Is the United States going into a new era of slavery, and dragging the world along in its wake? A question such as this seems ludicrous at first glance, not worthy of a second thought, but.. wait. What is slavery anyway?
International law defines slavery as any practice by which a person exercises any or all of the powers of ownership over any other person. Those powers of ownership, in the legal realm, are powers of dominion and control, powers of alienation (as the legal term of transfer), lease, lien, and severance.
But how does this affect our understanding of slavery? Severance is the power to remove from the property parts of that real property (such as a tree, or rock thereupon) and transfer ownership in full or part to that part of real property. Lien is the ability to transfer the use or nominal control of a property for a fee paid to the owner, with the understanding that failure to pay that fee results in the return of that property to the owner. Alienation is an absolute transference of the property (to alienate or make alien to the original owner) and placing all such property rights in another. Dominion is absolute control over the property, the ability to do whatever one might wish with it. Control is part of that dominion, an exercise of the power of dominion, rather than its mere presence.
These things all are keys to property. They are the fundamental powers involved in all legal property litigation in the United States. One exercises dominion and control by refusing the use of one's property to another, or by allowing it with a simple or complex fee, or contractual obligation. Some properties, however, are considered inalienable, i.e. the possessor has no property rights allowing that transfer of property. These properties are held in trust, or have been vested in such a way that the powers to transferal are also specifically denied in the absolute property grant.
One of the tenets of real property, and personal property, is that once an absolute investiture of property is granted, no subsequent legislation, or court case may take it away. Those absolute investitures are mandated by both common law, criminal law, and civil law as being untouchable by later decisions, save for fraud, coercion, or actual malice in such a transfer.
Such were the investitures of our recognized, legal, civil, and human rights in the United States. They were not created by the constitution, as they existed, arguably, as a recognized legal property before it. These rights, these 'inalienable' rights, were invested absolutely in each individual as a part of the protected property established before that constitutional contract, and recognized therein as being untouchable by our legislatures.
But what does this have to do with slavery either? There is something about property that we all recognize, but rarely think about consciously. When we own property, we have to have proof that we own it. In the old days, they marked property with owner's marks, brands, stained with ink, burned with acid or etched into steel or flesh. Today, we mark our properties with registries, numbers and information unique to the property.
It is via those registration marks that we establish our dominion, control, and proprietor's right to that property. If our vehicles' VIN number does not match the information within our title to the property, we cannot exercise that dominion and control over that vehicle within a court of law, and no court of law will accede to our property interest, no matter how well vested, within it.
We do the same, however, with people. Just as we branded them, in the past, we brand them today, with registries, with numbers, allowing others to exercise dominion and control over their lives. With blandishments, apparently reasonable and proper, we tend to look away as more and more of our lives are signed over to others. We allow people to rent driver's licenses, for a period dependent upon the state, which establish our legal identity in the land. We register ourselves with numbers, for instance, our 'social security' number, unique to us, and an identifying mark allowing others to garnish the fruits of our labors, and the sweat off our brows, and in our name, to place us in debt and tax us.
We register our dogs, our cars, and our property, not our people. We place liens on property, not on people. We register things... not people. How can something be civil, and regulatory, creating a registry that does not affect the transfer of a tangible good or property, but that of an intangible? The intangible in question is life itself. How can we allow others to exercise that dominion and control over ourselves, our children, our children's children, and in the name of 'prosperity' or 'safety' or anything else, exercise that dominion and control, that assize of property gains, the registration that turns us into chattel?
But yet, we can look over, and say 'At least I don't have it as bad as the felon/sex offender/murderer'. But do we? We can, at this very date, have our properties seized on any pretense, have our homes, our bank accounts, our monies, and all real property within the United States seized with no recompense, no remuneration, and no consideration by people that do not answer to our will. Our position is precarious, inherently insecure, and the government claims the power to remove not only our ability to live, but our ability to complain, and even our ability to resist their actions.
In 1650, the first step in disarming the British was not to ban weapons for the purpose of protecting the Crown, but to ban them for the purpose of protecting the game and reducing crime. Today, the only people who may legally own arms in Britain are the British Army and security forces. They, however, have no duty to the individual taxpayer or individual safety, but to some intangible higher law.
We register the whereabouts of our criminals and our citizens, create databases to track them, then regulate further upon what we discover. The term 'to regulate' has become synonymous with 'to ban or control', but it was not always thus. It was originally 'to make operate smoothly' 'to make hit the aim point' or 'to operate within specified bounds'. To regulate a clock, you'd shave minute amounts from the pendulum, to alter the time required in its swing until it matched a reference point. To regulate a rifle, you'd test it to ensure its point of aim, firing, and such were all reliable. One regulated by rules, but no such rule had any punishment other than fine and public censure. It was a remedial system, not a punitive one.
But yet, we claim the power to imprison now with our regulation, the power to seize intangible properties immutably vested in the people, the protected property interest in their own self-defense, their lives, and even in property itself.
Can you claim not to be a slave, if they can come, without discussion, and dictate to you in your own home how you shall live? If they can tell you what you must eat, how much exercise you must do, are you still free? If they can tell you how you must speak, how you must raise your biological children, determine how much you must pay to exercise any such inalienable property right, who owns you?
Is it not an exercise of dominion and control to force a person into a 'contractual' agreement from which they cannot extricate themselves, and could not refuse to sign without facing jail terms? Is it a power of free agency and will to be told how one must pray, or where? Is it not an exercise of dominion and control to force a person, against their own will, interests, and at the cost of their own life to exposed themselves to ruin?
And is it not an exercise of dominion, and control, of the powers of ownership to declare that they must work, and exercise all the duties of a citizen, but have none of the rights of citizenship, or even human rights? Is it not an exercise in disposition to declare that they have no recourse for such a 'civil' act? Is it not an exercise in the power of severance to declare that the properties inherent in the person are no longer their own, but to be sold for the benefit of others?
Where are registries taking us, as a nation, and as a world, and is such a world truly one that we would wish to live in?
Not one I'd wish to live in, even spoken as a self-proclaimed, and recognized total idiot.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Our secret prison
We are all prisoners. All of us, every last one, lives in a world where our prison walls are not made of concrete and stone, not of cold steel and glass, but of barriers built in the human society itself.
These barriers are barriers of fear, of anger, of hatred, of derision and deception, wrought and worked in the fires of political expedience and the pursuit of power. Divisions, as always, are used to force separation, and thus remove cooperation.
We humans are a divisive lot, faction-filled and apparently programmed at the genetic level to compete, to find advantages for ourselves, and disadvantages for those we dislike. What is the truth? Among all the races, among all the factions of humanity, at the core of what makes us human, we are all the same. We are born, we live, we bleed, and ultimately we die. It is the nature of things, and of humanity.
When we are young, we are filled with wonder, and the world is full of flowers, and even the clouds and heat-haze of the roads reaches into our mind and pulls forth the imagination. When young, we do not hate, we do not fear, unless we are taught to do so, and be so. When brought up together, unless someone tells us it is 'wrong' to be different, we treat each other the same. We, however, seek an advantage, and in our equality, the greatest advantage is found when we separate others from us, and from their own. Because they are different they may be singled out, forced out, isolated, and targeted. They, for whatever reason, become something alien, something depersonalized and dehumanized, upon which our anger for our own perceived shortcomings boils forth.
When we hate, we focus on that which we see is not like ourselves, but the true measure of our anger is for that which we see in ourselves, and reject. We step out, reach out, and see a world that is so very full of temptation, of shame, of wants and desires, jealousy and lust, and because we sublimate them, hide them, and deny them, we attack, so often, the people that hold the very hidden desires that we cannot admit, not even to ourselves.
