Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government

[Ronin Truth]

From Amazon:

Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government

by Kenneth W. Royce (Author), Boston T. Party (Author)


We had two sets of Founding Fathers: the 1770s set who kicked off the Revolutionary War, and the 1780s set who agitated for a constitutional convention in 1787. Except for a few persons, they were different men -- and with different agenda.

Jefferson did not write the Constitution, but most Americans seem to believe that it was a Jeffersonian product as his Declaration of Independence.

If you've ever wondered how we came to have a leviathan federal government that was supposed to remain small and defined -- Hologram of Liberty will explain what happened.

The 1997 edition is sold out and out of print, and was replaced in June by the 2012 second edition (ISBN 1888766131), which has 100 new pages, and thoroughly covers the 10th Amendment, Firearms Freedom Acts, Obamacare, and comparisons between other constitutions.

That brought his 1997 classic fully up to date, and now you can also enjoy it on Kindle!

For all those who have the out-of-print 1997 edition of Hologram of Liberty, here is a synopsis of what is new in the 2012 edition:

Introduction updated, with a farewell to political book writing

Chapters 1-4 no-very few changes

Chapter 5 commerce clause discussion removed for Chapter 11

Chapter 6 separate U.S. constitution theory removed (too arcane and speculative)

Chapter 7 no changes

Chapter 8 no changes

Chapter 9 several changes/updates as needed

Chapter 10 much added: 16th Amendment and income taxation, freedom money, reining in the public corporations

Chapter 11 full treatment of 10th Amendment vs. the commerce clause (discussed is my then forecasted SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare)lots of treatment of the states' Firearms Freedom Acts

Chapter 12 much detail on the looming Constitutional Convention, history and future

Chapter 13 quotes from many constitutions from Swiss to CSA to Newstates

Chapter 14 which authors have embraced/rejected my coup d'etat theory since 1997?

Chapter 15 And Now, Back to Reality . . . (much added to this 1997 chapter)

Index fully redone, with 1,2,3 pagination (vs. 3/7 and 10/6 workbook style)

https://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Libe...g=UTF8&qid=&sr=

[Ender]

From Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Libe...g=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup.

[Ronin Truth]

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup.

IIRC, Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist cabal. Burr performed a public service, in killing the SOB.

[Ender]

IIRC, Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist cabal. Burr performed a public service, in killing the SOB.

Yepsees.

Hamilton wanted a large central government as well as a federal banking system. Looks like he is laughing in the OtherWorld.

[Ronin Truth]

Yepsees.

Hamilton wanted a large central government as well as a federal banking system. Looks like he is laughing in the OtherWorld.

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family, and apparently became a stealth agent for a Bank of England agenda.

The AoC was in the way of that. TJ was in Paris, hence the timing, speed and secrecy of the CONstitutional coup.

[Ender]

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family, and apparently became a stealth agent for a Bank of England agenda.

The AoC was in the way of that. TJ was in Paris, hence the timing, speed and secrecy of the CONstitutional coup.

On. The. Nose.

[Sonny Tufts]

TJ was in Paris

But TJ approved of the Constitution for the most part.

I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the Antifederalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organization into Executive legislative & judiciary, the subdivision of the legislative, the happy compromise of interests between the great & little states by the different manner of voting in the different houses, the voting by persons instead of states, the qualified negative on laws given to the Executive which however I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also as in New York, and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be. What I disapproved from the first moment also was the want of a bill of rights to guard liberty against the legislative as well as executive branches of the government, that is to say to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved also the perpetual reeligibility of the President. To these points of disapprobation I adhere. My first wish was that the 9. first conventions might accept the constitution, as the means of securing to us the great mass of good it contained, and that the 4. last might reject it, as the means of obtaining amendments. But I was corrected in this wish the moment I saw the much better plan of Massachusetts and which had never occurred to me. With respect to the declaration of rights I suppose the majority of the United states are of my opinion: for I apprehend all the antifederalists, and a very respectable proportion of the federalists think that such a declaration should now be annexed.

Letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

[Natural Citizen]

Yepsees.

Hamilton wanted a large central government as well as a federal banking system. Looks like he is laughing in the OtherWorld.

I don't believe that is precisely true.

Here are a couple of good reads.

