began using state cops surveilling cars w/ OR plates heading back from Portland to Vancouver WA. These were entered into databases and checked for local addresses in WA (somehow). Many tickets were issued so now this isn’t so popular. They collected the back taxes plus hefty fines.

    Yes, you can rant about property taxes, but if they are low they simply pass income taxes or high sales taxes or all of the above. Until the sheeple wise up, the State (as “king”) owns everything and you must pay them annual rent, just like feudal peasants. People keep voting for that, believing that only the “rich” will pay. You own a car, you’re “rich.”

    • Muggles,

      That is why when planning my move from NY, I made sure to choose a place that had a very low average household income- because they can only tax people as much as the average person can afford to pay. If property taxes here were $10K-$20K a year like on Long Island, no one would be able to pay ’em…and thus, they can’t raise the other various and sundry taxes too high to compensate either for the same reason.

      That is basically the only determining factor in assessing a state’s extortion level- because they will always tax- one way or another- through combinations of various taxes and fees, as much as “the market” will bear.

      So finding a market which won’t bear much, is the only plan.

      As a result, even though my income is very low here in KY, I live very well- better than I ever have; I am able to save more than I ever could. Cost of living is just so low, because the biggies- taxes and real estate, are moderated by the low incomes.

      When enough foreigners are pushed this way though, they’ll start rasing the taxes- just like in NY. where in the 80’s property taxes started taking massive leaps every year- literally doubling every few years. I’ll be out of here before that can happen! (I see the signs of it starting already…just a matter of time now. Of course, when youi warn the locals and point out how the small local governments are starting to spend lavishly, and how the foreigners are now coming in, and that you’ve seen the very same thing happen 30 years ago back east, they just think you’re nuts and xenophobic- Yes, they can’t read and write worth a damn- but these schools sure have done a good job at filling their heads with pro-government propaganda!)

  3. Hello Eric,
    I last posted a comment back in June 2018 to you and others reading at your site.
    Your article addresses the “value” of my “CLN” (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) that I received back in 1977 to stop all the dreck that you and others continue to face in the land of the fleeced, home of slaves. Ditching my U.S. citizenship was simply the best thing done in my life! I bypassed ALL of the U.S. establishment’s inculcation, institutionalization and mind-numbing propaganda to which Americans and others are subjected. (This comment is NOT a rhetorical device.) I don’t care what other people do with their lives – it’s a choice. Since “legalized plunder” is incorporated in American citizenship, there is no bonafide way to “escape” legally except via renunciation of citizenship. Discounting Eritrea there are no other governments that tax individuals living outside their jurisdictions. (That might change someday but for now it’s a very effective means to STOP the plundering. I “stay” in Monaco for a very good reason: there are essentially NO taxes of any kind! There’s no other place on this earth that compares – none for individuals like me who are merely “visiting.” NEVER become a “resident” of ANY country – ever! There are ALWAYS ways to circumvent governments and their plundering.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco#Taxes
    Anyway, it’s good to see you are well and prospering I trust. I remain,

    Sincerely Yours,

    A PT, an ex-American citizen & freeman for 41-years now
    Principauté de Monaco
    Côte d’Azur

    • The last time I counted, there were approximately 18 countries that still don’t tax their citizens. I don’t recall Monaco being on the list though so it’s good to find out that there are more countries out there to add to the list of places to flee to when we all decide to pull our collective brains out of our asses.

      • Save your money Shnark! Cost of living in Monaco is 60% higher than in the US! And while they don’t have income tax, they do have high “social insurance” taxes, unless your money comes from abroad….. At less than 1 square mile in size, it’s one of the smallest, most densely populated places on earth! (I never realized that- amazing…aless than a freaking square mile- with 38K people!)

  4. The problem is that EVERYONE gets to vote on property taxes but only property owners directly pay property taxes.

    And as mentioned, about 80% of property taxes goes toward the socialist indoctrination day-camps.

    It wouldn’t be so bad (or so costly) if property taxes only paid for local roads, fire and police “protection” (the police farce!), and civil courts and records that at least presumably protect private property rights.

  5. What truly adds insult to injury regarding property taxes is that in many states a good portion of these taxes goes toward the local government schools where the kiddies learn to keep in lockstep and pay their taxes.

    • Hi Greg,

      Yes, exactly.

      And I would like to know how it is that someone else’s decision to have sex and produce children imposes a legitimate obligation to educate the child upon myself or any other person not party to the act of creating that child. When I raise this objection, I am denounced as a meanie who doesn’t like kids. But it’s not children I dislike. It is adults who think they have a right to point guns in my face and filch my wallet to provide for their kids.

      • Hello Eric. Being a Libertarian, I object to my tax money being used to fund Democratic and Republican primaries. It taxes me for something I, and my party, do not involve ourselves with. During the last primary (there was some local measures to vote on), I raised this objection with a pole worker. She said it was a good thing like getting taxed for schools when you have no children. Bonkers. Let’s just hold hands, sing Kumbaya and there will be world peace (or is that piece?) Someone’s laughing, Lord, Kumbaya.

        • ” She said it was a good thing like getting taxed for schools when you have no children.”

          This is why I no longer even bother trying to have meaningful conversations with people anymore. It’s as if they’ve all been lobotomized, or are on high doses of some magical feel-good drug….

          Their thinking is so backward, that they can not even respond to the most basic expressions of morality or accountability or truth.

          They’ve been programmed with the Marxist notion, that if you are responsible and can do anything more than greet people at the Walmart entrance, that what you produce should be taken from you and given to the irresponsible, who can not even support themselves, much less their sprogs. They are so warped and brainwashed, that they think that THAT is moral- and nothing will convince them otherwise, because they have learned such on an emotional level (rather than intellectual level), and plus it is what the group believes, so they must believe what “everyone” else believes, otherwise they will be “wrong”, like we are[;)]…..

        • “I raised this objection with a pole worker.”

          When I raise anything with a “pole worker”, I have to place a dollar in her g-string. 😉

      • When the school buses stop at the illegal alien-built developments in my area, most of the the kids being picked up are the spawn of the street-shittiing job-stealing H-1bs.

        Is it any wonder i don’t want to pay the onerous school tax?

        • Amen, Bobster – only I’ll go farther:

          I don’t want to have my pockets picked by anyone – whatever their color, sex or other status. I assume the moral obligation to feed, house and otherwise provide for myself and for any dependents whom I am morally obligated to provide for – such as children I produce or whom I voluntary agree to care for.

          But I do not grok that there is any moral difference between a government taxing me to provide for others and someone appearing on my doorstep with a pistol demanding either my money or my life.

          Other people’s needs – however real or dire and regardless of the circumstances – do not give them the moral right to use violence against others to ameliorate these problems.

          This is the granite foundation of a moral society.

          It is not an argument against altruism, or in defense of “selfishness.” It is simply an argument against violence, which is a thing far worse than any other hardship or vicissitude of life.

          • It has always amazed me, when discussing such things with statists….

            “If you walk over to your neighbor’s house and point a gun at him, and demand that he give you money to pay for your children’s ‘edumacation’, or for your food and shelter and medical care, is that O-K?”

            “No, that would be robbery”

            “Then why is it O-K when your ‘elected representative does the very same thing in your name”

            “That’s different!”

            “How is it different?”

            “…..errr…because it’s ‘legal”.”

            “So if a few guys get together and draw up a document and sign it, stating that it’s O-K for you to walk over to your neighbor’s house and point a gun at him and take his money, that would then be O-K, because it is now “legal”?”

            “That’s different….”

            They can’t explain that ‘difference’- but yet it doesn’t bother them that there is such a contradiction of logic which they can not even begin to address in any way that would make sense. They want it to be- and their mentality is shared by everyone around them *so it must be O-K*- so they need no justification- just a glance at the group who all believe the very same thing- and we are counted as the nuts, for dissenting….

            • The “difference” (and I’m being sarcastic here) is that it’s perfectly OK to become part of a mob called “the government” to steal from your neighbor what you can’t do legally on your own.

              Government has evolved into an agency of forcing others to do things they wouldn’t be required to do for anyone, but are required to do for everyone. Which explains why the theory of “doing something for the greater good” is completely asinine.

              • Exactly, Travis!

                And they think that they are so sophisticated and modern and ‘progressive” by believing their contradictory BS- but in reality, they are merely continuing the ancient pagan tradition of deifying men, whom they thus consent to grant special powers which allow them to define morality and to “legally” perform deeds which would be crimes if perpetrated by mere mortals who have not been voted to the status of gods.

                As a Christian, that point was really driven home to me when I started reading the Bible. Seeing “Thou shalt have no gods before Me”, and realizing that the Hebrew word for “god(s) and judge(s) is one and the same, really wakes one up to the fact that things truly never change; and of just how grave a matter it is to not participate in the immoral act of deifying men or of obeying such. (Abnd then we could get into the connection between “voting” and “votive” too!).

          • Adams, and others of the founding of our nation said exactly the same thing. Under the US Constitution those who serve within our government may NOT tax our trade, our lands, the produce off of our lands be they grazing or growing upon them, nor can they tax everything we possess or make use of. Our government was supposed to be supported by FOREIGN TRADE. Why are we here where we are today? WE ALLOWED them to keep adding to our government size, things/agents/agencies/etc that they have no lawful delegated authority to create and use against us.

            Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

            Samuel Adams May 15, 1764: “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

            • Who is this “we” you keep referring to? You and the mouse in your pocket? Because I didn’t do what you keep accusing me of doing.

              I do not consent to be governed, nor do I consent to have anyone govern others on my behalf. I don’t care who you quote or what they might have said. The guilt is not mine and I don’t appreciate you continually trying to place the blame on me. If you want it, fine (I can’t believe you are actually 200+ years old, but whatever). But stop blaming people who had nothing to do with it. It’s antisocial.

            • Cal,

              Speak for yourself!

              I didn’t allow any of this. Hell, I wasn’t even born when most of it was anointed as “legal.”

              In re the rest:

              I admire Massa Tom, too – but he was a member of the same planter elite that framed the Constitution – an act profoundly at odds with liberty because it was forced upon people who did not consent to it – and that set the stage for all the rest which followed. Its force-feeding enabled the centralized government to impose taxes at gunpoint, which provided the resources for every abuse which followed.

              If you’re truly interested in liberty, quote Spooner, Read or Mencken.

            • “Allowed” my ass! This crap was already in full swing by the time my grandparents emigrated here 100 years ago.

              I suppose the Injuns “allowed” them to steal their land and decimate their ranks, too?

              And I suppose the schvatzes “allowed” themselves to be enslaved?

              What Adams and Jefferson et al may’ve said in various places, while often conveying good ideas, was not what was put into the Constitution, which unfortunately says that Congress has the right to lay and collect taxes- with no apparent limitation; and sadly, there is nothing in that document which guarantees the sanctity and security of private property- only that it shall not be siezed or searched without ‘reasonable” cause (whatever that is- no definition given- so it can be whatever they say it is) and without “due process”- which in reality means that as long as they make the pretense of shuffling some papers and saying some mumbo-jumbo, they can do whatever they want.

              Not that any of this matters anyway, because as we can see, mere words on paper are useless as a means of restraining tyrants or protecting rights.

  6. You moved from Vancouver, but are you still in British Columbia?
    If you don’t want to say I’ll understand,
    Just curious whether the improved circumstances were possible without moving to another province.
    I lived in Vancouver during my kindergarten and early elementary school years.

