Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: What could we do....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    What could we do if the Government / Police announced a firearm withdrawal and confiscated our guns from all of America like they do in other countries, or like they did in New Orleans? What would we do? Would we all hire lawyers? Would we protest and hope for their return? Would we unite and resist? How could we if we were unarmed? Would we contact the NRA? Would we carry on like sheep in a field? What would we do? What would we do if the system were to collapse? Would we see it coming? What if they did and prepared by disarming America? Is it possible? It happens in other countries. Could it happen here? What if our guns were taken from us? Would they give them back? What if our freedom were taken from us? Would they give it back? What could we do? What would we do? Would we pray for our guns to come back? Would we pray for our freedom to come back? Would we tell them God gave it to us? Would they believe us? Would we tell them our forefathers fought and died so we could breathe free air? Would they listen? Would they care?

    I believe in my 2a rights…….do you?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    If this offends anyone, let me know andI will remove it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    LoneWolf - This same type of question has been posted upstream here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/28350.html

    I would not expect the NRA to be of much help. I do not know exactly what they would say or do, but I believe that they would file lawsuits instead a calling to arms.

    I believe a read of the following about "Kristallnacht" would be in order here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

    How this might have been different if there would have been resistance and standing up for one's rights.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Thank you PDinDetroit, but it really didnt have to do with the NRA, it was just meant to be thought provoking.

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Lonewolf0714 wrote:
    Thank you PDinDetroit, but it really didnt have to do with the NRA, it was just meant to be thought provoking.
    Well, you did mention them!

    I have already thought it through and would defend my rights in the event that it comes to it.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    I see you think like me, i did read the information you sent, i have also seen a speaker discussing that issue, its good information and it did run thru my mind while I was typing. We dont need that happening here. Feel free to send more info, I take all I can get.

  7. #7
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    You want info, we got info!

    http://www.gunfacts.info/

    Download and read the PDF file. Quite interesting information, some obvious, some not so obvious.

    As others have probably said, Welcome to OCDO!

    I prepare for situations I hope will never occur. I firmly believe that we will see civil unrest and/or riots in Major US City before the summer is out. Too many things have been promised and not delivered. The stage has been set, the fuel is "loaded", and all is needed is a spark...

    http://people.howstuffworks.com/riot-control.htm
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    I prepare for situations I hope will never occur. I firmly believe that we will see civil unrest and/or riots in Major US City before the summer is out. Too many things have been promised and not delivered. The stage has been set, the fuel is "loaded", and all is needed is a spark...
    Friend, I implore you to watch these videos:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_18t2_XvZRA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ98rVLLgNQ

    The spark has already ignited the fuse. It's scary... and while more and more people are beginning to realize it, the vast majority still believe in fairy tales; as if some magical Gold Fairy is going to come and bail us out.

    It's not too late to prevent a collapse from occurring... but the trajectory we're on doesn't seem to be doing much to avoid it. In the last few weeks, I've come to terms with diverting income resources into home survival needs rather than aesthetics (like remodeling). Only when I, personally, feel comfortable with the direction our nation is headed will I begin to go back to living a "normal" life.

    I believe so strongly in this stuff that I am dead-set against having children until I know they can be born into a world that is safe for them. I've already discussed emergency plans with my immediate family... I've got routes devised (cutting wide arcs around major cities like Detroit) to transport them safely to my home where we can pool our resources in order to survive and so I can protect them. I believe that every family should discuss this... not just for civil unrest, but for natural disasters as well. Hell, I've already got areas in my yard picked out as foxhole locations.

    I live about 30 miles from Detroit and I am surrounded by upper-middle class communities and nearly all of us own a half acre or more of land; enough to cultivate our own private gardens. We are fortunate in this regard... I believe we can fair better than most who are crammed in like sardines. While we may not be the first area to see looting and civil unrest, I think it's very possible it can spread this far. I think the people around here really don't believe it could happen. I know it can.

