Spread this virally. Every American should applaud this speech:
by Robert John Stevens, May 23, 2016
Dear Top 1%,
History is clear that the top 1% inflicts the most misery upon the human race, and then it backfires on them.
Despite what your advisors tell you they are probably all wrong. If you want to keep your wealth and protect yourself against the middle and lower class then bless and inspire them, not necessarily with your money for that would require you to share it, but with opportunity.
Opportunity means you set the middle and lower class free to acquire wealth. Keep what you have and let them prosper; for if they prosper you will retain your money, your life, health and happiness.
How can that be done? Well, what society experienced the greatest distribution of wealth in history? The United States before the Federal Reserve coup in 1913.
You must restore government to its original organization but with patches so it will never again be hijacked. Here are a few suggestions:
- Restore the checks and balances of government as defined in the original U.S. Constitution which means you must:
- Abolish the unconstitutional Seventeenth Amendment so Senators can once again represent their state legislators rather than special interests
Repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911 that fixed the number of members of the House of Representatives to 435.
The Federal Reserve banksters knew to keep their charter it was easier to control the majority of 435 than one representative for every 30,000 citizens. With today’s population at 318,900,000 that requires 10,630 representatives. That may sound like too many but had their numbers grown proportionally our nation would not be trillions in debt.
- Establish and enforce term limits so nobody ever gets too much power
- Popularize virtue—Only a government based upon virtue can survive and protect you.
- Abolish the illegal income tax created by the Sixteenth Amendment that is channeled directly to the pockets of the private Federal Reserve Shareholders
- End the Federal Reserve. They’ll eventually turn against you with their 4.5 trillion in assets
- Ask citizens to innovate and replace all banks with something else that enables wealth to accumulate for the masses.
- Abolish the IRS and replace it with one sentence outlining a minimal tax on all sales.
- Break up the media monopoly and ascertain it can never again consolidate and serve anti-Constitutional agendas
- Abolish the Department of Education whose mission is to not teach the U.S. Constitution and the correct principles upon which it is based. Encourage parents to home school. Encourage more private schools to emerge. Require all school children to be taught the U.S. Constitution every year, its founding principles, and how to safeguard it. With that knowledge they will defend your right to keep your wealth without penalty and without harm.
- Declare to the world how the Federal Reserve banksters’ coup of 1913 was successful, and how they grew and remained in power, so a national bank never forms again.
- Abolish the CIA, the United Nations and outlaw all secret societies that murder, destabilize, overthrow and consolidate power and wealth for gain.
- Turn regulations over to the free markets to establish best practices and guidelines for government and private industries‐just as the software industry does.
- Free the citizens from the mountains of bureaucracy, ordinances and regulations that crush their ability to prosper. Replace them all with pure and simple principles that school children can recite.
- Focus on the proper role of each government office as John F. Kennedy focused on the Office of the President. For example, how can that office be used to lead, guide and inspire citizens, to defend citizens, and to safeguard the U.S. Constitution?
- Inspire citizens to become scientists and engineers. You want them to invent things to make your world a better place, to extend your lives and the lives of your posterity, and to eventually colonize other planets. For that you’ll need an unending amount of human innovation to tap from.
When your example becomes the beacon for freedom and liberty then people everywhere, by obedience to their own conscience, will safeguard your life, money and happiness.
No other alternative has ever worked—for their destruction will become your destruction but their prosperity, safety and happiness will become yours.
Judges must do all possible to resist the temptation to incarcerate defiant litigants, because incarceration should be the last resort. Judges should enforce their rulings using the least force necessary, not the most force available. And history teaches that for those who conscientiously defy the law — particularly for religious-based reasons — incarceration is often fruitless.
Small minds embrace laws; big minds embrace principles. — Robert John Stevens, July 31, 2015
Inside the elevators at the Carriage House Hotel in Las Vegas are permanent plaques that say, “Maximum capacity 2,500 lbs” and paper signs that say, “No more than six people allowed.”
So which is correct? And if your party had more than six people, would you require them to split up?
Without explicitly stating the relationship of these two signs, it is uncertain which law to embrace. For example, the staff’s true intention could be, “Maximum capacity 2,500 lbs or six obese humans.”
A smart person may realize the unlikelihood that the combined weight of six people would exceed 2,500 lbs, and calculate each person would need to weigh an average of 416.66 lbs. A quick glance around could ascertain one’s risk.
If the average weight of males in the United States is 191 lbs, then it would require more than thirteen males to surpass 2,500 lbs.