The greatest advantages one can place is via the power of the law, attempting to create advantages by force and coercion. Sometimes, however, it is more expedient to simply see to it that there is a disadvantage laid upon the back of a group. This process was supposed to be eliminated by the nature of general government, and the common law. The Jim Crow laws of the south, the gerrymandering, the outlawing of firearms for unpopular classes, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so many other things were designed, not to simply prevent certain classes from voting, but to prevent them from being seen as human. But.. were they not human? I believe that they can be argued to be nothing else.
As we tried to move from the hatred of people due to skin color (without regard to any 'color' of race) there were those who recognized a great deal of power in that hatred. By creating fear, they could sway crowds, incite people into the mass mind, the mob mind, where their individuality and critical thought ceased. However, the old methods of separation were slipping. What, then, was the answer?
The power was recreated fairly simply, creating classes that had labels that could not be seen in the skin, could not be understood, and that seemed so utterly alien that the political process could declare them to be monsters. They created labels, held them up to society as monsters, then let the old inner demons run forth. But how much more dangerous is a label to be feared that can be applied to anyone, at any time, that requires no proof of veracity, no evidence, just a simple allegation? A nebulous label which you can apply to anyone, quashing their rights.
I may be a total idiot... but even I can see the terrain that path leads through. We may be prisoners, but we don't need to make every mile... the Green Mile.
Read more!
These barriers are barriers of fear, of anger, of hatred, of derision and deception, wrought and worked in the fires of political expedience and the pursuit of power. Divisions, as always, are used to force separation, and thus remove cooperation.
We humans are a divisive lot, faction-filled and apparently programmed at the genetic level to compete, to find advantages for ourselves, and disadvantages for those we dislike. What is the truth? Among all the races, among all the factions of humanity, at the core of what makes us human, we are all the same. We are born, we live, we bleed, and ultimately we die. It is the nature of things, and of humanity.
When we are young, we are filled with wonder, and the world is full of flowers, and even the clouds and heat-haze of the roads reaches into our mind and pulls forth the imagination. When young, we do not hate, we do not fear, unless we are taught to do so, and be so. When brought up together, unless someone tells us it is 'wrong' to be different, we treat each other the same. We, however, seek an advantage, and in our equality, the greatest advantage is found when we separate others from us, and from their own. Because they are different they may be singled out, forced out, isolated, and targeted. They, for whatever reason, become something alien, something depersonalized and dehumanized, upon which our anger for our own perceived shortcomings boils forth.
When we hate, we focus on that which we see is not like ourselves, but the true measure of our anger is for that which we see in ourselves, and reject. We step out, reach out, and see a world that is so very full of temptation, of shame, of wants and desires, jealousy and lust, and because we sublimate them, hide them, and deny them, we attack, so often, the people that hold the very hidden desires that we cannot admit, not even to ourselves.
The greatest advantages one can place is via the power of the law, attempting to create advantages by force and coercion. Sometimes, however, it is more expedient to simply see to it that there is a disadvantage laid upon the back of a group. This process was supposed to be eliminated by the nature of general government, and the common law. The Jim Crow laws of the south, the gerrymandering, the outlawing of firearms for unpopular classes, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so many other things were designed, not to simply prevent certain classes from voting, but to prevent them from being seen as human. But.. were they not human? I believe that they can be argued to be nothing else.
As we tried to move from the hatred of people due to skin color (without regard to any 'color' of race) there were those who recognized a great deal of power in that hatred. By creating fear, they could sway crowds, incite people into the mass mind, the mob mind, where their individuality and critical thought ceased. However, the old methods of separation were slipping. What, then, was the answer?
The power was recreated fairly simply, creating classes that had labels that could not be seen in the skin, could not be understood, and that seemed so utterly alien that the political process could declare them to be monsters. They created labels, held them up to society as monsters, then let the old inner demons run forth. But how much more dangerous is a label to be feared that can be applied to anyone, at any time, that requires no proof of veracity, no evidence, just a simple allegation? A nebulous label which you can apply to anyone, quashing their rights.
I may be a total idiot... but even I can see the terrain that path leads through. We may be prisoners, but we don't need to make every mile... the Green Mile.
Read more!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why is there so much crime? Why are so many poor?
Have you ever wondered what is happening in our nation? Why are our people so desperate? Why is there so much hunger, so much need, so much crime, so much want? We reach out and find ourselves failing, taking new jobs, working harder, faster, longer, and sacrificing more and more in a world that seems to care nothing at all if we exist, so long as we are paying our taxes.
The answer to this question is manifold, the taxes taking a quarter of our income don't help, but the greater answer, the answer that explains why many households try to hold down two jobs for each parent, is a bit more subtle, more insidious, and far more planned.
Each time we borrow money, and promise to repay there are several things going on. That promise to repay becomes a debt, an income owed to the bank which they can work with. However, the interest on that loan has to come from somewhere, so it comes from your work.
Easy credit, no money down, no payments for six months, and we sell our souls, our bodies, and the future of our children. It's not the taxes that make us poor, it's the debt. The taxes are just another manifestation of that debt owed by our government.
Benjamin Franklin said it the best, really.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816
What we often don't see about debt is its real cost. We pay more and more until we must depend on that debt to survive, depend on the sufferance of banks, and credit, and no longer are we the masters of our own destinies. They manipulate us so we cannot even get jobs without credit checks, we cannot buy vehicles via cash anymore, but only via credit; and more, and more we find ourselves pinching pennies every month, dealing with the luxuries that cost us our peace of mind and our security in our property.
Each of us are laid down in slavery from the moment of our birth, to the moment of our death. The only way out of this slavery is to rebel, but we dare not? After all, who would DARE to go against those who offer us seeming riches, free money, convenience; but who would see what we are becoming?
We no longer work to put back money for the future. Futurity, after all, knows nothing of our assets, but only our debts. And the harder we work to try to pay off those debts, at a certain point, it becomes more and more obvious what has happened, and simply to maintain the debt at a minimum level, we let it stretch out into eternity, forever growing, forever becoming more and more massive until it crushes us and we lose everything: except the debt.
Oh yes, it's a cunning and insidious thing. Our creditors, our jailors, and our slavemasters know very well what they are doing. A people without the power of credit has disarmed themselves of a weapon against those who have such. And more and more, we're inundated with the messages of its convenience.
But what happens when the debt is called due? We lose everything we used as collateral, and now they propose, once again, debtor's prisons to 'work off' the debt. We've learned nothing... and the old masters are once again the new masters...
And slavery and tyranny are here, and to maintain it, they must disarm us. And what, I might ask, is the best way to disarm us? The plan is simple. First, arrange it so the courts only hear lawyers, not the people themselves. Next, arrange it so those very lawyers are the only people raised up to the seats of government. Then, establish precedents allowing single persons, or groups of persons to be disarmed, for the public good. Expand infinitely.
If you can get away with it, also expand other classes with living limitations, remove voting rights, and in general, make it a living hell for anyone ever convicted of a crime. Remove the protections of the constitution wherever you can extort, coerce, or flat out defraud a way around it.
And make damn sure that debt is easy to get into... but almost impossible to escape. To maintain high crime levels, you need high debt levels. The more money comes out of each person in interest payments, the less money can actually be used for their own support, and so it too often is supplemented in ways that are outside the law. This continues your excuse for higher taxes for protection, as well as your ability to clamor for new laws against the class of 'criminals.'
Never mind what actual recidivism rates are, or what kind of crime it is, or even the judgment of the court and jury. That doesn't matter, what matters is the illusion of safety.