    When things become a little more obvious to folks, I plan to attempt an alliance with local neighbors to form a neighborhood militia to protect our community in the event of civil unrest. There is only about 1 police officer for every 1,000 people in this country. Major cities like Detroit are potentially doomed. Desperation will only climb as basic resources like food and shelter dwindle. Detroit doesn't even have a single major grocery chain, for crying out loud. When food becomes scarce in some communities, expect to see people spill over into neighboring communities looking for resources. Law enforcement IS going to need our help. Right now, I think it's important for folks to work WITH their local government, including law enforcement agencies, to develop alliances and plans. I also think folks should be prepared to pitch in to help their fellow citizens... form community protection groups by block (3 to 4 men per block would suffice, while law enforcement works major intersections and borders), but provide aid to those in neighboring cities to keep them at bay.

    I have a ton of ideas to help turns things around (or at the very least, brace for impact)... but not many people are interested in listening because they truly believe we can buy our way out of this using worthless currency. The nation is BANKRUPT. Our borrowing power with other nations is damn near over. We import too much and have very little to export in return... so TRADING our way out of this mess is not likely either. Anything short of finding something valuable to export or selling American land to our creditors is going to result in "shutoff notices for nonpayment" from the world. No more imports until we can pay our bills. If we lose our oil pipeline, this nation will be cut off at the knees. This nation needs to focus on how we're going to feed and shelter the people when nations begin cutting us off. We need to find a way to provide our own fuel and sources of energy.

    Green energy is the most viable solution. It's the only way we're going to continue to power the needs of the nation, while simultaneously generating new jobs. But the ship in Washington turns far too slowly... we've got about 3 years to avoid hitting an iceberg, and Congress hasn't even publicly admitted that it exists yet. The American people need to know the truth.

    Major cities, like Detroit, should start demolishing their urban prairies and abandoned homes and cultivate the vacant land into municipal food crops and power stations (windmills and PV cells). Suburbs should do the same. Employ local folks in each municipality to maintain them. The government should subsidize insulation for Michigan homes to help us get through the frigid winters on reduced gas consumption. Many things can be done RIGHT NOW to prepare.

    I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the cat won't be let out of the bag until it's too late for the people to react. You have the right idea, PDinDetroit, by preparing ahead.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ortonville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    Veritas, I think you may be on to something here, but I strongly disagree with your belief that "green energy" is the way out of this. I am in the business, so let me lay down a couple of things with regards to "green" energy; the Eastern part of Michigan has very little to offer with regards to wind energy (look at any reliable wind map), and the cost to implement the equipment would take 20+ years to recover (especially since we have coal, natural gas, and nuclear power available to us). Photovoltaic cells (solar energy), while making great advances over the past 10-15 years (see Unisolar in Auburn Hills), the cost-benefit just isn't viable in Michigan. Both of these technologies are woefully insufficient to even provide lighting in the average home, let alone heating (I understand that wood is an option for heating). Another thing; subsidizing? That is what seems to get us into this trouble every time; the government subsidizes something, building a bubble, and when it bursts, we are at square one, minus a couple m/b/tr-illion dollars.

    I also have a plan, although mine has nothing to do with staying anywhere near Detroit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    jfrenchudm wrote:
    Veritas, I think you may be on to something here, but I strongly disagree with your belief that "green energy" is the way out of this. I am in the business, so let me lay down a couple of things with regards to "green" energy; the Eastern part of Michigan has very little to offer with regards to wind energy (look at any reliable wind map), and the cost to implement the equipment would take 20+ years to recover (especially since we have coal, natural gas, and nuclear power available to us). Photovoltaic cells (solar energy), while making great advances over the past 10-15 years (see Unisolar in Auburn Hills), the cost-benefit just isn't viable in Michigan. Both of these technologies are woefully insufficient to even provide lighting in the average home, let alone heating (I understand that wood is an option for heating). Another thing; subsidizing? That is what seems to get us into this trouble every time; the government subsidizes something, building a bubble, and when it bursts, we are at square one, minus a couple m/b/tr-illion dollars.

