Federal Fraud is National Monopoly
by Joe Kelley
1-8-2022

We were warned.

Some listened.

The majority does not listen, they follow orders without question, which is proof of itself, a self-evident fact that matters.

DeSantis: I’ll Invest In Microchip, Semiconductor Manufacturing So Chinese ‘Cannot Hold Our Supply Chain Hostage’
[dailywire.com]

“I also think that our country as a whole but certainly Florida would like to see more production and manufacturing re-shored and we would be a great place to do that.”
DeSantis

A common law state compares to an Infantile State with a few basic opposing forms, formed by natural laws.

An Infantile State forms by liberal use of Treasonous Fraud, involving criminals hell bent upon enslaving mankind, as if those Treasonous Frauds actually believed that mankind exists for their exclusive pleasure, and mankind exists for their exclusive consumption, to be consumed to satisfy only their lusts and appetites. Just ask them for that self-evident fact that matters.

A common law state, in competition with any number of Infantile States, is a common law state in competition for the greater number of investors. People shopping for either a common law state, or an Infantile State, seek the best investment opportunity that money can buy. People investing in defense of each individual investor’s ability to defend their exclusive power to choose what they think is the better investment, among all the choices offered by all the competitors who produce the best methods of defense, are people choosing common law states, because Infantile States choose all the investments that Treasonous Fraud money can buy.

Wise investors investing in defending wise investing power, choose common law states, because common law states offer the best defense against Treasonous Frauds. Treasonous Frauds invest in Infantile States. People in common law states spend the money made of the people, by the people, and for the people, as those people choose their money supplies themselves. People in an Infantile State are consumed by the Treasonous Frauds dictating what the word is is, along with all other forms of currency. What is currency, what is money, what is allowed, what is not allowed from Top going Down, like crumbs falling from stale donuts, trickling down to negative values, Fearless Leaders of Infantile States are run by The One Decider with the One Power, that One Money Supplier.

Case in point:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

OH NOOOOOOOOOOO!

The Giant Wall of Text!

Mr. Wizard, Mr. Wizard, I must click my Silver Slippers three times to make it go away, sending me forthright back to my Infantile State!

My Kingdom, My whole Country, for my freedom from those pesky facts that matter!

If only there was a way, a way to transfer all my responsibilities to my Infantile State!

Where is my red button, my blue pill, come on man, how many babies does it cost?

“Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Is that better poor child? A sound bite for the masses that constitute the Infantile State?

Too much is not enough, while at the same time too little is too much?

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

A Federation of States under the common laws, a due process afforded to all on an equal footing, or not at all, makes free people free from falsehoods, we free us, from the Infantile State Treasonous Frauds. A Federation of States, is by the same forms formed from a common law county to a common law state, each county is free to leave or join another state at the will of the people in each county. Each individual, by the same forms, is duty bound to stop funding Treasonous Frauds in each county, in each state, each federated by the same common law forms.

A federation of people make a county.

A federation of counties make a state.

A federation of states make a federation of states, not a Nation State Legal Fiction Corporate Entity with One Purse and immunity from prosecution at law for its Elite Consumers of The People.

And you have all, each one, drunk too liberally from the poisoned cool-aid bowl.

Or not, the proof is in the pudding.

Caveat Emptor