PDA

View Full Version : Code Words Used by the Government



TheTman
03-05-2012, 11:56 AM
Code Words

March 5, 2012 by Bob Livingston (http://personalliberty.com/author/boblivingstonpl/)

Things don’t just happen. In the back rooms or inner sanctums, there are change agents whose job it is to create control words or phrases that are repeated over and over to dumb us down and cause conditioned responses.
Here is a sampling of control words or phrases. There are many others:
Democracy: This is the most used and overused word in the world. It was born in America, and every politician and bureaucrat uses the word democracy. This word implies human liberty in the public mind. The truth is the word “democracy” is used as a cover or disguise for all manner of chicanery of governments and politicians. Some of the most brilliant people use the word “democracy” over and over. Little do they realize how this control word misleads. People who use the word “democracy” in its various perverted forms are closet socialists. Some politicians are aware of the deceptive use of the word “democracy,” but not all. Most people just mimic the word because they hear it so much.
Terrorist: This word was mostly hatched by President George W. Bush. It is/was a code word to begin the final demolition of the rule of law in the United States. This code word has come to identify any and all who disagree with the systemic destruction of law and order. They are dubbed dissidents and are subject to arrest and prosecution on frivolous charges or no charges. Bush never knew what he was saying when he spouted the word “terrorist” (which he couldn’t pronounce). He never knew that the word “terrorist” was a control word created to start a final war on the Americans and personal liberty.
“See your doctor” or “tell your doctor”: These are control phrases originating in the secret towers of the pharmaceuticals. They are dependency phrases repeated millions of times a day. They are designed to keep the public from even questioning doctors who are brainwashed in medical schools controlled by the pharmaceuticals. The control phrases were created to build a prescription drug culture in America. Has the plan succeeded? Yes, to the tune of trillions of dollars of profits upon a hapless drug-dependent society. Doctors are unwittingly pharmaceutical’s lackeys, pushing drugs on an ignorant people. The drug culture has actually caused the public to believe that drugs heal in the place of whole food and nutrition. In time, the medical establishment will bankrupt and destroy the United States. Dr. Benjamin Rush, in the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, warned of this very day of medical mafia.
Pay Your Fair Share: This is a control phrase created to condition the public mind to a perverted “fairness” that uses an altruistic public to feel obligated morally to pay taxes. It tells the conscious mind to “do the right thing.” This phrase helps extract tax money without allowance for logic or legality.
Taxpayer: The elite created the term “taxpayer” to force us all to think of ourselves as “taxpayers.” If we think of ourselves as taxpayers, we become willing taxpayers or income-tax payers. Most Americans believe that the U.S. government is financed by income taxes.
Income taxes have absolutely nothing to do with sending money to Washington as taxes. In fact, income taxes began only as recently as World War II for most Americans.
The Federal Income Tax has a dual purpose; neither is for income to run the government. The first purpose is to control consumption and redistribute welfare to the masses of low-income or no-income Americans. The second reason is the creation of a system of dossiers on every citizen: a spy system, no less.
I will quote from a speech by Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve from 1941 to 1946, to dispel the widely believed myth that your income taxes are needed for government income. I repeat that your income taxes have nothing to do with providing income to the Federal government.
In a famous paper titled “Taxes for Revenue Obsolete,” which was read before the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II, Ruml said, “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for the states and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.” [Emphasis mine]
The speech was originally printed in American Affairs in the January 1946 issue. The editor ofAmerican Affairs wrote: “His (Ruml’s) thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economicconsequences.”
The entire speech can be read here (http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/cmt/ruml_obsolete.pdf). It is very valuable information to reveal the fraud of income taxes as Americans understand it.
Well, what about money to run the government? Ruml was referring to the fiat monetary system with which the Federal government could print its money with no need for income taxes.
Can we imagine the economic prosperity in America if the fraudulent income tax system were done away with? But I don’t think that it will happen because hundreds of thousands of lawyers and accountants would have to find productive work. They love the income tax system! It will have to collapse! Then the Internal Revenue Service would be destroyed with its army of highly paid parasites.
Collecting income taxes, like the medical system, is a fraud on the backs of Americans.
The second plank of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf) calls for a “heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

O'Dell
03-05-2012, 02:47 PM
I wonder how many people that use the word 'democracy' realize that it's just another word for mob rule. The "founders" certainly did and hated the whole concept. You won't find the word in any of their writings except when they express contempt for the idea. Obviously, it is not used in the Constitution. I think it was first popularized around the time of President Wilson.

Deano
03-05-2012, 03:13 PM
We have a huge state in terms of area, but for us, democracy means living according to the wishes of those in the Portland metropolitan area. It also means being taxed for things such as mass transit projects that people who live outside of Portland will never use. The idea that taxation should be handled by the states is a good one. The idea that it should be handled by local governments is even better.

TriggerMan
03-05-2012, 05:49 PM
I wonder how many people that use the word 'democracy' realize that it's just another word for mob rule. The "founders" certainly did and hated the whole concept. You won't find the word in any of their writings except when they express contempt for the idea. Obviously, it is not used in the Constitution. I think it was first popularized around the time of President Wilson.An early boss of mine and a mentor , quipt, when he heard I bought a condo, ""I'm not a fan of democracy". After a couple of years on the Board, I saw what he meant.

muggsy
03-05-2012, 05:51 PM
Democracy isn't a bad word. It means government by the people. It can be direct or representative. Our Government is structured as representative republic which is a form of democracy. Instead of a direct vote on every issue we elect representatives to vote for us. These representatives are supposed to reflect the will of their constituents. We will have a republic for as long as we can keep it. So ends the civics lesson.

chrish
03-05-2012, 06:26 PM
The one that makes me see red is calling me a 'taxpayer'. That one boils my blood.

Actually, a republic, while a form of democracy, isn't necessarily meant to reflect the will of the people. It was setup this way so that we find the brightest and wisest among us to make good decisions. Obviously that's worked out well.

But the point being, the democracy part is how the people remove and impart power on the republic (representative) parts. If the point is merely the will of the people, then just take a popular vote for everything and be done w/ it. That's why we are where we are, the will of the people. Stupid is as stupid does. The republic was MEANT to be a filter on democracy.

From Federalist #10



The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.