As of this moment, and for the past many decades, you have no right to police protection. I could quote many cases, but the simplest explanation is a link.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Given the nature of the actions taken by the police force, of late, the rising police brutality and the increasing militarization and use of SWAT teams, can we really affford to ignore that lack of protection? And who protects us from them?
Perhaps the best question, in this total idiot's mind, is: Why is their right to self-protect greater than our right to self-protect, and if we have no longer any right to self-protect, why is there no protected property interest in being protected?
The argument that must be made in the favor of police is simply that police cannot be everywhere at once, and more than that, have no power of prescience to prevent crime. They are a reactive force, and their charter maintains reactivity due to the nature of proactive police work. Proactive work has been, and nearly always becomes the work of tyrants.
Who do the police serve? They claim 'to serve and protect', but to protect who? The easy answer is the society, but historic reference will show that such police forces grew out of the Irish poll guards, the firemen, and the political bosses. We might pay the taxes to preserve that police force, and they are necessary to the rule of law, but they are certainly not there to protect any individual, or even any group of individuals. They are paid mostly through the auspices of the government, who has many lobbying groups by those very people that assist in the creation of debt, and further, assist in the creation, maintenance, and day to day running of the ever-growing prison system, and are paid a great deal in both political favors and monetary bonuses for ensuring that those prisons remain full.
So who would believe that the government, in order to make police work easier, might remove more of your rights, offering you 'increased safety' but no protection at all?
Only a total idiot...
Read more!
The answer to this question is manifold, the taxes taking a quarter of our income don't help, but the greater answer, the answer that explains why many households try to hold down two jobs for each parent, is a bit more subtle, more insidious, and far more planned.
Each time we borrow money, and promise to repay there are several things going on. That promise to repay becomes a debt, an income owed to the bank which they can work with. However, the interest on that loan has to come from somewhere, so it comes from your work.
Easy credit, no money down, no payments for six months, and we sell our souls, our bodies, and the future of our children. It's not the taxes that make us poor, it's the debt. The taxes are just another manifestation of that debt owed by our government.
Benjamin Franklin said it the best, really.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816
What we often don't see about debt is its real cost. We pay more and more until we must depend on that debt to survive, depend on the sufferance of banks, and credit, and no longer are we the masters of our own destinies. They manipulate us so we cannot even get jobs without credit checks, we cannot buy vehicles via cash anymore, but only via credit; and more, and more we find ourselves pinching pennies every month, dealing with the luxuries that cost us our peace of mind and our security in our property.
Each of us are laid down in slavery from the moment of our birth, to the moment of our death. The only way out of this slavery is to rebel, but we dare not? After all, who would DARE to go against those who offer us seeming riches, free money, convenience; but who would see what we are becoming?
We no longer work to put back money for the future. Futurity, after all, knows nothing of our assets, but only our debts. And the harder we work to try to pay off those debts, at a certain point, it becomes more and more obvious what has happened, and simply to maintain the debt at a minimum level, we let it stretch out into eternity, forever growing, forever becoming more and more massive until it crushes us and we lose everything: except the debt.
Oh yes, it's a cunning and insidious thing. Our creditors, our jailors, and our slavemasters know very well what they are doing. A people without the power of credit has disarmed themselves of a weapon against those who have such. And more and more, we're inundated with the messages of its convenience.
But what happens when the debt is called due? We lose everything we used as collateral, and now they propose, once again, debtor's prisons to 'work off' the debt. We've learned nothing... and the old masters are once again the new masters...
And slavery and tyranny are here, and to maintain it, they must disarm us. And what, I might ask, is the best way to disarm us? The plan is simple. First, arrange it so the courts only hear lawyers, not the people themselves. Next, arrange it so those very lawyers are the only people raised up to the seats of government. Then, establish precedents allowing single persons, or groups of persons to be disarmed, for the public good. Expand infinitely.
If you can get away with it, also expand other classes with living limitations, remove voting rights, and in general, make it a living hell for anyone ever convicted of a crime. Remove the protections of the constitution wherever you can extort, coerce, or flat out defraud a way around it.
And make damn sure that debt is easy to get into... but almost impossible to escape. To maintain high crime levels, you need high debt levels. The more money comes out of each person in interest payments, the less money can actually be used for their own support, and so it too often is supplemented in ways that are outside the law. This continues your excuse for higher taxes for protection, as well as your ability to clamor for new laws against the class of 'criminals.'
Never mind what actual recidivism rates are, or what kind of crime it is, or even the judgment of the court and jury. That doesn't matter, what matters is the illusion of safety.
As of this moment, and for the past many decades, you have no right to police protection. I could quote many cases, but the simplest explanation is a link.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Given the nature of the actions taken by the police force, of late, the rising police brutality and the increasing militarization and use of SWAT teams, can we really affford to ignore that lack of protection? And who protects us from them?
Perhaps the best question, in this total idiot's mind, is: Why is their right to self-protect greater than our right to self-protect, and if we have no longer any right to self-protect, why is there no protected property interest in being protected?
The argument that must be made in the favor of police is simply that police cannot be everywhere at once, and more than that, have no power of prescience to prevent crime. They are a reactive force, and their charter maintains reactivity due to the nature of proactive police work. Proactive work has been, and nearly always becomes the work of tyrants.
Who do the police serve? They claim 'to serve and protect', but to protect who? The easy answer is the society, but historic reference will show that such police forces grew out of the Irish poll guards, the firemen, and the political bosses. We might pay the taxes to preserve that police force, and they are necessary to the rule of law, but they are certainly not there to protect any individual, or even any group of individuals. They are paid mostly through the auspices of the government, who has many lobbying groups by those very people that assist in the creation of debt, and further, assist in the creation, maintenance, and day to day running of the ever-growing prison system, and are paid a great deal in both political favors and monetary bonuses for ensuring that those prisons remain full.
So who would believe that the government, in order to make police work easier, might remove more of your rights, offering you 'increased safety' but no protection at all?
Only a total idiot...
Read more!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The real reason for racism.
We stand in a crossroads, a crux point, where every move has consequences that trip us further down paths out of our control, yet we must move. We see hatred and intolerance everywhere we look, and there seems no end to it. We talk about how we must control x, y, or z, then complain about how our lives grow emptier of value, bereft of purpose, and how we've lost our way in an uncaring world.
We talk about how this group or that group ought to be restrained in the interests of the greater good, but too often we mean 'because they aren't like me'. We talk about limiting people's rights to speak about religion, about politics, because it offends us, but it really boils down to 'because they aren't like me'. But each time we limit a class of persons, we're actually accomplishing nothing toward the works of preserving our own ideals, our own liberties, and the perceived threat of others voting away our rights, our powers, our liberties, becomes far more possible.
For liberty is a living being. When we weaken her, abuse her, she becomes more vulnerable to abuse. When we cut her, she grows weaker, when we sever one part from another, eventually unrecognizeable.
The tools to weaken liberty were set out in many works... from the 'more equal than others' part in Animal Farm, to the discussions of the ubermensch of Hitler. Any time any portion is judged wiser, more capable, more knowing, better, the other will be viewed as less capable, less knowing, more foolish, and worse.
I am a 'conservative', but in the old form. I hope for days that no laws are built on race or separation. But I must ask, however, if it is not equally racist to base ideals that any race is better or more capable in one sphere than another?
Does this not add to separation rather than combination? When we say 'a black man is more capable of empathy than a white', is it not simply another subtle form of racism? It is based entirely upon race, and therefore highly suspect. Those subtle divisions are what leads us down the road we find ourselves upon; the idea that some people are less worthy than others, less capable, lesser and worse due to an arbitrary status that has no meaning.
