Opinion by Libera Lex, July 4, 2010
In Old English Common Law, Libera Lex referred to the law of freemen.
The Founders often took Latin names like this to protect their identity.
The battle for control of what you think!
Today we are celebrating the birth of our country. The thing on this special day is to realize is that we are celebrating a time when our founding fathers sacrificed their wealth and sometimes their lives to fight for something called our natural rights. Our natural rights only came into existence, for the first time in human history until this very day, when our forefathers were willing to fight to the death to claim them. First they “exhausted all other remedies” by going through years of legal and philosophical arguments and pleadings to the King who refused to acknowledge any of them. As far as the King was concerned Americans had no natural rights - at that time those were merely a philosophical discussion among intellectuals. Only after we made all the appropriate legal arguments under international law, did our Founders actually go to war to claim and defend these rights even at the cost of their lives. At that great cost they won both a philosophical and legal argument. They had hoped that this victory would be handed down to their posterity, but what they said was basically -- here are your rights...keep them if you can. Thomas Jefferson famously said, "tree of Liberty needs to be replenished occasionally with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It isn't that tyrants need to bleed, it's that we must be willing to fight to keep our natural rights!
Lately, with the Federal government grabbing more unwarranted, unconstitutional power than ever before, and these once sacred natural, God-given rights are all but gone! There is a critical layer of the onion in the story of America that explains a lot of how we got here -- the Legislative History of the United States! In this context, the "United States" is a different legal entity than what most people call America. It is here where you can, with a bit of work, unravel and expose the legal manipulations that got us into this mess. The fact is that it was all done under the "color of law," which means it looks like law but isn't really law.: "mere semblance of legal right; something done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law..." (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).
In a law-based society you are deemed to have no rights unless you can aggressively claim and defend them. If they are taken away by some law and you do nothing about it you are deemed to have waived you rights. You do not have rights simply by being born with them since you can voluntarily surrender them under law, which most ... See More people in the US have done inadvertently. For example, it is like signing a nondisclosure agreement - you have surrendered your right to free speech by signing a contract. You also surrender your right to free speech if someone infringes on it and you do nothing - what has been happening for 100 years, so it is long gone except to the extend the powers that be wish to preserve its illusion to keep people mollified.
All great philosophical ideals about freedom are wonderful but have lost their real meaning. You have already surrendered your natural rights. How do I know - look in your wallet. Is there a social security number in there? Ooops - only Federal/U.S. "persons" can have one of those.
During the desperation of the Great Depression the Federal government made on of its biggest power grabs. The usually do this during a major catastrophe since people get desperate and willing to do anything. This was a favorite tactic of Adolph Hitler, invented by a German philosopher called Hegel. The idea is that if you want a particular result then you need to "conveniently" have a crisis or catastrophe for which what you want is the solution.
To get more power the Federal government "bribed" grandma and grandpa with an unconstitutional entitlement called social security. Now, they are not required by law to tell you all the legal problems you must incur by volunteering into that system - it is YOUR responsibility to know what you are doing if you are to deserve the rights of free people. So your once-free grandparents silently, ignorantly sold out their liberty as a Citizen in a free State in order to become a federalized U.S. citizen and receive the financial benefits thereof. Social Security is unconstitutional for Citizens of a State, but not for persons within the federal jurisdiction!
The fact that most people reading this think it is gibberish, without bothering to spend even a minute in a law library (I spent years), is proof enough of their ignorance of law and the actual relationship between that and your rights or lack thereof. You are in the same situation as your grandparents, only you've inherited their status as persons within federal jurisdiction with no standing to claim natural rights. All you can have are the "civil" rights granted to you by your civil authorities, the federal government. THAT is why so much stuff that looks unconstitutional today, from the IRS to Health Care and eminent domain to illegal wars/police actions are possible, since all this stuff only applies within the federal jurisdiction where the government can do anything it wants without the shackles of the Constitution to hinder it. Today, the original jurisdictions of free people and free states created by our Founders with their blood and courage has virtually ceased to exist except as an illusion left alive only to distract the "sheeple" from their true fate.
Basically, the way the law works is that if you do not care enough about your rights to actually study them, legally speaking, and aggressively defend them then you do not deserve them -- hence by your ignorance volunteering you into federal jurisdiction. There is no country other than America in which "natural rights" ever came from the top down. What we have in the US today are only Civil rights, which do come from the top down since they are right granted through law by the civil authority. Sometime civil rights look and sound like natural rights, but if they were granted by law they are civil rights. The Constitution was created to prevent the federal government from taking away your natural rights - but unfortunately the Founder never envisaged the possibility that the free American people would just give them away without a whimper - without even realizing what was happening to them.