  7. I used to think I would be on easy street once I had everything I own paid off, but reality stepped in and slapped me across the face. The property taxes, health insurance, home, auto and business insurance, vehicle registration and license fees and all the other assorted government shake downs take about twice the amount I could live on each month. If I was truely free and unshackled from the government and healthcare mafia I could live well on a couple hundred bucks a week while working about 2/3 less than I do now.

    I can’t wait for this bloated system to implode.

    • Hi Guerrero,

      Amen, me too. If I weren’t robbed to pay property tax on my home and vehicles, I could afford to fix my leaking basement and take my cats to the vet.

      I refuse to pay anything to the health insurance mafia – and if they come after me for that, I will burn this place down if I have to.

      • What about moving to a state with no property tax? You’re close to TN, there’s none there and life shouldn’t be too different. Thankfully, we still have some differences between the states, and property tax is one of them. It’s also why states rights are so critically important, so that we can vote with our feet and move away from a state that has gone “full retard”.

        • Hi OP,

          It’s something to consider (moving to another state) and I may once I fully recover from the divorce – which took a few years off my life. I’d like at least a year or so of relative peace before contemplating more upheaval. Above all things, I need that – peace – for my own sanity and also to be in the right frame of mind to write anything worthwhile!

          • Eric, I dunno if you personally would see a substantial difference in moving to another state. Sure, if ya move from one of the most oppressive states, like NY or CA or NJ, IL, MA. etc, to a freer state, you do see a huge difference in both personal freedom and economic benefit- but once ya get away from those extremes, the differences are not all that great.

            Pretty much in all the rest of the states, it’s just a matter of one state may have a little more freedom in one area, but less in another; or not have an income tax, but then make up for it by having a higher sales tax or taxing things that other states don’t, etc. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

            If I were in VA. the main thing I’d want to get away from are their onerous traffic laws and enforcement, which mean a high likelihood of just about anyone getting nabbed for anything at any time, with draconian penalties. But then, a lot of other states are getting to that point too- and if they haven’t yet, they will be soon.

            America is a like a giant prison, where the guards learn their sadistic tricks from each other- so once one does it…it isn’t long before they all do.

            Even Montana isn’t what it used to be. They’ve lost a lot of ground just this century. The noose just keeps on tightening.

            • Montana has the same problem as the rest of the formerly better west: creeping Californication.
              I solved it by adopting Rayo’s van vonu.

        • Tennessee also has no income tax… UNLESS you earned it from investments. TN is very retiree unfriendly as a result. The good news is they’re phasing it out and it should be gone in 2021. I expect they’ll make it up in other ways, but there probably wasn’t much being brought in anyway, as anyone with investments and half a brain would live somewhere else.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_income_tax

          • I live 20 miles from TN. I never go there. The local governments are very corrupt, and the cops are hostile- more like the cops of CA/AZ/NM/TX/NY.

            A friend went through there once- he was flabbergasted to see that there is tax on fast food in TN- and it varies by jurisdiction- and can be very high- Stuff like that is how they make up for no income tax.

            This is America. They get you one way or another.

            In NY there was no property tax on vehicles- but here in KY there is- yet it costs exponentially more to register your vehicle in NY than here in KY..

            When I was planning on moving here, on one of my trips, I called and asked “How much to reg. a vehicle?” “$20” I was told. Great!

            They neglected to mention the personal property tax…. so that $20 was in reality closer to $200 when I went to do it- but still less than half of what it cost in NY.

            I’d bet the cost to reg. Eric’s vehicles in TN vs. VA. would be about the same.

      • Actually, those who serve within our governments LAWFULLY and Legally only have DELEGATED powers/authority that they are ALLOWED to use when they do the duties assigned to the branch/named office within a branch, take and KEEP their Oath. What does that mean? We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. All authority/powers were delegated to the Constitutions – each state’s Constitution and the US Constitution. Within those Constitutions are listed in writing, as is done with contracts (“compact” is a contract agreed upon between the states; contract for all who serve within our governments), divided up between different branches and also delegated to named-in-writing Offices within a branch.

        What is important here is that anyone can see if the branch/office in which the person the conflict is with actually has the LAWFUL authority for what they do, agencies included. Our government was formed to PROTECT our property, our property of all sorts, physical and mental, ideas, speech, cars, homes, bikes, etc. Here are a list of the duties for those who serve under the US Constitution;

        This is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which House of Representatives may appropriate funds to spend:

        — Immigration Office (Art. I, §8, Cl.4)
        — Mint (Art. I, §8, Cl. 5)
        — Attorney General (Art. I, §8, Cl. 6)
        — Post Offices & Postal Roads (Art. I, §8, Cl. 7)
        — Patent & Copyright Office (Art. I, §8, Cl. 8)
        — Federal Courts (Art. I, §8, Cl. 9)
        — Military (Art. I, §8, Cls. 11-16), but only for two (2) years AFTER those who SERVE WITHIN the Congress declares war.
        — The Civil List (Art. I, §6, Cl.1)

        [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, & clauses such as the expenses that go with creating treaties, paying wages, etc.]

        Understand? The Constitution itemizes EXACTLY what those who serve within the Congress is permitted to spend money on.

        James Wilson: “I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and MINUTELY DEFINED, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are LIMITED AND DEFINED by the following, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”
        During the ratification debates, Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina not only said that we “should disregard” unconstitutional acts, but that we should “punish them for the attempt.”

        Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Congress (has) not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but (is) restrained to those specifically enumerated.”

        Mark Twain: “For in a Republic, who is “the country?” Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

        James Madison warned us about kind of government that exercises arbitrary power: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” Essay on Property, 1792 and Madison calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

        Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 384 (1947): “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, 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. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power.”

        “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

        Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.
        No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional law, § 256”

        You might want to consider this; John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;”
        Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

        • Yikes! What a load of statist, government-legitimizing crap!

          For one thing, the Constitution doesn’t allow “immigration control”. The part you point to (Art. I, §8, Cl.4) regulates “naturalization”; how someone can become an official tax slave. That’s completely separate from allowing people onto the tax farm. It’s “conservative” BS like this that makes me glad I got over statism.

        • Hey Cal! You say, “We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.”

          I truly don’t mean to be a jerk or a devils advocate sort of guy, but if we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, then everything else in your post is irrelevant. In my opinion and trying to be as objective as I can, the Republic is dead and gone. It died a slow and lingering death, so prolonged that is it impossible to say exactly when it breathed its last. I sincerely wish it were not so, but when I look around, I see something very close to the old Roman age of the Caesars. Ostensibly they ruled over their old Republic, but in practice the Republic had already died and become a tyranny. Government right now is based solely on the fact that the various parts (Federal especially, but also State and local) have large numbers of men, large numbers of weapons, and perhaps more importantly, the will to use them.

          A return to the Republic would be a fantastic step upward, but I think that if we do, in fact, make that step, the first thing we should do is to push through some appropriate amendments to chain the beast(s) more strongly.

            • Assuming that they haven’t committed treason while doing their duty.
              Treason is defined in the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3, as consisting “only in levying War against (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
              All members of the American military take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
              When the military is committed to foreign actions without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution, that is a violation of the Constitution, arguably the action of domestic enemies.
              When a member of the military participates in an unconstitutional foreign military deployment, s/he violates both the Constitution and his/her oath to “support and defend” it, giving “aid and comfort” to it’s “domestic enemies,” committing treason by the definition given by the Constitution.

              • Actually, “We the people of the united States is a term referring to the people no longer being SUBJECTS of the British crown, but instead sovereign people, their own rulers instead of being ruled as a subject.

                Most state Constitutions start with the term, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.” and here again before the US Constitution that term was used – “We, the People of the State of … ,” and continue on with something like this “… grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” This shows the sovereign power of the people to create a government, etc. To empower it to represent the people in certain areas that benefit them.

                “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, …It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

                CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. A [common] right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith. Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, L. R. A. 1917D 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E 685.” Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, p. 385.

                “[Unalienable rights] are enumerated rights that individuals, acting in their own behalf, cannot disregard or destroy.” McCullough v. Brown, 19 S. E. 458, 480, 23 L.R.A. 410.

                “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

                “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

                “If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” Samuel Adams – helped organize the Boston Tea Party and signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

                Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

        • Hi Cal,

          I’ll begin where you do. You speak of “our” government – and “delegated” authority. Please don’t presume to speak for me with regard to the former (It’s not my government) and with regard to the latter – delegated by whom?

          I gave no one proxy power to act on my behalf and – morally – may only delegate someone to act on my behalf. I cannot “delegate” someone to exercise power (use force) against another, to deprive him of his right to be left in peace.

          What is immoral for an individual to do cannot be made moral because more than one person does it, or because some people have voted to do it.

          Government by consent is a risible fraud since none of us consented to this government in the lawful/contractual and moral sense. And those of us who did not consent are under no moral obligation to accept being “governed.”

          Do you understand?

          • I do.

            Now let me show you where you are wrong, UNLESS your father was a citizen of another country. At least it has been this way since governments were created. So if born under a kingdom, then you would be a SUBJECT of the King, dictator, etc no choice there either. The difference is that HERE you can, when of legal age, opt out of being a citizen, where in other types of government that is questionable and quite often NOT allowed.

            Now having the knowledge of how the US Constitution is to be understood, let’s move on to “Natural born Citizen”
            Supreme Court Case on Citizenship: Montana v. Kennedy (1961)
            Posted on March 16, 2016 by Wade

            Justia US Supreme Court
            Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
            Montana v. Kennedy – No. 198
            Argued March 22, 1961 – Decided May 22, 1961 – 366 U.S. 308

            Syllabus
            Petitioner’s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.

            Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.
            (a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who “now are, or have been,” citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-312.

            (b) Section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907, which provided that
            “a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of . . . resumption of American citizenship by the parent,”
            is not applicable to petitioner, since mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner’s birth or at the time of his mother’s return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. Pp. 366 U. S. 312-314.

            (c) A different conclusion is not required by the testimony of petitioner’s mother that she had been prevented from returning to the United States prior to petitioner’s birth by the wrongful refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. Pp. 366 U. S. 314-315.

            278 F.2d 68 affirmed.
            Page 366 U. S. 309
            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/308/
            http://thewashingtonstandard.com/what-our-framers-knew-the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

            What Our Framers Knew: The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”
            The Washington Standard

            We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:

            Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

            Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

            Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

            Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

            “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

            “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

            But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

            The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

            Word Definitions: Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

            So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

            So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?Clover

            What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

            Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.
            The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

            What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

            Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

            And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
            How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

            During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist]living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

            “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

            Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “.”pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents

            Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

            “From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

            In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

            “… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.”

            This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

            So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3
            Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

            From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

            § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.Clover

            § 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

            § 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

            §§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

            Hope that helps you to understand why at this time YOU are a citizen (not a subject) of the USA, a constitutional republic until you officially opt out.

            • Cal,

              You go on at great length to attempt to impute consent never given. Consent must be explicitly and freely given and only binds the person who gives it.

              You notion of “consent” is oleaginous and fraudulent. It would never stand up in court with regard to any other contract. Explain how it applies to the “contract” you presume I am a party to.

              PS: Your notion of any person being “subject” to authority is servile and loathsome.

              • No, that is the way it has been throughout history with governments. I do NOT presume you are a party to it, instead I am presuming that you are of legal age to make the decision to leave or stay. I informed you of 100’s of years of governmental power over the people that are under them, and where that power comes from.

                If your father was from a foreign nation instead of the USA, you would be a citizen of that nation according to the nation your father was from, according to our nation.