There will always be racists, but we equally must look at ourselves. I continually hear people talking about how 'x' is more qualified... due to nothing less than the race, or the gender, or both. How they would make a better decision than 'y' of 'z' gender. My question is why it matters? Is it not another excuse to continue racism and gender issues in the guise of equality? Is it not racism to judge, for or against, on the issue of race?
If it is not... then we are no further along than when we started. It is equally racism to look for offense due to race as to give offense due to race. We've become, via the help of others who believe us incapable of decisions about racism, overly sensitive to the subject. We find more and more that we are set up, to try and fail without the 'help' of those who have appointed themselves to help us, and benefit from the positions.
Has racism become an issue that the nation cannot allow to die? Have we implemented policies that continue the segregation, even as we claim to seek to end it? Do our policies encourage weakness and dependency upon outside sources, upon laws, rather than upon self-control, self-actualization, and self-realization? Does anyone tell us that we are too weak to continue the fight? If so, then certainly they are using racism to control you. The truth is, we are all human beings, regardless of race, regardless of gender, without regard for sexuality, for religious preference. We all have our frailties, our failings, and we all have a great deal of power over ourselves and our world.
And we all have the ability to fight those who would keep us down, those who would say to you; “Don't be like the other side. Don't get an education, that's their way. Don't better yourselves. We'll take care of you.” What hubris! What gall! Why should any people be subjugated by their own, held helpless in their circumstances then told it's the 'other side' that keeps them there? We keep getting told that it's a democracy, and that we fight to preserve democracy or institute it overseas. It was, however, never intended to be a true democracy, but a republic of limited powers, with checks and balances, including checks and balances to prevent one part of the people from enslaving the others with 'good intentions'.
And yet today, racism still lives, and slavery still thrives. Not the slavery of the plantation, or the whips and chains, but slavery of the heart, subjugation of the will, and education, and reality. And it is accomplished, not by masters of the plantation, but those who seek to 'protect', without ever allowing us to realize that there is more to protection than allowing someone else to be your champion. The true champion teaches you to protect yourselves, teaches you to channel that moral outrage into building bridges, not tearing them down. The true champion teaches you to become more than you are, and be a power in the world not because of your race, but because of who you are inside.
Judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Judged by your actions, your mind, your spirit, not by the melatonin or lack thereof. We are not blind to race... but only blind to the powers within ourselves, and those who seek to maintain us as a willing electorate by trying to ensure that the 'other side' has no foothold.
How often does crime become a racial issue? How often do we see juries selected not for their knowledge or discernment, but because of their race, and cases challenged not because of the facts or procedure, but the race of the prosecutor, jury, and judge? Does it not make more sense, if a judge or prosecutor are influenced by issues of race to ensure that they do not retain the office? Are there not recourses to misdirection and malfeasance?
But yet politicians would have us believe that the only route is new laws to protect one class of citizen from another. We already have laws dealing with 'racial issues'. Perhaps a better route would be allowing us, and our 'other side' to come to grips with our differences, and to recognize our similarities. But something in us cries out after all the hatred, “We have nothing in common with them!” “Why should we embrace them when they have done this to us?” Us versus them. To use an old term 'black vs white', and absolutism. So long as either side clings to the paradigm that the other side is bad, evil, and attacking them, there can be no peace. So long as there are sides, there will be war. And so long as we embrace stereotypes, they will continue to exist, as badges of honor, or badges of shame, and those with power will continue using it for the ends of power.
Even a total idiot can see that.
Read more!
We talk about how this group or that group ought to be restrained in the interests of the greater good, but too often we mean 'because they aren't like me'. We talk about limiting people's rights to speak about religion, about politics, because it offends us, but it really boils down to 'because they aren't like me'. But each time we limit a class of persons, we're actually accomplishing nothing toward the works of preserving our own ideals, our own liberties, and the perceived threat of others voting away our rights, our powers, our liberties, becomes far more possible.
For liberty is a living being. When we weaken her, abuse her, she becomes more vulnerable to abuse. When we cut her, she grows weaker, when we sever one part from another, eventually unrecognizeable.
The tools to weaken liberty were set out in many works... from the 'more equal than others' part in Animal Farm, to the discussions of the ubermensch of Hitler. Any time any portion is judged wiser, more capable, more knowing, better, the other will be viewed as less capable, less knowing, more foolish, and worse.
I am a 'conservative', but in the old form. I hope for days that no laws are built on race or separation. But I must ask, however, if it is not equally racist to base ideals that any race is better or more capable in one sphere than another?
Does this not add to separation rather than combination? When we say 'a black man is more capable of empathy than a white', is it not simply another subtle form of racism? It is based entirely upon race, and therefore highly suspect. Those subtle divisions are what leads us down the road we find ourselves upon; the idea that some people are less worthy than others, less capable, lesser and worse due to an arbitrary status that has no meaning.
There will always be racists, but we equally must look at ourselves. I continually hear people talking about how 'x' is more qualified... due to nothing less than the race, or the gender, or both. How they would make a better decision than 'y' of 'z' gender. My question is why it matters? Is it not another excuse to continue racism and gender issues in the guise of equality? Is it not racism to judge, for or against, on the issue of race?
If it is not... then we are no further along than when we started. It is equally racism to look for offense due to race as to give offense due to race. We've become, via the help of others who believe us incapable of decisions about racism, overly sensitive to the subject. We find more and more that we are set up, to try and fail without the 'help' of those who have appointed themselves to help us, and benefit from the positions.
Has racism become an issue that the nation cannot allow to die? Have we implemented policies that continue the segregation, even as we claim to seek to end it? Do our policies encourage weakness and dependency upon outside sources, upon laws, rather than upon self-control, self-actualization, and self-realization? Does anyone tell us that we are too weak to continue the fight? If so, then certainly they are using racism to control you. The truth is, we are all human beings, regardless of race, regardless of gender, without regard for sexuality, for religious preference. We all have our frailties, our failings, and we all have a great deal of power over ourselves and our world.
And we all have the ability to fight those who would keep us down, those who would say to you; “Don't be like the other side. Don't get an education, that's their way. Don't better yourselves. We'll take care of you.” What hubris! What gall! Why should any people be subjugated by their own, held helpless in their circumstances then told it's the 'other side' that keeps them there? We keep getting told that it's a democracy, and that we fight to preserve democracy or institute it overseas. It was, however, never intended to be a true democracy, but a republic of limited powers, with checks and balances, including checks and balances to prevent one part of the people from enslaving the others with 'good intentions'.
And yet today, racism still lives, and slavery still thrives. Not the slavery of the plantation, or the whips and chains, but slavery of the heart, subjugation of the will, and education, and reality. And it is accomplished, not by masters of the plantation, but those who seek to 'protect', without ever allowing us to realize that there is more to protection than allowing someone else to be your champion. The true champion teaches you to protect yourselves, teaches you to channel that moral outrage into building bridges, not tearing them down. The true champion teaches you to become more than you are, and be a power in the world not because of your race, but because of who you are inside.
Judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Judged by your actions, your mind, your spirit, not by the melatonin or lack thereof. We are not blind to race... but only blind to the powers within ourselves, and those who seek to maintain us as a willing electorate by trying to ensure that the 'other side' has no foothold.
How often does crime become a racial issue? How often do we see juries selected not for their knowledge or discernment, but because of their race, and cases challenged not because of the facts or procedure, but the race of the prosecutor, jury, and judge? Does it not make more sense, if a judge or prosecutor are influenced by issues of race to ensure that they do not retain the office? Are there not recourses to misdirection and malfeasance?
