My mom was a very funny lady with a lot of original wit. Lived into her nineties, and everytime I talked to her, I heard something I had not heard before. The last funny thing I heard her say which I had never heard before, was her response to something I was talking to her about. “That’s a zero with a zero on either side.” Cracked me up.

I haven’t written much about the circus going on in Washington since the November 2nd election. I was waiting until after the end of the year, however can’t wait to comment on the passage of the extension of the Bush tax bill. So many are jumping up and down with joy as if it was the “second coming.”

Reminds me of the story about the man talking to his doctor, expecting a diagnosis, and whatever his problem was, the doctor asked, “Have you ever had this before?” and the patient said, “yes.” Then the doctor said, “Well, you got it again.” Which was the extent of the diagnosis. The patient left shaking his head, not knowing any more when he left than when he walked in. So it goes in this country, whatever we got, we still have.

As I understand it, all that wrangling and publicity amounted to the status of taxes on businesses remaing the same. Unemployment payments staying the same, and payroll taxes lowered slightly. This was touted as some kind of major victory for the people, Republicans, tea-partiers, the President, and just about everyone but the disgruntled Democrats. A cause for celebration!!

As I see it, a zero with a zero on either side. A congressional version of the emperor’s clothing story, handed to the American people a few days before Christmas.

I thought about all the talk this summer in reference to “Contract for America,” and the “Contract with America.” The shelving of the massive pork bill is just a delay. It will rear its ugly head again next year. To implement the one step backwards for two steps forward tactics, in their strategy. Then there’s all the publicity and propaganda touting the Bush tax-cut bill as a big victory as a result of the push of the Tea Party, for a “Contract” between the people and politicians.

It’s all a fairy story from la-la land, and all the oh-ing and ah-ing is very much like all the emoting over the naked emperor’s new wardrobe.

Let’s take an objective look at just what this crisis we face in this War of Ideas is all about. The bottom line is about Ownership of Property. Whether or not the individual controls that which he acquires, produces or inherits, or whether or not a centralized government owns and controls. To understand, let’s consider what Ownership means.

First off, Ownership is a total concept. One cannot own anything that does not have a boundary, nor does anyone own anything they do not control. Same thing applies to the validity of a contract. Can’t contract for anything that does not have a boundary. Which means this so-called “contract” with or for America is a fantasy joke because it has no boundaries. Accordingly, when the political government makes laws, issues policies and edicts to confiscate your property [money], that means they control it instead of the rightful owner. Therefore boundaries and control is lesson 101 when it comes to ownership of anything.

Accordingly, we own ourselves, because there’s a boundary and we control ourselves. And our Rights to ownership were given to us by our Creator, and not by any government, i.e., our right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness [Property] as expressed in the documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which the founding fathers created to express that which belongs to us, granted by a Creator, when they recognized this Truth.

Our Rights to Ownership were not given to us by government, nor can those Rights be taken away by government, conversely they can be violated by political governments and can be executed by a gun or threat of a gun, which government has the power to do. Therefore in order to understand the validity of ownership, one must separate the power to violate from the Right itself.

Let’s say hypothetically, Citizen A decides to make a contract with Citizen B, giving B the authority to implement laws and rules relative to the property of A. To have any validity, it must be a document in writing, signed by both parties, specifying the exact terms, setting forth precise results of violations by Citizen B, dated with a specific time of the contract. In this connection, the written terms of execution, violations within a time frame would constitute the boundaries of the contract. There is validity to properly designed contracts.

One cannot contract for a non-contractual, i.e., that which has no boundaries. Let’s take the marriage contract for example. Two people stand up and contract for love, honor and obedience, in most marriage contracts. These things are non-contractual. What are the boundaries of love, honor and to obey? They have none. At the moment any of these things are violated the contract is automatically broken. The proof of the non-contractual nature of the marriage contract is when one decides to divorce, they do not go before a court requesting dissolution of that which they contracted for – love, honor and obedience. Instead both parties get right down to property. How to distribute the property of the house, the cars, the furniture, the money, or any assets the couple have in the way of property.

Therefore, a court decides how property is distributed, when one files for relief of their marriage contract of love, honor and obedience. Unles there’s a prenuptial agreement, a contract about property drawn up before the marriage contract, two people go into court to battle over property, when seeking dissolution of a marriage contract.

I point this out as an example to show the absurdity of the so-called contract of the Tea Party movement, in an effort to hold those they voted for to be elected accountable. Just a “zero with a zero on either side.”

Just this morning, I listened to a program by Judge Napolitano, interview Stossel, asking the question, if government can take anything we have via taxation, do we really own anything? Great question, Judge, and all of us should be asking that question and seeking answers, because that’s what this nation was founded upon, Personal Freedom, which cannot exist without one being able to exercise private property ownership Rights.

And it’s that Right to Own property which has been so compromised, and the very root of the crises we face as we enter year 2011. And it is not the nature of political government to relinquish any of its power to control property, because that is its aim to begin with, and only seeks more control, not less.

For those still under the illusion that the past mid-term election was a mandate for those elected politicians to go to Washington, to return Property Rights back to the People, there may seem a temporary lull, until the elected settle in, emotions cool down, during this holiday period, but it will most likely take little time next year before business as usual in Congress and the Executive branch, return to doing what they always do, confiscate property.

Keep in mind no political government has anything until it first takes from others, that which does not belong to it, by means I have described. And this government has squandered such a staggering amount, acquired from the producers in this country, they will necessarily be forced to seek more, not less.

Here at Christmas time, I just heard a newscast about some citizens giving money for some soldiers serving overseas to be able to travel home for Christmas to be with their families. Then read another article titled “Top Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2010,” describing the extravagance of House Speaker Pelosi, using government-paid air travel, in planes stocked with a laundry list of liquors, provided for her guests flying with her, on tax-paid planes.

If I had the magic to place one thing under the Christmas tree of every American, it would be a note saying, “Wake-up America,” to the reality of what is happening to this great Country we live in.

LET FREEDOM RING

JUST ME AC

EMAIL: annecleveland@bellsouth.net

Share →

One Response to ZERO WITH ZERO ON EITHER SIDE – PRINCIPLE OF OWNERSHIP plus CONTRACTS (Issue 489)

  1. Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!