                Once you become legal age, here, you have the right to stop being a citizen. Not all nations offer that to their people. If you are of a different nation through age 18 because your father was, the you have the choice BECAUSE you are here to become a citizen.

                But the point is that it IS your choice once you are legally a responsible adult.

                • Hello Cal, I likewise used to be a pro-constitutionalist patriot. Indeed, I even served in the Army for 8 years during the 1980’s! Red flags arose in my mind after being discharged honorably as an NCO when I observed the unconstitutionality of a great many things without any resistance from the people.
                  I am not going to write a book here in the comments section, but I will state that 2 simple thought processes will debunk any notion that the fondling fathers had the rights of common people with-in their faux hearts!
                  1. They illegally replaced the Articles of Confederation with the CONstitution.
                  2 Please provide your search results of signed documentation by most adults during that time period of their votes to allow a small group of politicians, lawyers, mercantilist’s, judges, and financiers to develop a system of government to rule over them! Without that signed documentation; “We, the people” has never existed!
                  The very term ‘founding father’ is sickening to me! They had nothing to do with the development of tens of thousands of homes, farms, homesteads, and ranches with-in this land mass; yet idiots continue to call them ‘founding fathers’ of this so-called country! The only thing they actually founded was our present tyrannical system of government! Yet many patriots continue to smooch on the buttocks of long dead corpses. ‘Countries’ do not even exist. They are artificial creations by the State; yet most sheeple feel honor bound to sacrifice their very lives for the farmer/government who controls the land area in which they reside. Wars are fought by people being used as roosters for cockfights which have been organized by their respective government rulers! How insane is that?!
                  I highly recommend that you read The Constitution of No Authority which was written by Lysander Spooner well over a century ago. He was a very prolific writer, so you may want to look up ‘Lysander Spooner works in order to read his many other essays (WordPress seems to limit the number of hyperlinks it might accept in a given message to 3). More modern essays include Rx For The Laviathan by Butler Shaffer and The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)
                  (Trying to see if I can get away with posting a 4th link today:) Please try to avoid Alexander Hamilton nationalism

                  • Great post, Brian!

                    Only I might add: Even if ALL of the people in the past had given their approval to the establishment of such a government, it STILL would have no bearing upon you or i or anyone else alive today, who do NOT agree to have such a government.

                    EVERY government is just a fiction which proffers various documents and articles to justify it’s existence, which seems to work pretty good as far as pacifying 99% of the people- but ultimately, it is only by force, coercion and violence that anyone rules anyone else without their explicit consent.

                    • I of course agree with you Nunzio, but I didn’t want to write a book here. I could have made many other points, but I would have felt compelled to include hyperlinks to sources which back up my viewpoints. I somehow got away with posting 4 links already. I could have easily tried to post 10+ more links, but my post would have gotten shot down by Word Depressed.

            • Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) does not address national born citizenship, which is different from native citizenship. It was addressed in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162.

                • Here Cal, take a breather.

                  Here’s a short entertaining video, which illustrates the problem with the Constitution in the most basic terms:

                  I’m Allowed To Rob You – Larken Rose:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

                  This may make you see things in a new light. Believe me, I used to be a Constitutionalist myself- as did some others here.

                  Watching this video for the first time, simple as it is- made me feel like a fool.

            • GGGRRRRRR!!!!!

              It is truly said that there are none so blind as those who WILL not to see! Who love their chains because they’re softened with pretty electric blue, red, and white-dyed lamb’s wool. And whose bottoms are exposed offensively as they hide their heads, ears, eyes, and brains, in the sands of the lies and fraud of their own desires! And expect everyone else to do likewise, admiringly, realizing how wonderful is the gift of power through “government” they’ve all missed and misunderstood till your present exposition.

              Please explain EXACTLY when and how YOU, and EACH OF US signed ANY contract, let alone the U.S. Constitution, to “delegate” ANYONE else to “represent” ANY individual AT ALL?

              Which “representative” is actually YOURS, whom you personally, mutually, contractually hired, and can fire if he/she does not do something you want done, but instead takes a majority opinion of OTHERS and uses it AGAINST you? Who can willy-nilly dream up “laws” to criminalize your and/or others’ behavior and fine and jail you and/or them, and even use lethal force against you and/or them, if you and/or they “disobey”? When did you factually, actually, physically, with a signed contract of agreement for them to provide YOU with services YOU want and prevent those you do not want? If you never did, YOU HAVE NO REPRESENTATION, regardless of what “the Founders” said, wrote, or did, and regardless of what the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution says or claims.

              It’s a fairy tale. Much worse: it’s a LIE ENFORCED WITH VIOLENCE against anyone who dissents.

              None of the rest of us believes that lie you seem to be desperate to cling to. Why do you want to cling to that grievous lie that you can be free if you’re subject to the whims and mob rule of others, justified by a “Constitution” you never had anything to do with, no say in, and never signed your consent to? We’ve learned and accepted the truth, which you seem to abhor. Why do you?

              If you believe that because there have been governments throughout history that legitimizes ANY government, that because there always have been, there should be now, too, you are complicit in that ever-present, tired, redundant, and VIOLENT lie. And you should reassess your values and judgment of what makes what good and legitimate.

              And why you seem to believe that because government has existed it should exist, that because men have been enslaved to gangs of thieves calling themselves governments in the past, that justifies that as a norm for now, and for all time. Just because government, then, government. Why?

              Please take some time off your wallowing in the wonderfulness of the U.S. and state Constitutions and go look up Lysander Spooner, who was a U.S. Senator and contemporary of Lincoln, who was a scholar and entrepreneur, and who clearly saw the truth of the matter, ultimately, and read his works. Then, if you believe you can refute him, logically, rationally, point by point, truth by truth, reality by reality, to shore up your belief in the worthiness of the LIE you insist the rest of us here should accede to, then please do.

              Otherwise, please stop with your empty propaganda. This is a site dedicated to ANTI-CLOVERISM. As in, NO GOVERNMENT, as no human being has a RIGHT to govern, or RULE, any other human being. No one. And no “Constitution” makes it so.

              • Bravo, Mr. Kitty!!!!

                And if our friend [oooppss…how’d that ‘r’ get in there?] Cal believes that a Constitution legitimizes government, as long as that government adheres to the precepts of said constitution, then he would also have to concede that in like manner the governments of the former USSR; China; North Korea; Sweden; Cuba; etc. are all just as legitimate as they abide by the terms of their respective constitutions.

                What’s interesting, is how mere words on a musty old piece of paper, are absolutely powerless to restrain the actions and misdeeds of a government- but yet the people who are ruled by those governments reverence and obey the very document which was meant to restrain[supposedly] their oppressors…..

        • Cal.

          Fine. Now try getting those elected representatives 😉 to actually obey and be restrained by that piece of paper. It’s all about power. Whoever has the biggest/most guns, or who can control the minds of the most people, wins.

          And even if they could be made to follow the Constitution, that wouldn’t be so great, as that document gives them the power to tax us in perpetuity; and the authority to basically do what ever they want, only while protecting a few of our rights as enumerated in the Bill Of Rights.

          One of the biggest flaws in the Constitution, is this business of supposed “delegating rights”.

          Two problems there: Why must I delegate MY rights, just by reason of having been born or living in a certain place?

          And: How CAN i delegate rights which I do not have? If I do not have the right to tax somebody, or the right to execute somebody, or the right to jail somebody, or the right to decree what someone else may or may not do, how can possibly delegate that right to somebody else (assuming that I chose to) when I do not ever have that right to begin with?- As no man should have such rights except as regards self defense or the disposition/protection of his own property.

          Chins, North Korea; the former USSR, are all constitutional republics. Maybe someone should tell them, eh?

          • Actually, the framers felt that if the people were even taxed a total of 10% they would rise up and remove, imprison those who tried to do those things.

            You do have those Rights, you just chose not to exercise them because of the consequences of the domestic enemies/traitors who are in enforcement that will use color of law against you. That is your choice, your right. But understand that today there are others that do not make that choice, and the stand for their Rights, and pay the price but it is NOT broadcast to the people as then they may also choose to exercise their Rights. Control of information controls the people.

            Some have died, some are imprisoned, etc. Lots of us get our doors kicked in, and other things. It will get worse when they dump money and go to pixels. To Real ID, to needing a number in order to go anywhere, to do anything, to eat, to drink, to drive, to sleep, to work, etc. This has taken decades to get here, but we are almost at that point.

            Things you can do is to NOT use self check-out, use cash when buying, do NOT buy items from corporations that work against you, NEVER fly unless your a pilot until the TSA is removed, etc.

            Were you aware that the PATRIOT Act’s crowning jewel is the Department of Homeland Security. That most Americans do not even understand that the DHS was modeled after Heinrich Himmler’s RSHA, where they created a system that was incorporating all Nazi police departments under the control of what they called the Department of National Security. The Department of Homeland Security was also known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.

            How far have they gone off the rez? You know that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this land, but were you aware that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations.

            Yet look at what they do.

            Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

            Ronald Reagan: “I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: ‘Freedom of assembly’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and so forth. Of course, they don’t allow them to have those things, but they’re in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions – everyone has one – and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple – that’s why you don’t notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, ‘We, the government, allow the people the following rights,’ and our Constitution says ‘We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.’ We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that’s the whole story of the difference – why we’re unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we’re going to overcome”.

            Hitler: “What luck for rulers that people do not think.”

            • There would have been such a revolt if it were not for the adoption of government schools and other forms of herd management. Without that the revolt would have happened, but with it the great mass of people turn on those who speak against their enslavement.

    • When sipping my latte, chardonnay, lager, or single malt, I sometimes think that the surf bum in San Diego has it all figured out… No cash, but no needs either. It’s mind boggling how much $$ I make but how much I go through. (and subsequently how little I keep). Like I’ve heard from Suze Orman and such: “It’s not how much you make, it’s how much you get to keep.”

    • Hi Brian,

      I wish I were younger – because then doing as you’re doing would be doable. But I’m too old to start over in a foreign country. Too goddamn tired. Now that I am by myself again, I value my peace and my friends and the familiar things most of all. Relocating to some other place, where I’d have to rebuild an entire life, defeats me.

      And so I have decided to stand my ground, not so much as an act of courage but of just being too goddamn tired to do otherwise.

      • Eric my friend, you’d be surprised how the prospect of regaining freedom, and being free from all of the day to day BS that drags us down, can breathe new life and energy into a soul…..

        It’s living with all of this weight on us, and knowing that things are constantly only getting worse here- with no hope of it getting better in our lifetimes, which sucks the life out of us.

        I was in the same mentality when I lived in NY- it was getting to the point where escaping seemed like a nice dream, but almost impossible to achieve; but I knew that I had to do whatever I had to do to get out, otherwise I’d just be wasting the rest of my life and getting dragged further and further down; and my window of opportunity would be gone.

        Sometimes, the idea of making a major move and a major change seems like one is destroying what they already have- but in reality, doing nothing to escape the monster’s clutches will ultimately destroy EVERYTHING we have; including our very souls. One has to look at the bigger picture.

        In the long-run, after all is said and done, you realize that you haven’t given up anything, but rather have gained everything.

        • Hi Nunz,

          I hear you… but there is also the additional factor that – in my own low-rent way – I’m battling these SOBs and that gives some meaning to my existence. My divorce and lack of a family have freed me in a an important way. I can take risks and do things now that I might have shied away from a few years ago.

          And I want to fight them.

          Not necessarily physically; but with the powers I’ve got which are greater. It gladdens my heart every time I get a note from a reader letting me know I made an impression. If it’s only a handful of people it’s worth it to me.