Summary: natural rights cannot be taken away, but you can voluntarily surrender them through ignorance, not caring or irresponsibility. You only get to keep them if you care enough to study them and can protect them. Civil rights, on the other hand, can be given or taken away by the civil authority, whether by Congress or a presidential order. You can have civil rights whether or not you did anything at all to deserve them. In fact, people can cross our borders illegally, never become citizens of any kind, even in the Federals sense, and still claim many of the civil rights of a Federal citizen!
Free speech was the most fundamental of all rights to the Founders, and so important to all our other rights that it became the very First Amendment! That wasn't just an accident because someone thought of it first - it was first because it is that important! You see, what you think, and therefore what you say, is your intellectual "property." The one thing that differentiates FREE people from federal persons or slaves is their right to own property - property which cannot be violated by a King or any other authority - We The People ARE the highest authority (or once were). You've been indoctrinated to believe that "property" refers to real estate, jewelry or cars, but the most important property is intellectual - your ideas.
Freedom of speech in the Constitution is the right to speak, to share your ideas, without censorship and/or limitation. The "free speech" given to you by statute as a civil right means you can say or write anything as long as it is not determined under the Patriot Act, for example, to contain words or ideas that some bureaucrats determine looks dangerous to their way of thinking (or the way they want you to think). If "they" say something you said on a cell phone, or texted, or emailed (Big Brother IS watching) looks like sedition or a terrorist plot you won't get anything that looks like your rights, you won't even get an attorney or a trial...just for thinking that way. In America, which was supposed to be a land of the free and a society based on law, you can be arrested to prevent a crime you might or might not do in the future. There was a movie about that called Minority Report, starring Tom Cruise, which is good sci fi and worth watching. It is already happening only computers read every email and listen to everything you say, TV cameras on every corner watch your every move. Anyone would be freaked out if they ever read 1984 by all this, except that one book cannot undo the decades of multimedia programming we have all received to brainwash us into blind belief in and acceptance of civil authority. On TV show like COPS we watch police routinely deprive people of rights like it is standard procedure, and we root for the police because the guy they are arresting wears a black hat. We watch TV shows like 24 and root fro the psychotic killer hero who blatantly doesn't care about anyone's rights because he is protecting us from evil terrorists.
You see, they create a problem such as crime or terrorism or through inaction allow one to materialize, like an oil spill. In reality these events usually only affect a relatively small number of people, yet it allows big brother to pass solutions that otherwise would never see the light of day, like the Patriot Act or Cap and Trade. They fan the flames of fear to justify erasing even the illusion of rights you thought you had - with your blessings. You see, FEAR is the key. People always tend to fear things that seem beyond their control, no matter how irrational the fear. For example, some people are afraid of flying, so drive around thinking they're safe, though statistically, rationally speaking, flying is 200 times safer than driving. The difference is that in a car you feel in control. So one of the techniques used to control you is to let you think you are in control!
Though 9/11 was a terrible disaster, more people actually die every month is accidents, from falling down stairs to automobile accidents! As terrible as that incident was, statistically it was not significant enough to justify letting the government read all the emails of all the people in America all the time! That infringement on your fundamental right of free speech would be intolerable to our Founders, yet we embrace it because it gives us the illusion that we are in control of this situation. If we just do all this, and look the other way when Jack Bauer tortures some poor guy with the wrong accent, we will be safer. But that sad fact is that this is just not true. All you are after all this, after giving up everything our Founders held dear, is less free. Consider the example of Israel, surrounded on all sides by terrorists committed to killing them. Are they safer after turning Israel into an armed police state?
Sadly, the answer is no. They sold their individual freedoms for the illusion of control and safety. Israelis have 400% more risk of dying on a car accident than in a terrorist incident. A mere 200 deaths from terrorist incidents a year in Israel has given their government complete control of millions of Israelis.
This is just what is happening today in the United States! Perceived risks governing your behavior more than actual risks! That perception has permitted Israel's government to justify locking the Palestinian people up in a virtual concentration camp! As much as I love Israel myself philosophically, I cannot condone that. A concentration camp is a concentration camp, regardless of the justification for it! For Israel to lose it's soul by condoning this behavior despite the lessons of the Holocaust is particularly heart-wrenching - because Hitler used the same Hegelian techniques to justify what he did to them! First they get you afraid enough to give up some rights in exchange for your perceived safety, then they pass a law to make you feel safer, but in reality it doesn't make you safer it just gives them more power!
