Total Pageviews

Popular Posts

Monday, March 12, 2012

About my book, THE FROG IS COOKED



Why you have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
This is a description of my book, THER FROG IS COOKED. It is not a cook book!
It is a compilation of crimes committed by government against citizens. This concerns you. If you don’t know these things then you will never be free and awake! The title is a parable on the high school experiment where you throw a frog in boiling water and he will jump out but if you put him in warm water and turn up the heat he will sit there like the American public until it’s too late.

The book is a CONSTITUTIONAL PETITIUTION FOR REDRESS OF GREVIENCE. Most people don’t seem to understand that either. It is one of your First Amendment Human Rights. The first Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Every Senator and Congressman needs to read this book so that they have a clear picture of what government is about and what they have done to us to so that they know that we know how they are bleeding us to death. This book is about acquiring the knowledge to keep your human rights. Our state government laws refer to humans as livestock; “persons and other animals.” That’s how they can criminalize you and charge you with commerce laws. You are not a person. You are a human being. The Federal government Poultry and Livestock Manual refers to citizens as Goyim. Look that one up. 

In the 1950 the husband worked an 8-hour day in a factory while his wife stayed home and took care of the kids. A person could buy a new two-bedroom home for $15,000 and pay for it in two years. You could buy a new car for $3,500. If you wanted whitewall tires and a radio you might have to pay $3,800. A candy bar only cost a nickel. I remember those days.

After our government started rebuilding Germany, France, Japan and other nations and gave billions away to Egypt, Iran, Russia, Zambia and every other nation on Earth it inflated the dollar where your wages were worth less and less. They stole your labor and turned you into a slave. Now a candy bar cost $1.50 some places. They devalued your money 30 times.

As the value of the dollar was stolen from us and time progressed your standard of living fell and you had to work two jobs and you had little or no free time to spend with your family. Your kids grew up in government funded schools and day care centers where they were brainwashed with sleep deprivation, loud bells, and hideous lies and propaganda. Many rebelled against this authoritarian system and became juvenile delinquents, and rebels. They took drugs, dropped out and filled up the jails.

Your children joined the service to become cannon fodder and you never saw them again. Some of them came home missing an arm or a leg and some of them had severe head wounds. The vast majority of them were infected with micoplasma incognitos in their DNA and they passed it on to their wife and kids altering the gene pool forever. They inhaled depleted uranium dust used in rockets and bunker bombs insuring that they will die of cancer in a few years. The horrors of war so altered their thinking processes that they became society’s outcasts unfit to hold down a job.   

Meanwhile your wife sued you divorce because you weren't home taking care of business and the lawyers took everything you had. 

If by some miracle you still had a family after your service to your country both of you had to work in order to make a living. This meant that your children were in the care of the government funded day care centers where they were forced to watch Barney and other mentally debilitating programs designed to make them retarded. 

You are a bonded slave from birth. Within five days after you are born the hospital administrator fills out a BIRTH CERTIFICATE with your name in all capital letters thereby turning you into a corporation. They record that BIRTH CERTIFICATE with the Bureau of Vital Statistics. After that, the birth records are sent to Washington DC where they are bundled like mortgages and sold as birth bonds. The price was $1,200,000.00 per individual before George Bush was president. Once Bush started the wars in the Middle East the bankers reduced the Birth bonds to: $900,000.00. 

If by some miracle you still had a family after your military service both of you had to work in order to make a living. This meant that your children were in the care of the government even more.

Trading in Birth Certificates (Double Entendre)
I only found out a few months ago that the governments of the Commonwealth nations and the U.S., use our whole life's labor, individually valued at many millions of dollars, as collateral (earning interest!) against their national debt. It is a system that has been in place for at least 70 + years, since the Great Depression, when the U.S., and presumably other Western countries, became debtor nations. And it starts with your birth certificate.

There was a trust created in your name when you were registered as a baby, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. I looked up my own birth certificate and found the bond for it at fidelity.com. Commonwealth nation citizens, as well as U.S. citizens, can find their birth certificate bond on this same website.This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been successfully used by quite a few people who know about it, and obviously does not have mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time.

To see this for yourself, follow the instructions below:

go to
www.fidelity.com
Click on Research
Click on Quote
Click on Symbol Look Up
Enter Birth Certificate No (usually your year of birth first, i.e. 1967/then the number) (your birthday certificate number is either in a box top right hand corner or somewhere in the document usually on the top line.)
Make sure the top two areas in the drop down boxes say MUTUAL FUND and FUND NUMBER before doing the search to find out who is trading on the FUND for the birth Certificate.
Next click on Initialed Trading Company name under SYMBOL (usually in blue color i.e.
FFNBX or something like that)

Click on chart to see the activity in the last few years.

This will give you all the trading info about who is trading on the fund that the birth certificate is a part of. Commercial laws allow you to cancel and rescind this 'simple contract 'UCC3-203' and to make a claim in recoupment (Reparations) for fraud committed upon you when you were an infant (see UCC 3 - 305)

If you Google "Uniform Commercial Code 2-305" you will see something like this link:
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/ucc.php?code=2-305
In this Nebraskan Code, you will see the common language that shows that since the government did not tell you about the contractual arrangement made at your birth. Therefore, you have a right to revoke the contract.

Quote from a book by Canadian author Mary Croft (She has a Kindle book on Amazon):
"The amount of credit the feds earned from investing in securities the credit borrowed from us via the registration of our births has pre-paid anything you might ever want or need. We are the creditors, and the federal mafia is the debtor. They owe us interest for using our credit, yet, since they (the Public) are bankrupt, there is no 'substance money' so we, as creditors, will have to get paid by taking equity, in the form of our houses and cars, as the 'set-off' - the balancing of the account. They owe us interest on our credit which they are using to pay for the manufacturing of all the goods and services we are buying. We have already paid for the product before we buy it. We are still the principals of the securities because said investment was never disclosed to us. The feds are hoping we won't request the profits of our investments, however, if and when we do, it is substantial enough that we would never have to work again. We could never spend it all.
WE DO NOT NEED, NOR WERE WE EVER MEANT, TO 'WORK FOR A LIVING'

The government floated a bond against our future earnings by using our birth registrations as the collateral for our 'promise to pay'. Income tax is just their having 'educated' you to pay the interest on the loan YOU lent THEM. When we access our Direct Treasury Accounts, those held at the BC/ FRB under our SINs/ SSNs, we will no longer 'have to' work. Meanwhile, we will continue to:
1. slave-labor for entities which do not exist except for the purpose of
profit,
2. do something other than what we were designed to do, and
3. believe that we (extensions of our Creator) are worthless enough to have to pay for our existence.

For some background material from Canada click here:
http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=59

Here is a video from England that will help you understand a bit more.
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/article...s-its-illusion

There are a couple good jokes in my book making it worth the $15.00 price tag. I sent it to a professional editor. After reading it she had a nervous breakdown and had to seek professional counseling.

When I was writing it someone sent me a copy of the Report from Irion Mountain. It is a very interesting document that was supposedly in the bottom drawer of a surplus copy machine purchased from Andrew Air Force Base. I don’t understand it but it sounded conspiratorial so I copied it word for word into the book. I didn’t transcribe the math into the book because I couldn’t figure out how to do it on my word processor.

The Report from Iron Mountain is a book published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press which puts itself forth as the report of a government panel. The book includes the claim it was authored by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. It details the analyses of a government panel which concludes that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power. The book was a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into fifteen languages. Controversy still swirls over whether the book was a satiric hoax about think-tank logic and writing style or the product of a secret government panel. In 1972, Leonard Lewin said the book was a spoof and that he was its author.

The book was first published in 1967 by Dial Press, and went out of print in 1980. E. L. Doctorow, then an editor at Dial, and Dial president Richard Baron agreed with Lewin and Navasky to list the book as nonfiction and to turn aside questions about its authenticity by citing the footnotes.[1]
Liberty Lobby put out an edition c. 1990, claiming that it was a U.S. government document, and therefore inherently in the public domain; Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, which resulted in a settlement. According to the New York Times, "Neither side would reveal the full terms of the settlement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the bootlegged version." (Kifner, 1999)
Likewise, an edition was brought out in 1993 by Buccaneer Books, a small publisher reprinting out of print political classics. It is unclear whether this was authorized by the author.
In response to the bootleg editions, Simon & Schuster brought out a new hardcover edition in 1996 under their Free Press imprint, authorized by the author Lewin, with a new introduction by Navasky and afterword by Lewin both admitting the book was fictional and satire, and discussing the original controversy over the book and the more recent interest in it by conspiracy theorists.

Contents of the report
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.

Reaction by Lyndon Johnson
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.

There has to be something to it if President Johnson reacted the way he did.

Hoax or real?
In 1996, Jon Elliston wrote that the book is generally believed to be a hoax authored by one man, Leonard Lewin,[3] and the book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt. (Kifner, 1999)
In an article in the March 19, 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Lewin said that he had written the book.

Statements made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: "As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public."[5]

Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: "For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce".
The original reporter reported the following six days later: "Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword – Mr. Lewin'.”

I didn’t fully understand the Report From Iron Mountain until a year ago I was doing a radio interview and a flash of insight suddenly revealed to me how this software was being used on the Citizens of the united States. Oh, I knew the math part was some kind of software developed by the Air Force in the early part of World War II to test aircraft to see if they would fall apart then the guns were fired. The math resembles statistic math where you add up number values on a series of integers or stress points on the aircraft. A cannon was mounted on a mockup fuselage of the type of aircraft that they intended to mount it on. They would tape hundreds of bi-metal stress analyzers to the gun mounts and all over the structure. They’d hook up the outputs to a rudimentary computer that would print out sheets of paper showing the stress points and fire hundreds of rounds through the cannon until the structure failed. If it didn’t meet the required strength they’d either beef it up with more aluminum or change the gun mounts to dampen vibration.

After the War, Vice President David Rockefeller had access to military secrets including the Air force computer hardware and software used to analyze gun mount stress. He was smart enough to visualize how it could be used to predict rather or not a given stock would rise or fall. He sent the software over to his Alma Marta at Harvard to develop it further. They increase the number of data inputs and rewrote it for more modern computers.

You may have heard of the Promise Ware software. Picture a room full of a hundred or so TV computer monitors with each showing the price of various commodities like food, gasoline, steel, aluminum, gold, clothing, and crude oil all hooked up to one computer that would predict what would happen if the price of oil doubled. With this setup the Rockefeller family made billions. They could tweak the price of sugar or any commodity and see what would happen to a hundred other things and then go long or short on several of the commodities. Since he owned most of the refineries and controlled over half of the oil entering the United States he could shut down a refinery for a week raising the price of diesel and make a billion dollar a week for his extended family and intimate friends.
  
It wasn’t too long before the Federal Government military industrial complex got their hands on it. They reasoned that they could get more tax money out of families if both the husband and wife worked several jobs. They deliberately devalued the value of money making it almost impossible for a family to survive on one income. The rest is history.
My book explains why you have to work two jobs to make ends meet. I wrote it to educate you about our government’s system of slavery in the hope that it will enable you to have a better more free life.

Remember there are only ten-thousand inbred ruling elite that want to kill off 90% of the world population so that they can stay in power. They fear us because of our numbers. Only knowledge can free us. www.GuardDogBooks.com

Best wishes, Hank Kroll                        

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Amendments ratified to protect people from government.


Once you understand this “preamble,” you’ll see that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the people of the several States of the Union—but not against invasion by foreign enemies—but rather, from despotism imposed by our own federal government.
If you google “Bill of Rights preamble” you’ll find several sources for this document.
Here’s the Preamble’s text:
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City 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.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The previous “preamble” is then followed by the first ten Amendments (“Bill of Rights”).
The fundamental “purposes” for the Bill of Rights is seen in the first paragraph/sentence of the Preamble:
“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.”
Fifty-nine words. One sentence. Let’s take it apart, piece by piece:
• First, who caused the Bill of Rights to be added?
A: “THE Conventions of a number of States”.
Note that these “conventions” were not state legislatures, but were instead private “assemblies” of the People of the various States of the Union. These “conventions” took place to ratify the Constitution in A.D. 1787 & 1788.
The Constitution was ratified by the People, not by the State governments. That tells us that the People were the sovereigns (plural), not the governments of the States of the Union. In essence, the People/sovereigns agreed to ratify the Constitution on condition that a Bill of Right would subsequently be added. (It might be argued that if there’s no Bill of Rights, then there’s no Constitution.)
The Constitution is the “People’s law”. Statutes are the “government’s law”. The government’s law is intended to be of lower authority than the People’s law.
• Second, why did the People “desire” these first ten Amendments?
A: “[T]o prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”
What does the preamble mean by “its powers”? It means the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution.
Who could misconstrue or abuse the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution? The States of the Union? No. The counties? No. Foreign countries like England, Canada or France? No.
Insofar as the federal government is the only entity with access to the powers of the Constitution, the only entity that might able to “misconstrue or abuse” the newly-granted powers of the Constitution would be the federal government.
Thus, the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.
Get that?
The People who founded this country expressly demonstrated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights that the People, quite sensibly, didn’t trust the newly-created federal government as far as they could throw it. They regarded the federal government as a necessary evil and, as George Washington had once warned, at best a “dangerous servant”. Therefore, distrusting the newly-created federal government, the People insisted that the Constitution be amended to include additional protections for the People and against the federal government.
From this perspective, you can see that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the People from federal government. I.e., the 2nd Amendment was intended to empower the People to shoot federal politicians, officers and employees if they tried to use the Constitution as a device to subject the People to despotism rather than serve them.
(This implies that the fundamental purpose of the militia’s of the States of the Union (referenced in the 2nd Amendment) was to protect the States against the federal government. This is particularly interesting insofar as modern “state militias” (National Guard) are now primarily under the control of the federal government rather than the governments of the Sates of the Union. Thus, the organized “militia” originally intended to protect the People against the federal government, has been captured by the feds and now primarily serves the federal government rather than the People of the States.)
The purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that the People had enough weapons to intimidate (and, if need be, kill) federal officers or employees if they attempted to subject the People to despotism (absolute rule). This is not a license to shoot any cop you don’t like. But, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights refers to “misconstruction and abuse” of the powers of the Constitution. The “Declaration of Independence” refers to “abuses and usurpations”. I have no doubt that the “misconstruction” referenced in the Bill of Rights corresponds to the “usurpations” (unwarranted takings of powers not granted) in the Declaration.
“Despotism” means absolute and unlimited power confided to single man or elite group. It necessarily means that such “despot” would not recognize any higher authority including 1) the God of the Bible; and 2) the People. Instead, the “despot” (individual or elite group) would rule however he/it desired without limit or restraint imposed by others.
Correlatively, “despotism” means that the People other than the “despot(s)” are reduced not merely to status subjects (who have some rights such as the right of protection due from a monarch to his subjects), but to status of objects—to the status of chattel, goy, animals and “human resources”—who have virtually no rights whatsoever.
I.e., if the “despot” has absolute power, the People have no power (or rights) whatsoever.
The Declaration declares that when there is persistent evidence (a “long train of abuses and usurpations”) that a particular “government” intends to rule with absolute authority, recognizing no higher authority and reducing the people to the status of objects without rights—then it is the People’s right and even duty to “throw off” such despotic government and form a new government whose principle duty would to secure the People’s “future security” rather than the security of the despot and/or of the government (perhaps under the pretext of “national security”).
Thus, the Declaration was based in part on the principle that the fundamental purpose of government is to serve the People rather than compel the People to serve the government.
But, when there was sufficient evidence to show that a government had abandoned its role as servant and assumed the role of master (despot), then it was the People’s right and duty to “throw off” such government and construct another.
How do you suppose such despotic governments should (or could) be thrown off? By petitioning our congressmen? By voting the despot(s) out of office?
Insofar as we are subjected to a despotic government, by definition, that government doesn’t give a damn about anything the People say or vote because the despots presume the People to be objects rather than men and women made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. By definition, a despotic government will not admit the People have rights or peacefully restore power to the People.
When faced with a despotic government, the people have only three choices: 1) surrender and submit to the violence of despotism; 2) wait on God to miraculously remove the despots; and 3) commit violent acts to “throw off” the despots.
Despotism is, by definition, violent. Either the People consent to be subjected to the despot’s violence, or the People rise up to “throw off” the despot by subjecting the despot to violence. The United States of America began with the choice to “throw off” the despots by means of violence against the despot.
The right to commit violence against despots would be essentially meaningless unless the People retained sufficient weapons to affect that overthrow.
The 2nd Amendment is evidence that the Founders: 1) never trusted the federal government; and 2) sought to provide the People with sufficient weapons to “throw off” any despots that might one day seize control of the levers of federal power.
The 2nd Amendment’s purpose is not to protect the right to go duck hunting in the Fall. It’s not to protect us against invasion by Red China. The 2nd Amendment recognized that the principle enemy of the People of The United States of America was, and would always be, our own federal government.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment’s purposes are:
1) always to intimidate the federal government with the implicit threat of blowing their damn brains out if they become despots (masters) rather than servants; and
2) rarely, but sometimes, to shoot and kill any agents of despotic government.
Much like the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment’s protections for freedoms of assembly, speech, press and petitioning government for redress of grievance were all intended to prevent the federal government from silencing the people in order to subject them to Despotism.
Likewise, every one of the first ten Amendments were ratified for the purpose of protecting the People of the States from the federal government’s intentional “misconstruction” or “abuse” of the powers of the Constitution of the United States.
• Third, how can we describe the first ten Amendments?
A: As “declaratory and restrictive clauses”.
Who makes “declarations”? Sovereigns.
I.e., the “sovereigns” (We the People) made certain “declarations” (Bill of Rights) concerning how the powers that we delegated to the federal government might be exercised by our servants—the federal officers and employees.
What do these clauses “restrict”? The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the ability of federal officers and employees to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution.
Just as the “governor” on an engine is intended to ensure that the engine will never exceed a certain speed, the Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government would never exceed the limits of powers intended and granted by the Founders.
• Fourth, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights further explains a purpose of the Bill of Rights as, “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The term “confidence” typically implies the existence of a trust relationship wherein the beneficiary “trusts” the fiduciary (servant) to act in the best interests of the beneficiary. Similarly, the term “beneficent” is sufficiently similar to “beneficiary” to imply the existence of a trust relationship.
As used in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, The terms “public confidence” and “beneficent ends” imply that the Constitution is a trust indenture wherein the People (sovereigns) are intended to be the beneficiaries and the government (and it officers and employees) are intended to be fiduciaries (servants) acting in the best interests of the People/beneficiaries. The “beneficent ends” of the Constitution were to serve the best interests of the People of the several States of the Union.
• George Washington—the first president of the federal government—once warned that, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Washington saw government as existing in only two forms:
1) dangerous servant; and
2) fearful master.
In Washington’s view, the best you ever get from any government is a “dangerous servant”.
That is, under a trust indenture like the Constitution, government may be the People’s servant/fiduciary—but that government is always struggling to reverse that relationship, assume the role of the “master”/sovereign and reduce the people to the role of fiduciaries/servants (or even objects). Washington warned that while government may be your servant, that servant is always dangerous, always seeking to overthrow the People’s sovereignty and claim absolute power and sovereignty for itself. Thus, anyone dumb enough to trust the government is a fool and a lousy excuse for an “American”.
Insofar as the “dangerous servant” succeeds in usurping power and sovereignty for itself, it evolves into the “fearful master” (despot) and the People are necessarily degraded to the status of subjects, objects or even animals.
Since A.D. 1933, American history provides ample evidence that our “ever-dangerous servant” has usurped and abused powers, that it is bent on becoming our national despot and reducing Americans to the status of “objects” or “animals”.
As irrefutable evidence, consider the articles I’ve written on “man or other animals” at http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/. Pay particular attention to http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/#more-46 and http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/#more-47 which show that our government has expressly declared the People to be nothing more than “animals” and that doing so constitutes an act of GENOCIDE against the American People.
This is no joke. Genocide. It’s not hyperbole. When you apply the facts to the law of genocide, it’s apparent that your purported government, right now, is committing genocide against you, me and the American people. This is absolute evidence that our “dangerous servant” is evolving into the “fearful master”.
Who believes that today’s “government” is acting in the best interests of the American People? Anyone? Who believes that today’s federal “government” has not perpetrated “a long train of abuses and usurpations” against We the People? Who would deny that the evidence of this “long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”?
As declared in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to The Constitution of the United States are intended to protect us against the despotism of the federal government. Use them accordingly.

In the beginning, there was the Word . . . .
And almost immediately thereafter, there was attorning and manipulation of words–resulting in “propaganda”. (“Surely, you will not die . . . .”)
He who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition. This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses.” -Joost Meerloo
“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” - Edward Bernays

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

We are not ensnared or enslaved by guns and clubs–we are ensnared by words. Those who don’t respect their dictionaries as much as their firearms have little hope of being free. Those more willing to shoot than to speak out are similarly condemned