          Besides which, I am tired of ceding ground.

          Let them come. Cornering an old toothless bear is still dangerous…

          • Eric, I’m not trying to criticize your choice or desires, but just a thought: One can not fight something that is so huge (The government + a few hundred million brain-dead idiots)- One can fight…but the fight is really against one’s self, because in the end, you know how it will come out…and we do not win. The “fight” is just a hastening of our own destruction- and even if we awaken a few others, they will only find themselves in the exact same situation- having the knowledge and desire of freedom, but no means of achieving it, unless they realize the necessity of leaving.

            • Actually you are incorrect in your assumption, or actually, deliberately dumbed down in a lot of different ways. Let me show you.

              JFK, Yale University, June 11, 1962: “For the greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

              Do you believe that our “federal” government is supreme over the states, and you would be wrong in that belief. It is the document, the US Constitution that is the supreme LAW of this nation, and is the supreme CONTRACT for all who serve within our governments (plural). Each state’s document, the state Constitution is the highest LAW of the state, except in the very few instances where it MIGHT conflict with the supreme Law.

              John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General (federal) Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;”

              J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

              John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

              James Wilson: “I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and MINUTELY DEFINED, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are LIMITED AND DEFINED by the following, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”

              Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina’s ratifying convention: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’”

              Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

              Samuel Adams, using sarcasm to make a point on May 15, 1764 (Understand that all that he lists is PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments – state and federal – by the US Constitution): “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

              “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

              “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

              John Adams: “Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty”.

              James Madison: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

              Daniel Webster: “…There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

              Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

              CIA Director William Casey: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”. (“I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.
              The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.
              As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public. Barbara Honegger)

              Willi Münzenberg, a propagandist for the Communist Party of Germany, about the move of the Frankfurt School to the Columbia University in the United States about 1933: “We will make America stink. Only then, after we have corrupted all its values and made life base, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

              This is not even the tip of the iceberg, but I hope it helps you to understand that it is color of law, not law, that taxes our property, wages, etc. They are allowed to tax property ONLY when first bought, not yearly.

              The US Constitution assigns the duty(ies) of holding those who serve within our governments accountable to the PEOPLE, serving as the Militia of the several states.
              The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
              — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
              — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
              — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
              — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
              [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Duties those who serve within our state and federal governments have to the Militias are listed in Clause 16.]

              Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

              George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

              Most important is that those who serve within our governments – state and federal, are REQUIRED to use the Militias. They are forbidden from doing whatever is NOT listed in writing within the supreme contract. So if it is the Militia of the several states that is assigned to do those things listed, then anyone, group, agency, etc is forbidden to do those things.

              • Cal,

                You appear to have a very reverential attitude toward the Constitution. Why? It was crafted in secret conclave by a handful of men determined to impose a “vigorous” central government on the loose confederation of sovereign states. It has served exactly that purpose as we now live under a federal government with effectively unlimited power; whatever liberties remain to us are essentially limited privileges, revocable at whim. The federal government “interprets” the extent of its own power; the Bill of Rights is a practical nullity.

                We no longer have the right to own property, or to freely associate. Our literal bodies are the property of the government, which claims (and possesses) the power to place us in a cage if we use our bodies contrary to the decrees it issues We are forced to turn over a large percentage of the fruits of our labor to it – theft, by any honest definition.

                So, I have little regard for the Constitution; it’s just another sleight-of-hand for getting people to accept being abused by their fellow men via vague talk of “consent,” “representation,” “delegation” and other such nonsense.

                You write (and quote):

                John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

                Excuse me?

                I never consented to the government taking any of my property – yet it has taken a great deal of it. Hundreds of thousands of dollars so far. I just received another threat letter in the mail demanding more of my property – “tax” on the house and land I paid for years ago. If I do not hand over the money, the thugs will take “my” property.

                Please explain how I consented to any of this.

                • Not reverential, but respectful. You see, I HAVE read it a few times along with those commenters (pro and con) when it was created. I have read and understand the Declaration of Independence which is the frame on what the US Constitution does. I KNOW that the US Constitution is a compact (contract) between the states, that those who serve within the federal government LAWFULLY and LEGALLY have less power then each state since it IS the states representative.

                  Much of what you say is incorrect, and let me show you why. The STATES created the general (federal) government to be their, each state’s REPRESENTATIVE in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. That is why each state sends STATE representatives to speak for the people of that state in how they want those “affairs” that was delegated handled. Pretty much the only “domestic” authority that it LAWFULLY has deals with defending this nation, and with seeing that the states trade equally with each other, post roads so that mail could get more quickly across the nation, treaties, etc. I listed the duties that the GENERAL government has above in another comment.

                  John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;”

                  George Washington: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”

                  Daniel Webster: “…There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

                  James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government, ARE FEW AND DEFINED. Those which are to remain in the STATE GOVERNMENTS, ARE NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE. The former (federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects, a war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.”

                  James Wilson: “I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and MINUTELY DEFINED, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are LIMITED AND DEFINED by the following, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”

                  Thomas Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

                  Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, 384 (1947): “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, 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. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power.”

                  The power to take your property of any sort was NEVER DELEGATED to our governments. Those actions are usurpations, criminal on the part of the domestic enemies/traitors who serve within our governments. THOSE things are why it is important to know the US Constitution and your own state’s Constitution because they are the CONTRACTS for those who serve within our governments, and say exactly what they can do, not do, etc.

                  With the elections coming, those “Amendments” you will be voting on change your state Constitution, and if you believe that those who serve within our governments will give up power, then you go ahead and vote for them to pass. Those amendments change the contractual agreements that those who serve within our state governments have with the people of that state.

                  • Hi Cal,

                    I don’t respect any document which asserts I am bound to obey it just because it exists and because other people (long dead) supposedly “consented” to its terms. Perhaps it binds them. It does not (morally) oblige me or any other person who did not consent to it.

                    You continue to use the collectivist term, “our” government. Speak for yourself, please. It is not my government anymore than the Gambino mafia is my family. I am (morally speaking) a free man and any deprivation of my rights as a free man is moral outrage.

                    You speak in euphemisms, avoid clear language.

                    States have no rights because they are not living human beings; they certainly have no rights superior to any actual human being’s rights.

                    Your entire lengthy, recondite exposition is premised on coercive collectivism.

                    Euphemizing that via such slippery terms as “We, the people” and “representative” does not change the nature of that; it merely euphemizes it.

                    • You have it backwards, the US Constitution is the contract for those who serve within our governments to follow.

                      “Our” is assuming that you are an US Citizen or a citizen of one of the united States, or both. IF you are, then it is “our” government, if not, then I apologize. I did not say that you had to like it, but at least know it before you toss it away. Do not let anyone, even me, tell you what it says, as it IS in writing and easy for you to know.

                    • As a practical matter I think most of us could live with the Constitution if it actually meant anything and was adhered to. It wouldn’t be perfect but would likely be tolerable.

                      The problem is that today none of it really means anything to the people in power. They just do whatever the hell they want and in most cases the courts will rubber-stamp it.

                      There’s no constitutional authority for Social Security or Medicare; or for that matter the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, and that’s just three of many blatantly and obviously unconstitutional programs and agencies.

                      Whether by accident or design the Constitution has utterly failed to restrain the growth of illicit government power. Not even close.

                  • Cal,Even if one respects the Constitution and desires to live within the bounds of government (tyranny) it purports to establish, it doesn’t matter, unless you have the POWER to force the present government to abide by the restraints placed upon it by said Constitution- so your arguments are moot.

                    The thing you say which is correct, is that the PEOPLE allowed this to happen. Not us, who are alive today- but our forefathers- great grandfathers and such, who lived in a time when the government was still small enough, and the people free enough and well-armed enough to actually physically take back that power.

                    It is too late now. Far too late. Mere words on paper aren’t going to do it. People with guns and clubs aren’t going to do it, because our enemies have tens of millions in their direct employ, and several hundred million more supporters; and all of the best and most powerful weaponry (which we have paid for); and more importantly: The very minds of most of the people living in the 50 states.

                    Even if this government were to collapse tomorrow, it wouldn’t even matter, because They, The People, would just erect another one of the very same sort, since they do not love freedom- and sadly, most Constitutionalists would be right there with them, because the document they cherish is nothing more than a blueprint of how to do exactly that.

                    • Well-said my Wop friend!

                      It’s not force but the force of ideas which will be determinative – as it always is. The reason the country is headed in the direction it’s headed is because it’s hewing to evil ideas. Cal’s error is not grokking that his beloved Constitution enshrined many of the core kernel ideas which blossomed into the thorny bush we’re all caught up in today.

                      Beginning with the preamble, the very first sentence. Rant on deck…

                    • I’ll be looking forward to that rant, Eric!

                      What we’ve said above is the crux of the whole argument.

                      A people who value and practice morality and liberty, will have those things, regardless of what any piece of paper, law, or group of politicians may say or not say- a good example of this to some extent, is what has happened in Russia over the last decade or two.

                      On the other hand, a people don’t value and practice morality and liberty, will not have those things- and no piece of paper or group of men can give those things to them, because the people;s own ideas turned into actions, dictate the overall behavior and character of their society, and consequences of their own actions.

                      Which is why I have always loved and agreed with “People get the government they deserve”.

          • Eric, your desire to fight is laudable, but ultimately Quixotic, which I think you know.

            If you have no debt and a large asset like a house, you are in a very good position to shed your yoke. At least mostly.

            YMMV and I don’t know your state tax issues intimately, but….

            Are there not states without the vehicle tax you loath?
            Houses (here) are what are really taxed heavily. Where I am, a mobile home is not considered a property improvement. Property tax is assessed as ‘bare land’ even though there is a mobile home, septic field, power, etc.

            Long ago I moved from Vancouver, where I paid the highest car insurance, the highest property tax and was surrounded by intolerable, state worshiping morons.

            Now I pay less than $500/year property tax for a very large acreage, the second lowest car insurance rate (still too high) and am surrounded by deer, range cows, bears and mostly like minded folks who also ‘left civilization’ for a civilized life, the closest one being about a mile away. But still only less than 1 hour drive to a city with big box stores should I need it.

            Once this far out, nobody from government seems to care what you do. They probably can’t even find the place as there are few road signs (someone took several down and swapped a few 😉 ), Google can’t give directions and there are no addresses on most properties here. If anyone asks, most neighbors will send them in the wrong direction, ‘by mistake’.

            I built a moderate but comfortable house, no permits, no inspections, no building codes, no insurance. Ten years later, it still has not burned itself down or collapsed. The decrepit mobile is my ‘home’ for tax purposes, while I live in the ‘barn’. Not that any official even knows that the ‘barn’ was built.

            Friends? Well, the ones that were worth keeping are still there. It is a bit of a drive to see them, but a price worth paying for the lifestyle. Can’t say I really miss the ones that were disrespectful and condescending regarding my choice.

            Options to minimize the man picking your pocket exist.

            BTW, this was not my brilliance or insightful plan. This was motivated by seeing my cousin do something very similar successfully several years before, about 20 miles from here.

            • You moved from Vancouver, but are you still in British Columbia?
              If you don’t want to say I’ll understand,
              Just curious whether the improved circumstances were possible without moving to another province.
              I lived in Vancouver during my kindergarten and early elementary school years.

              • Yes. BC.
                North of Kamloops.

                Soon to be south of Penticton if the Area 27 deal happens.

                Fast cars, good wine and a big chunk of land near Osoyoos for more wine and the stable…

                Too old to not make it happen or die trying.