But yet politicians would have us believe that the only route is new laws to protect one class of citizen from another. We already have laws dealing with 'racial issues'. Perhaps a better route would be allowing us, and our 'other side' to come to grips with our differences, and to recognize our similarities. But something in us cries out after all the hatred, “We have nothing in common with them!” “Why should we embrace them when they have done this to us?” Us versus them. To use an old term 'black vs white', and absolutism. So long as either side clings to the paradigm that the other side is bad, evil, and attacking them, there can be no peace. So long as there are sides, there will be war. And so long as we embrace stereotypes, they will continue to exist, as badges of honor, or badges of shame, and those with power will continue using it for the ends of power.
Even a total idiot can see that.
Read more!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Fraus omnia vitiate
It's an old maxim that fraud vitiates anything it touches, and in the nature of such laws, even laws are subject to its hold. This posting today is about the Common Law, the law common to all, and its nature and substance. I pray you will be patient with me, as the archaic language has infected my poor, idiotic brain, and thus, I also hope, you can understand that which I wish to convey.
Fraus omnia vitiate. Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If fraud can be proven, such laws by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses.
There is also an old maxim of the republican form of government (quite distinct from the pretended 'republican' party.) Potestas stricte intepreteur: A power is strictly interpreted. No grey areas, no penumbras, powers themselves must be strictly limited, not vague in any way, shape, or fashion, and wrought in powers granted specifically and explicitly to any organization via the contractual agreements of its incorporation.
Our government, by its nature, is an incorporation. It was given specific powers as a person, so the government could last far longer than the death of any or all of its original founders. It, by itself, was given no rights, but only powers to be wielded and blocked from the assumption of certain powers, acts, and writs.
This brings us to a second common law statement: In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power.
These give rise to specific remedies under the law, where the federal government was Incorporated via the contract of the Constitution, and those remedies were placed within.
In the first part, there is another old aspect of the common law. "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro sic ipso in hoc parte sequitur" He who sues for the king as for himself. We have the authorization under the common law to sue for any specific actions outside the contract. Legal immunity and sovereign immunity does not apply outside the specific powers of the contract, and the states constitutions themselves are legal contracts that instituted and Incorporated the states.
These actions are called a 'Quo warrantio' action: 'By what warrant does the entity place these burdens?' coupled with the closely related common law writ of ultra vires. 'such action is outside of the power granted to the entity'.
In the United states, these writs have been specifically moved to civil law actions, however, they are still applicable to any entity, public or private, including the government itself.
In such case it would be possible to bring an ex relatione suit, or a suit brought by a private party in a qui tam action, against those projectors of ultra vires powers, where quo warrantio has failed.
If these powers were not specifically granted, explicitly granted, and the explanatory documents did not grant them, then such powers are an act of fraud. If they were specifically prohibited, they are something quite more, an act of a highwayman, a thug, and a thief. They are acts of war against our persons, and our property, and our rights, and we are no more bound to them than we are bound to declaim that the sun is made of porridge or the moon is made of apple puree.
Our nation is based upon this old, forgotten, and what they wish us to believe as 'obsolete' common law. This common law, indeed, is the only authorized law within the nation, with all of its idiosyncrasies, and all of its faults. It is part and parcel of the 'republican form of government' that the states were required to guarantee.
This republican form of government acts not only upon the federal government, but the states and the people. There is a separation of powers and specific limitations placed therein, explained within the writings of the federalist papers, and the discussions of the Continental Congress. The powers of the people themselves are limited, to prevent them from establishing tyrannies over minorities. Targeted legislation was prohibited, through the 'attainder clause' of the contract, and reaching back in time to punish someone was limited under the 'ex post facto' clause.
No legislation, according to the founders, could be written that benefited one class at the expense of another, nor that targeted classes of persons in exception to others. All legislation had to be laid down equally, or not at all. As part and parcel of a republican form of government, this was a necessary check and balance against both the government, the people, and enterprising speculators that knew if there was a benefit, or a penalty to any person, then such an imbalance would continue to infinity, ultimately devolving the whole into tyranny or anarchy, both of which the strong prevail and the weak die.
As well, checks and balances are placed against corporations, to prevent monopoly, which is assuredly its own form of tyranny.
The nature of the Constitution of these united states is nothing less than a contract establishing a new entity, incorporating it, and then placing in its hands certain, limited powers, and then very strong Prohibitions and limitations. In that Establishment, the states and people also took upon themselves specific limitations, duties, and powers, in order to prevent tyranny in all of its forms.
All of our rights in the bill of rights were ensured for that end, not established, but ensured. Any attempt at removal of those rights, regulation of those rights, or mutilating the meaning of the words until they bear as little resemblance to the original as spam bears to real meat is an act of war and subjugation, high treason, and fraud.
They do not exist because of the Establishment of the Constitution, they exist in spite of that Establishment, and moreover to resist the powers of that very Establishment and defend that entity at the same time.
Those rights, from the right to free assembly, to freedom of speech, religion, the right to keep and bear, are not created by the government for they pre-existed it. They are created to give you indications when the government is going too far... for those things must fall before full tyranny exists.
And ask yourselves, are you free to speak, or do they attempt to regulate your speech if it offends others? Are you free to assemble, to petition, to have religion, or do they create laws for, and against such? Are you free to believe, to marry, to work as you wish, or do they create benefits for or against such statuses? Are you free to carry a weapon at your side, regardless of its nature, without interference if you are using it peaceably?
Can you stand up and sue the police should they fail to protect you? No...t hey are not there to protect, but to arrest lawbreakers and preserve the public peace.
Your right to keep and bear is the right that keeps all other rights intact. If you have no right to keep and bear, they have taken away the means of protecting your property, from the 'real property' to the immeasurably more valuable 'property in rights' that Madison and Paine spoke of. When you lack the ability to enforce that property right, your property falls, and moreover, so does your liberty and your life.
Those guards are for all, even felons, even those who are unpopular, for it is the government that determines what a felony is, is it not? Perhaps this idiot has had one too many lobotomies, imbibed a few too many insecticides, however, it would seem to me that the governments, state, federal, and local, would be the most likely sources of tyranny. However, they claim the power to establish laws that then remove those rights to resist tyranny, which is its own form of tyranny.
The rule of law must prevail. The law is either limited, or it is unlimited. The Constitution limits it, and to go outside of those limits is to negate both the purpose and function of the Constitution. The law is limited in such that the president cannot assign his powers, or those of the congress, to external persons beyond the control of the very people that gave it to him. Neither can the congress assign legislative powers to the president, nor can the congress assign judiciary powers to the executive branch.
It is our duty, or sovereign duty, our right, our privilege to resist tyranny in all of its forms. Even if we die in such resistance, it is better than the misery granted to all posterity were we not to act.
We are the arbiters, the check and balance against the government, and they seek to disarm us with cunning wiles and making the Constitution vague, in spite of the clarity of language with which it was writ.
There is only one purpose for such: The purpose of tyranny. It's well-founded in the documentation that these very actions, actions taken outside of the powers granted, are acts of war, subjugation, fraud, and slavery.
And this total idiot must ask... what it means if we stand idle.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Do we gain any security by giving up our powers to those we cannot control? Do we gain any safety, any peace, if our will, our power, and our government all are turned against us?
It's time to bring things back to the Constitution, the intent and purpose thereof, ending tyranny in all of its myriad forms.
Even this total idiot can see that.
Read more!
Fraus omnia vitiate. Fraud vitiates everything it touches. When fraud is involved in civil contract or in the establishment of a law, all such laws or contracts are unraveled, made into nothing at all. If fraud can be proven, such laws by their natures could not exist, for they were created under both a false pretense, as well as created with understanding and assent on false pretenses.
