Dreaming of a Fair Government

Some of you are aware of my family’s trials through earlier posts and threads. My health has recently taken a significant turn in the most undesirable direction, and whether I survive or not, very soon we may lose our home and everything I have worked for trying to be the best husband and father I could. What happened to us is indefensible and should have been avoidable, so with that vision in mind I wish to make a proposal. The general concept is simply to appoint a “council” of non-politicians and empower them with sufficient authority to intervene on behalf of the rest of us in matters to be determined. I realize the details alone could be insurmountable even if such a group was created, but what if it were possible?

My initial concerns look like this:
• A method to locate, entice, place, and eventually bestow appropriate compensation upon the right individuals would have to be determined
• How long would they serve?
• Should there be different councils for different conditions/situations?
• How many on the council? How many councils?
• Which aspects of legislation need the most attention?
• Where should these people come from? Different states, geographical regions, religions, races, ages, etc?
• What should their qualifications be?
• How would they be compensated?
• At the very least they should possess oversight where freedom, rights, liberties, and the constitution are concerned
• They would essentially function as a “bridge” between the three branches of government and the citizens

My personal vision would be similar to:
• Individuals of unimpeachable high morals, sensible approach to “right and wrong”, reliability, and a sense of duty would be selected
• Except under highly specific circumstances, previous politicians would be exempted from consideration
• NO government agency, branch, or individual would be immune from their purview
• In consideration of national security, I would expect that some specifics would be withheld when necessary (for ex: the NSA wouldn’t have to explain every itemized detail regarding operation Prism, the CIA would not be required to provide every aspect of operation Fast and Furious), but the true nature and intent WOULD be required to be disclosed
• Any person from the private, corporate, government, military or any other community who is found to have intentionally misled or withheld pertinent information would be subject to commensurate criminal prosecution
• I suggest anonymity if possible to prevent enticement, interference, or other intrusions on those who serve
• Probably short terms for the safety of those serving
• Such care in appointing individuals should be taken so as to grant absolute immunity from accusations of impropriety
o ….meaning if a group at this level of integrity deems it appropriate or can be convinced to accept a scenario that doesn’t fit the “rule” of law in favor of what sincerely is best for the nation, then it must be accepted---a fair two way street
• I would not endow them with any ability to create or write legislation, only what they need to enforce their directive
• There could be a national council(s) to oversee actual legislation as well as local councils to assist with more individualistic situations such as what happened to my family
I could go on for page after page with details, unknowns, and difficulties. I still have faith there ARE people in our communities capable of performing such a task with the moral diligence necessary. I think finding them would be almost as difficult as getting the government to allow it, but these people could prevent tyranny, government oppression, and so much more.

Of course this happening is probably impossible, but does anyone else see potential, or perhaps have another idea? If so, what methods, limits, procedures, etc. would have to be in place to give it the best potential for success? Is it possible for my son to grow up not believing the government is the enemy? I want to believe. I really do.

reply to post by samstone11


Sending good vibes to you for a recovery of health, and a solution to your housing problem that leaves you and your family comfortable, whatever may be.

A bit of X-Files nostalgia I hope will make you smile re: last line of your post.

reply to post by Ameilia

Thank you very much for your kindness. I am personally at total peace if God were to call me home as far as I am concerned, but I have a second line of thought that He has allowed me to experience this so He can honor my faith in Him. If this happens I have much to say and I can hear an almost audible call from Him leading me to share on every platform possible that He cares and there are answers. With the faith I have, I can see God giving me a mission once He provides a way to overcome the obstacles, or if not I hope what my family and I endured can be used to make the future better for others.

In the meantime, I want to make use of my public speaking experience and start looking for every venue possible to use our experience as both a warning and a call to action. I may or may not ever make a significant impact personally but maybe someone I become privileged to speak with can.

Either way, I intend to become as active as possible seeking venues to speak. Anyone with an opening for a speaker who is still living the nightmare of governmental abuse please contact me. At the very least I can reach out to as many as I have the opportunity to.

Thanks again.

BTW, thanks for the humor. I had thought of that, but you took the time to chase it down and that means something.

I sometimes think what people are looking for when they want a group or authority such as you describe is closer to a religion?

Im sorry I dont know your story but good luck.

Going to address this in two posts.

Originally posted by samstone11

My initial concerns look like this:

• A method to locate, entice, place, and eventually bestow appropriate compensation upon the right individuals would have to be determined

Yet who makes that decision? You obviously don't trust the government structure, yet you would trust the same populace that continues to put them in office? Or should we just let a single person choose, based on what their view of moral and integrity is to decide? At the moment our legislative system is the best option we have. There are issues but you're not going to find a better system nor a system without its faults.

• How long would they serve?
• Should there be different councils for different conditions/situations?
• How many on the council? How many councils?

Provided in the constitution.

• Which aspects of legislation need the most attention?

Depends on what the current political map looks like

• Where should these people come from? Different states, geographical regions, religions, races, ages, etc?
• What should their qualifications be?
• How would they be compensated?

This was addressed in the constitution and I believe, later amended after the Jackson/J.Q. Adams election debacle.

• At the very least they should possess oversight where freedom, rights, liberties, and the constitution are concerned

Called the supreme court

• They would essentially function as a “bridge” between the three branches of government and the citizens

Called bureaucracies. First, the manpower required to operate in this fashion would make creating some "council" unrealistic. Secondly, they are above the government and then turn around and work for government. This structure will not work.

Creating a body that supersedes our current government is not going to solve anything. There are three concepts to government. One, few and many. One can be a monarch or tyrant, few is an oligarchy or republic, many would be anarchy or pure democracy. The US government is designed to incorporate all three to gain their strengths and limit their weaknesses. We have the one (executive), few (supreme court), and the many (congress). If we switched to this body that supersedes our government structure, we remove one of the greatest revolutionary ideals that came out of the American Revolution.

now for part 2

My personal vision would be similar to:
• Individuals of unimpeachable high morals, sensible approach to “right and wrong”, reliability, and a sense of duty would be selected

Morals are not quantifiable, they are different in degrees from one person to another, one community to another, one region to another. I could nominate a person of high moral character and you think he or she is a shyster. There is a reason political races are rarely one sided

• Except under highly specific circumstances, previous politicians would be exempted from consideration

We are all politicians to some degree in our daily lives. We deal with politics every day. You give the average person the type of power that comes with serving in government, you will get similar to what you have now. Add in that they are kept anonymous and above the law as you point out a few points down and it doesn't matter if they were or weren't ex-politicians.

• NO government agency, branch, or individual would be immune from their purview

But who would govern them? Who would they answer to? Especially if they are kept anonymous.

• In consideration of national security, I would expect that some specifics would be withheld when necessary (for ex: the NSA wouldn’t have to explain every itemized detail regarding operation Prism, the CIA would not be required to provide every aspect of operation Fast and Furious), but the true nature and intent WOULD be required to be disclosed

What you think should be disclosed and what the body feels should be disclosed will end up being two different things, just like it is now.

• Any person from the private, corporate, government, military or any other community who is found to have intentionally misled or withheld pertinent information would be subject to commensurate criminal prosecution

Called Perjury

• I suggest anonymity if possible to prevent enticement, interference, or other intrusions on those who serve
• Probably short terms for the safety of those serving
• Such care in appointing individuals should be taken so as to grant absolute immunity from accusations of impropriety

So make a secret profile legislature that is above the government and therefore above the law. That is not a good idea imo. Also, there are always going to be accusations and even more so if its kept anonymous. The whole notion you are proposing is naive.

o ….meaning if a group at this level of integrity deems it appropriate or can be convinced to accept a scenario that doesn’t fit the “rule” of law in favor of what sincerely is best for the nation, then it must be accepted---a fair two way street

So they are above the law. Also, how do you define integrity and how do you measure it? There are many laws that I have found to be absurd. I don't agree with the 21 drinking age, when i can also choose to give my life in the military. Doesn't mean i didn't deserve my MIP charge in college, i knowingly broke the law.

• I would not endow them with any ability to create or write legislation, only what they need to enforce their directive

Yet they have that very ability with the copt-out listed above

• There could be a national council(s) to oversee actual legislation as well as local councils to assist with more individualistic situations such as what happened to my family

There is the whole state vs federal stuff and there are groups out there both in government and NGO's that assist with almost all situations. That's also why there are lawyers. If you feel your situation wasn't handled properly at one level there is a legal appeals process.

I could go on for page after page with details, unknowns, and difficulties. I still have faith there ARE people in our communities capable of performing such a task with the moral diligence necessary. I think finding them would be almost as difficult as getting the government to allow it, but these people could prevent tyranny, government oppression, and so much more.

They could also turn around and oppress the citizens and undermine any competency there is in government. There are people out there i would vote for should they ever choose to go through the process. Would they win? who knows, though there are many people who would disagree with me and prefer other candidates.

Of course this happening is probably impossible, but does anyone else see potential, or perhaps have another idea? If so, what methods, limits, procedures, etc. would have to be in place to give it the best potential for success? Is it possible for my son to grow up not believing the government is the enemy? I want to believe. I really do.

Not trying to sound condescending or anything but the concept is very flawed and naive to be honest.

reply to post by samstone11


There is a serious problem with our government and that problem is called corruption and a lack of accountability for their actions.

The system is not what is flawed, but the people in it. A wheel can have many good cogs but a few broken ones in the wheel make it bad as a whole. When you fix one cog you find that having it broken for a period of time has stressed and weakened the good ones and they are no longer as strong and straight as they need to be.

What is needed is a not a new wheel, because the basis is still good. But a replacement of every single cog; even the ones that appear to be good, because they have been stressed and weakened by the bad ones.

Just like when you are having problems with your computer sometimes you just need to reboot it to fix the problem, but as a nation we have done this rebooting when we vote and elect in new people, those new people quickly get tainted by the bad ones and the way they do things - thus stressing and weakening them.

So, just as when rebooting no longer solves the problem and you have to wipe your hard drive so that your computer runs right, we need to wipe the hard drive of this nation... fire every single person in a government position and start fresh... all at exactly the same time.

There is hope, and lots of it. we don't need a new system as the one we have is just fine. You dont buy a new computer when you can fix the old. And this nation is definitely fixable, the constitution still means something and the system was set up to work - and does.

Just fire everyone, and hire in their replacements.... they wont need the old ones to train them God knows. Fire can destroy, or it can purify.... Just make it a nice purification. Heck any small businessman or woman knows finance better than the ones running this country at the moment....and that list just goes on.

Firstly, I hope you are comfortable and happy. I wish you well in your life, and also in your future journey.

With regards to your proposal, I find the dream of a free, just and fulfilled society, a dream that all men share - whether they consciously and critically try and describe it, or whether they simply acknowledge the failures of our modern world.

While I commend your process, in trying to conceive an alteration to the existing order, I think that there is a fundamental problem with the approach.

The problem is entirely fundamental - governments are always adversarial to their populations, and the institution of government is inimical to freedom and justice in a comprehensive way.

To describe the problem in detail would require many volumes, however it can be summarized into some key concepts.

Modern governments may be autogenously created, or they may be exogenously created by the international bank. If they were spontaneous, then very soon they will be owned and controlled by the bank. I say 'The Bank', as opposed to 'banks' plural, because all fiat money created is originated from one source - the international banking cartel.

The bank will sponsor directly and indirectly politicians whom it chooses, who will follow its agenda. They will follow the agenda because usually some blackmail material is available, if not simply that the person is either ideologically corrupt, and also sufficiently stupid to allow for easy manipulation. The people for whom you are allowed to vote are a small, previously selected list of candidates that are able to be controlled.

The Bank wants to own and control everything, and they create and control governments with this intention. One of the main vehicles of control is of course debt.

The bank encourages profligate expenditure by governments to put the nation in debt. This wasteful spending is always disguised as 'for the children', or 'to protect the great nation'. Other covers are used, and the populace is always willing to be bribed by this kind of self defeating deception. The bank of course buys all the debt, extracting money spent by its own minions - yet charged against the populace. War is course the most expensive and wasteful enterprise, and it is always war and preparation for war that is the mainstay of this tactic.

So the banks extract the wealth of the people through directly lending to them, from currency which it creates by typing it into a computer. It also extracts wealth indirectly via taxation, as the taxes are spent on servicing the debt.

The Banks enable the government to create regulation, and commercial rules - they dont really care much for the content of the rules, just that there is a lot of them. They also advocate as much complexity as possible with taxation, and get governments to pass this kind of legislation.

The reason they do this is to eliminate small business, and to allow the growth of large corporations. Small business cannot afford to manage their own compliance, as they need lawyers and accountants and so on. This forces consolidation into the corporations.

The rules for taxation are always constructed to ensure that debt is beneficial - most corporations run with a leverage ratio of around 50% The bank then buys the debt, and as they then own such a large portion of the corporation they demand representation of the board, and from there they obtain control. This debt must be paid by the corporation, who also pays tax - this is of course a disingenuous way of looking at this issue. Only human beings have the ability to labor, so they are the source of all wealth - the corporation simply passes on these costs to the customers, making goods and services more expensive.

Now, if we quickly summarize we can see the enormous transfer of the wealth of the people to the bank that is continuous. Tax is collected, and part is paid to the bank, the other portion is spent wastefully - usually allocated to corporations - which are all in debt to the bank anyway. People are constantly paying fees and interest to the bank for credit cards, mortgages and other forms of loans.

This bank is not a large and diffuse animal, it has a very small head - perhaps even one man. The plan is nothing less than global domination - total ownership and control of everything.

Modern law is simply one of the other tools at the disposal of the bank. The plan is to make as many laws as possible, and make them as complex as possible - going so far as to create an entirely different language for law. This prevents the average person from having access to justice. They also like to create a system which excludes intervention by common people as far as possible - so elimination of jury trial will be high on the agenda. Note also that juries cannot make sentences, punishment and so on.

To obtain freedom, and justice - we must destroy this monolithic, global vampire of central banking.

reply to post by samstone11


Hello my brother,

Good idea as a whole. However, when you appoint people and give them authority, they automatically become politicians. Anyway, some for of what you are proposing might work, provided that bigger decisions are made only by national referendum, like they do in Switzerland.

reply to post by samstone11


Also, if eventually the whole world becomes governed by such principles, there will be no need of National Security as most people are usually positive and don't want anything to do with wars and violence if they could choose.

reply to post by samstone11


I think we will get free energy first bud