              • The improved,

                CHEAP LAND TAX.

                The rest falls under an LLC for the cars and accommodations.

                2019 spring-summer should be taking bookings for silly cars at the Area 27 track. Or it all goes to shit and I lose everything. As said, too old not to roll the dice.

          • It’s always a tiny minority that makes any difference, for good or ill. As futile as the struggle seems I can’t help but think of Solzhenitsyn’s words about “how we burned in the camps later…”

            We’re all going down one way or another. May as well do it with your self respect intact.

            I for one applaud your stance.

              • Eric,

                That whole Kavanaugh thing was a charade, put on for the benefit of the deep state, of which Kavanaugh is a valuable asset.

                Kavanaugh is the one essentially responsible for letting the Clinton’s get away with the Vince Foster murder; He AUTHORED part of the Patriot Act; He is a supporter of warrantless government spying on all citizens; He voted for and upheld the supposed constitutionality of Obamacare; and much more….

                His appointment will effectively kill any remaining vestiges of the Fourth Amendment….

                The sex scandal charade was put on to keep attention away from the above (and other) real issues; and to cover the fact that the deep state loves this guy. And just look at how well it worked out: They now have almost everyonme cheering for this freedom-hating bastard.

                What this really shows, is how easily the American public can be fooled, and how easily they are led and manipulated by media. How many people do you suppose actually lifted one finger to do even the most basic research on this creep?

                Instead, they just let the mass media manipulate their emotions.

                This, if anything, shows just how screwed we are; and how hopeless this country is.

                • Thank you for actually bothering to do the research and know the truth. You are 100% correct from what my own research tells me.

                  WE did not need another swamp creature, we needed a constitutionalist, and he is not. He flat out says that those who serve within our government can modify the Bill of Rights. He is wrong.

                  of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
                  THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

                  I think the Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that these are “forbiddens” and “restrictions” places upon those who serve within our governments.

                  • Ah! Thanks, Cal- I’m glad somebody else agrees with me on this, and can see through the charade!

                    As I was saying in another response to you, I used to also be a Constitutionalist.

                    Please watch the vid I posted in the other response:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

                    You’re on the right path…but this video (it’s funny, actually- not some political rant or diatribe) really helped me to come all the way around.

                    • Good video! Thanks for the link, and I, plus Thomas Jefferson, and some others from long ago agree with you!

                      God Bless!

                    • Thanks cal.

                      I’ve always been a big fan of Thomas Jefferson. The man wasn’t perfect for sure- but his writings were a breath of fresh air compared to the usual political drivel!

                      I live not far from where Jefferson Davis was born, too. Ironically, about half between there, and where that bastard Lincoln was born! (Big fan of Davis, too).

                      When you think about what is said in that video, it really takes freedom to the ultimate level though.

                      Guys like Jefferson et al, may seem like a breath of fresh air compared to scum politicians we have today- but still, by legitimizing government- any government- they are really restraining freedom and advocating tyranny (as can be seen by their own actions- for example: Jefferson speaking loftily of freedom while owning slaves).

                      ANY government is an assault upon freedom. Once we accept that fact, a whole new world opens up for us= and we begin to see that the constitution- ANY constitution, is really just a mechanism to perpetuate tyranny to one degree or another, as it gives certain men special rights, privileges and powers over the rest of us; rights and privileges and powers which we do not have and therefore makes us inferior and subject to them.

      • Hi Eric,
        You have forgotten that I am older than you, as is Nunzio. You appear to be in great internal conflict as part of you wants to continue to fight until the end, and another part of you is fatalistic. But then again; is that really an internal conflict or an internal agreement? You have extremely good talents which can be transferred elsewhere, and you are sharper than a razor blade! Your life has great value!
        If I am not mistaken, I seem to recall that you consider yourself to be ‘spiritual’, as do I. Have you taken the time to really explore this part of yourself? I am far more rational than most people are, but I have seen things happen that defy reason; therefore I live an extremely rational life while keeping my spiritual eyes wide open. I used to scoff at people who believed in numerology and astrology until I tried them out of curiosity and found the results to be very close to being 100% (roughly about 85-95%). This blew my mind! I have since then learned that numerology is actually based upon math, although I have yet to read the book I bought as to how those things came about. I now have 20+ books to read on these types of subjects during my scant free time.
        I simply entered my full name as it appears on my birth certificate along with my date of birth, and the results pretty much matched my Myers-Briggs personality test result of INTJ plus quite a bit more info. Only 1-4% of people are INTJ, therefore this is unlikely to be a coincidence! Some religions include the belief that we as spirits choose to be born at specific times with certain types of parents in order to grow our spiritual knowledge. Apparently, the vast majority of us lose the memory of our past lives at birth, because remembering those events would confuse our present lives. Some mainstream Catholic and Protestant Christians have had communication with arch-angels; yet they would be shocked to learn that those same angels visit people who have religions which are outside of the Abrahamic ones.
        There still remain a great many things that exist which cannot be explained by science.
        Perhaps spiritual beliefs are all 100% imaginary, and perhaps not. I tried running the names of my parents through the same method and the results were far from being accurate. Perhaps there are a whole bunch of different things happening in the background that we as humans are not aware of. These types of questions really trigger my curiosity and add a great spark of excitement to my desire for a long life.
        A question for you Eric. Do you really own that T/A, all of those motorcycles, and your property; or do those (taxable) things own you? I have asked myself the same questions about my stuff, and I have concluded that the accumulation of all of them together has anchored me here; therefore I have decided to sell everything which restricts my mobility. Then, I will be the owner of the stuff that remains rather than them owning me.
        Could you test drive cars from other countries with your experience and credentials? Perhaps you can become something like a dual citizen, spending time in 2 countries and writing about the cars available in each one. You could then escape the U.S. once things get too bad here. If the people ever do decide to fight for freedom, we could always return to the U.S. to assist them.

        • Hi Brian,

          Thank you for that very thoughtful post!

          Since my marriage ended, I’ve given a lot of thought to – what next? I built a life around being married and now I fid myself not – and middle aged and feeling very much like I just woke up after a weekend bender. My first reaction – and actions – have been devoted to treading water and avoiding going under, financially and otherwise. It took almost three years for my marriage to completely fall apart – to go from “I’m unhappy” through her moving out past lots of ultimately pointless “therapy” to the formal/legal divorce. It’s a brutal experience and I have the scars to show for it. Plus six cats, a house and too much to do.

          My car mostly sits now – same for the bikes. I haven’t done a major project since 2015. I mostly just work – and work to keep up the house.

          But I haven’t figured out what comes next – or how to get there. I think a lot of guys in their 40s and 50s who find themselves divorced will understand this.

          Having just dealt with a huge life upheaval, dealing with another – moving and starting over – is extremely unappealing. I barely have enough energy to keep afloat as it is.

          So, for now at least, I tread water and hope the worst is over.

          • Eric, In my life, I’ve gone through two marriages and divorces and on my third marriage and guess what, it’s ALL survivable and depends on your mindset.

            My first was devastating but I kept looking for that “right” partner and guess what, “Third times a charm” has some basis in reality …

            The woman in my life now (been together 20 years) is everything I could wish for … so don’t give up hope just pick yourself up dust yourself off and march forward toward your dreams …

            BTW, you’re NEVER too old to move on and “Plow new ground” …

        • Hey Brian,

          It shouldn’t surprise us, I guess- but we INTJs seem to be in the majority on this site, rather than the minority.
          (Just as I’m sure that socialist forums are dominated by TARDs 😀 )

          Hey, be carefull with that occult stuff! The spirit world is indeed real- and I’ve seen it too- used to have an aunt who was proficient as a gypsy with Tarot cards- and indeed, had an accuracy rate like you describe- but the reason that is, has nothing to do with the cards or numbers or anything else- it’s because these people are conduits for demons! This is why Christians are forbidden to indulge in such things- the demons will tell you a good deal of truth, and so you’ll follow them and their conduits, instead of God.

          Only when the demons tell the truth, they do so just to establish trust- then comes a big lie, and it will destroy you.

          Sadly, my own birth and many aspects of my life were precisely predicted by my aunt, long before my mother even met my father. My mother was just mentioning this the other day.

        • Throwing invaders out of one’s country, with the help of many like-minded citizens is quite different than overthrowing the largest, most technologically advanced and wealthy government the world has ever seen, and a few hundred million of it’s faithful brain-dead subjects.

          The Founders were not so foolish as to even try that in England- despite the odds then and there being much better than ours here today, as the government there did not have the weaponry and technological advantage that ours has here today.

          You can fight a government, if you have enough people- but you can’;t fight a whole country and it’s government. And even if you could, something even worse would replace that government, because the people are no longer liberty minded. Socialism and all forms of authoritarian collectivism are far more popular than liberty- so even if one could successfully fight, the end result would just be power struggles between various groups for control and imposition of their brand of government, because let’s face it: After the fight, the people aren’t just going to go home and say “O-K, now just let’s live our own lives and do what we want”.

          We who believe in the right of men to rule their own lives, are a tiny minority and always have been and will be. The average person wants to rule others, or have someone ruling otrhers, even if it means ruling them. Until you can change that trait of human nature that infects about 99.3% of the populace, and revolution would be meaningless; and if you could change that, there then wouldn’t need to be a revolution, because people would stop ruling, voting, and obeying.

          • First, I do not suggest anything that is not constitutional as verified by the framers and forefathers.

            They tell us to get rid of the corrupt that serve within our government, charge them with the crimes they have committed, and give them a JURY TRIAL.

            Second, The British military was the most strongest military of its time. It was defeated by a rag tag 3% – 5% of the American people.

            Look at Afghanistan and us today.

            • Cal,

              Problem is: The British military was defeated (and just barely) only because it did not have a huge technological advantage over the Colonists (i.e. we had access to the same weaponry as they), and it was just a small percentage of England’s population in a foreign land.

              If the Founders had tried to do the same from within England, obviously, they would have been quickly wiped out and probably wouldn’t even be a footnote of history.

              Ditto the poor Afghans- It’s an entire populace fighting for their lives and property and culture and god.

              By contrast, anything WE might do here, would not only be a fight against the tens of millions employed by government, but against the mejority of our neighbors and fellow countrymen.

              It would be different if a good percentage of the population were united against the government- then it could be done- but as long as most people see their government as their protector and benefactor; their employer; etc. THEY will be as much our enemy as those whom we seek to fight.

              I mean, try finding a home where there isn’t a picture hanging of a son or father or broether, etc. in some uniform, who is or was fighting the very things which we believe, in service to that government which they worship.

              To engage in any sort of revolution here, is to take on the majority of the American sheeple.

              The 100 million armed citizens whose 2nd amendment rights we stand for, but which the government is destroying, would be the first ones to shoot us, in service to ther oppressors.

              Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrome?

              Americans love their captors, because they hate freedom. We love freedom, so they’d hate us.

              I’m with ya in principle- you sound like a good guy who advocates freedom- but you have to be realistic. And even getting back to Constitutionalism wouldn’t be enough…for it would soon devolve into exactly what we have now…just as it did the first time around.

              Freedom can only be acheived by those who love it and desire it with all of their being. People who vote for their neighbors to be robbed so they can have more, can not have freedom.

            • The fact is, Cal, that you can never really get rid of corrupt people in power over others — which is all “government” is.

              Please look up the article, “If Men Were Angels,” by Robert Higgs; it’s free, online. He picks up where Madison left off, and addresses Madison’s fallacies.