    I also have a plan, although mine has nothing to do with staying anywhere near Detroit.
    Agreed that wind energy may not be the best option for the whole State of Michigan, but for at least part of the State, and much of the country, it's something that should be implemented IMO.

    I understand the drawbacks of PV cells as well. First, there's cost. Secondly, there is efficiency. PV cells are only able to capture and reliably use about 14% (going from memory here) of the amount of solar energy it receives. I also understand that it takes vast amounts of land to lay out enough PV cells to produce any amount of significant power. However, I don't believe we need to use umpteen square miles of land to produce reliable power. Smaller municipal plants are enough to produce power for 200 homes. That's 200 fewer homes in every city burning fossil fuels. At the very least, that energy can be used to power municipal buildings, government office, and schools. And homeowners should focus on installing PV cells or wind turbines to support, if not outright replace, their conventional methods of energy.

    Commercial buildings are starting to do it... why not residents? Cost? Sure... but like with many things in life, it's an investment in our future. PV cell technology has come a long way... it can be produced at or near the cost of traditional electricy. In time, as fossil fuels continue to increase, green technology, logically, should decrease in price. In time, the initial costs should pay for themselevs. And in the process, we spit the teet of dying fossil fuel energy out of our mouths.

    We simply CANNOT continue the path we are on. I think that much we can agree upon. We cannot continue to be held hostage by the OPEC cartel... fossil fuels will not last forever. We burn them at an average of 422 times their generation rate. And it takes millions of years for them to become viable. In other words, plant matter that began decaying millions of years ago is just NOW becoming usable... and in one year, we consume 422 years of what was generated millions of years ago. We simply cannot continue on this path... we WILL be left in the dark. Especially when you consider how indebted we are to the world.

    If we, as individual Americans, don't pay our bills, we get shutoff. America is running dangerously close to this happening on a national scale. We need to focus on solutions to the problem rather than on placing blame for the problem.

    As for subsidizing: We're doing it right now anyway. My contention is that instead of giving billions to these crooked companies... give those billions back to the people so that they can implement green energy into their lives. Like I said... we're already bankrupt. We may as well spend what resources we have left on ensuring the continuity of the American Repulblic; rather than trying to ensure the continuity of industries that are going to die anyway.

    Dumping billions and trillions into the systems we are financing currently is synonymous to remodeling your house while it's in foreclosure. It's a waste of money, plain and simple. We should be diverting those funds to laying the groundwork for a new home. All we're doing right now is delaying the inevitable; and the American people will be left unprepared to deal with the new world when the time comes.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ortonville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    I would contend not just that the government subsidizing "green" energy is wasteful; all government spending beyond the local whim is wasteful. How would you feel if I approached you, put a gun to your head, and told you that you will now be handing me your hard earned cash because you don't know how to spend it properly? That is exactly what ALL federal spending (excepting the military in the form of state militias, as the national defense is justifiable), as well as most state and local spending is. So, just to clarify my position, it isn't that I believe that "green" energy isn't worth the investment, it is that we should not be FORCED to pay for it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    jfrenchudm wrote:
    I would contend not just that the government subsidizing "green" energy is wasteful; all government spending beyond the local whim is wasteful. How would you feel if I approached you, put a gun to your head, and told you that you will now be handing me your hard earned cash because you don't know how to spend it properly? That is exactly what ALL federal spending (excepting the military in the form of state militias, as the national defense is justifiable), as well as most state and local spending is. So, just to clarify my position, it isn't that I believe that "green" energy isn't worth the investment, it is that we should not be FORCED to pay for it.
    I hear you on taxes, believe me. All I'm saying is that if the government has a hole burning in their pockets, they ought to spend the money on programs that benefit the PEOPLE and not a select few corporate industries.