Hamilton's Report on "Manufactures," 1791

Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank

Now, he did eventually broaden his interpretation of the specific words "general Welfare." But he didn't claim that it should provide the federal government control/power over people, their activities or state governments by way of taxing/spending. While he did contend that it provided the fed seperate spending power, he did caution that it was only authorized within the parameter of general Welfare and only as far as the constitution authorized congress to act. His position was that there was no authorization granted to congress to spend/tax beyond the scope of general Welfare. Meaning they lacked power to tax/spend on whatever they wish. Which he expressly mentions there in the Manufacturers Report/1991 that they lack the power to tax/spend or to do anything outside of the authorization of the constitution.

Maybe I'm not following your argument right. Not sure. I always thought that Hamilton got a bad rap. One that isn't entirely legit.

Sucks he lost the duel, though. Burr was kind of pissed off at him. Hamilton should have went with the hairspring set what with the lighter trigger and whatnot when it was offered.

[Ronin Truth]

Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution–and What It Means for Americans Today

https://fee.org/articles/hamiltons-c...ericans-today/

[osan]

Hamilton was a boothole, IMO, but do not assume he was part of a deep, dark conspiracy. Don't forget that nobody had done this sort of thing before, particularly in this style. As i have written elsewhere, those boys had wandered pretty far from the plantation, having come up in a world with at least 1500 years of kings and church (another form of despot), havinh known nothing else. Ever.

To go this far outside the wire must have been pretty heady stuff. They may have been conspirators, but that bit doesn't really make any difference in terms of the result. Until such time as conspiracy is proven, that speculative element adds no value to such conversations.

I would imagine that for some of those boys it was just a bridge too far to accept that the world would not fall to ruin without some form of dedicated governing establishment. This is eminently plausible, IMO.

Their error lay in the apparent belief that their solution was sufficient unto itself. Men like Jefferson and my boy Patrick Henry knew better, but it does not follow that all shared their suspicions. Just consider the heated debates during that time. Was that theatre? For whom? They had no need for such expenditures at that time. They could have simply whipped out their pre-contrived solution and said "here it is, folks", and what difference would it have made to the common people? None that i can discern as likely.

Therefore, i would say not to concern oneself excessively with such questions, as the answers do not impact the broader picture in any significant way. In my worthless opinion, of course.

[HVACTech]

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family, and apparently became a stealth agent for a Bank of England agenda.

The AoC was in the way of that. TJ was in Paris, hence the timing, speed and secrecy of the CONstitutional coup.

Hamilton defeated the AoC.. to promote central banking... LOL!

[HVACTech]

Hamilton was a boothole, IMO, but do not assume he was part of a deep, dark conspiracy. Don't forget that nobody had done this sort of thing before, particularly in this style. As i have written elsewhere, those boys had wandered pretty far from the plantation, having come up in a world with at least 1500 years of kings and church (another form of despot), havinh known nothing else. Ever.

To go this far outside the wire must have been pretty heady stuff. They may have been conspirators, but that bit doesn't really make any difference in terms of the result. Until such time as conspiracy is proven, that speculative element adds no value to such conversations.

I would imagine that for some of those boys it was just a bridge too far to accept that the world would not fall to ruin without some form of dedicated governing establishment. This is eminently plausible, IMO.

Their error lay in the apparent belief that their solution was sufficient unto itself. Men like Jefferson and my boy Patrick Henry knew better, but it does not follow that all shared their suspicions. Just consider the heated debates during that time. Was that theatre? For whom? They had no need for such expenditures at that time. They could have simply whipped out their pre-contrived solution and said "here it is, folks", and what difference would it have made to the common people? None that i can discern as likely.

Therefore, i would say not to concern oneself excessively with such questions, as the answers do not impact the broader picture in any significant way. In my worthless opinion, of course.

therefore, "limited Government" is an oxymoron. and the fools should have known better?

[Ronin Truth]

Hamilton was a boothole, IMO, but do not assume he was part of a deep, dark conspiracy. Don't forget that nobody had done this sort of thing before, particularly in this style. As i have written elsewhere, those boys had wandered pretty far from the plantation, having come up in a world with at least 1500 years of kings and church (another form of despot), havinh known nothing else. Ever.

To go this far outside the wire must have been pretty heady stuff. They may have been conspirators, but that bit doesn't really make any difference in terms of the result. Until such time as conspiracy is proven, that speculative element adds no value to such conversations.

I would imagine that for some of those boys it was just a bridge too far to accept that the world would not fall to ruin without some form of dedicated governing establishment. This is eminently plausible, IMO.

Their error lay in the apparent belief that their solution was sufficient unto itself. Men like Jefferson and my boy Patrick Henry knew better, but it does not follow that all shared their suspicions. Just consider the heated debates during that time. Was that theatre? For whom? They had no need for such expenditures at that time. They could have simply whipped out their pre-contrived solution and said "here it is, folks", and what difference would it have made to the common people? None that i can discern as likely.