              The final point is, there is no one better suited to rule you than you. And I certainly don’t want you ALSO ruling over me, or assigning, appointing, or “electing” other men in addition ruling over me! Men are NOT angels, and therefore are not qualified to rule other men.

              Why don’t you see that? Why do you keep avoiding the excellent points others here have made to that effect, and our questions about why you want any “government” at all over anyone else but you?

              • Hi Gray!

                Once, long ago, I was a “strict Constitutional conservative” . . . until I read Spooner. Until I questioned the myth of Authority. It’s so easy to get caught up in poetic language… which is almost invariably imprecise and even euphemistic language. If my mojo returns today, I will get back at the rant I’m working on which Cal and his comments inspired. I’ve been out of tune for a few days; this happens and it’s unsettling.

                Probably because I’m getting old.

                • Hi, Eric.

                  More probably because things are getting so much worse so visibly and with such acceleration. Don’t beat yourself up. Take the time needed to think about your rant, and the whys of what you really want and need to say. The world is falling apart for many reasons, it seems, today, but it won’t because you don’t immediately post that rant. Let it cook and simmer until the flavor is at its peak. It will be worth it.

                  We’re here. We anticipate. All good things in good time.

                  Most important, immediate good: you take proper care of you. And if that means you gotta just get out, breathe fresh air, walk the woods, play in a cold stream, do some fishin’, and let the world wobble on, so be it.

                  Yes, there is hardly a more closely argued objection to any “Constitution,” and the rulership it establishes, than Lysander Spooner. He inspires the arduous but exhilarating climb to the pinnacle of what we as human beings are: free.

                  Be well, Friend. And thank you again for all you do here for us, and the venue you so generously provide for those who love FREEDOM!!

        • Hi X,
          Please post a copy of the document which certifies that George Washington owned this country, which was not a country at all back then.

      • Relocation is only a problem if it isn’t a key part of ones lifestyle.
        Since one must pay an annual property tax on ones daily driver, simply live in it.
        I’ve been doing it since 1984, at 30 years old.

        • Hi Vonu,
          I agree with you. I initially purchased a 5 acre property to eventually become a homestead where I can grow, hunt, and fish for most of my food, but the economy and high gas prices thwarted its development.
          I presently live in a travel trailer in the town where I am employed. I am now semi-mobile due to the fact that I have lots of stuff I intended to use on my homestead which I am paying monthly storage fees for in order to keep them from being stolen.
          This leads to my next steps, which are to sell nearly everything I have which is homestead related including the land. I also have my 2 travel trailers to sell at some point next year. It is my hope to transfer from living in a travel trailer to living in a 50ish foot boat. Once everything is liquidated in the U.S. aside from the boat: I intend to visit some South American countries in order to decide which one(s) best suit me. At that time, I may move back to land, or I may choose to remain off grid by continuing to live on the boat. Perhaps I will migrate between 2 or more countries based upon seasonal temperatures.

    • Out of curiosity, where would you go?

      I’ve lived all over the world, and still choose the US. One of the reasons is that people in the US are fundamentally good. When I do business with someone, my first assumption is not that they will cheat me, as it is in eastern Europe. When I go to a new city, I don’t have to worry about being killed because I’m a stranger, as it is in much of the middle east. I can walk into a grocery store and assume the food is good to eat. We’re a first world nation full of mostly good people, and much more free than most other first world nations.

      You can be much more free in corrupt or uncivilized places, simply because you are left alone, however the authorities there can be very capricious. You don’t know if you’ll have to go into hiding immediately, or start bribing people after an election.

      • Opp Lock… Are u kidding me? As for cities and town, you can walk alone in the middle of the night in pretty any European city, town, village without fear of being threatened, mugged or worse, unlike many cities in the U.S. As for other places, when was the last time you read of someone getting robbed, shot or mugged in Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, and many other places to numerous to mention. The quality of food, even fast food (street food included), is pretty well everywhere generally far superior than your standard North American fare, unless you’re addicted to Big Macs and the like. Even in the big cities, whether on foot, riding a scooter, motorcycle, or other 3 or 4 wheeled vehicle you rarely have to worry about being stopped by a cop for anything. Lane-splitting is routine everywhere. Better (and faster!) drivers in the big cities. Traffic stops are practically unheard of. Far from being “corrupt and uncivilized”, numerous places outside the US, other that war-torn areas, have a lot more to offer an ex-pat looking for a safe, hassle-free place to live.

      • OL,

        My response exactly. I’ve lived all over the world, for long periods, integrated into the local society.

        It appears that some cannot imagine the government power, abuse, corruption, inefficiencies, rip-offs, social complications, racism, threats, and much, much worse that are common in the rest of the world.

        Each place has its own unique set of challenges. The USA, as of now, for the vast majority of people, has the best compromise solution–all challenges considered.

        Not that Eric does not have a point. He does. It’s just that other places are not necessarily going to be better. Same with other states–those with low income taxes make up for it with higher property taxes, or sales taxes, or vice versa. And quality of life is very, very different in each state–something one must consider, depending on individual preferences and tastes.

      • Sorry, but the people of the US are fundamentally idiot sheep, who have managed to end up with exactly the government they deserve.

        The reason strangers get killed in the Middle East is because those “strangers” insist on sticking their noses into the affairs of the Middle East which very often includes killing the people of the Middle East. Gee, what a bunch of soreheads those Middle Easterners are.

        As for Eastern Europe, don’t be too tough on them, they are pretty much the only nation states left defending western culture.

        • “As for Eastern Europe, don’t be too tough on them, they are pretty much the only nation states left defending western culture.”

          Ironic, too- since WE handed them over to the USSR after WW2 and let that country impose communism on the poor Slavs [Apparently our idea of “making the world safe for democracy”- or, more accurately, as Archie Bunker misquotes it “Making the world safe from democracy”! 😀 )

          And it’s funny, when you’re discussing Iran or the Middle East with most people here, and they retort with “Look at what they’ve done to us!! Killing our guys and taking hostages…yada yada…”.

          I guess they expect that we can overthrow their governments; bomb them; support and aid their enemies; and invade their countries…..and they’re supposed to thank us for that? And I always respond with “Of course, if some other country overthrew our government, or aided our enemies, or bombed us, or invaded our country, we’d be just fine with it, and would make tea for the hostile troops; and wouldn’t dare harm them…”

          People are so ass-backwards; so bereft of all logic, sense and morality, that it isn’t even worth speaking to most average people anymore, unless they first show some sign of humanity.

          They truly are getting the government they deserve..and if we don’t get out, we’re gonna get the government they deserve too!

    • When you decide to GET that boat, do one or both of two things. Either get it “registered” as in US registared, thus not subject to any state licensing, as they do with cars, OR taxation.
      OR/and establish a residence in Oregon, where there is NO sales tax nor any excise taxes on vehicles or vessels as an annual bribe to the gummit to “allow” you to have/use it there. Oregon DO have income tax, though ,but certain ypes of income are exempt taxation.. some pensions, a certain percentage of self-emolyment/business income, disability benefits, Of course, with a boat most often comes moorage, whichis a form of rent. If you buy water property then you will have property tax on that, and since water property is scarce such properties purport to have high value, and thus high property taxes.

      BUT all those taxes DO bear some benefits: roads to drive on, but then the car you use to drive on them burns fuel, heavily taxed. You could ride you bicycle on them and pay no taxes, especially if you buy your bike in Oregon, no sales tax. No licensing, either.. although Portland (hoodathunkit?) was trying or threatning to establish a bicycle registration plan with an annual fee…… any bets how well THAT will be implemented any time soon? Portland and FlimFlamFrisko were very early adopters of the over-the-top obnoxious “Critical Mass’ rides….. AND of recent riots, uprisings, “occupy” incidents, takeovers, with Portland Police Bureau Officers being give”stand down” orders to let the rioters do what they will.. destroy and steal cars, set things on fire, bust up buildings, assault innocents……..

  8. Property taxes are the worst, I’ve been retired for several years now and hence my income is what it is and never going higher, yet the taxes go up every year. Here in Taxachusetts my property taxes are currently around $12,000 a year; we’ve been in this same house since 1974 and at this point have probably paid 5 times the original cost of the house to the city, and it never ends. I once thought about sitting down and calculating the actual amount but thought better of it since I live near train tracks and would probably feel like jumping in front of the next locomotive going by after doing that math.

  9. Eric, If you think taxes are bad in Virginia you should reside in New Jersey as I do. In fact over the past decade more people have migrated out of New Jersey than moved in. Mostly because high property taxes have forced them to sell their homes. With that said,don’t blame the tax system. Instead blame the parasites who are travelling on the government gravy train. Government employees,retired government employees,businesses that rely on the government plus the various citizens who are ensconced in the welfare system,at one level or another,out number and thus out vote the creators of real wealth in the American free market. Eventually the laws of economics will prevail and when the money is worthless or productive people stop being productive then the whole system will collapse. Just like Rome. Its funny how history repeats itself.

    • Agree Libertarian Jerry. It’s called Atlas Shrugged(ing). My wife and I are wealth creators (in NJ) and have been beaten down year after year. We’re at the point of ‘why bother anymore’. I’ve roughed our overall tax rate and it’s near 50%. We are formulating our exit plan, much earlier than we should be doing.
      I even see the same thing with our employees. We compensate much higher than the norm and even they are saying ‘I don’t get why I can’t get ahead’, ‘I think my cost of living is going through the roof?” Yes it is, and it’s mostly because of ‘taxes’, which now insurance is a tax too, haha….
      My families health insurance has approx. risen 20% every year for the past 8, to now ridiculous numbers.

      We are trying to teach our young adult kids to start their life in better places, but the NJ hustle-and-bustle is sucking them in. We’ll see.
      Our once conservative area, rare in NJ, is slowly turning blue, sad. And I’ve pushed back harder than most. We are not winning here.
      The only good news is our young adult kids and all their friends are more conservative than we ever were at that young age. I doubt it will matter much in NJ, or the coasts.

        • It is very refreshing. And I don’t think my wife and I did anything special, other than making them think for themselves. We never gave them the answer without them trying first, 2nd, etc… Failure was allowed and cherished (by me). They started questioning early in middle school, and all I would say would be ‘what are you going to do about it?’ After they got over the fear that a lot of teachers would punish them, it all went very well from there. I made it easy for them though “I don’t care if you go to the principle”. He ended up going 10+ times in one year, and I never got a call past the 1st time. He started wearing it as a badge of honor. Then guess what happened? His friends started getting bold too. For good stuff, like crazy libs saying ‘tell your parents to vote for obama’. crap like that….. hahahahhaha
          The best example was when the teachers would start teaching the answers to the standardized tests (for the teachers grades), and they would make the kids nuts about it, many getting emotional about it. My kid couldn’t take it anymore and said to all: “these tests are not about us, it’s about them and why they are giving us the answers, don’t let them make you worry about it’

          Funny thing happened. The teachers started getting in trouble (good principle), and then they would send him to ‘lunch detention’, haha, they would end up with 2-3 kids there so they could congregate. Fun stuff.

          My younger daughter is learning a lot of this stuff now, and it’s awesome when she says ‘Dad, this or that teacher is nuts because…….’ yahoooooo…… same stuff, ‘what are you going to do about it?’
          ps: i am very lucky that my wife gets it too. While she doesn’t agree with all my methods, we can agree to disagree and she believes the kids should see both my and her reasons and actions.

  10. Everything is designed to keep us on a treadmill. Producing. Like livestock.
    Am I, are we, crazy for seeing it?

    It’s not like people couldn’t be sent a bill for each government service like for water service… oh wait they can’t because then it would be difficult to make the neighbors pay for it. Schools would need to be funded by those with children in them. Nobody else would pay. So those running things exploit this to create property taxes and thus enslave us all.