You may recall the HBO movie, The Conspiracy, about The Wannsee Conference, held on January, 20, 1942 in Nazi Germany. They were there to plan the holocaust. Part of the plan by the Nazi "attorneys" was to pass the laws that would make the "final solution" legal under German law. Clearly, making something legal doesn't make it right. Yet we are in the process of letting the same thing happen in America!
Our Constitution was designed to prevent that from happening in America. But for this to work we need to be responsible American citizens that have educated themselves in the principles of freedom, and have the willingness to fight for them. Only such a people can legally have the "standing" to claim Constitutional rights. Most people in the U.S. have inadvertently surrendered their Constitutional rights under color of law and are now "citizens" or "U.S. Persons" under the jurisdiction of the Federal "United States," which is a different legal entity than the various American states you think of as our country. The Constitution protections for the states and we the people do NOT apply to persons under Federal jurisdiction - that is actually in the Constitution. So the way around the Constitution for the power brokers is to pull you into their federal jurisdiction so the Constitution is no longer even an issue. Now you might as well be living in Nazi Germany or Israel.
To understand the legislative history that got us into all this you first have to have a basic understanding of legislative construction. I can give you a few of the key basic principles, simplified, right now to get you started on your own research if you'll bear with me a bit longer.
First, it is important to recognize that the debates you've heard about the Commerce Clause as a means for expanding federal authority are meant to distract you from the real methods used to manipulate you! The reason they do that is because the issue of the Commerce Clause is subject to interpretation. It is worded very openly and you can argue both sides, so the talking heads and news channel experts often do just that!
However, if you heard it from a talking head on the TV, then it is not the real truth. Watch the TV to learn what they want you to think, then follow the money and power to look deeper, much deeper, to understand their real agenda! TV and the other media are "weapons of mass distraction." These media sources are owned by the same corporate oligarchy that controls most of what happens in our government. It isn't even entertainment - almost everything they do is meant to indoctrinate, hypnotize and dumb down the viewers. Police shows are there to help you accept police authority. Legal shows are there to help you believe that the legal system still works, and so you are still free. Medical shows are there to help you believe that our healthcare system actually works, though doctors kill 300,000 people a year with prescription drugs and medical misadventures. Comedies, dramas, adventures, action shows, all of it exists entirely to perpetuate your acceptance and docility. Surely, I don't need to tell you about the military shows.
The real technology used to deceive isn't vague, like the commerce clause - it is a secret, exact and precise science of deception called Legislative Construction!
The Secret Science: Legislative Construction
To recap, the "system" you now believe in blindly is no longer limited by the Constitution at all. Most Americans have though their ignorance volunteered into Federal jurisdiction. Since the Constitution only applies in Federal jurisdictions, laws are unconstitutional only if they try to apply them beyond that. In DC they can do anything they want and effectively everyone in America is now living in DC and under Federal jurisdiction. A person living in DC or another Federal jurisdiction cannot win a constitutional argument since in that jurisdiction you have no standing to claim constitutional protection.
This has happened to us over a period of many decades - over 100 years. Slowly, like boiling a frog, the system has grabbed more and more power - and like Hitler they did it all "legally!" How they manipulate the laws is important to understand because then you can read the laws for yourself and once you do you won't need me or anyone else to tell you what is going on! Then you can study the legislative history of the Untied States and the truth will stick out like a sore thumb!
First , I need to go over some of the principle of legislative construction. You have to know how to read the laws in order to understand the deception! And it isn't easy to read laws because attorneys have evolved a legalese that looks like English, but isn't - it's really a secret code! It is cleverly designed to look like the English you and I speak every day, so that if you accidentally read some of it you will think it applies to you when in fact it probably doesn't!
I'll go over some of the basics, in a simplified form, just to get you started on your own research.
First, it is important to know that the titles, headlines, subheads, tables of content and indexes of statutes do NOT have any legal effect whatsoever. They will tell you they are put there to help organize the statutes, but they are also put there to help deceive the uninitiated! That is why they can label a law, or even a paragraph, one thing and yet it has the opposite effect. For example, in Title 26 (Internal Revenue) they have several sections with subheads talking about who is "liable" for income taxes. However, a careful reading of the entire section reveals that nobody is actually made liable by the text in those sections. In fact, nobody in America is made legally liable for income taxes, period, as far as I can tell after reading the entire code.