Therefore, i would say not to concern oneself excessively with such questions, as the answers do not impact the broader picture in any significant way. In my worthless opinion, of course.

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family. Conspirator or no?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ander+hamilton

[osan]

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family. Conspirator or no?

Didn't know that. If true, it does seem to cast a suspicious shadow.

[osan]

But TJ approved of the Constitution for the most part.

I find this surprising. Is the quote genuine? This is the part that strikes me as suspicious:

...and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the [power of taxation] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be.

Assuming these are genuinely his words, I would very much like to know the basis for this view, which for me seems violently abhorrent.

Anyone?

[Ronin Truth]

I find this surprising. Is the quote genuine? This is the part that strikes me as suspicious:



Assuming these are genuinely his words, I would very much like to know the basis for this view, which for me seems violently abhorrent.

Anyone?

The Federalist's were scared $#@!less that TJ's public opposition would certainly scuttle their AoC coup effort. Hence the speed and secrecy, while TJ was in Paris.

TJ and Madison were Virginia buds, though.

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendme...s-constitution

[Ronin Truth]

Didn't know that. If true, it does seem to cast a suspicious shadow.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...child-s-family

[Sonny Tufts]

I find this surprising. Is the quote genuine?

Quite genuine. Here's a link to the entire letter: http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../01-14-02-0402

Assuming these are genuinely his words, I would very much like to know the basis for this view, which for me seems violently abhorrent.

What he meant was that it was a good thing that the Constitution didn't spell out in minute detail what could be taxed (other than a ban on taxing exports), what the tax rate would be, or any other matter that was better left to the discretion of Congress. After all, no one could foresee what revenue needs might occur in the future or what the tax base should be in changing economic times, and having to amend the Constitution every few years to address these issues would be unworkable.

[osan]

Quite genuine. Here's a link to the entire letter: http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../01-14-02-0402



What he meant was that it was a good thing that the Constitution didn't spell out in minute detail what could be taxed (other than a ban on taxing exports), what the tax rate would be, or any other matter that was better left to the discretion of Congress. After all, no one could foresee what revenue needs might occur in the future or what the tax base should be in changing economic times, and having to amend the Constitution every few years to address these issues would be unworkable.

That all aside, the power to tax is the power to destroy individuals and entire nations.

[Ronin Truth]

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Sonny Tufts]

That all aside, the power to tax is the power to destroy individuals and entire nations.

No nation has ever existed without some form of taxation.

[osan]

No nation has ever existed without some form of taxation.

Is this meant as a justification of the practice?

[Sonny Tufts]

Is this meant as a justification of the practice?

No, it's meant to rebut your claim that taxation destroys nations. Without it, you never have a nation.

[Ronin Truth]

No nation has ever existed without some form of taxation.

Yet just one more reason that 'country' (geography) is better.

States, governments, nations are among those things that Satan rules and controls.

I can see it, can you?

[osan]

No, it's meant to rebut your claim that taxation destroys nations. Without it, you never have a nation.

Depends on one's working definition of the term. There were all manner of "indian nations", yet there was no taxation. Your claim is thereby refuted as stated.

Now, if you want to narrow the definition to Empire, you have a valid point. And yet, do date no empire has lasted very long. Contrariwise, there have been small anarchic "nations" that have apparently survived for perhaps tens of thousands of years. "Nations", as I take you to mean them, are inherently weak. That is why they never last. The practice of taxation saps the spirit from the people and the "nation" inevitably falls. There is not a single Empire you may name to which this has not happened. Some have lasted centuries, some only a few short years. Any "nation" whose existential premise runs contrary to human nature, is doomed to failure regardless of how long it may last. The anarchic nations lasted for endlessly long periods... until Empire consumed them.

Defend the crime of taxation all you want. It is an all too common position of the MereCog - to love one's own chains. I choose otherwise.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup.

And thanks to the play "HAMILTON!" he's being championed as some minority hero. Ah, revisionism.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Hamilton married into the Rothschild family. Conspirator or no?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ander+hamilton

Gonna need stronger historical citation on that one.

[John F Kennedy III]

No nation has ever existed without some form of taxation.

I highly doubt that is true. Also, past theft doesn't justify modern theft.

[John F Kennedy III]

Libertarian Ireland last for at least 1,000 years, possibly over 9,000 years.


https://markstoval.wordpress.com/201...hy-in-ireland/