    BECAUSE we are taxed to death, we can barely afford to pay our bills. I was watching the news the other day where a local gas station was selling fuel 40 to 60 cents cheaper than anyone else... and people were lined up around the block, waiting for an hour or more, to fill their tanks. If you put that in perspective, folks were waiting an hour or more just to save $8 to $12... and that's assuming they were able to pump a full 20 gallons. I imagine most of them weren't sitting on empty when they put the pump in their car. For sake of argument, let's say they only managed to get 15 gallons in their car. The average savings was only about $6 to $9. And it cost them more than an hour of their time. On the low side, that's not even minimum wage. On the high side, it's barely over minimum wage.

    That's a sign of the times, brother. The American people are trying to find every way to scrimp and save... even when they could flip burgers for more money than they've saved (timewise). Yet we get no tax relief. Even worse, taxes seem to be encroaching upon us further.

    And where do these tax dollars go? Right to bankrupt corporations where the very people who run them are earning millions per year. In the "real world" a local business owner who owns a bankrupt business is not earning any sort of lucrative salary. He's more than likely losing everything he owns to the bank. The same bank that is even more in debt than the small business man.

    What I'm getting at is that if Congress is going to continue to sap our pockets for tax revenue, then they ought to give it back to the people in such a way that will benefit us. If I can put up $5,000 to outfit my house with a couple PV cells or a small wind turbine, the government ought to match my investment with a $5,000 tax credit.

    In reality, I am not taking anything from you or any other taxpayer... I am merely taking back what I have paid, from my own pocket, into the system.

    I'm with you though... the alternative should be for the government to just say "Screw it... we're broke and losing it all anyway, so let's just get rid of federal income tax and let the people spend the money how they see fit." In this case, I wouldn't need a $5,000 tax rebate, because I'd have an extra $10,000+ from not having to pay federal income tax.

    But since we KNOW the government isn't going to be that gracious, then why not compel them to at least credit me back a portion of my tax dollars so that I can use them to help solve one of the major dilemmas this nation is facing? At the very least, empower me to afford a suitable alternative energy source to power my home WHEN the nation goes to **** and natural gas and electricity becomes unaffordable.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    I think I did a real crap job of explaining that. Let me know if you need clarification.

    But please do understand, that on the subject of taxes, you are speaking to a friend. I abhor the way our tax dollars are spent. I abhor that certain things are even subject to tax in the first place.

    What are the basic essentials for human life? Food, water, and shelter. Yet we pay tax on water, we pay tax on food, and we pay tax on our shelter (including clothing). In essence, we pay tax to simply SURVIVE.

    As far as earned income goes, courts have upheld the IRS' assertion that ANY and ALL earned income is an "accession to wealth". I call BS on that. You tell me how an American who is living paycheck to paycheck, going two days without eating because they haven't been paid yet, is growing their wealth by laboring. They're NOT!

    When a man earns $600 in a week and spends $580 of it meet the basic needs for human life, he has only grown his "wealth" by $20. Tax the $20 if you must... but every dime that he spends on his dwelling, clothing, food, water, electricity, heat, and transportation should be deducted from his earned income. These things do not propel his wealth. And without transportation, most folks can't become good little taxpayers because most folks wouldn't be able to get to work.

    A vehicle is not an accession to wealth... it DEPRECIATES in value and cost money to maintain. So any money spent on it cannot be attributed to making him wealthier. A home is not accession to wealth as long as he LIVES in it. If he sells it for a profit, fine... tax the profit. But until he has realized a gain, he has not gained any wealth whatsoever. As we've seen in recent years, home values can, and do, depreciate... so it's not fair to say that they're an accession to wealth. Not until the gain is fully realized. Until then, it's just a paper gain (or loss).

    Nevermind the fact that a mans labor is not a capital gain. It is remuneration for services rendered. Funny how the courts uphold that compensatory damages in court are not considered "income" (because you are simply made whole for a sustained loss), and therefore not subject to tax. And yet, for some stupid reason, when you are compensated for time lost, it suddenly becomes taxable. I ask you, logically, what the hell is the difference? Is not time away from my family a loss? Is not the wage I earn a method of compensating me for that loss? What idiot decided that a WAGE was a capital gain? I have not gained when I trade labor for money... I am merely made whole for my loss.