If you read the law without knowing that subheads have no legal effect, you would think that people are actually made liable in there someplace because the heading and subheads say so. In fact, many people just glance through law books reading ONLY the headlines and subheads, thinking they'll get the gist of the material that way. When you do that you actually see only what they want you to see and miss everything that actually is important.
Of course, if you ask about this the IRS and tax attorneys will say I am crazy, but learn a bit about legislative construction then go read the Internal Revenue Code for yourself! To truly understand you have to read it in their own words yourself! But remember, their words have been redefined - it looks like the same English we speak but it's NOT -- it's a code or a foreign language cleverly disguised to look like conversational English!
And that brings us to legal principle #2 - the difference between legal definitions of words and their conversational meaning. You see, a legal definition in a statute applies only within that statute, and it may be the complete opposite of the conversational meaning.
When you get this you will finally understanding how brilliant Bill Clinton was when he said, "it depends on what the definition of is “is.” You see, he slipped up and exposed one of the deepest secrets of the people behind stuff like this, that legal definitions and conversational meanings can be 180 degrees removed, but of course it was just laughed off as a ludicrous statement. Bill was taking control of the legal definition of the word "is" - brilliant! You see, one of the secrets of law is that whomever controls the definitions wins!
For example, take the word "state." Conversationally, to you and me, it means a place like California, Texas, New York or Florida. If the lawmakers use the word "state" in a law they know that if you live in one of the American states like New York or Florida you'll think the law applies to you. But in fact, that word has probably been redefined in the statute somewhere -so it really doesn't apply to New York or any other state, as we use the word conversationally.
In fact, none of the unconstitutional laws you and I are concerned about these days applies to anyone within the various American states, unless they have volunteered into Federal jurisdiction. If you look closely you will see that they have redefined the legal meaning, for the purposes of that law only, of the word "state." In such laws, the term state has been defined to include only federal government lands, forts, parks, and territories like Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
Sec. 210. [42 U.S.C. 410] For the purposes of this title:
State
(h) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
There are three definitions in law of "United States," only one of which applies to the what most people think of as States. In this example they are using the one that means the opposite of what you think a state is. First they redefine the word State so that it "includes" only federal jurisdictions. Wait a minute, you are thinking! They are just adding those areas to the list of all the states. NOT! you see, the term "includes" has already been redefined by the courts so that it no longer means what you think either. In fact, it means just the opposite.
The courts have redefined the word "include" in law so that it is EXCLUSIVE! In other words, when you and I say a list of vegetables includes broccoli, carrots and string beans we haven't excluded spinach...we've just added to the list of all known vegetables. That's just common sense in conversation English.
However, if you carefully research how the legal system has redefined "include" you will discover that when a law says that the United States "includes" Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, that law is not saying it is adding those jurisdictions to the rest of the American states - in fact, it is an exclusive list and means that the law applies ONLY in those areas. Most objectionable laws of the last 100 years are like that as far as I can tell.
In other statues, when they want to include a "State" where you live, they actually "include" the 50 American States specifically. In Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, § 4612, for example:
Now you know that when the 50 American States are not specifically "included" they were not just left out by accident, and were in fact excluded specifically to get around the Constitution and confuse the ordinary reader.
Now once they have redefined the term State they can confuse and deceive you further with a redefinition of the phrase "United States."
United States
Notice how they have generously included States in this definition. Now surely they mean New York, Florida and all the rest. Nope - and now you will clearly see how all this is actually intentional - designed to deceive you!
You see, though the previous paragraph just defined State to include D.C., Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, in the definition of United States they feel a need to say that TWICE, throwing in the additional confusion of "geographical sense" which is only there to further confuse you so you'll think this finally must be the real definition of the United States. In this definition they added States to the list of D.C., Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa -- only they just redefined States as D.C., Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. It is like saying The Unites States means D.C., Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, D.C., Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.
Another good one is the definition of "person." We think a "person" is a human being and is synonymous with people. However that is unfortunately not true. It is another case where the legal definition is different from the conversational meaning in a way intended to confuse the people. You are not a person! If you are you may well be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, even if you don't live in a federal territory. Legally, "person" refers to a legal identity assigned to you (such as a social security number), not who you are as a human being. That is why a corporation or a car can legally be a person these days. It is also a term often redefined in statutes to make it look like it "includes" you when it doesn't.
USC Title 1, Chapter 1, ¶1:
"The words person ... include(s) corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."