There is also an old maxim of the republican form of government (quite distinct from the pretended 'republican' party.) Potestas stricte intepreteur: A power is strictly interpreted. No grey areas, no penumbras, powers themselves must be strictly limited, not vague in any way, shape, or fashion, and wrought in powers granted specifically and explicitly to any organization via the contractual agreements of its incorporation.
Our government, by its nature, is an incorporation. It was given specific powers as a person, so the government could last far longer than the death of any or all of its original founders. It, by itself, was given no rights, but only powers to be wielded and blocked from the assumption of certain powers, acts, and writs.
This brings us to a second common law statement: In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power.
These give rise to specific remedies under the law, where the federal government was Incorporated via the contract of the Constitution, and those remedies were placed within.
In the first part, there is another old aspect of the common law. "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro sic ipso in hoc parte sequitur" He who sues for the king as for himself. We have the authorization under the common law to sue for any specific actions outside the contract. Legal immunity and sovereign immunity does not apply outside the specific powers of the contract, and the states constitutions themselves are legal contracts that instituted and Incorporated the states.
These actions are called a 'Quo warrantio' action: 'By what warrant does the entity place these burdens?' coupled with the closely related common law writ of ultra vires. 'such action is outside of the power granted to the entity'.
In the United states, these writs have been specifically moved to civil law actions, however, they are still applicable to any entity, public or private, including the government itself.
In such case it would be possible to bring an ex relatione suit, or a suit brought by a private party in a qui tam action, against those projectors of ultra vires powers, where quo warrantio has failed.
If these powers were not specifically granted, explicitly granted, and the explanatory documents did not grant them, then such powers are an act of fraud. If they were specifically prohibited, they are something quite more, an act of a highwayman, a thug, and a thief. They are acts of war against our persons, and our property, and our rights, and we are no more bound to them than we are bound to declaim that the sun is made of porridge or the moon is made of apple puree.
Our nation is based upon this old, forgotten, and what they wish us to believe as 'obsolete' common law. This common law, indeed, is the only authorized law within the nation, with all of its idiosyncrasies, and all of its faults. It is part and parcel of the 'republican form of government' that the states were required to guarantee.
This republican form of government acts not only upon the federal government, but the states and the people. There is a separation of powers and specific limitations placed therein, explained within the writings of the federalist papers, and the discussions of the Continental Congress. The powers of the people themselves are limited, to prevent them from establishing tyrannies over minorities. Targeted legislation was prohibited, through the 'attainder clause' of the contract, and reaching back in time to punish someone was limited under the 'ex post facto' clause.
No legislation, according to the founders, could be written that benefited one class at the expense of another, nor that targeted classes of persons in exception to others. All legislation had to be laid down equally, or not at all. As part and parcel of a republican form of government, this was a necessary check and balance against both the government, the people, and enterprising speculators that knew if there was a benefit, or a penalty to any person, then such an imbalance would continue to infinity, ultimately devolving the whole into tyranny or anarchy, both of which the strong prevail and the weak die.
As well, checks and balances are placed against corporations, to prevent monopoly, which is assuredly its own form of tyranny.
The nature of the Constitution of these united states is nothing less than a contract establishing a new entity, incorporating it, and then placing in its hands certain, limited powers, and then very strong Prohibitions and limitations. In that Establishment, the states and people also took upon themselves specific limitations, duties, and powers, in order to prevent tyranny in all of its forms.
All of our rights in the bill of rights were ensured for that end, not established, but ensured. Any attempt at removal of those rights, regulation of those rights, or mutilating the meaning of the words until they bear as little resemblance to the original as spam bears to real meat is an act of war and subjugation, high treason, and fraud.
They do not exist because of the Establishment of the Constitution, they exist in spite of that Establishment, and moreover to resist the powers of that very Establishment and defend that entity at the same time.
Those rights, from the right to free assembly, to freedom of speech, religion, the right to keep and bear, are not created by the government for they pre-existed it. They are created to give you indications when the government is going too far... for those things must fall before full tyranny exists.
And ask yourselves, are you free to speak, or do they attempt to regulate your speech if it offends others? Are you free to assemble, to petition, to have religion, or do they create laws for, and against such? Are you free to believe, to marry, to work as you wish, or do they create benefits for or against such statuses? Are you free to carry a weapon at your side, regardless of its nature, without interference if you are using it peaceably?
Can you stand up and sue the police should they fail to protect you? No...t hey are not there to protect, but to arrest lawbreakers and preserve the public peace.
Your right to keep and bear is the right that keeps all other rights intact. If you have no right to keep and bear, they have taken away the means of protecting your property, from the 'real property' to the immeasurably more valuable 'property in rights' that Madison and Paine spoke of. When you lack the ability to enforce that property right, your property falls, and moreover, so does your liberty and your life.
Those guards are for all, even felons, even those who are unpopular, for it is the government that determines what a felony is, is it not? Perhaps this idiot has had one too many lobotomies, imbibed a few too many insecticides, however, it would seem to me that the governments, state, federal, and local, would be the most likely sources of tyranny. However, they claim the power to establish laws that then remove those rights to resist tyranny, which is its own form of tyranny.
The rule of law must prevail. The law is either limited, or it is unlimited. The Constitution limits it, and to go outside of those limits is to negate both the purpose and function of the Constitution. The law is limited in such that the president cannot assign his powers, or those of the congress, to external persons beyond the control of the very people that gave it to him. Neither can the congress assign legislative powers to the president, nor can the congress assign judiciary powers to the executive branch.
It is our duty, or sovereign duty, our right, our privilege to resist tyranny in all of its forms. Even if we die in such resistance, it is better than the misery granted to all posterity were we not to act.
We are the arbiters, the check and balance against the government, and they seek to disarm us with cunning wiles and making the Constitution vague, in spite of the clarity of language with which it was writ.
There is only one purpose for such: The purpose of tyranny. It's well-founded in the documentation that these very actions, actions taken outside of the powers granted, are acts of war, subjugation, fraud, and slavery.
And this total idiot must ask... what it means if we stand idle.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Do we gain any security by giving up our powers to those we cannot control? Do we gain any safety, any peace, if our will, our power, and our government all are turned against us?
It's time to bring things back to the Constitution, the intent and purpose thereof, ending tyranny in all of its myriad forms.
Even this total idiot can see that.
Read more!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Who owns the government?
Who owns the government?
To figure this out, we need to know what ownership is. Ownership comes down to exercise of specific rights, among those are the ability to collateralize the property, its products, or its materials. The ability to sell or transfer the goods of the property (fruit or manufactured goods) are also part of that power of ownership.
It is ownership that defines property, the rights and powers thereof that establish what an owner is. Perhaps consider this: Your labor is collateralized against the loans that the United States establishes. You pay that labor tax with your income tax, and with every thing you buy, sell, or trade. Your property is forfeit if you fail to pay, or fail to pay enough, or even in some cases if you pay too much and do not claim it.
In the old slavery days, slaves as property could not do work that was not authorized by the master, anything they owned belonged to their owner, and they required permission to have families, to travel, and could be sold at the master's whim to another. Anything they had could be seized, and it was rare to have a slave with a weapon of any sort beyond the tools and implements of farming, for fear of their rebellion.
To make a slave, it was reasoned, first they must be disarmed, then removed of the ability to own property. Then they could be dispatched, and disposed of as the owner saw fit. It was not for security of the slaves that they were disarmed, though that argument was used. It was for the security of the owner. After all, a slave, though valuable property, was only a slave. If someone killed a slave, the property owner could always sue him for the cost to gain a new slave, or even take a slave in trade.