    Then there's the whole issue about fiat currency. In that our dollar is not backed by any tangible asset (it's backed by the full faith and credit of the US instead), I'd like to know how a piece of paper is worth anything. I challenge anyone reading this to grab their wallet, pull a bill of any denomination, and read it. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." A note, by securities definition, is a debt instrument. It clearly indicates this by saying that it's legal tender to satisfy all debts. If I lend someone money, and they repay me that money verbatim (no interest or gains made on my behalf), I do not have to claim that repayment of debt as income because it's merely remuneration for a previous loss. In effect, whenever you "earn" a dollar, you are being paid with a promissory note. The Federal Reserve (a private institution.. there's nothing "federal" about it) is giving you an IOU that says that the bill is worth something because they have the credit to back it up. We are paid in LOANS. Because a loan is a debt instrument, it intrinsically is worthless until the debt is repaid. So tell me again why we're paying tax on something that has absolutely NO intrinsic value?

    Congress, the IRS, and the courts have this weird way of confusing the differences between "assets" and "wealth". Not all assets make you wealthy. A stock certificate is an asset... and while it has the ABILITY to create wealth, it does not always do so. That asset can LOSE money, creating a capital loss rather than a capital gain. When I earn $20, then spend that $20 on food... I pay tax twice. Once for earning it, and then again in the form of sales tax. Even though I did $20 worth of labor, I am only able to buy $14.52 worth of food. And that food does not increase my wealth... it merely allows me to SURVIVE.

    We work about 3 months a year just to earn enough money to pay the federal government. I mean really, that's how it breaks down. The government may as well just take 100% of our earnings for the first 3 months of every year and then let us keep 100% of what we earn during the remaining 9 months... in the end it works out to be about the same anyway. You know what they call a man who works without being paid? A slave.

    Oh but wait... our government provides us with these AWESOME benefits, right? Well guess what? Slave owners provided their slaves with AWESOME benefits too... free housing, food, and clothing. Yes, I know... but slaves were subject to adverse living conditions and did not have the freedom to do as they pleased.

    Well the same thing happens to us if we decided that we don't want Massa' Sam having us work 3 months for free. If you dare to claim your own wage but not paying him his annual tribute, you lose your rights, your property, and your freedom.

    I have a theory that the federal government, in the 1800's, didn't care so much about freeing slaves on any moral ground as much as they cared about being able to tax their wages. Think about it... you've got thousands of people working but not earning an income. Without an income, there is no tax generated. I also believe that raising the minimum wage has less to do with helping low wage-earners cope with the demands of paying bills, but more to do with increasing the amount of income tax they generate. I did the math some years ago when the minimum wage increased, and it worked out to be something like an additional $5 billion in additional income tax revenue (based on US Department of Labor numbers that broke down the number of minimum wage earners in the US and based on the average number of hours worked).

    I'm all for State taxes and sales taxes on "unnecessary" goods and services. At least we'd have control over that. This business of taxing food and such is nonsense... I don't care if the food is "prepared" or not (which is considered a "service" and therefore subject to tax). You can't even be homeless in this country without paying tax. If a homeless panhandles $5,000 a year on the street, he's technically supposed to claim it as income. Yeah right. $5,000 works out to be about $13 a day. If he were to eat two meals a day (remember, he has no home or utensils to prepare his own meals, therefore he's almost exclusively limited to buying "service" food that's already prepared), he's likely spending every dime he has just to eat. Yet he gets sapped for paying tax on his survival. And I love how the government targets the inner cities... the poor... with taxes. Detroit, for instance, doesn't have any major grocery stores. Maybe some local mom and pop shops here and there... but the city, as a whole, does NOT have access to "unprepared" foods. Their only real option is to buy the unhealthy, expensive, and heavily taxed, "prepared service" foods. But these are State and local issues... we could easily control this if we really wanted to.

