Does anyone really believe what politicians say? I’ve never encountered a group of people so consistently deceptive; as Nietzsche wrote: "Everything the state says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen." Even when these professional parasites write something I agree with, I can objectively prove they don’t believe it. Take the following written by a group of men and women claiming to be a "Supreme Court" recently:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Lawrence et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102. Argued March 26, 2003–Decided June 26, 2003.
This so-called "Supreme Court" also wrote: "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." Really? Let’s examine that, particularly the part about "autonomy…freedom of thought [and] belief…"
Based on common sense and the writings of politicians themselves, I don’t believe there is a so-called "state" or the "United States." There are a number of different ways to objectively prove there is no "United States." One is the "United States Constitution" was not signed (if anyone did sign they’re all dead). Paper and ink (the "constitution" is four pieces of paper and ink) creates nothing, people do. Paper and ink only records their agreements and terms. The pretended creation of a "nation" called the "United States" was nothing more than a very effective public relations scheme.
I also don’t believe I’m a "citizen" or "resident." This is the alleged "right to define one’s own concept of existence…" A so-called "citizen" is supposed to be a member of a political body owing allegiance to the "state" in return for protection; these are allegedly "reciprocal obligations" see Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. This of course presupposes a so-called "state" which has no tangible existence. "Citizenship" is also described as a "contract" numerous times by lawyers pretending to be a "Supreme Court," see Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat 627.
Problem is, politicians unabashedly admit they have no duty or obligation to protect anyone: "The constitution…does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616. This is only one of many cases proving this. According to the professional parasites there is no contract: "To be obligatory on either party, the contract must be mutual and reciprocal in its obligations." Lawrence Block Co. v. Palston, 123 Cal.App.2d 300, 308 (emphasis mine).
Without a duty to protect there is no duty of allegiance owing. Without allegiance and protection ("reciprocal obligations" per Luria) there are no "citizens." Without "citizens" there is no "state." Without a "state" the "government" is just a vicious gang of killers, thieves and liars.
Am I free to believe I’m not a "citizen" and there is no "state?" Sure, I can believe whatever I want; however, what’s important is the "expression" of those beliefs. Is there really "autonomy of self" as the pretended "Supreme Court" insists? To be logically consistent, I’ll again use the definition professional parasites use:
"autonomy…Independence; self government; the negation of a state of political influence from without or from foreign powers. Green v Obergfell, 73 App DC 298, 121 F2d 46, 138 ALR 258. A self-governed community." Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 113 (emphasis mine).
Is there a "negation of a state of political influence" because I don’t believe there’s a "United States?" Yeah, tell the "IRS" you don’t believe there’s a "United States" and see what the "IRS" thinks about your "autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief [and] expression…" My beliefs mean nothing. The only beliefs that matter are those of violent individuals who believe they are a so-called "state" looking to steal my property and valuable time.
Now, if who and what you are, and what you believe, are supposed to be beyond the compulsion of the so-called "state," then why are millions forced to believe, or act as though they believe, they are "citizens" or "residents" of a pretended "state?"
"We have to violently restrict your liberty in order to protect it."
Given this current so-called "Supreme Law of the Land," can you "constitutionally" be compelled to believe or act as though you believe there is a "United States" and you’re a "citizen" thereof? How insane; compelling men, women and children to believe their "freedom of thought [and] belief" is somehow protected by the so-called "constitution."
"You’re going to be protected in your liberty and freedom of thought whether you believe you want it or not!"
In my book Adventures in Legal Land, I liken politics to a religion. With that in mind, consider what the lawyers pretending to be a "Supreme Court" wrote a few years ago: "First, compelling an individual to support religion violates the fundamental principle of freedom of conscience." Mitchell et al. v. Helms et al., No. 98-1648. If they were honest they would write:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence," as long as that’s defined as a taxpaying citizen or resident of the United States.