Not only do we have to ask permission to get married, but permission for many jobs, and pay taxes on our own labor, on the gross of our income, rather than the net. We are forced, by various means, to pay those taxes or have our homes seized. We're forced to pay insurance on our land and homes, on our cars, and pay licensure for our right to drive, our right to self-defense, and even on our right to vote.
And does our 'representative republic' still have the right to representation? Do we still have the power to call our representatives on the carpet for their misdeeds? Tonight, through the house, through a storm of objections from the people, was passed legislation that was unread by anyone voting on it. It was unvetted by the hands of those that were supposed to be our representatives, and those very representatives passed it on, without review, without consideration, without actually determining what was contained therein.
Who does the government belong to? To whom do they answer? Perhaps the best answer to that would be 'what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?' Like any fiefdom, serfs who refuse to pay lose the property they are rented by their 'betters'.
Start following the money trail, if you really want to know who owns the government, look at who signs their paycheck. It's not you or me anymore, we have no say in how they're paid, if they're paid, or even any say about whether they did a good job or not.
The ones that pay their checks, are the very people putting us farther and farther into debt. We gain more taxes, and receive less in return, and they ignore our remonstrance and our petitions and our opinion.
We don't own the government... for those who do, find those that run the IMF, and the Federal Reserve. Their names are writ large upon that title to our being.
Read more!
To figure this out, we need to know what ownership is. Ownership comes down to exercise of specific rights, among those are the ability to collateralize the property, its products, or its materials. The ability to sell or transfer the goods of the property (fruit or manufactured goods) are also part of that power of ownership.
It is ownership that defines property, the rights and powers thereof that establish what an owner is. Perhaps consider this: Your labor is collateralized against the loans that the United States establishes. You pay that labor tax with your income tax, and with every thing you buy, sell, or trade. Your property is forfeit if you fail to pay, or fail to pay enough, or even in some cases if you pay too much and do not claim it.
In the old slavery days, slaves as property could not do work that was not authorized by the master, anything they owned belonged to their owner, and they required permission to have families, to travel, and could be sold at the master's whim to another. Anything they had could be seized, and it was rare to have a slave with a weapon of any sort beyond the tools and implements of farming, for fear of their rebellion.
To make a slave, it was reasoned, first they must be disarmed, then removed of the ability to own property. Then they could be dispatched, and disposed of as the owner saw fit. It was not for security of the slaves that they were disarmed, though that argument was used. It was for the security of the owner. After all, a slave, though valuable property, was only a slave. If someone killed a slave, the property owner could always sue him for the cost to gain a new slave, or even take a slave in trade.
Not only do we have to ask permission to get married, but permission for many jobs, and pay taxes on our own labor, on the gross of our income, rather than the net. We are forced, by various means, to pay those taxes or have our homes seized. We're forced to pay insurance on our land and homes, on our cars, and pay licensure for our right to drive, our right to self-defense, and even on our right to vote.
And does our 'representative republic' still have the right to representation? Do we still have the power to call our representatives on the carpet for their misdeeds? Tonight, through the house, through a storm of objections from the people, was passed legislation that was unread by anyone voting on it. It was unvetted by the hands of those that were supposed to be our representatives, and those very representatives passed it on, without review, without consideration, without actually determining what was contained therein.
Who does the government belong to? To whom do they answer? Perhaps the best answer to that would be 'what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?' Like any fiefdom, serfs who refuse to pay lose the property they are rented by their 'betters'.
Start following the money trail, if you really want to know who owns the government, look at who signs their paycheck. It's not you or me anymore, we have no say in how they're paid, if they're paid, or even any say about whether they did a good job or not.
The ones that pay their checks, are the very people putting us farther and farther into debt. We gain more taxes, and receive less in return, and they ignore our remonstrance and our petitions and our opinion.
We don't own the government... for those who do, find those that run the IMF, and the Federal Reserve. Their names are writ large upon that title to our being.
Read more!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
I chose to start off this post with an old quote, from Samuel Adams. This particular one is from a letter written to his son, on the 4th of October, 1790. He's written many other things, and they're quite worth reading, reflective of the time and the attitudes.
Welcome once again to the blog of the Total Idiot. I really know nothing at all, croaking like a frog and parading like a parrot in front of those present out in the blogosphere. I really don't know, nor do I care who reads this, or what they think of it. Wouldn't matter to me anyway, I'm too much an idiot to ponder long upon that.
This posting explores the nature of the Bill of Rights. It also explores the attitudes of the founders in regard to it, and the remedies placed by those selfsame founders for violations of rights, immunities, and privileges involved in the constitution. Read on if you dare brave the mind of a Total Idiot.
The Bill of Rights was introduced, with great public controversy, and spearheaded by one Thomas Jefferson. There were a number of persons involved, between the Federalists and Antifederalists. The federalists in general felt that such a bill would weaken the constitution, and that all such protections against the powers were already therein. The constitution, according to their viewpoint, was a bill of rights by its nature and its prohibitions. Those prohibitions, however, could only be in one location, article 1 section 9. It was recognized that this was a contract between the people and the Federal Government by the action of the representatives of the people, to be ratified by popular vote within the states. It established no rights, and could take none away.
There is only one prohibition against the federal government, however, that directly associates with the rights of individuals or groups made up of those individuals. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Some would claim, spuriously, that the constitution only limits the federal government, that the states are not affected thereby, however, there are two sections which prevent this as well. Article 1, section 10 holds the same prohibitions against the states. The fourteenth amendment, further, was already in existence, as well as the thirteenth, within those simple clauses, and another. The amendments were unnecessary, as they already existed from the beginning.
However, simultaneously, the constitution is limited to a specific set of powers, and no treaty can exceed those powers either. Any treaty thus doing is null and void, by its very inception as the powers contained by the office of the president cannot be faithfully executed under a treaty that nullifies the law under which his presidency is founded.
According to the founders, all such protections were already present in the Constitution. The Federalist 84 speaks clearly:
If all rights were protected, then the only prohibitive clauses are article 1, section 9, and article 1, section 10. The states themselves were bound, and so was the government, and by that means, so were the people themselves from targeted legislation, legislation removing rights of groups, and any legislation giving a benefit or a detriment to any group of any composition. Individual actions could be tried by the court and the jury, but could not have their rights removed outside of the time that was judged an appropriate penalty by the court.
That penalty of law was designed to make total restitution between the offender and the society, and no further action could ever be taken in regard to it.
But yet by that very action, we've decided we can go back in time and wrest from the founders words the ability to place further restrictions after the crime upon those whom we have already punished.
We have decided, in our infinite wisdom, that we can ignore the requirement of warrant for searches and seizures, ignore the immunity from self-incrimination, ignore the ability of a person to assemble, to speak, to believe as they wish, and chosen to legislate our beliefs onto other groups, from marriage to the ability to have relationships.
Certainly, however, we could not be affected by doing so ourselves, right? What idiot would believe that by legislating away the rights of others, we open the ability of others to legislate away our own rights? What fool would look into the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, if we make people panicked enough over the statuses that the government creates, and the media hypes, that perhaps, just perhaps, we might damage the constitution enough that people will gladly turn over their protection, and their rights to the government?
After all, we could never have legislation that would prevent offense, or legislation preventing the ability to assemble on the most public of any venue, Washington D.C. We could never be punished for our self-defense, or that of our family, or home. No politician would ever allow legislation that would dilute our ability to oversee the vote, or our ability to redress grievances, for after all, they are our representatives, and what grievance could you give against them?