Remember, includes means it is an exclusive list. You don't see any people mentioned here. But wait - what about "individuals?" Surely that means people? Nope. Now you have to look up the legal meaning of individual, as well as any definitions of "individual" within the title you are reading. In some statues individual is defined as a "resident of the United States," completing the circle! You get a lot of mail adressed to Resident, so it is a good idea to do some research on the legal meaning of the term "resident" before you open that mail and thus assent that this term applies to you!
In some cases the laws we are concerned about today that seem to be taking away more and more of our rights are not even "positive" or codified law, which means it is not really a law yet. and is referred to as "non positive" law. Positive law is defined as ""law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government. So if a law isn't yet codified or made positive, such as Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, then what is it? The answer is "prima facie" (on its face) evidence of the law, i.e, it treated as law unless proved that it is not law. According to the the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, certain titles of the [United States] Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+law)
Another issue is the relationship of Federal Regulations and statutes. These con men that have usurped our government often pass laws that are essentially not even enforceable and they deal with that by never creating the implementing regulations that make a law legally enforceable -- yet they use these laws to manipulate us. A statute without implementing regulations has no legal effect!
Finally, for now, there is:
- the legal concept that silence is an admission of acceptance and
- the related legal principle that if you do not aggressively defend your rights they are "deemed to have been waived" under law.
In other words, if you let them get away with it you have agreed to it, even if through ignorance. Remember, legally if we are ignorant it is not an excuse since it is our responsibility to educate ourselves about our rights if we actually want them. You must WANT to be free in order to be actually free! You do NOT get God-given natural rights merely because you exist, even though you are born with them, because if you don't care enough to learn about them and defend them you have essentially volunteered to give them up! They call that in law, "deemed to have been waived."
THAT is why education was so important that the first thing Socialists & Progressives did in the early 20th century is to begin infiltrating the schools and universities. The next thing they did, or close to it, was take control over some essential definitions. Remember, he who controls the definitions wins. That's why Orwell tried to warn us about "doublespeak" in his prophetic novel, 1984. In fact, doublespeak already exists throughout the U.S. Statutes. A statute commonly redefines words so that the legal meaning for the purposes of that statute is the exact opposite of how you and I use it in conversation every day! Is it an accident or a pattern of behavior that reveals the truth? Of course, control of definitions starts in the schools. That’s where they redefined socialism, a word that Americans never warmed up to, and called it democracy, something the masses could get behind. Then of course they redefined our system of government from a republic to a democracy! Now most Americans love democracies and aren't the least bit put out when we pass a healthcare bill that amounts basically to socializing medicine!
Speaking of medicine, the medical community also redefines words all the time to confuse you and get you to buy prescription drugs you don't need, For example, they routinely define imbalances caused by poor nutrition as "diseases," actually giving them cute proprietary names and creating highly profitable new drugs to treat the relatively minor symptoms of their new diseases with side effects generally worse than the symptoms they are repressing. Death has now been redefined, too! Some drugs routinely list death as a possible side effects! Personally, death is a little more than a side effect if you ask me!
So little by little over time most Americans have volunteered to be citizens of the Federal "United States" and have waived their natural rights, choosing to become wards of the state with no constitutional rights, now only getting rights granted to them by the civil authority they have surrendered to, called "civil rights." We have volunteered into Federal jurisdiction, where even the Constitution itself says it doesn't apply, We are now Federal citizens (small c) instead of State Citizens (large C), United States Persons (statutory definition), instead of We the People. We were willing to let someone else, anyone else, take responsibility for our lives so we wouldn't have to. Now the only right we have left is the one thing we still care about -- the right to shop ‘til you drop in the mall of your choice.
Twenty years ago I tried teaching people what was going on for a few years but it was like banging my head against the wall. I gave that up and decided it was more powerful to teach people to be healthier and more awake. When people eat healthier food, especially raw and organic food, they wake up they can see what is going on for themselves more clearly, which is a more powerful attack on the corrupt system than anything else I can do.
Today, things have gotten much worse, but fortunately the progressives/socialist in government now have overestimated their position and moved prematurely. They have gotten so arrogant they thought they could get away with almost anything, but they just may have made their biggest moves too soon. Most people were almost completely hypnotized but not quite, so now their insidious plan is starting to become obvious to anyone who cares enough to get out of their self-imposed darkness, turn on some lights and see. Thanks for throwing the light switch -- and for caring.
No comments:
Post a Comment