    • Washington believed that our very liberties were dependent on keeping the government constrained within its proper constitutional role. He wrote that a government “with powers properly distributed and adjusted” would serve as liberty’s “surest guardian.” “[Liberty] is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.” (faction = political party)

      Ben Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.
      “This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0015

      Samuel Adams May 15, 1764: “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

      Thomas Jefferson: “A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

      James Madison regarding the remedy to the states for combating federal overreach. According to our founders, it was not only the remedy but the duty of the states to stand in defense of the Republic. “…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison

      Those who serve within our governments – state and federal – were never delegated the authority over our property, our wages, even to regulate our businesses. They are required to defend them.

      “It’s not like people couldn’t be sent a bill for each government service like for water service…’

      Actually, water, like air, traveling by any means we wish, owning and using weapons, etc is a NATURAL RIGHT of the people. The water of this nation is owned by the American citizens of this nation. What about the water treatment plants, dams, etc? Built by our tax dollars. But those who work within government needs wages. No where is our government DELEGATED any authority to create schools, run them, etc. They are also LIMITED IN WRITING to what land they may own, and for what purposes that land can be used. This is all in writing, and YOU should know this. At the very least read a pocket Constitution and the Constitution of the state you live within. It (both the US Constitution and your state’s Constitution) is/are the contract(s) that those who serve within government are Oath bound and contractually bound to follow.

      • Hi Cal,

        Washington may have meant well but his intentions are not relevant to the question: Can consent be “implied” or “assumed” or just sort of happen? Or does it (morally) require the individual to freely and consciously give it?

        And: Can an individual (morally) vote or otherwise “give consent” to deprive others of their rights?

        Mencken observed that an election in this country is a “kind of advance auction of stolen goods.”

        Exactly so.

        He was a much more honest man than Washington.

        You write (and quote):

        Samuel Adams May 15, 1764: “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

        Yes, indeed. That is exactly what we have become. And the Constitution you reverence either countenanced it – or was impotent to prevent it (per Lysander Spooner).

      • Cal, can you imagine a possibility greater and better than any government, that is workable, right here, right now, that does not put any man over any other man, and that does not permit any man to steal anything or portion thereof from any other man, where there is mutual agreement on the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle, in which no one has a right to initiate coercion, force, violence, theft, or fraud against anyone else), association, absolutely free and unfettered trade, prosperity and peace?

        Do you really believe such a good society cannot exist without someone presuming to govern — rule and rob — others to achieve it and maintain it? Why do you prefer government over actual individual freedom and inviolable rights?

        • Under the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution we have two separate “governments” with different powers delegated to them by the PEOPLE. The US Constitution was properly ratified.

          I also believe that the US Constitution makes it very clear that those who serve within our governments – state and federal – are NOT allowed to be armed. Instead they are REQUIRED in writing to use the People as the Militia of the several states for any enforcement purposes needed to be carried out – that is found in writing within Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 15. The duties that those who serve within the state governments and the federal governments have to those Militias are found in Clause 16.

          The only people who serve within our governments that can make Laws that are binding on the American people and our nation are those who actually serve within the House of Representatives (the only one who decides where gov. money can be spent) and those who actually serve within the Senate (who may make suggestions on where the money may be spent but those suggestions can be ignored).

          That we are FORBIDDEN to have a standing (permanent) military, which is WHY the Militias of the several states are REQUIRED to train as the Congress requires the Military to be trained (Clause 16), and educated in both the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution because that is their “leader” where if a US President or state Governor gives an order contrary to those documents those orders are to be refused and those who tried to go against their Oath charged by the Militia and held accountable.

          I KNOW that the STATES created the US Constitution which was created for the purpose to make sure that all foreign dealings, treaties were the same for each state. THAT is why we have state reps that act in the general government (fed).

          I know that what we ahve today is NOT a constitutional republic, but a form of socialism/nazism/fascism and NOT Lawful government at all, and that ALL today in all governmental positions can be held accountable and have NO LAWFUL power.

          I 100% believe and stand for this, put into words by Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr.

          Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…
          The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
          The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
          The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction. … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
          And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
          What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

          Since we the PEOPLE did not agree to what is going on today, we can replace LAWFULLY and LEGALLY the corrupt domestic enemies and traitors that serve within our governments today. IF we are true Americans, we will. But it MUST be done in a Constitutional manner, charges brought, jury trial held.

          How can we do that? The Grand Jury, Grand Jury Investigations is a constitutional TOOL of the PEOPLE, not those who serve within our governments.

          Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.
          “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)
          “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”
          “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
          “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
          “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”
          “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

          As is LAWFUL constitutional elections…
          James Madison Federalist 45: “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …”

          John Hancock, 1st signer of the Declaration of Independence: “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian duty of each individual… Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which Heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”

          Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….”

          • Eric, this Cal guy is obviously not bothering to read our replies to him or to check out the links that we have provided! This is obviously a one direction discussion for this troll. He deserves to be at least Clovered if not evicted IMO!

          • Cal, what about “no rulers, no government” don’t you understand?

            I don’t care about any of what you wrote; it’s all robber gang vomit. I don’t care about what anyone said at any time about if, and, when, or but for a “good” government.

            I don’t want to be ruled by anyone else but God and me. The question is, why isn’t that enough for you? Why do you need someone else “in authority” over you? Why are you willing to risk everything to give it all to someone else? Why are you willing to put all the rest of us at that risk just so you can have “a proper authority” over all of us?

            Who says you can, or should? Is it moral, ethical, right, or good, for you to presume to establish and support another gang of thieves over the rest of us?

            If YOU want to be ruled by someone else, then by all means, go to it. But leave the rest of us alone, please.

    • Along with my property rent (Tax) my county zoned everything about 10 years ago and now require permission and a permit to do any improvements or construction on the acreage I supposedly own. I can’t “Legally” put a fence post on my property now without a permission slip from the county government. They also instituted new regulations for septic systems and if I ever do sell my acreage I have to bring the septic up to code at my expense before I can close the deal. The septic deal is a real knee slapper because there is a farmer a couple of miles away from us that piled tons of cow shit from his confinement on land he owns near my acreage, and when I brought it up to the local zoning board and the EPA they said it was all legal and they could do nothing.

      There are also hog confinements all around us that spread their manure all over the fields around the acreage, but my septic system must meet their contrived standards before I am allowed to sell MY property to someone else. The faster the system implodes the better.

      • Morning, Guerrero –

        You have my sympathies, amigo… and I live in dread of the same happening here. For now, I am still free to put up a fence and so on. But the Clovers are sprouting all around me and I know it is only a matter of time before these creatures have numbers and take over. With that in mind, I am trying to gradually fix my place up so that at least I will be able to (hopefully) sell it for a sum sufficient to enable me to check out from the system permanently.

      • Hope I can get out of here before it gets to that point where I am, because that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me. I won’t live like that. That’s when I go Rambo!

        There are very places left where such has not yet been implemented. And it’s just a matter of time before it comes.

        I was just thinking about the economic impact of such the other day, too.

        When I got my abiove ground pool: I bought the pool; had my neighbor level off a spot for me; I dug a little trench and ran an electric line for the filter; etc. Total cost for everything: $2300

        My friend back in commie NY, got a smaller pool…. but between the cost of permits and legal process; double fence to keep trespassing kids from drowning; professiona electrician and another permit for the electric line [Which I’d imagine is many hundreds of dollars, ’cause the cost for a permit for a new watwer heater on LI where he lives, is $750!), yada, yada….his total cost was $13,000!!!!

        Thirteen freaking grand for an above ground pool, only because the politicians (to whom he already pays almost $11K a year to in property taxes to) and their unionized conspirators all get more money out of the deal than the people who made the freaking pool!

        My friends, if this hasn’t sparked a revolution, NOTHING will, because sheep do not revolt!

  11. You’re taxed for doing the right thing and you’re fined for doing the wrong thing. I guess the only piece of land the government doesn’t do real estate taxes on yet is the plot of ground that will serve as our final resting place. I fear that may not be safe in future!

    • Did your DMV let you know that registration and licenses are voluntary, only required for commercial vehicles?

      “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

      DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

      By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

      For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

      CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

      CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

      It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

      CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

      CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

      As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel…. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

      For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
      “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

      And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

      Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

      Other cases are even more straight forward:

      “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

      “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

      “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

      We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
      “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”

      In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

      Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
      1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
      2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

      Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

      1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: “…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…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

      2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

      Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect – laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

      Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling — discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
      And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one’s daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right. ” (end quote)

      • Cal,

        Ok, you’ve crossed over the line into utter (sovereign citizen/ALL CAPS Admiralty Flag) bullshit now:

        “Did your DMV let you know that registration and licenses are voluntary, only required for commercial vehicles?”

        Yeah, just like paying income and property tax is “voluntary.”

        Ask Larkin Rose about that.

        Only a fool believes such garbage. Practice such garbage and you’ll soon be in a cage.

        That you should not be in the cage is irrelevant; that the laws regarding taxes and registration and all the rest are outrages is beside the point.

        They are the law – and the law will be enforced all over you if you ignore it and they catch you.

        • It is, and they are also unlawful, but under “Color of Law” and revenue generation they are forced upon a willing people; complaining maybe, but that is as far as they go. Our framers, forefathers… freedom is not free, one has to stand, and they, and some today, lost their lives, were imprisoned, etc while those who are “above” the law – which LAWFULLY none are here – commit *treason and **terrorism with no repercussions because WE allow it to go on. “They” are not the law, they actually commit felonies and **terrorism when they enforce color of law, they may also qualify as treasonous as they are actively working against the legal order, our constitutional republic to which they are REQUIRED to support and defend before orders of superiors and before duties of the position they occupy in an Oath.

          Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans (lowercase “r”) are for carefully guarding against it.”

          Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

          *Treason – Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:
          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
          The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
          Three elements must be present for an offense to constitute treason:
          — an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
          intent to go against the legal order, and then
          — action to violate that obligation.

          **28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

          • Cal, reading all your posts leaves a freedom-lover flabbergasted.

            Don’t you see that you START with government, NOT with you or me as free individuals? Your comment to Eric about deciding to stay or go, “giving consent” to the government on reaching the age of majority, or else having to leave, is criminal and vile. You ASSUME the government FIRST. Then the FREE human being must choose to either be under that government and ruled by it, or leave its supposed and IMPOSED “jurisdiction.” You don’t see the immorality of that? You don’t see the abject slavery imposed by that?

            Why don’t you see this obvious reality?!

            Which came first in time and history: the free human being, or “government”? Who changed that, and why? And why do you advocate for this anti-free individual human being arrangement?

            Please regain your humanity and see the grievous error of this “government first” philosophy. It is absolutely fallacious.

      • Cal, that’s great, but here’s the problem: What is a practical and effective way to assert one’s right to use the public way by common private conveyance? And by practical I mean not repeatedly and often find one’s self at the side of the road confronted by a costumed and badge armed government employee.

        And there lies the problem. 99.9% of the people out there are convinced that motoring is a privilege. Why? They were told so in the government schools. Those in government employ may know the truth or not but either way their bread is buttered by it being a privilege and they will use force to maintain their incomes.

        So how do you aim to convince a critical mass of people of the truth? I have the arguments I make, and they seem to be effective in getting some people to think about it, but I’m one guy generally reaching no more than a handful of people at a time. I am not sure I am convincing either, just that I leave them with no defense of what their teachers told them.

        • Indeed, Brent.

          Once these fallacies get pounded into people’s heads from the time they are children, and they see that virtually around them agree with the fallacies- there is no convincing 99.8% of them otherwise, no matter what you say; no matter how many you reach; No matter how brilliant and moral your argument.

          The ONLY way a significant number of people would stop believing in such a fallacy, and change their view, would be if the majority of those around them did the same- this is why mass media is so effective; and why there is no counteracting it, because most people are lemmings.

          If they got up tomorrow morning, and suddenly turned on the TV and everyone was suddenly speaking of the oppressiveness of driver’s licenses, they would change their views literally overnight, without even a sober thought, or reason. But give them all of the logic and reason in the world, and if our idea is outside of the commonly held and promoted notions, then they will reject it, no matter what.

          100 years ago, when only newspapers existed, and most of those were independent, we might have had a chance- but today, with big corporate mass media, social media and government skools, only the ideas set forth by the media-government will flourish. I guess that is why it is only since the advent of these things that we have seen tyranny expand so quickly and comprehensively.

  12. Thanks for making me even more depressed today! That got me to thinking/ranking the most odious/loathsome taxes. Here is my list, from absolute worst to least worst:
    1) Inheritance taxes: You’ve worked your whole life to accumulate wealth, YOU’RE NOT EVEN AROUND ANYMORE TO USE IT, and it gets taxed when passed down to your family. How many family farms, family businesses, etc. have had to be broken up b/c the heirs do not have enough $$ (or don’t want to remortgage the farm/business) to pay the inheritance taxes? So they end up selling the family farm to Ryan Homes, which then puts in “Woodacre Farms Estates” McMansions…. And they (the lefties) complain @ the evaporation of farmland! Or they close up the car repair shop, or the furniture refinishing business, and put a dozen or so people out of work…

    2) Property taxes: As you say in your essay. Here’s what grinds my gears: After the real estate crash of 2008, although I had lost >$80k in equity, when my property tax bill came I cheered. I clapped my hands, rubbed them together and said, “Alright! now for a break on the taxes!”… Guess what the assessment went down, BUT THE RATE WENT UP, such that the amount to be paid was the same as before the crash. Now, my property tax was about $2600/yr at the time. I would have more appreciated a snarky letter from the County Commissioner saying, “No matter what your house is worth, it costs you $2600 to live in my county! So pay up!” -at least that would have been honest.

    Cars too. I’d rather get a yearly letter from my County saying, “I know you have a POS junker, but it costs you $100 to have a car in my county. If you don’t like it, then leave!” I used to become incensed at people who scofflaw regarding vehicle taxes with their “Farm Use” plates, but now I secretly cheer them on. If they can get one over on the man, then all the power to ’em!

    3) Income taxes: Like you say, these can be avoided, esp if you own your own business and can write stuff off. As a wage earner though, the government knows of EVERY CENT that I earn, so I have nothing available to me. (only 401k, IRA, and FSA)

    4) Excise or “sin” taxes. I loathe the social engineering being done with these taxes. I’ve noticed in the papers now, that late nite smash-and-grabs of 7-11’s and such IS FOR THE CIGARETTES!!! The cash to locked up too tight in the safe at night, but the high $$/small physical size of cigarettes makes for the next best thing. Funny how in colonial times, tobacco was used as a medium of exchange. History repeats.

    5) Tolls: I paid my damn taxes: Car tax, gas tax and more, but you’re STILL gonna tax me for driving the damn bridge?!?!?! Back in the day, there was William Preston “Penny” Lane, who while Governor of MD and advocating for the bridge said the toll would be a penny and be rescinded once the bridge was paid. Yeah right… Aren’t we still paying a tax on our phone bills (land lines) left over from the Spanish-American War? I guess the only way that tax will phase out is when land lines go extinct, which they are. (Hooray!!)

    6) Consumption taxes: Sales tax, fuel tax. The most regressive taxes out there. However you can avoid them my not consuming. Like the guy who has the ’80s Mercedes diesel, but goes around to all the Kentucky Fried’s taking their used fry oil. He doesn’t pay any fuel tax….

    7) Usage taxes: i.e. speeding tickets, licensing fees (dog tags, driver’s license, CCW permit, building permit, municipal utilities, etc.) Yes, they are very annoying but typically small in scope, and you are getting a little something for what you’ve paid.

    • “BUT THE RATE WENT UP”
      Same where I am. They increased the rate to make up for the loss in value.
      ” it costs you $2600 to live in my county! So pay up!””
      The town I live in now has many homes that are the same models as the town I grew up in. A bit larger, but basically the same houses. On less land too. Because of location location and demographics they have market prices about 2X the houses where I grew up. They are on different ends of the same county. Anyway guess what? Taxes are about the same in dollars.

      So buy half the value, pay taxes at twice the rate.

    • “” it costs you $2600 to live in my county! So pay up!””

      Exactly!

      How is what we thus have any different than when people lived under monarchies? Instead of a king and his court, we just have a county and it’s legislators. Same deal…different names. Semantics.

      Yet we were taught in the retarded schools which are funded by those very taxes, that this is somehow so much better than feudalism.

      And the idea that the average moron can not even see that property taxes especially are a direct model of communism, is just flabbergasting. A perfect example:

      My sister used to live around the corner from these people who had 15 kids [All their own biological kids, no less!]- and this was on Long Island- which now has the highest property taxes in the country!

      Having 15 kids, these people did not have to pay any income tax, and also got entitlements, even though the father worked. Their property taxes were among the lowest for the area, as they had an old ramshackled house.

      Meanwhile, people in the neighborhood with no kids, or one or two kids, had to pay income taxes; got no entitlements, and had to pay higher property taxes so that all 15 kids of these people could receive “free” government indoctrinations in the local skool system [which is just one of many school districts in that county- and has a budget that is higher than that of some entire COUNTRIES!] – and yet these fools wave their flags on the 4th of July, and send their own kids off to kill and be killed for the politicians and bankers, to “fight for our freedom” so that the Iraqies or N. Koreans don’t come over here and impose their style of government on us (LOL)- which if they did, I doubt we’d be able to tell the difference- or might even would likely even lighten some of our burdens if they did! (But we’re “helping” them by imposing our system of government upon them!).

      Average teacher salary in Suffolk county NY- Well over $100K a year.
      STARTING cop salary: $104K /yr.
      Conductor on the LIRR(commuter railroad)-after a few years, with a little overtime: In the upper $100″sK/yr.
      etc.
      With many civil service employees getting yearly pensions of OVER $200K.

      The good news is that this is going to come crashing down in places like that very soon- as it is getting to the point where the middle class have fled in droves (I fled 17 years ago)- as the only people who can afford to live there are the Wall St. crowd (spend several hours a day commuting) and the unioned civiil service employees- but, as the productive middle class are fleeing and being replaced by equal numbers of illegal immigrants, who live 5 families to one house, the physical and service infrastructure is crumbling, and revenues are falling- and since NY perpetually drives away business, there are virtually no local private-sector jobs which pay enough to sustain such an absurd economy (Not to mention that quality of life for all one pays to live there, is squat!)- so those lucrative civil service jobs become harder and harder to come by, and thus more people must flee.

      This is happening to one degree or another in many places- and in the few places where it is not, it is about to. You would think that they would learn from the example of such places…but they don’t. All locales will pursue this scheme until it all goes bust. We are even beginning to see the very beginnings of it here where I now live, in this very rural area, where they are starting to embark on lavish local-government building projects, which will no-doubt raise the property taxes….and the cycle begins. The foreigners are even slowly finally starting to arrive here.

      These fools never learn- the politicians, nor the people who approve of all the government-sponsored BS because they believe the lies that such will create prosperity- when in reality, it creates poverty and dysfunction.

      And there is virtually nowhere to escape it in this country.

    • You just accept that these things are LAWFULLY done, as if we are under a monarchy/dictator instead of being a constitutional republic where everything that those who SERVE WITHIN our governments are ALLOWED to do, required to do is put into writing for all of us to KNOW.

      All of this is YOUR fault, and yours, and yours over there, etc. READ the contracts that ALL who serve within our governments are under and required to be Oath bound to support and defend. Then you will know most of what you just mentioned is NOT Lawful, nor are they legally binding on the American people. Read a comment above that tells WHO hold those who serve within our governments accountable, then be a “snowflake” instead of an American and go find a safe place to cry.

      Sheesh, how dumbed down is the American people today? I get so frustrated.

      • Cal,

        No one’s rights are (morally) up for voting on. Rights either are absolute or they are not rights at all but conditional privileges, subject to modification at any time .

        • Mostly.

          Our natural rights come from God, from our being human, and they can be seen in action in nature. Example, the right of self defense, and to defend our family. Even a bird defends themselves as they can and also their young.

          How can one tell the difference? Because if mankind was doing it before governments were created then it is a Natural Right that those who serve within our governments are REQUIRED in writing to defend, and that means even if that Natural Right was not listed it still MUST BE DEFENDED. That is the purpose our governments – state and general were created.

          God Bless you for knowing that much. I get my door kicked in at night and threatened for the words I speak. I know I am over the target when it happens, but I also know those same people are just as the people were who followed orders in Stalin’s/Lenin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, etc, etc.

          THAT is scary. Sometimes I am afraid, with reason, to write but it is something I can do is to educate, so it is my God given duty comes what may. Thank you for at least knowing that much. Now go a step further, for I will one day soon be a casualty of this fight for liberty, as it is my choice to not shut up. Make it worth it please.

          • Why not just spread the word that no government is better than any government? That no government — men ruling and robbing other men, regardless of “election,” appointment, or conquest — is moral, ethical, right, good, or legitimate? That individual freedom and rights are inborn, inviolate, and depend on no other man, no “government”? That no other human being has a right to tell you what to do with your own life and honestly acquired property, as long as you do not initiate harm, theft, violence, fraud, against anyone else?

            Why do you believe we need ANY “government”? Who says, and why?

            It is better to advocate peacefully for true freedom, rights, peace, and prosperity under libertarian anarcho-capitalist voluntaryism than deliberately put yourself and your family, friends, and neighbors in harm’s way by challenging the reigning rulership.

            You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It is better to build momentum quietly, with strength and support from like-minded others, than to fling yourself onto the burning stakes of martyrdom for a mere variation of what that stake is.

            There is no form of human rulership that is legitimate, not even your version. Do you not see that you are only replacing one tyranny with another? One justification for men to rule other men, only with another name? Why do you want that?

              • Thanks, Eric. You keep up the good fight! We’re with you! Thank you for all you do for us. Righteous anger, properly channeled, can be your best strength, and can, after all, work miracles!

                Lately I’ve just run out of patience with statists. Can’t abide ’em!

                It’s discouraging how brainwashed most people seem to WANT to be. [sigh]

      • Because you want to merely exchange one form of “government” for another, you are as guilty of this mess as anyone else you think you’re pointing your finger at and scolding. You are that dumbed-down that you don’t even seem to see and understand it. Snowflakery includes you: you hide yourself behind rulers and thieves. You just want to swap one set you don’t like for your own — and still, over all the rest of us, too, whether we like it or not. How courageous of you.

        What scares you about true individual freedom? Are you ever going to be man enough to present cogent, logical, rational, moral arguments that justify human “government,” of your preferring men ruling other men, rather than just all men being free to rule themselves?

  13. What do we do about it Eric? The one state that i know of that does not have property tax is alaska. Maybe its time to become a mountain man.

LEAVE A REPLY