Would the elevators break with 2,501 lbs? Or did wise elevator designers build them for a higher capacity such as 3,500 lbs?
Another elevator sign said something like, “No jumping in the elevator or you’ll be responsible for the damage.” Does that suggest an unstated history of known mechanical problems or was that sign created by a person practicing unrighteous dominion?
To me the thought of dividing our eight-person party to ride in two elevators was absurd but two relatives were adamant about obeying the six-person limitation even though all but one of us were thin and our party included a five- and seven-year old.
Should we obey man-made laws or God-given principles? A clever person could short-circuit that answer and say, “It depends.”
My observations in life conclude that small-minded people will quickly embrace laws, and given an opportunity enforce them upon others, while large-minded people will favor sound principles unless penalty or immediate danger is obvious.
Two Related Generalities
- No unconstitutional laws should be obeyed—period.
- Homeowner associations were created in hell
by Robert John Stevens, July 22, 2015
This afternoon I spent an hour meeting with David Graves who is the City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director for Provo, Utah. We spoke about a variety of topics including why Provo won’t grant building permits in Sherwood Hills, the moving Sherwood Hills land mass and what may be happening there geologically.
I asked David, “What would happen to the entire Sherwood Hills land mass if a home were removed?” He said the effects would be negligible. I then asked if removing a home was negligible then why was Provo concerned about adding a home?
Considering all the things that could happen in Sherwood Hills via earthquake, landslide and the moving land mass, isn’t it amazing nobody has died?
Perhaps then the proper role of government is not to protect us against all things.
Most if not all of Provo’s concerns, rules and moratoriums just destroy free agency, or the right to choose. Suppose we learn at Judgment Day that this earth life is a big test to see if we would infringe on anyone’s free agency?
During tumultuous moments of frustration, we could then find relief knowing most lawmakers are going to hell.
If you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consider these scriptures regarding the U.S. Constitution:
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. — D&C 98:5-6
All unconstitutional laws, especially those that deny us of our free agency are therefore evil.
David told me Provo’s lawyer said they can’t deny citizens the right to build in Sherwood Hills, but instead he was told to say they’d have to solve the moving land mass problem for all of Sherwood Hills! I replied that was impossible and cunning.
Property rights were never delegated to government. Quoting Article 1, Section 1 of Utah’s Constitution, “All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property.”
When did you delegate to government the right to deny you to build on your own property?
Inalienable rights are rights given by God to men. Life itself is an inalienable right. If we delegate to government the right to grant life then we also give government the right to take life away.
The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are based upon inalienable rights. Without inalienable rights both are invalid.
David said I may buy any existing home in Sherwood Hills and remodel it. So if a remodel suggests I may tear down an existing home and rebuild, then why can’t I build a new home on a formally approved building lot? When Provo City approved the Sherwood Hills Subdivision in 1978, wasn’t that a valid, legal contract?
These inconsistent policies use the force of government to protect existing lot owners with structures while discriminating against neighbors who haven’t yet built. Such discrimination is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Now that I know many of the issues and risks, shouldn’t Provo allow me to attach to the Provo City utilities via flexible pipes or conduits, bond for breakage, build and just attach a legal disclosure to the lot for future buyers?
It is time for government to return to their original mandate—to protect property rights.
by Robert John Stevens, July 5, 2015
When the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence severed their ties to the King of England and British Paramilitary rule, they in effect invalidated all their laws, not just the tyrannical laws, acts and decrees heaped upon them beginning with the Stamp Act of 1756.
In today’s computer terms, we could call this a safe mode system reboot.
Laws binding on today’s citizenry are so numerous, most people could never find time to read and comprehend them in their lifetime. They comprise 73,954 regular 8-1/2″ x 11″ sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code, 356 volumes that takes up 55 feet of shelf space for the U.S. Code, state, county and city laws, school district laws, and subdivision Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), — almost all devised by unelected bureaucrats who thought it was their mission and duty to regulate.
Imagine today invalidating all our laws and starting over again — that’s what the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence did for us.
So did the Declaration of Independence invalidate all law? Yes, all British law. Local Colonial laws and God’s laws, including The Ten Commandments remained in force, cleaning the slate of tyranny for a new nation to be founded upon inalienable rights, freedom and liberty, and the pure principles of good government as a sturdy foundation.
When will we do it again?
There are so many laws in existence today that legal experts agree that anybody can be prosecuted for crimes they aren’t aware they’ve committed.