Certainly, the old maxim Potestas stricte interpretatur. and In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. are obviously archaic. The founders could have never intended to limit the government today, even if that was their stated intent. Tyranny isn't tyranny, black is white, up is down, and you see five fingers.
A power is strictly interpreted, and in cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power. Archaic, eh? But look at the doctrine of 'reasonable review'... the person applying for relief must prove beyond a doubt not only abuse and unconstitutionality, but that the intent of the legislature and their power does not override their rights guaranteed against infringement. If there's a reasonable connection between the intent stated, and the actions taken, then the constitutionality is upheld.
Such great protection we now have against infringements of our rights. If the right to protect one's self, the right to speak, to assemble, to believe, to privacy, to our own homes, our own property, our own liberty means so little, then perhaps, just perhaps, the stated intent of the constitution, to prevent tyranny, is already fallen, and we must restore it to its proper state, as is our duty.
Have they mobilized the armies of our nation, conceived, and dedicated to the defense of the nation against her very flesh? Who then, could believe that perhaps the stated intent of such beneficial legislation might be slightly different from the actual intent? Certainly the United States would never engage its powers against us, after all, there has been no rendition of citizens to other nations for questioning without trial. Who could believe that they have engaged in active torture, against our own citizens, and citizens of other nations? Who would believe they would torture children for their own ends, or attempt to cover it up? Who would believe that they would place us further into debt, after running on fiscal responsibility, and be castigated by the 'left' for not moving fast enough or far enough? Certainly, who would believe that active army units might be employed in our cities and towns? Who would believe that the nation we love, which we call our own, might have her power turned against us by those who seek further power?
After all, have they given themselves the power of life and death against their own citizens? Can they offer orders, under the Federal Emergency Management Act, to shoot people on sight, to imprison them, to place their labor at the disposal of the executive under Executive Order? Who would believe such a thing in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave?
Only a Total Idiot. They have attempted more and more to turn those high powers which we granted in the beginning against us, attempt to quarter troops, both foreign and domestic, among us, and have prepared to wage war against us.
The only purpose for the accumulation of weapons and men inside the United States, is to use them.
Read more!
Welcome once again to the blog of the Total Idiot. I really know nothing at all, croaking like a frog and parading like a parrot in front of those present out in the blogosphere. I really don't know, nor do I care who reads this, or what they think of it. Wouldn't matter to me anyway, I'm too much an idiot to ponder long upon that.
This posting explores the nature of the Bill of Rights. It also explores the attitudes of the founders in regard to it, and the remedies placed by those selfsame founders for violations of rights, immunities, and privileges involved in the constitution. Read on if you dare brave the mind of a Total Idiot.
The Bill of Rights was introduced, with great public controversy, and spearheaded by one Thomas Jefferson. There were a number of persons involved, between the Federalists and Antifederalists. The federalists in general felt that such a bill would weaken the constitution, and that all such protections against the powers were already therein. The constitution, according to their viewpoint, was a bill of rights by its nature and its prohibitions. Those prohibitions, however, could only be in one location, article 1 section 9. It was recognized that this was a contract between the people and the Federal Government by the action of the representatives of the people, to be ratified by popular vote within the states. It established no rights, and could take none away.
There is only one prohibition against the federal government, however, that directly associates with the rights of individuals or groups made up of those individuals. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Some would claim, spuriously, that the constitution only limits the federal government, that the states are not affected thereby, however, there are two sections which prevent this as well. Article 1, section 10 holds the same prohibitions against the states. The fourteenth amendment, further, was already in existence, as well as the thirteenth, within those simple clauses, and another. The amendments were unnecessary, as they already existed from the beginning.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
However, simultaneously, the constitution is limited to a specific set of powers, and no treaty can exceed those powers either. Any treaty thus doing is null and void, by its very inception as the powers contained by the office of the president cannot be faithfully executed under a treaty that nullifies the law under which his presidency is founded.
According to the founders, all such protections were already present in the Constitution. The Federalist 84 speaks clearly:
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
If all rights were protected, then the only prohibitive clauses are article 1, section 9, and article 1, section 10. The states themselves were bound, and so was the government, and by that means, so were the people themselves from targeted legislation, legislation removing rights of groups, and any legislation giving a benefit or a detriment to any group of any composition. Individual actions could be tried by the court and the jury, but could not have their rights removed outside of the time that was judged an appropriate penalty by the court.
That penalty of law was designed to make total restitution between the offender and the society, and no further action could ever be taken in regard to it.
But yet by that very action, we've decided we can go back in time and wrest from the founders words the ability to place further restrictions after the crime upon those whom we have already punished.
We have decided, in our infinite wisdom, that we can ignore the requirement of warrant for searches and seizures, ignore the immunity from self-incrimination, ignore the ability of a person to assemble, to speak, to believe as they wish, and chosen to legislate our beliefs onto other groups, from marriage to the ability to have relationships.
Certainly, however, we could not be affected by doing so ourselves, right? What idiot would believe that by legislating away the rights of others, we open the ability of others to legislate away our own rights? What fool would look into the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, if we make people panicked enough over the statuses that the government creates, and the media hypes, that perhaps, just perhaps, we might damage the constitution enough that people will gladly turn over their protection, and their rights to the government?
After all, we could never have legislation that would prevent offense, or legislation preventing the ability to assemble on the most public of any venue, Washington D.C. We could never be punished for our self-defense, or that of our family, or home. No politician would ever allow legislation that would dilute our ability to oversee the vote, or our ability to redress grievances, for after all, they are our representatives, and what grievance could you give against them?
Certainly, the old maxim Potestas stricte interpretatur. and In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. are obviously archaic. The founders could have never intended to limit the government today, even if that was their stated intent. Tyranny isn't tyranny, black is white, up is down, and you see five fingers.
A power is strictly interpreted, and in cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power. Archaic, eh? But look at the doctrine of 'reasonable review'... the person applying for relief must prove beyond a doubt not only abuse and unconstitutionality, but that the intent of the legislature and their power does not override their rights guaranteed against infringement. If there's a reasonable connection between the intent stated, and the actions taken, then the constitutionality is upheld.
Such great protection we now have against infringements of our rights. If the right to protect one's self, the right to speak, to assemble, to believe, to privacy, to our own homes, our own property, our own liberty means so little, then perhaps, just perhaps, the stated intent of the constitution, to prevent tyranny, is already fallen, and we must restore it to its proper state, as is our duty.
it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Have they mobilized the armies of our nation, conceived, and dedicated to the defense of the nation against her very flesh? Who then, could believe that perhaps the stated intent of such beneficial legislation might be slightly different from the actual intent? Certainly the United States would never engage its powers against us, after all, there has been no rendition of citizens to other nations for questioning without trial. Who could believe that they have engaged in active torture, against our own citizens, and citizens of other nations? Who would believe they would torture children for their own ends, or attempt to cover it up? Who would believe that they would place us further into debt, after running on fiscal responsibility, and be castigated by the 'left' for not moving fast enough or far enough? Certainly, who would believe that active army units might be employed in our cities and towns? Who would believe that the nation we love, which we call our own, might have her power turned against us by those who seek further power?
After all, have they given themselves the power of life and death against their own citizens? Can they offer orders, under the Federal Emergency Management Act, to shoot people on sight, to imprison them, to place their labor at the disposal of the executive under Executive Order? Who would believe such a thing in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave?
Only a Total Idiot. They have attempted more and more to turn those high powers which we granted in the beginning against us, attempt to quarter troops, both foreign and domestic, among us, and have prepared to wage war against us.
The only purpose for the accumulation of weapons and men inside the United States, is to use them.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)