    But on federal matters, we absolutely do not have representative control in United States in Congress. Not when delegates from 49 other states are eating out of the same pie. I'd rather pay 20% income tax to the State than pay a DIME to the federal government. State services would certainly improve... which would mean the federal government wouldn't have to spend so much money subsidizing State programs. And in the end, the People would have MORE money to spend. Talk about a stimulus plan!

    If the federal government needs a program approved, they should have to get the money from the States... not from the People directly. I bet you if State congresspeople were draining our State tax accounts to pay for half of these federal programs, that we'd have voted them out long ago. If the people of these 50 collective States started having their State services slashed because we needed to fund these illegal wars overseas, I bet you we'd have had our troops home years ago. But since the government dips into us directly, and they collectively decide what to do with it, we lose control over what our collective State delegates do with our money. The federal government should have to ASK for money from the States... they should not be taking it from the People directly. What business does a group of politicians in California have over spending money that we earn here in Michigan?

    The whole system is horse @#$%, man. It really is. We are NOT represented by the federal government. It has become a system all on its own... controlled by the iron triangle of elitists who keep them in power. We are no longer a Republic.

    I support my State wherever I can. I most certainly support my county and city. I do not, however, support my federal government. They can't even be straight with us and tell us that they fell asleep at the wheel and drove us off course. We're a few years away from going over a cliff, and they're still trying to make us believe that all's well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Have you seen "America: Freedom to Fascism"?

    You can see the entirething (in sections)on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuE8P...DC&index=0

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    The truth is, many have become tools/slaves for the system. When a person or familycan work 5-7 days a week and only have the basics they are tools/slaves. They can afford a home so they can rest to rebuild your strength so they can labor, they can by food to give themselves energythey need to perform/labor, and they can buy a vehicle to get themselves to their place of employment so the can labor for the system, We have nothing else to show for our efforts. Are the basic needs what we kill ourselves for, yes they are! where is my profit? Where is my success? Gone with the american dream? Why do our paychecks go to the mortage companys, the automobile companys, the water companys, the electric companys, the insurance companys? Whats left for us? Barely enough money to buy food. Tell me we are not tools/slaves to the system. We are killing ourselves to live and to supply the system with there tax money.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ortonville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    Much better clarified, Veritas.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Laingsburg, for the time right now., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    if this doesn't belong here please move, but i thought it might explain some things.

    http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Lonewolf0714 wrote:
    The truth is, many have become tools/slaves for the system. When a person or familycan work 5-7 days a week and only have the basics they are tools/slaves. They can afford a home so they can rest to rebuild your strength so they can labor, they can by food to give themselves energythey need to perform/labor, and they can buy a vehicle to get themselves to their place of employment so the can labor for the system, We have nothing else to show for our efforts. Are the basic needs what we kill ourselves for, yes they are! where is my profit? Where is my success? Gone with the american dream? Why do our paychecks go to the mortage companys, the automobile companys, the water companys, the electric companys, the insurance companys? Whats left for us? Barely enough money to buy food. Tell me we are not tools/slaves to the system. We are killing ourselves to live and to supply the system with there tax money.
    Exactly. I call it "an ants life". We work so we can live, and live so we can work... just like an ant.

    We bust our butts to achieve the "American dream"... the white picket fence, the 2.5 kids, the dog...

    But then we realize that we never own the home (we forever rent the property from the government in the form of perpetual taxes), we can't afford to build the fence, the 2.5 kids cost us $150,000 to educate (more than we paid for our homes), and we need a license to own a damn dog.

    In order to live the dream, it's almost as if the average family has to sacrifce themselves. Less time is spent as a family unit because, to raise a family anymore, the average family NEEDS two incomes.

    Take a look at the average suburban home that was built before the 1960's... you see one, sometimes one and half, car garages. Some of these houses don't even HAVE garages (or driveways, for that matter). They were built in a time when a family could get by on one income, using one vehicle. When you break into the realm of two incomes, you need two vehicles... another added expense.

    Those types of neighborhoods used to be middle class. Now many of them are becoming lower-middle class. Upper middle class neighborhoods are sliding down to middle class. Lower middle class was lost decades ago to slums.

    Meanwhile, the upper class continues to move higher. These are the elitists with the financial resources to ensure their dominance through political donations. A wealthy CEO, managing a bankrupt corporation no less, works 40 hours while his wife stays home with the kids. He comes home to cooked meals... spends time with his family... they take vacations together. He can afford to donate thousands of dollars in his own name, in the name of his wife, and in the names of members of his family, to politicians. Tens of thousands in political donations... meanwhile the rest of America worries about finding work, fillig their gas tanks, or putting their kids through college.

    I have nothing against people with money. In many cases, they've earned it. Simiarly, in many cases, poor people have earned what they have (or lack thereof) as well. But to put things in perspective, I'm not talking about the difference between a doctor and a crackhead. I'm talking about the difference between Michael Eisner and me. Chuck Connoway and my nieghbor. Bernard Madoff and any one of you.

    People who accumilate their wealth through illicit and highly unethical means. They don't work any harder, they're not any smarter, and they're not better educated than many of us. They just just break the law, lie, cheat, and steal. Then buy politicians and convince them to use tax dollars to bail them out.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    390JOE wrote:
    if this doesn't belong here please move, but i thought it might explain some things.

    http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
    That is right on the money. I say this all the time... that too many Americans believe we are a Democracy. WE ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!! We are a REPUBLIC!

    Individual State citizens vote in a Democratic election... majority rule chooses who will represent our individual State. But the States, combined form a Republic. This is why each State is given so many electoral votes in federal elections. We, the people of individual States, DO NOT elect federal politicians. We elect State electoral voters, who in turn, cast their votes on our behalf. This is why, even though a presidential candidate may win the popular vote, they can still lose the election. Gore vs Bush, for instance... Gore won more American votes than Bush; but Bush won the election because some States have more electoral voters than others (designed to prevent more powerful States from overpowering smaller ones). A scary fact is that 26 States (more than half of the country) makes NO laws prohibiting or punishing electoral voters who cast their vote differently than what their State citizens have instructed them. It's happened several times in history. Most recently, in Gore vs Bush when a DC electoral voter was "dissatisfied" that her voters chose Gore... so she decided to protest by refusing to vote. In that DC only has 3 electoral voters, her refusal to vote effectively rendered ONE THIRD of DC voters unheard. Her decision did not influence the election (Bush would have won even if she voted for Gore as she was supposed to), but the fact is that the risk of an election being influenced EXISTS. Since an elite class has all the voting power in federal issues, we are NOT a democratic nation. We are only democratic States.

    A Republic is designed to prevent an elite class from dictating policy. Yet this is exactly what's become of our country. US Congress, a collection of several hundred people, pander to the interests of corporations (who can't even vote, for crying out loud) and the 1% of the nations wealthiest people.

    States are Democratic... the UNITED States are a Republic. And notice that I say "are" and not "is"... because the United States are a collection of States (plural); the federal government is not a country. I just love how we've so easily forgotten the Constitution... everything in it points to the nation being a collection of free States. In every reference to the this collection, we are referred to as "the United States" (plural). Over the years, it has become known as "The United States" (singular). While the difference is subtle, it does make a big difference. These 50 States form a collective Union, but we do not lose our individual sovereignty. It's no different than a husband and wife forming a matrimonial union. Together, they promise to love, honor, and obey eachother... but they still retain their separate identities, as well as the right to divorce themselves from the union if it becomes unfavorable to one or both of them.

    What makes up the United Nations? Or the European Union? Or the United Kingdom? In each of these cases, a collection of nations UNITE to promote a common belief. By uniting under one umbrella, they do NOT lose their individual identities. So why should the States, when they chose to unite, lose theirs? Imagine if the United Nations suddenly passed into law a tax upon all the citizens of its member nations. Failure to pay this tax would result in prison sentences and forfeiture of property. Sounds crazy, huh? Then why do accept the notion that the United States can pass a tax on all the citizens of it's member States? Seriously... replace the word "Nations" with "States", and it becomes much easier to understand. "The United States" shouldn't have any more control over you or I, as State citizens, than "The United Nations" has over you or I as American citizens.

    I don't consider myself a "United States citizen". The fact is that I'm NOT a citizen of all 50 States... I'm a citizen of Michigan ONLY. Am I still an American? Sure I am! But America is a tangible place, whereas "The United States" is not (it's a government). A Michigan citizen is just as much American as an Irish citizen is European (and Ireland is ruled by the United Kingdom just as Michigan is governed by the United States). But a Michigan citizen is no more a citizen of the collective United States than we are citizens of the collective United Nations. United governments are not, in and of themselves, sovereign. They are formed by a collection of sovereign States or Nations to unite for the purpose of propelling a common agenda.

    In that Michigan is united with the other States in the American Republic, I would consider myself a "United State citizen". Notice the difference between plurality and singularity. I am a citizen of a State that is united in the American Republic. I am not a citizen of ALL States united... and I am most certainly not a citizen of the federal government (THE United States).


    When you claim yourself as a citizen of a government, you open yourself up to their taxing authority. Why can't California tax your wages? Because you do not claim Californian citizenship! But when we claim to be "United States" citizens, we are in effect claiming the United States government as our sovereign, and therefore submit ourselves to their taxing authority. Therefore I submit that I am a United STATE citizen... the only authority that can tax me is Michigan. The United States government, however, can compel Michigan to pitch in order to maintain it's place in the union. In other words, the federal government should be taxing STATES (if necessary), not PEOPLE of States. If State congresspeople had to start slashing their budgets in order to appease Uncle Sam, you could be they'd argue to protect this money. But when Uncle Sam bypasses our State congress and instead taxes us directly, we have to slash our own budgets to appease Uncle Sam, but without the ability to argue it.

    Next time you fill out a tax form, pay very close attention to the line that says something like "I certify under penalty of perjury that I am a United States citizen." By signing that, you submit to becoming a citizen of the federal government, and therefore give yourself to their taxing authority. The problem is that US Congress has engraved this into every aspect of our financial lives. You have a real hard time getting a job, buying a house, buying a car, getting student loans, opening a bank account, etc, etc unless you prove citizenship. The PATRIOT Act was simply the nails in the coffin... there are very few ways to hide from having to certify yourself as a federal citizen anymore. Not unless you want to be unemployed, live in the woods, and ride a horse for transportation.


    Don't even get me started about Socialist Slave Numbers (SSN). They are NOT required by law for you to gain employment or to open most bank accounts. However, corporations have formed a cartel... without one, you will have a very hard time doing business with any of them. SSN's become "required" by employers because they say they need proof that you are "authorized to work" within the United States. "Authorized to work" is code for "authorized to be in this country." A birth certificate can prove this, as it proves you were born in a united State, and therefore, "authorized" to be in this country. A SSN is not necessary. And unless you are opening an interest-bearing bank account, you do not need a SSN because there is nothing to report to anyone. But when you open a bank account, you must also certify your citizenry... and "Michigan" is not one of them. Rather than argue and risk being rejected everywhere I go, I've since started crossing out the "s" in "United States". I am, afterall, a united STATE citizen.

    It pisses me off that we've allowed the federal government to morph into an elite ruler. They've even rebranded the country. We've gone from a representative republic (each State congress representing the People of their individual States) to a democratic oligarchy (where THE United States congress does not represent indiviudal States, but rather some mythical super state under the influence of the minority elitists).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Plainwell, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Maybe this has been posted or seen already....Go to yahoo and type in the header, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement

    Pretty scarry or pretty true? By the way, if the Government declared martial law we would have everything taken from us, guns, land, money, food, water, constitutional rights, those who resist would berounded up and placed in concentration camps. Theybuild them and say they are for terrorist, but if martial law was declared and you resisted,what would you be then? A terrorist. You and yours would be rounded up and locked into some "FEMA Camp". We know The Bilderburgs run theworld any way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •