Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
I thought I lost this one  Rate Topic 
 Posted: Fri May 30th, 2014 12:01 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Many people appear to be interpreting the meaning of Posse Comitatus differently.

Is there potentially serious consequences for failure to understand the meaning of Posse Comitatus?

Here is a source of information:

Here is a link to HELP confirm a quote in the above link:
2 Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

More Than You Ever Wanted to Know
About Posse Comitatus
E. P. Visco

That is a working link on 12-19-2021

How can anyone claim to know the meaning of all these ORDERS to be obeyed without question when anyone cannot trace back authority to the origin of authority?

I threw that out there because so many people ORDER me and they refuse to originate that claim of authority for that ORDER; and I don't just brush that failure under the rug.


This is very difficult. This should not be difficult. If something is too difficult I begin smelling a RAT. Things are purposefully made difficult by Con Artists who Create Confidence Schemes; also known as criminal frauds.

So the problem has to be seen from an original claim of authority, or a vital step will be missing, and in that missing step the criminals find their loop holes.


A. People exist fine in their Liberty because people know the cost of doing wrong not only harms victims but doing wrong will eventually blow back unto the one who does wrong; and it takes way too much work covering up wrongdoing than the cost of doing the right thing, so Natural Law works this way and so... People exist fine in their Liberty.

B. Some idiot, or some insane person, or some criminal mind begins to work among the people existing fine in their Liberty, and this criminal mind hatches a criminal plan and this criminal begins to injure innocent people in time and place.

C. People notice the criminal. People see the criminal. As the criminal moves from victim to victim in time and place, like a mad dog, like a wild beast, people begin to figure out a way to defend the innocent from the criminal.

E. Criminals learn how to cover up their crimes so that people can't see the crimes in progress.

F. People figure out how to uncover the cover-ups, and now there is something that can be called due process.


Due process discovers the causes of injury to innocent victims which causes the destruction of Liberty and those discoveries of the causes of injury to the innocent which causes the destruction of Liberty are nullified in some way.

Which way?

Might makes Right (supposedly) or Be a Better Criminal
Be mightier than the criminals in telling lies.
Be mightier than the criminals in threatening the criminals
Be mightier than the criminals in violently destroying the criminals

Right is a Naturally Discoverable Fact in each case while seeking agreement

In other words the solution to the crime problem answered by a criminal mind is to use crime to solve the crime problem.

In other words the Might makes Right crowd are those who invent, create, and maintain organized crime as their solution to the crime problem. The criminal mind will work to compete against all the other criminals to reach the goal of Monopoly control over all the criminals who compete to gain market share of the supply of ready victims.

In other words the solution to the crime problem, if left to a criminal mind, will be more crime, not less crime.

In other words the solution to the crime problem, if not left to a criminal mind, will be each individual defender seeking agreement with each individual defender, so as to discover a working solution in each case, so as to avoid completely any additional crimes perpetrated by those who seek to effect an agreeable defense of innocent people and our common Liberty.


The reasonable solution is a common principle such as the principle of truth.

The word truth can be a word used by criminals to falsify the actual facts, as the criminal is not interested in the truth, instead of the truth the criminals is interested in counterfeiting the truth, so there are lies, his truth, or her truth, hidden behind the false front of truth.

Accurate accounting, based upon demonstrable facts, may sound confusing to some people, as if someone claiming that accurate accounting based upon demonstrable facts is a form of deception used to cover up the truth.


When can it be demonstrated as a fact that words are added to a message so as to accomplish the goal of covering up the truth?

At which point is it a demonstrable fact that someone is willfully choosing words so as to accomplish the goal of covering up the truth?

Might makes Right

Accurate accounting based upon demonstrable facts so as to find agreement and then effect our common defense against criminals.

The proof is in the pudding folks.

Going back to this link:

Quote from that link:
Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.


My words above are written in plain English.

I did not reach into elaborate wording so as to make a point. Last night I received a call from someone who does not have much good to say about National Liberty Alliance, and my effort to find agreement was very easy, very welcome, very agreeable, as we spoke to each other on the phone, we managed to avoid reaching for Might makes Right, in my opinion.

The proof is in the pudding, in my opinion. Someone reaches for a false claim. Someone else recognizes the contradiction, and the falsehood. Then someone is shown that there is a false claim being reached for, and then what happens. Does someone avoid, ignore, and not make any effort to demonstrate why the demonstrated false claim is demonstrably NOT false. Does someone prefer to allow the false claim to go unchallenged? Does someone say yes to falsehoood? Maybe?  Does someone instead of challenging the false falsehood reach for his "TRUTH", or her "TRUTH", as the basis of their claim that has been challenged, and has been demonstrated as a false claim in fact?

In other words, the one accused of making a false claim has no defense other than "because I say so" their claim is true; DESPITE demonstrations of why the claim is, in fact, false.

I say so, that makes it true. No, those facts cannot be allowed into the record.

I can make a claim now, for example.

My claim now is a claim that I have been, I am now, and I will be defending the innocent as my goal and I will not settle for Might makes Right as the process used by me to reach my goal.

When I see someone on the same page, then I will let them know when their viewpoint is infected with a falsehood.

The question then becomes a matter of fact finding, discovering, and agreeing, or failing to agree, on the truth of the matter.


"The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws. "


Is it important or unimportant to demonstrate the facts so as to realize the accurate account, or to know the truth, rather than settling on falsehood?

What are the likely consequences of moving in a direction based upon a lie?

In plain English:

The intent of the Constitutional Convention and the Ratification of The Constitution between 1787 and 1788 was Consolidation of all the Sovereign Constitutional Republics into one Monopoly Criminal Force.

The intent of the Constitutional Convention and the Ratification of The Constitution between 1787 and 1788 was the defense of the people, for the people, by the people, so help those who were working for those goals: God.


"The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the
powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws. "


The people working to create Consolidation were the people working to destroy state laws with false federal power, meaning, precisely meaning, that the people were perpetrating the crime of fraud so as to destroy those so called state laws when those people began the process that became known as The Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The proof is in the pudding.


The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

That is revisionist history of such a serious, even fatal, error, as to defy reason and logic, to a point at which those who are directed by such falsehood are those who are led to a certain doom.

Is it a good idea to warn those who are on that path?

Is it better to allow those on that path to continue step by step toward their certain doom, so as to then be able to know the truth, because the truth is demonstrated as truth in due time, assuming of course that someone does actually care to see the truth?

Despite warnings, when those people who are led to their doom follow the cattle prodded path to their doom, and after the warnings, after those who ignore those warnings march to their doom, is it a good idea to discover the facts and then learn from those facts, as the warnings were offered, the warnings were ignored, and the survivors are then on their own paths, so that the accurate accounts of what actually happened are not repeated in the same way over, and over, and over again, as if there is no other path other that following the criminal orders issued by criminals so as to doom the victims and the criminals alike?

Is it better to follow criminal orders and do so without even questioning those criminal orders?


"The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the
powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws. "

Calm down Joe, you know Joe, you are making mountains out of mole hills, and you are hereby ordered to cease and desist with your false accusations of wrongdoing aimed at John Darash and the Unified New York Common Law Grand Jury people?

If that is the knee jerk reaction anyone is suffering under at the point at which you read this far, assuming of course that anyone, anywhere, reads any word I write, understanding any word I write, if that is your reaction to my words, then someone ought to be accurately identified as the source of the misunderstanding.

Back to this:

Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.

How can a mind be controlled to such a degree that evil is effectively hidden behind a false front of good?

The false front has to be well dressed.

The false front cannot look like evil.

The false front has to sound good.

The false front cannot sound like evil.

The false front has to look like good, or the false front does not work as a false front covering up evil.

If that is not simple English, then the following may help:

With the winning of independence, the Continental Congress re­jected George Washington’s proposal for a peacetime standing army supported by a nationally uniform militia with universal conscription.

Why is that important? Who is going to defend the innocent? Who is going to stand up and call for all the volunteers and as a group of volunteers these people will defend the innocent because it is our duty to do so, because failing to do so allows the criminals the freedom, and the liberty, that criminals must have for criminals to freely liberate their victims of life and everything of value earned by cooperative, voluntary, effort done by people in free markets.


When criminals say "conscription," they mean slavery, they mean crime, they mean to forcefully control people and make people fight other people so as to afford the criminal the means that the criminal must have to keep their criminal organizations going.

The following may help:

In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.

That is not good enough for people who claim that I am obstructing the current National Liberty Alliance effort to accomplish National Liberty Alliance goals?

I was the first one to volunteer as State Coordinator in California. I am still working every day on this common defense by common law grand jury due process effort.

Someone called me, based upon my frustrations voiced during the last Monday call, and this person calling me informed me of much evidence against John Darash and National Liberty Alliance, and when I began my same, precisely the same, offer of information concerning the ROOT problem, it became obvious to me during that HELPFUL phone call that the person nullifying John Darash was on the same side as John Darash concerning the information that is as plain as day, whereby the criminals took over in 1787.

All those who could be working together toward our common defense are at each other's throats, fighting each other, and someone may want to figure out why that is happening.

It is called divide and conquer. It is proof in the pudding for all to see if you care to look.

So you blame me for my reaching for false information as I dare to point the finger at George Washington and the so called Constitution that supposedly "governs" us as "our" "law of the land"?

This may help:

Antifederalist No. 25


From the tenth letter of "BRUTUS" appearing in The New-York Journal, January 24, 1788.
The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise; but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority they are raised, and establish one [rule] according to the pleasure of their leaders.

We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. Two
instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions-I mean Rome and Britain.

In the first, the liberties of the commonwealth were destroyed, and the constitution over-turned, by an army, led by Julius Caesar, who was appointed to the command by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame ... is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage-the most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.

The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people that liberty they had so dearly earned.

You may be told, these instances will not apply to our case. But those who would persuade you to believe this, either mean to deceive you, or have not themselves considered the subject. I firmly believe, no country in the world had ever a more patriotic army, than the one which so ably served this country in the late war. But had the General who commanded them been possessed of the spirit of a Julius Caesar or a Cromwell, the liberties of this country . - . [might have] in all probability terminated with the war. Or had they been maintained, [they] might have cost more blood and treasure than was expended in the conflict with Great Britain. When an anonymous writer addressed the officers of the army at the close of the war, advising them not to part with their arms, until justice was done them-the effect it had is well known. It affected them like an electric shock. He wrote like Caesar; and had the commander in chief, and a few more officers of rank, countenanced
the measure, the desperate resolution. . . [might have] been taken, to refuse to disband. What the consequences of such a determination would have been, heaven only knows. The army were in the full vigor of health and spirits, in the habit of discipline, and possessed of all our military stores and apparatus. They would have acquired great accessions of strength from the country. Those who were disgusted at our republican forms of government (for such there then were, of high rank among us) would have lent them all their aid. We should in all probability have seen a constitution and laws dictated to us, at the head of an army, and at the point of a bayonet, and the liberties for which we had so severely struggled, snatched from us in a moment. It remains a secret, yet to be revealed, whether this measure was not suggested, or at least countenanced, by some, who have had great influence in producing the present system. Fortunately indeed for this country, it had at the head of the army, a patriot as well as a general; and many of our principal officers had not abandoned the characters of citizens, by assuming that of soldiers; and therefore, the scheme proved abortive.

That is not revisionist history, that is history as it was happening.

When the criminals take over they know how to put false fronts on everything. Someone who calls me looks like someone who is against me, because someone calling me says that John Darash and National Liberty Alliance is all wrong.

I don't look through the filters placed upon me by the criminals.

I see the man that can help, is helping, but the man is looking at the false front placed on John Darash and National Liberty Alliance, so I look for the infections of the mind that possess the man calling me, and I offer help to him too.

Is it frustrating?

Is it time to give up?

Will I be run out of town, will my license to practice National Liberty Alliance Common Law Grand Jury Administration be revoked for telling the honest truth?

Will the proof of the pudding show up in due time and place?

Who will reach for the posse?

What authority will they claim is their authority to reach for the posse?

Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.


The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C.§1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the
powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

The False Federal Government became a crime in progress in 1787.

The one who is claimed to have been BRUTUS writing those papers FALSELY labeled as "Anti" Federalists Papers was Robert Yates.

This guy:

Page 100:

"A motion by R. Morris, and seconded, that General Washington take the chair, unanimously agreed to."

Does anyone understand the cult of personality? How about the term "Strong Man"?




Does anyone know the works done by Robert Morris?

This may help:
Antifederalist No. 12


"CINCINNATUS" is an Antifederalist writer. In this essay, from an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, the writer responds to James Wilson's statements about Congress' powers to tax under the Constitution. It appeared in the November 29 and December 6, 1787, New-York Journal, as reprinted from a Philadelphia newspaper.

To satisfy [our fellow citizens] more fully on the subject of the revenue, that is to be raised upon them, in order to give enormous fortunes to the jobbers in public securities, I shall lay before them a proposition to Congress, from Mr. Robert Morris, when superintendent of finance. It is dated, I think,' the 29th of June, 1782, and is in these words: [I say, I think, because by accident the month is erased in the note I have, and I have not access to
public papers which would enable me to supply the defect.]

"The requisition of a five per cent impost, made on the 3d of February, 1781, has not yet been
complied with by the state of Rhode Island, but as there is reason to believe, that their compliance is not far off, this revenue may be considered as already granted. It will, however, be very inadequate to the purposes intended. If goods be imported, and prizes introduced to the amount of twelve millions annually, the five per cent would be six hundred thousand, from which at least one sixth must be deducted, as well for the cost of collection as for the various defalcations which will necessarily happen, and which it is unnecessary to enumerate. It is not safe therefore, to estimate this revenue at more than half a million of dollars; for though it may produce more, yet probably it will not produce so much. It was in consequence of this, that on the 27th day of February last, I took the liberty to submit the propriety of asking the states for a land tax of one dollar for every hundred acres of land-a poll-tax of one dollar on all freemen, and all male slaves, between sixteen and sixty, excepting such as are in the federal army, or by wounds or otherwise rendered unfit for service-and an excise of one eighth of a dollar, on all distilled spiritous liquors. Each of these may be estimated at half a million; and should the product be equal to the estimation, the sum total of revenues for funding the public debts, would be equal to two millions."

You will readily perceive, Mr. Wilson, that there is a vast difference between your prediction and your friend's proposition. Give me leave to say, sir, that it was not discreet, in you, to speak upon finance without instructions from this great financier. Since, independent of its delusive effect upon your audience, it may excite his jealousy, lest you should have a secret design of rivalling him in the expected office of superintendent under the new constitution. It is true, there is no real foundation for it; but then you know jealousy makes the food it feeds on. A quarrel between two such able and honest friends to the United States, would, I am persuaded, be felt as a public calamity. I beseech you then to be very tender upon this point in your next harangue. And if four months' study will not furnish you with sufficient discretion, we will indulge you with six.

"It is true, there is no real foundation for it; but then you know jealousy makes the food it feeds on."

So Joe, the bad guy always, the bearer of too many boring words, and other crimes against humanity, all alone, or with few fellows interested in getting to the ROOT of the problem, so as then to know the solution to the ROOT of the problem, me, I, only one: connects the Robert Morris PLAN with the Hamilton PLAN aided by the cult of personality (never tell a lie Washington), the strong man, the character of such popular belief in his absolute integrity, despite any evidence to the contrary, the making up of a False Federal Party of like minded individuals, cooperating toward reaching the ONE MONOPOLY POWER, to wit:


"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

Competition of any kind cannot exist in order for there to be a Monopoly. A Monopoly of crime is not the same thing as a Monopoly in a free market.

If competition exists, a John Darash versus the caller who called me last night, two factions, two competitors, antagonizing against each other, two characters of substantial means of persuasion, leadership material, set against each other, not sharing a common goal, there won't be a monopoly of force, there will be instead of a monopoly of force there will be among the two a better one, and there will be a worse one, if their goal is a common goal.

If their goal is a common goal, and each one is out to destroy the other one, to nullify the other one, if there can be no agreement in joining forces, then there will be no Monopoly Force working as one, because they two will be competing. Those two will be competing to destroy each other, not competing to be the best at reaching the common goal.  

Competing against each other?

Competitors fighting the criminal monopoly; to see who reaches the goal first and best?

If they choose not to compete against each other, then they choose to compete FOR the common goal, and then they are UNITED by PRINCIPLE.

That is the meaning of voluntary union.

If they choose to destroy each other, or force each other to bend to the will of ONE, involuntarily, then that is another UNION by another PRINCIPLE.

If they choose to set aside their differences and work toward the common goal, to see which one does better sooner, which one that does not do better sooner, then what is the harm in swallowing some pride, adopting the better methods, leaving behind the worst methods, and sharing the competition to find the better methods, and leave behind the worse methods, as a PRINCIPLE called voluntary association, or united in principle, or competition in free markets free from crime, or whichever LABEL is more accurate when intending to share the accurate demonstrations of the accurate facts so as to avoid leaving way too much room for the criminals to inject their false versions of everything good so as to hide the naked reality of their crimes, from each other, and from the victims.

There can be no Monopoly power for good or bad when there is competition.

Competition for good is good for finding the best ways soonest and good for leaving behind the worst ways soonest.

Competition for bad is finding the worst soonest and destroying anything good soonest.

So there in that History is what we face right now, as the worst of the worst took over our former government and turned our former government into a money fraud so as to Consolidate all the criminals into one criminal organization covered up with a thin, and thinning false front of true, moral, authority.

They could not allow any competition from other criminals. They could not allow competition from any victims either. So when they set about to capture everyone into their criminal organization they must destroy any CURRENCY that does not say that they, only they, only those criminals in that ONE organized crime cabal, only they, just they, are the single source of all.

All money comes from only that ONE source of all.

All language comes from only that ONE source of all.

All things of value comes from only that ONE source of all.

All of that is all counterfeit.

It is based upon ONE lie, and one command.

Obey, and don't question the order.

The solution is to say no, question the false command, find agreement in the best competitor currently offering a reasonable path to effect our common defense; then do even better, out do the best, out do the best of the best, if possible, but know how competition in free markets works compared to how criminal monopolies work because their form of competition is precisely the same thing as rats eating each other on the sinking ship of their making.

The lie, and the command to NOT question the lie, closes the mind, creates a monopoly of false information in each mind, and that individual is then captured, helpless, and a perpetual victim to that lie.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.  

The result of that is this:

The solution is to compete with each other to find out how best to say no.

If the best someone can do is to trace the lie back to 1860, then close your mind up, then you may be inspired to FOLLOW CRIMINAL ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION.

The solution is to share the best, the most current, the most effective, and to raise that bar, to share the competition to raise the bar first, and when someone says no that means no in time and place.

No more of the counterfeit stuff.

No more counterfeit government leadership.

No more counterfeit money.

No more counterfeit campaign promises.

No more counterfeit insurance.

No more counterfeit medical care.

No more counterfeit MILITARY leadership.

What is posse comitatus?

You tell me, please.

The one who reaches for violence first, as a solution to some problem, confesses something worthy of note.

The events in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch ought to be understood in this context.

When no one is willing to do anything EFFECTIVE to help in our common defense, because we cannot get past the lies that divide us, the result is precisely our return on our investments.

We WILL get what we pay for, in spades.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 12:04 am  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > Fight Night > I thought I lost this one Top

UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems