All posts by realitybloger

Unmasking The CAFR Scam In Every City, USA

As more and more cities, counties, districts, and states across America falsely declare their near- insolubility, bankruptcy warnings, fiscal deficits, and budgetary quandaries, I am left with the sinking feeling that “the people” just can’t wrap their heads around how to point out these misleading and downright fallacious claims made by their councils, mayors, and professional con-men in places of public trust.

And personally, I’m tired of watching…

So today I want to share with you a simple way to factually stand before your local or state political “leaders” and give indisputable proof that, when stating the “facts” about their own budget shortfalls, limited choices, and necessary raising of your hard-earned monies as taxation (revenue) to “balance the budget”, your own little criminal syndicate of elected mayors and council men and women are lying bold-faced to the entire citizenry through the act of subterfuge and omission.

This little factoid is uniform throughout the entirety of the financial structure of government, as reported in the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and required by Federal and State laws. It is always reported in the same fashion and under the same heading as all other governments (municipal corporations). The figures are not disputable. The truth is unshakable. And yet the doublespeak will never end… For even as you present this one simple line item to the scoundrels themselves behind their raised and protective pedestals, they will still attempt to deny what is undeniable, be it in ignorance or in deceit; usually a mix of both.

So, here it is… a tool for all people to easily use:

Step 1:

First of all, you must find your city/county/district/or state CAFR, which can sometimes be challenging in and of itself.

A search on your favorite search engine of “Your City” “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” “Year” will generally do the trick. You may need to add the state after the city, or you may need to go to your government’s website to find these CAFR’s. If they are not to be found online, then your government is required to hand over a hard-copy or digital copy to you upon request. It’s the law, folks!

Now that you have the CAFR in front of you, you are probably overwhelmed with all of the nonsensical figures, financial wizardry, and creative accounting that is presented in over 100 pages of a pure accounting nightmare.

But don’t worry, you can ignore all that. For our purposes, we are only concerned with one single page of this entire report. And this page is specifically listed in the index as the “STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS“. This page is generally in the first 10-30 pages of the CAFR report, and will always be listed in the index.

For the purposes of this lesson, here is an example CAFR from the City of Pacifica, Ca.I found this with a search parameter of “Pacifica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2011”, and clicked on the 5th link down which took me to the finance department of the “City Of Pacifica” website.

LINK –> http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/finance/cafrs/default.asp

Click on the “2011” link to open the CAFR .pdf, and go to the index.

Here you will see, as with all other CAFR reports, an entry for the “STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS“, listed under the FINANCIAL SECTION, and under “GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS”. This tells us to go to page 17 of this particular Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to find our “statement of net assets”.

That’s it! This is the hardest part of the whole process.

Now breathe… it’s all simple from here on in – and quite an eye-opener!!!

Step 2:

Now that we are on page 17 (or your own CAFR page listing the “STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS” graph), we see a page full of large figures.

Don’t worry… you don’t need to know these. They are irrelevant to our goal. Fortunately, we are only concerned with the three or four line items that prove the budget lie and omission of the CAFR facts.

What we see here is a statement of three financial columns.

1. “Assets”

2. “Liabilities”

3. (Total) Net Assets.

In basic accounting, we add up the “ASSETS” and then subtract the “LIABILITIES”, which gives us our balance called “NET ASSETS”.

But we must remember, there is nothing at all “basic” about government accounting. In fact, it is the most complicated structure of obfuscation I’ve ever encountered. Berny Madoff would even be proud…

Step 3:

Now that we are familiar with the layout of this graph, and since we already know that comprehending government accounting is like untangling a mile-long set of Christmas lights that have been kicked around by a kindergarten class that just drank 20 gallons of Coca-Cola, we can fortunately find the few line items we actually need quite easily here.

Now, under the ASSETS column, we see that TOTAL ASSETS are listed as:

———————————————————

Governmental Activities: $103,806,744

Business-Type Activities: $57,517,150

Totals: $161,323,894

———————————————————

***Note: “Business-Type Activities” may also be listed as “Non-Governmental Activities” or similar language. This represents government acting in the capacity of a corporation offering a “service” to the people, but not as “taxpayers”. Instead, this is a business that earns money, and the taxpayers are instead “customers” of government. In this way, government wears two hats. Often, as in Utah with its self-proclaimed “Alcohol Monopoly” – were government controls and profits as the only legal seller of high content alcoholic beverages – or in the case of “State Lotteries” run solely by State Governments as a monopoly, the government is acting as any for-profit corporation might, and taxpayers voluntarily purchase this service and products from government as “customers”. Thus, these types of governmental activities are considered “non-governmental” or in Pacifica’s case “Business-type Activities”. For our purposes, this is certainly important to understand but not necessary to our stated goal. It is simply a way to transfer money out of the taxpayer base and into the business-base of revenues, leaving the taxpayer budget short.

Under the Liabilities column, we see TOTAL LIABILITIES listed as:

———————————————————

Governmental Activities: $45,403,706

Business-Type Activities: $37,792,153

Totals: $83,195,859

———————————————————

We will come back to these figures in a moment, as the big lie is within this LIABILITIES section.

Finally, our TOTAL NET ASSETS are listed as:

———————————————————

Governmental Activities: $58,403,038

Business-Type Activities: $19,724,997

Totals: $78,128,035

———————————————————

Assets minus liabilities equals total assets. But we must now expose the fraud written into these so-called liabilities…

Step 4:

Now, since I have written extensively on what all of these facts and figures mean within the full report of the CAFR, we will not be reading between the lines today. Again, we need not understand the whole financial report to understand the crime of omission happening in every government across America (and the world for that matter). All we need to know is this one method of “creative accounting”, and with it we have more ammunition than we could possibly need to call foul on our elected holders of public trust. So for now, don’t worry about all this other red tape. If you want to learn more about all of this, you can scour my articles or watch my movies for explanations of this CAFR information. Again, we need not get sidetracked with anything but these few line items that prove massive fraud on a national level.

Listed here are the ways in which these “totals” are restricted, invested, and unrestricted. But again, this information is irrelevant to our goal, for it is based on the lie we are about to expose. Without the continuity of the big lie, these “restrictions” mean nothing.

In order to understand this lie, we must now go back to the LIABILITIES section.

Remember, we only need to read this one graph called “STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS”. Nothing else matters for our purposes of establishing basic fraud through omission and obfuscation. So for now, ignore the rest of the CAFR.

Under the LIABILITIES section, we see a line item titled “NONCURRENT LIABILITIES”.

In our Pacifica City Corporation CAFR, these are listed as follows:

Due Within One Year:

Governmental Activities: $4,283,958

Business-Type Activities: $2,458,072

Totals: $6,742,030

Due In More Than One Year:

Governmental Activities: $38,527,849

Business-Type Activities: $34,108,234

Totals: $72,636,083

And there it is… Perhaps you still don’t see it, and that’s OK. For most people have hope and faith that government has integrity and honesty even within its own required Federal and State accounting principals. Perhaps you have even heard your mayor, council members, and even your governor talk about their “intent” to do right by the people? But in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. For intent means nothing until it is written down on a paper, signed, notarized, and filed as a legally binding contract. Only then can the true intent of politicians be guaranteed. And only then can the law be broken – for a broken promise of ones good intentions is not against the law!

So what just happened here that is so darn eye-opening, as I claim?

Glad you asked…

For it can easily slip past your cognition if you aren’t ultra aware of what you are reading. In this case, the City of Pacifica has just listed its current assets and compared those assets to its future liabilities.

Why is this significant?

Well, imagine if you were reporting your own assets and liabilities to the IRS after it informed you that it required this information for an audit. And let’s say you wanted to play a creative accounting trick on the IRS to hide your real current asset holdings. While this little trick would actually be illegal for you to do, in government it’s perfectly OK and legal, and even promoted in standards of practice. After all, government wont punish itself for its own lies – for the lie is the basic foundation of government accounting as recommended by itself!!!

So when Agent Smith comes a knocking at your door and asks you for your STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS, you give him your list that you made, which includes the same creative accounting methods used by government. On your list you itemize all of your assets, including your home, your car, your equipment, and any other property you might own. You then list your bank checking and savings accounts and any liquid investments you have in your investment portfolio, just like government does. And once you’ve listed everything you can possibly account for as one of your assets that you have right now at this very moment in time, you then begin to list your liabilities.

And here is where the creative part comes in – the act of obfuscation and trickery to fool IRS Agent Smith into believing that you have more liabilities that effect your asset balance than you actually do. Here’s how that works…

Firstly, you list depreciation of your property values if indeed the market or blue-book values have decreased over the last fiscal year. But this is another accounting trick we will ignore for now.

Second, you may account for assets that are “receivable” in the short term – say within one months time or so – in the form of payments, interest or capital gains, refunds due, rent due, etc. These short-term “future” assets can be considered “current” assets for the purposes of reporting total assets to government.

And finally you report your current liabilities that may affect your total stated list of assets. This may include “future” short-term loan payments, interest accrued within the next few weeks or in a fiscal month or quarter, capital losses, depreciation, and other forms of liabilities and/or write-offs.

At this point, you have now listed your CURRENT ASSETS and your CURRENT LIABILITIES to the best of your ability and integrity by law. And even though this figure includes some very short-term assets and liabilities, your report to the IRS is really an honest and to the best of your knowledge perfect representation of your CURRENT financial position. You have not omitted anything, and you have not purposefully attempted to hide your wealth from the IRS.

For this you get a gold star and a pat on the back for being such a good little debtor, filling governments bags with the proper amount of revenue in the form of taxation (extortion).

But government doesn’t do this, you see.

Because government is not reporting to the IRS as a taxpayer.

Government is the tax collector.

And government is a profitable business.

So how does government hide its wealth from the people?

The same way that you would hide your wealth from government… that is, if it was legal – like it is for government to hide its wealth from you.

If you were to follow the creative generally accepted financial accounting practices (GAAP) of government in your own financial accounting list, here is what you would have actually given to the IRS:

Step 1: Do exactly what you did as listed above, stating an honest and perfect representation of your CURRENT cash, property, and investment holdings, taking CURRENT liabilities away from that total.

Step 2 (Creative accounting): While reporting CURRENT ASSETS, hide the true value of today’s assets by subtracting your FUTURE LIABILITIES of tomorrow from your ASSET totals today.

That’s it! You’ve just hidden most or all of your current wealth and assets. You’ve successfully fooled the IRS into actually believing that despite your actual money, property, and investment totals that can be seen clearly listed on your report, you have somehow made that money, that property, and those investments magically disappear from your balance sheet and claim to not actually have that money, property, and investment capital in your accounts today!

Wait a minute!

Did we miss something?

How exactly did this happen?

Just how can I make my current assets magically disappear by listing my future liabilities?

The answer: Exactly like government does!

Here’s what you did…

Let’s say your home is worth $500,000 and your two cars are worth a combined total of $100,000. Not bad man! Your doing pretty good I’d say. Better than most now-a-days, right?

Oh, but wait a minute. We can’t forget that these little property assets called “capital assets” didn’t come for free. It turns out you are not so different than the majority of people out there, and you have bank loans which hold as collateral your “capital assets”. In other words, you’re up to your neck in DEBT!!!

Debt is a future liability.

And so with a total property value of $600,000 in current capital assets (the total current value of your home and cars as of today that you are reporting to the IRS), we see that unfortunately you also have a debt in the form of loan totals plus interest of about $400,000 that you must pay over the next 20 years. Suddenly wealth takes on a whole different meaning, and your debt is certainly a future liability – which means that the total asset value for your “property” as capital assets in the form of “equity” is only about $200,000 today when this debt is considered. Remember, this is the CURRENT ASSET VALUE for this day, which for your purposes is the end of your fiscal year as reported to the IRS.

For Pacifica, California, its fiscal year always ends by law on June 30 of every year. And this report was published for the dates spanning from July 1st, 2010 – to – June 30, 2011.

So you report that your assets are worth $600,000, and you report that your cash and investments are at $100,000 total.

In the end, when your future payments and interest are taken into consideration, you report the following to the IRS:

Property value: $600,000

Cash and investments: -$300,000

What?

How can you report a loss and negative balance on current cash and investments of –$300,000 if you have +$100,000 in the bank and in liquid investments?

This is how government financial reporting works, friends. All you’ve done is to create a false paradigm that utilizes the payments and interest payments of your future debt repayment amortization, including interest that hasn’t even been charged yet upon your balance principle in the future, and applied that negative liability to your current balance of assets.

But in order for this to work, you must not take into consideration your future income, investment returns, and other forms of revenue that will come into your total asset balances in the future. In other words, you report your future liabilities and ignore the future assets that will ultimately pay for those liabilities.

If you were really devious, you could then file bankruptcy and get those future debts eliminated from your record while retaining your current assets and equities.

Welcome to government creative CAFR and budget accounting!!!

–=–

Now, back to the City Of Pacifica Municipal Corporation CAFR…

Again, our liabilities are listed as:

Due Within One Year:

Governmental Activities: $4,283,958

Business-Type Activities: $2,458,072

Totals: $6,742,030

Due In More Than One Year:

Governmental Activities: $38,527,849

Business-Type Activities: $34,108,234

Totals: $72,636,083

To be fair, we will treat the listed liabilities that are “due within one year” as a legitimate line item, and to cover any type of short-term future assets that this government corporation might have actually reported.

And so, we have a total left over in the “due in more than one year” category of $72,636,083.

When we look at the line items in the “Assets” section, we see no reporting mechanism for the declaration of future assets due in more than one year”. The “long-term pre-paid pension asset” is an investment into the pension system, and not a future asset in the form of revenue. Thus, we have no hint or clue of a reporting on how much this City will collect in future revenue or what will be collected via taxation or business income, which would obviously be what pays for the future debt liability payments that are reported here.

In other words, the City corporation just used FUTURE liabilities to hide its CURRENT assets.

If the fact that future assets to be collected as revenue were reported in this graph, the $72,636,083 that is reported as a liability effecting the current asset balance would be cancelled out into a zero balance. All future liabilities would be accounted for with all future assets.

But this is not the case.

If this true accounting were to be stated here in the Statement of Net Assets, then the Total Net Assets would change from this:

Governmental Activities: $58,403,038

Business-Type Activities: $19,724,997

Totals: $78,128,035

To this:

Governmental Activities: $58,403,038 + $38,527,849

Business-Type Activities: $19,724,997 + $34,108,234

Totals: $78,128,035 + $72,636,083

This gives the municipal corporation of Pacifica, California a sudden increase in its actual CURRENT ASSETS to a total of $150,764,116, almost double what it actually reports within its Statment of Net Assets.

And there you have it – creative accounting at its finest. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the financial scam being perpetrated over you in every city, district, county, and state, USA.

And this can be used by anyone to call out your council, mayor, and any other financial planners that try and bullshit you into believing that your government has no money. And this is only the tip of the iceberg…

Remember, this in no way represents the total gross wealth of your government, but only shows one single method amongst many methods to legally cover up the true financial situation of your government entity. This can also be applied to other balances listed in the CAFR, including the “Statements Fund Balances” and within Pension Fund CAFR schemes.

–=–

Finally, to test this instruction sheet for accuracy and to prove my claims herein, lets randomly select a few other CAFR’s from governments around the country…

I just sat for a moment and thought of what should be the only City in America that may be an exception to this rule, a government that actually may be in dyer financial trouble. And the name Detroit came to mind…

Here is a link to the City Of Detroit municipal corporation (incorporated 1806) CAFR for fiscal year 2011 on the Detroit City Government website:

LINK–> http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/finance/CAFR/2011%20Detroit%20CAFR%20Final.pdf

Detroit lists its Statement of Net Assets on page 37 of this CAFR. And this City lists the following Net Assets:

Total Assets (and Deferred Outflows): $10,030,113,247

Total Liabilities: $10,059,121,604

Total Net Assets (Deficit): ($29,008,357)

So here the City of Detroit is reporting that after all CURRENT ASSETS and LIABILITIES are considered, the City is running a deficit of over $29 million dollars.

But what happens when we look closer at the liabilities section line items and apply the “creative accounting” lesson we just learned?

Amazing things, folks. Amazing things happen…

Listed as “LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS” here, Detroit lists the following under its “TOTAL LIABILITIES” section:

Due Within One Year: $313,944,768

Due In More Than One Year: $8,366,493,713

It also lists certain liabilities in the form of toxic debt instruments as:

Derivative Instruments – Swap Liability: $612,067,105

Now, though we wont include this in our total, the fact that your government is even in the investment schemes of derivatives trading, including toxic mortgage backed securities, should be enough to storm the gates and handcuff your political leaders. But we’ll save that discussion for another time, even as your governments collectively invest in this type of securities crap!

So again, if we simply consider that the future liabilities (due in more than one year) of the City OF Detroit will be paid with future assets collected by City Of Detroit from its taxpayers and customers (totals include “Governmental” and “Business-Type Activities”), then the City government of Detroit actually has CURRENT assets which should be listed like this:

Total Current Assets (and Deferred Outflows): $10,030,113,247

Total Current Liabilities: $1,692,627,891

Total Current Net Assets: $8,337,485,356

So the City Of Detroit is covering up more than $8 billion dollars in CURRENT assets by its creative accounting of future assets due more than a year away that will be paid for by future assets that are creatively not reported in its own audited CAFR. If I was a resident of Detroit, I’d say it was time to hold certain lying councilmen and the mayor accountable to the people. And in gangland Detroit, the word accountable would and should be a very frightening thought to those crooked political figures in power over the trust of the people!

The lies know no end in government accounting standards and practices…

–=–

Ok, how about one of the largest Cities and Counties in the nation, Los Angeles.

By some accounts, L.A. is one of the largest 20 economies in the world. So let’s see what just the City proper and the separate County proper is holding within its CAFR as CURRENT Net Assets.

Here is the link to the 2011 City CAFR for City Of Los Angeles: http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/ElectedOfficials/@CTR_Contributor/documents/Contributor_Web_Content/LACITYP_019904.pdf

And here is the link for County Of Los Angeles: http://file.lacounty.gov/lac/cms1_141548.pdf

Starting with the City, the Statement of Net Assets lists:

Total Assets: $48,314,850,000

Total Liabilities: $27,828,798,000

Total Net Assets: $20,486,052,000

But again, in the LIABILITIES section, is listed “NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES”:

Due In More Than One Year: $23,808,794,000

And so the actual CURRENT NET ASSETS total for Los Angeles City government is in fact $44,294,846,000.

–=–

And now the County of Los Angeles:

Total Asset: $26,447,190,000

Total Liabilities: $10,317,696,000

Total Net Assets: $16,129,494,000

But again, in the LIABILITIES section, is listed “NON_CURRENT LIABILITIES”:

Due In More Than One Year: $7,224,245,000

And so the actual CURRENT NET ASSETS total for Los Angeles County government is in fact $23,353,739,000.

And so in just these two governments within Los Angeles, we have quickly and easily uncovered over $31 billion in hidden assets. With this simple technique, you and your friends can show anyone out there how government is lying to the people through omission of accounting facts. This is organized crime, indeed…

–=–

Here is a random School District called Minnetonka, in Minnesota, showing this scam in even the smallest of districts and cities:

LINK–> http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/administration/Budget/Documents/District_Audit.pdf

On page 33 is the Statement Of Net Assets:

Total Asset: $161,323,894

Total Liabilities: $83,195,859

Total Net Assets: $78,128,035

And when we realize that most of these liabilities are what are called “NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES” on this report, we see that of these listed liabilities:

$72,636,083 is listed as “Due In More Than One Year”

This nearly doubles the actual CURRENT ASSETS to a total of $150,764,118.

Yet another example of the endless sea of lies and obfuscation that has for generations been pulled over the eyes of the public.

–=–

I hope that this information will be of use to your future endeavors in trying to understand the actual financial position of your local or state government. I’d say its time to get up and go to a council meeting near you. Any one will do… all you need is a few minutes to find and add up these figures, and you are good to go create a firestorm of citizen outrage that needs to be spread through the actions of people like you.

As a homework assignment, why not pull up your own City CAFR and amaze friends and family with your new magic trick. Before today, only the Federal Reserve could pull millions or billions of dollars out of its butt! And while your at it, please leave a comment below about what you have found. Include the amount in millions or billions hidden under future liabilities, and also the link to your CAFR so that others may enjoy. Please pass this on and let’s see how many we can post here. That would be great!!!

Be well, and stop playing the fool!!!

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, February 27, 2013

86 Comments

by realitybloger on February 27, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Government Wealth

Posted by realitybloger on February 27, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/27/unmasking-the-cafr-scam-in-every-city-usa/

Social Media – The Simulation Of Action

Ironically, on this journey of learning and deep comprehension, the hardest lessons to learn are that the teachers are barriers to learning.

The alternative radio is an outpouring of sophistry mixed with overinflated egos that will not deflate no matter how sharp the pin-prick. The alternative news share quotes that aren’t real, as if all evil men hell-bent upon taking over the world have some insatiable desire to monologue their plans within books and speeches. Speculation has become science, and half-truth has become the spoken word. And in the place of reality has been created the simulation of reality – the “meme”.

But it is our magnetic attraction to like-minded people that really describes our addiction to social media. Be it for dating, information, conversations with friends we’ve never actually met or seen, or for simply spying with permission through Twitter and Facebook, the social media has if nothing else created a dangerous disposition for all good people.

A meme is “an idea or element of social behavior passed on through generations in a culture, especially by imitation” (World English Dict). And with the advent of the social media, including Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Email, Forums, Internet Radio, Internet TV and Youtube, and all of the other interconnected social forms of communications out there, the process of “waking up” that is so often espoused by all of us egotistical “truthers”, “patriots”, “Warriers for Truth”, “Info-warriers”, “Birthers”, and other descriptive falsities are in fact just memes – a flock of parrots parroting over the truth.

I have even heard various definitions of the word “truth” from meme-land, going so far as to say that “the truth is what you make it”. But of course, this meme is also parroted, bringing in the “New Agers”, the “Energy” and “Light” bringers, the religious cults, and the mystics.

But the word truth is one of the few words in both the English and Legal dictionaries that doesn’t alter or change.

TRUTH. The actual state of things. 2. In contracts, the parties are bound to toll the truth in their dealings, and a deviation from it will generally avoid the contract; and even concealment, or suppressio veri, will be considered fraudulent in the contract of insurance. 3. In giving his testimony, a witness is required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; for the object in the examination of matters of fact, is to ascertain truth.

Imagine if when asked to tell the truth “so help you God” in a court of law, you asked for the definition of the word “truth”… you would not, unless you were really clever! And yet out here in meme-land the truth is relative to the ideas being discussed, and apparently the spoken word of alternative shock-jocks is the word of truth, listened to by “truthers”, and parroted to others creating the meme of truth without fact. Fallacy has become truth, because fallacy is an unfamiliar concept.

The sheep on my farm are white; therefore all other sheep must also be white.

So let me tell you now what I have come to realize as the actual state of things…

The social media, from email to government’s political discussion boards to radio and television to SYPE, Facebook, and Twitter, has ruined the people. Social media has created a simulation of reality, where even the most vicious of crimes go unpunished, children are raped and abused, innocent men go to jail without harming another soul, and where the most corrupt are placed in power.

Social media’s greatest contribution to mankind is that it creates a helpless population who don’t understand why their tireless ranting, raving, and complaining doesn’t change the world. Of course, the answer to this is simple if only you stop and think about it for a moment… Here is the simple truth: Nothing will change in the real world if all of your intention and effort is being focused in the artificial simulation of the real world. Social media is the artificial world.

Let’s take just one of the many stories that are being passed around now within social forums:

“GUILTY! Final Verdict is Rendered in First Common Law Court Case against the Vatican and Canada for Genocide

Pope, Queen and Canadian Prime Minister found Guilty of Crimes against Humanity and Sentenced to Twenty Five Year Prison Terms –

Court Orders them to Surrender by March 4 or face Citizens’ Arrests

Brussels:

Pope Benedict will go to jail for twenty five years for his role in Crimes against Humanity, and Vatican wealth and property is to be seized, according to today’s historic verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice.”

The Brussels-based Court handed down a unanimous guilty verdict from its Citizen Jurors and ordered the citizens’ arrest of thirty Defendants commencing March 4 in a Court Order issued to them today.”

All of these memes about arresting the queen, the prime minister, the Pope, or for that matter any social media news about actions taken are nothing but whimsical imaginary things, promoted in the artificial construct of the social media… these are all simulations of reality that never see fruition, because these things are played out in the fictional world of the social media.

In this heavily promoted “non-violent” and “peaceful” resistance society, we the people who sit on these people’s grand juries don’t seem to realize that the only way to make their decision have authority under law is to violently and non-peaceably carry out the verdict of that decision, break into the Queen’s castle and the Pope’s Vatican City, and forcibly remove these people to answer for their crimes. Sorry folks, that’s what law is. Either do it all the way, or enjoy your servitude.

As if the queens court system would allow the queen to be arrested under it… LOL!

It’s like living in a fantasy world, and each new idea creates a new twist to the plot that never has any actual ending, because the social media stops people from actually BEHEADING the queen or the Pope or the presidents and instead keeps us in a dream state of socially interconnected nonsense! Welcome to your self-created and perpetuated Matrix – Facebook, Infowars, Youtube, and now SKYPE – the fantasy world of social media ideas that never create action.

I mean, I would think that your collective asses would be getting tired from sitting around all day writing fiction, memes, and virtually endless novels and court filings about what you would do to save the world if only you had the nerve to detach your asses from your chairs? Social media is the great in-activator, and is really just a birds eye view and historical wikipedia of our transition into total tyranny and slavery. That is why social media was invented and so well funded by governments and corporations – not to connect the people to the world but to disconnect the people of our country by making them interconnected in their minds. This is the Matrix, its just instead called SKYPE. Meanwhile our wealth, productivity, land, property, and illusions of freedom and sovereignty are being sucked out of us like a bunch of parroting batteries that do nothing to conserve our own power but to swquack on websites and forums without actually doing anything.

This realization, it seems, is the true state of “waking up”.

This realization is, unfortunately, the dark truth of our generations. And our future ones will be interconnected in ways we can barely imagine, until the real world is but an inconvenient disposition of the actual truth.

What’s even more disturbing is that we do all of this social media activity within a government and DARPA-funded mega-corporate structure, which provides us with the free or inexpensive technology, storage space, and forums for which to conduct our collective simulation. We have come to rely on this structure as if it were our own, which it is not. My WordPress site will only be here as long as government or WordPress allows it to be part of this Matrix, at which point my digital footprint into the hearts and minds of men in this artificial construct called the Internet will be permanently disappeared.

Our Matrix of social memes relies entirely on government’s opinion on whether that social media is accomplishing its goals – to keep the anger of the general population directed not at the real problems and the real people creating them, but instead to the artificial construct of forums, email blasts, radio shows, and other media that deflect any real change that might happen in the real world. We are literally sitting around throwing virtual darts at digital pictures of politicians and the elite. And that is the true goal of allowing social media to advance.

If we are all watching TV or Youtube, listening to radio or other opinions about the simulated real world, then who is left to actually watch and take care of and act against tyranny in the real world?

In my humble opinion, the social media interconnectedness we see coming to fruition today is the end of the first step of a long and incremental process towards the implementation of the trans-humanist agenda. When you understand why this is so, you will understand what unplugging from the Matrix (self-induced mental slavery) really means.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 26, 2013

11 Comments

by realitybloger on February 26, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in Memes, Social Media, STRAWMAN, Transhumanism

Tagged clint richardson realitybloger, does facebook sell my personal information, Government Wealth, how to facebook, how to twitter, is facebook personal info secure, list of fallacies, meme, pope arrested, queen arrested guilty, reality blog, social media facebook, social memes gnostic, the corporation nation, tweet on myspace, what is a meme, What is the matrix

Posted by realitybloger on February 26, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/26/social-media-the-simulation-of-action/

Original 13th Amendment Shown In Triplicate

For those who have had doubts about the enactment of the original 13th amendment to the constitution, these two fellas have done their due diligence to prove in the several states that it was in existence more that 30 years after it was indeed ratified to the constitution.

This “missing” and “replaced” amendment stated:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

Learn more here: http://www.amendment-13.org/

And see the journal of the Senate which ratified this amendment, here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=004/llsj004.db&recNum=490&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj004446%29%29%230040392&linkText=1

Please watch the video below, and start asking your honourable “knighted” public officials what happened to this amendment during the “reconstruction” era of the United States of America?

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, February 22, 2013

16 Comments

by realitybloger on February 22, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in 13th Amendment, constitution, Original 13th Amendment

Tagged civil war reconstruction amendments, constitution of the united states of america, george bush knighted by queen elizabeth, honor unconstitutional, knighted us citizens, Original 13th Amendment, reconstruction act, title of honour, us polititions with titles of nobility, what happened to the 13th amendment

Posted by realitybloger on February 22, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/22/original-13th-amendment-shown-in-triplicate/

The Prion Chronicles: Prions And ALS

A few months ago, I documented a speculative and fact-based op-ed that espoused my theory that most modern degenerative diseases referred to as “dementia” are at the very least partially caused by what are called prions – malformed or “folded” proteins that infectiously cause other proteins to fold and be rendered useless to the human body – causing disease states ranging from 50% of all cancers to AIDS as a protein “blood cancer” to mental disorders such as Alzheimer’s and ALS.

That research can be found here: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/xenotransplantation-creating-the-zombie-appocalypse/

It is my sincere belief that these infectious prions are being spread either inadvertently or purposefully throughout the human and animal population through the use of animal and human DNA and proteins found after the growing and manufacture process for vaccines – the use of human diploid (aborted fetal) cells and animal organs, blood, and parts as cell substrate growth mechanisms for the culturing of vaccines. Prions are the cause of Mad-Cow Disease, as well as equivalent disease states in humans showing protein (prion) misfolding.

While a guy like me will never be considered for a Nobel Prize for such speculation and endless compiling of other people’s research, I will be chronicling any information that comes my way regarding this dyer theory.

Case in point…

On September 20, 2011, the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute posted the following article:

Dr. Neil Cashman PrioNet Canada researchers in Vancouver confirm prion-like properties in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

September 20, 2011 – Vancouver, BC: A team of researchers from the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute have found a key link between prions and the neurodegenerative disease ALS ( Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. The discovery is significant as it opens the door to novel approaches to the treatment of ALS.

SOD-1 Dimer A pivotal paper published by the team this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), demonstrates that the SOD1 protein (superoxide dismutase 1), which has been shown to be implicated in the ALS disease process, exhibits prion-like properties. The researchers found that SOD1 participates in a process called template-directed misfolding. This term refers to the coercion of one protein by another protein to change shape and accumulate in large complexes in a fashion similar to the process underlying prion diseases.

These findings provide a molecular explanation for the progressive spread of ALS through the nervous system, and highlight the central role of the propagation of misfolded proteins in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases, including ALS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

“Our work has identified a specific molecular target, which when manipulated halts the conversion of the SOD1 protein to a misfolded, disease-causing form,” says Dr. Neil Cashman, Scientific Director of PrioNet Canada, Canada Research Chair in Neurodegeneration and Protein Misfolding at UBC, and academic director of the Vancouver Coastal Health ALS Centre. “This discovery is a first-step toward the development of targeted treatments that may stop progression of ALS.”

ALS is a progressive neuromuscular disease in which nerve cells die, resulting in paralysis and death. Approximately 2,500 to 3,000 Canadians currently live with this fatal disease, for which there is no effective treatment yet.

“For many years, ALS has remained a complex puzzle and we have found a key piece to help guide the research community to solutions,” says Dr. Leslie Grad, a co-first author of the project and current Manager of Scientific Programs at PrioNet Canada. “PrioNet is further exploring this discovery through newly-funded research projects.”

The work was completed by Dr. Neil Cashman’s lab at the Brain Research Centre based at the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, in collaboration with researchers at the University of Alberta. The research was supported by PrioNet Canada and in part by Amorfix Life Sciences and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

PrioNet Canada, based in Vancouver, has achieved international attention for scientific discoveries and risk management strategies directed at controlling prion diseases, and is now directing capacity into therapeutic solutions for prion-like diseases of aging, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS.

ABOUT:
One of Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence, PrioNet Canada (www.prionetcanada.ca) is developing strategies to help solve the food, health safety, and socioeconomic problems associated with prion diseases. The network brings together scientists, industry, and public sector partners through its multidisciplinary research projects, training programs, events, and commercialization activities. PrioNet is hosted by the University of British Columbia and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute in Vancouver.

The University of British Columbia (UBC) is one of North America’s largest public research and teaching institutions, and one of only two Canadian institutions consistently ranked among the world’s 40 best universities. UBC is a place that inspires bold, new ways of thinking that have helped make it a national leader in areas as diverse as community service learning, sustainability and research commercialization. UBC offers more than 50,000 students a range of innovative programs and attracts $550 million per year in research funding from government, non-profit organizations and industry through 7,000 grants.

Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (VCHRI) (www.vchri.ca) is the research body of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, which includes BC’s largest academic and teaching health sciences centres: VGH, UBC Hospital, and GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre. In academic partnership with the University of British Columbia, VCHRI brings innovation and discovery to patient care, advancing healthier lives in healthy communities across British Columbia, Canada, and beyond.

The Brain Research Centre (BRC) (www.brain.ubc.ca) comprises more than 200 investigators with multidisciplinary expertise in neuroscience research ranging from the test tube, to the bedside, to industrial spin-offs. The centre is a partnership of UBC and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute.

Media information or to set up interviews:

Gail Bergman, Gail Bergman PR
Tel: (905) 886-1340 or (905) 886-3345
E-mail: info@gailbergmanpr.com

BACKGROUNDER – ALS as a “prion-like” disease

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS):

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig ‘s disease in the United States and motor neurone disease (MND) in Europe, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease caused by deterioration of motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Individuals living with the disease experience progressive paralysis, as well as difficulty breathing or swallowing. At this time, no cure or effective treatment exists.

According to the ALS Society of Canada: ALS is the most common cause of neurological death Every day two or three Canadians die of ALS Eighty per cent of people with ALS die within two to five years of diagnosis; ten per cent of those affected may live for 10 years or longer Approximately 2,500 – 3,000 Canadians currently live with this fatal disease The World Health Organization predicts that neurodegenerative diseases will surpass cancer as the second leading cause of death in Canada by 2040

BACKGROUND:

Recent research highlights links between the biological mechanisms of common neurological disorders, such as ALS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease with prion disease. While each of these diseases manifests itself in a different way, the hallmark of each is a progressive accumulation of misfolded protein aggregates in the central nervous system.

Correctly-folded proteins adopt one particular structure in order to carry out their intended function. A protein’s failure to adopt this correct structure is what threatens the health of cells. Prions are “misfolded” proteins – the infectious, aggregating agents in diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in humans, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as “mad cow” disease in cattle. In ALS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, the misfolded proteins are SOD1, amyloid-B and a-synuclein, respectively.

Key Finding:

“Intermolecular transmission of SOD-1 misfolding in living cells” – Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), September 2011. The paper shows that superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) participates in template-directed misfolding, in other words, the coercion of one protein by another protein to change shape and aggregate such as prion diseases do. The results will be significant to the ALS field because it connects prion mechanisms behind the biological progression of ALS, and provides a molecular explanation for the linear and temporal spread of ALS through the nervous system. Furthermore, the research has identified a specific molecular target, which when manipulated, halts the conversion of SOD1 to a misfolded, disease-causing form. This is a first-step towards the development of targeted treatments that may stop ALS, which PrioNet is further exploiting through newly-funded research. This research was supported by PrioNet Canada and in part by Amorfix Life Sciences and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Other Research:

Studies showing how “seed” misfolded protein induce aggregation of other protein, which provide evidence for prion-like spread: Lary Walker’s group at Emory University in Atlanta, in collaboration with Matthias Jucker and others at the Universities of Tübingen in Germany and Basel in Switzerland, discovered that aggregates of amyloid-β protein from the brain of people with Alzheimer’s disease could be transmitted to the brain of healthy mice. Another study by Patrik Brundin’s group in Sweden demonstrated that healthy tissue surgically implanted into the brain of people with Parkinson’s disease acquired the aggregates of α-synuclein protein characteristic of the disease. Eliezer Masliah of the University of California San Diego and others discovered that aggregates of a-synuclein can travel from cell to cell, forming the aggregates in human neurons that are characteristic of Parkinson’s disease and certain types of dementia. Anne Bertolotti from the University of Cambridge discovered that neuronal cells spontaneously and efficiently take up misfolded mutant SOD1 from their environment. The internalized mutant SOD1 triggers a change in shape of the normally soluble mutant SOD1 protein, which causes its aggregation, and is then transferred to neighbouring cells in a prion-like fashion.

(Article Source: http://www.vchri.ca/feature-stories/articles/2011/09/20/researchers-discovery-may-revolutionize-treatment-als)

–=–

Folks, you will not hear of this on the nightly news, and the doctors and nurses I’ve talked to have never even heard of a “prion”. But you can bet that they have heard of Merck, Astrazeneca, Sanofi Aventis, and Glaxo-Smithkline, because they get paid to sell their pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

The most logical and easiest to explain transmissible quality of prions is by far the vaccinations received by humans and animals, which again have been admitted by the vaccine manufacturers to contain DNA and proteins too small and numerous to filter out of the final vaccine product. Thus, we have over 100 million Americans and billions worldwide receiving a direct bodily injection of human and foreign animal proteins through vaccination. This is not a conspiracy theory, but fact – and this consideration of possible prion infection and transmission through vaccination is very likely just one of many dangers already known to the vaccine industry, but ignored due to the profit potential of vaccines. And since the direct blood-to-blood and blood-to-intramuscular transmission of prions in general is only possible under surgery conditions, the only logical transmission agents that would cause such wide-spread prion-based disease states and neuro-degenerative issues in both aging and prematurely young populations (early onset dementia) are the either the food supply and/or the vaccination process – which bypasses the stomach and digestive system’s natural defenses and disposal process.

Like the banking, automobile, and other corporate structures in America, the pharmaceutical industry that manufactures these vaccines may very well be considered “too big to fail” by government – and is certainly one of the most profitable. And these facts alone place a tremendous conflict of interest in seeing justice done by way of recognizing, prosecuting, and suing this industry as being the cause of this wide-spread dementia outbreak among humans – the end result being this industry’s and its shareholders inevitable financial ruin.

I alone cannot force an investigation to take place, and in its stead will be the same medical and pharmaceutical corporations creating drug “symptom-relievers” and “treatments” for the very prion-based diseases that they are now spreading, meaning profitable returns for these corporations and for government institutional investment funds – the main investor in these vaccine manufacture corporations.

I may not be recognized by future generations as the guy who yelled foul, but let this writing stand as a testament to the squashing of information that would literally cure the most profitable of diseases if only the people would participate in their collective quandary.

We stand upon a threshold of immense possibilities in the realm of curing most modern disease, including cancers and degenerative disease states. But without an outcry and outpouring from the people who have suffered by this debacle, nothing will ever be done to halt what I consider to be the greatest man-made plagues of our history. And the rates of suffering and profits will continue to rise, as this information will stay within the medical associations and corporations without publicity.

We are victims of our own ignorance and willful consent and compliance to the tyranny and oppression of deadly pseudo-science.

Be sure to check out the “PrioNet” website for valuable info on prions: http://www.prionetcanada.ca/

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, February 20, 2013

9 Comments

by realitybloger on February 20, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in ALS, Prion Disease, Vaccination, Xenotransplantation

Tagged ALS, Alzheimer's Disease resources, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, cause of Lou Gehrig's disease, Clint Richardson Lethal Injection, cure for als, disease causes, prion chronicles, prion disease, prion disease cause of als, reality blog, realitybloger, the corporation nation, vaccination side effects, vaccine, vaccine liberation army, what causes alzheimer's, what is dimentia, zombie appocolypse

Posted by realitybloger on February 20, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/20/the-prion-chronicles-prions-and-als/

Tyranny Requires Equality

Question: What is required for a set of uniform codes and regulations to apply to all the persons of the United States?

Answer: Uniformity of legal equality under the law. In other words, equal rights.

It is an ultra-common misconception amongst the subjected people of the United States in their thought that “rights” are always a good thing, and that “rights” are always somehow a protection against the erosion and encroachment of government and corporations (persons) into the people’s personal liberties. To be even more clear, the general thought is that rights are always in place to prevent things like crime, extortion, tyranny, foreclosure, unlawful searches and seizures, incarceration, and so on from happening to the people.

For instance, one might arrogantly say that they have the right to a “fair trial”. And yet not once does the consideration dawn upon men of good conscious that the trial itself is literally forced upon them by government. Thus, the “right” to a “fair” or “speedy” trial is in actuality a direct consequence of an oppressive government in the first place. In other words, the fact that the trial is forced upon a person is the actual “right”, and the ability to receive the qualities of “fair” and “speedy” in that trial are not the root of that right. In this way, we begin to understand that rights are not voluntary at all, and these governmental rights are indeed forced upon the people. The government sells this tyranny to the people by baiting us like snake oil salesman with positive sounding diatribe such as fair and speedy. This is like me offering you (forcing upon you) my services to get hit with a hammer upon your head, but the impact will be “quick” and “painless”. Your right, you see, is to get hit upon the head with a hammer, with the beneficial service of the impact of that hammer being quick and painless.

Or you might believe in the “right” to free speech and the ability to freely assemble. Yet hate speech laws proclaim your speech must be nice and politically correct. Some cities require you to get a permit for free speech and to protest or assemble peacefully – but only in small, roped off , designated areas. The police even tell you that “anything you say may be used against you” when they read you your “rights”. But how can this be your right? If you don’t have a choice about these rights, are they really rights?

The real question you must ask is: Can a right be violently forced upon you?

Today we are going to be talking about a concept that is very difficult to understand. In legal code, we find what is called positive law. But we often forget that where there is a positive there is usually also a negative – an opposite and equal reaction, if you will. Positive law and “positive rights” are put into place in purposeful and direct violation or opposition to natural law and “negative rights”. A right is either positive or negative, and never-ever in between. Positive laws are laws assigning temporary and are revokable governmental rights placed upon legal persons, which usually create a direct violation of a man’s natural rights under God – the natural laws outside of governmental code.

The difference between these two types of law or “rights” is paramount to understand.

The problem is that all legal codes are positive, including the very misunderstood U.S. constitution itself.

Let’s use as an example the constitutional (positive) right known as the “freedom of religion”. This is one of the most deceptive phrases in legal code (positive law) that I can imagine. For in order to comprehend what it is to have the “freedom of religion,” we must first have a legal definition of these two legal words. All terms and phrases in the legal language have very specific meanings, and are often quite opposite to what we generally think of as conversational words – the words generally defined in an English general language dictionary. The word “freedom” is perhaps the best example of a legal word used to fool the unwitting public. We must realize that there is a very good reason why the legal dictionary is completely separate from the regular English dictionary, and why general dictionary definitions specifically tell you when referring to the same legal definitions within. English and Legal are two completely different languages, no different than English and Chinese. And every word in government must be a legal one, for government only deals in the legal construct, in the legal language.

Would it surprise you to learn that government is acting constitutionally when it requires you to get a permit for exercising “free speech”? To understand why this is so, we must define the legal terms involved, and you must stop thinking of the constitution as anything other than a legal language document.

So what is “freedom”, and what is “speech”?

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

First, let’s get it into our heads what the word “freedom” means as used in this legal constitution.

While the natural or negative right to free participation in any religion is unalienable, the governmental or positive constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech is most certainly alienable. To understand this, we must understand the legal meaning of this legal term called freedom. In the Merriam Webster or any other normal English dictionary, you will see that the word freedom is defined in two distinctly different ways. Let’s take a look…

FREEDOM:

(1) The quality or state of being free: as

(a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

(b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence

(h) unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

FREEDOM:

(2) (a) A political right

(b) franchise, privilege

(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom)

And so we can see here that there are without a doubt two distinctly different definitions of the word freedom, and that the legal definition is indeed a political or “positive” right.

The truth about freedom is this…

There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be free to act as you will as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called “freedom”.

The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right – the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry legal “fire-arms” is certainly being challenged in government right now – as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its equal people as citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative, unalienable rights – the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually requires a lien on all people’s natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under government’s strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called “citizenship”, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called “civil rights” and/or “constitutional rights”. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it…

–=–

The Laws Of Attraction

–=–

So that we do not get confused here, let’s see just how one form of “right” is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an “officer of the court” is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship – never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):

Negative ……………………………………………………… Positive

Man …………………………………………………………….. Person

Free …………………………………………………………. Freedom

Free Man ………………………………………………………. Citizen

Natural ………………………………………………………. Political

Liberty ………………………………………………….. Entitlement

God-given ………………… Man-made (government granted)

Right (natural) …………………………… Privilege (revokable)

Right (natural) ……………………….. Duty (moral obligation)

Duty (responsibility, trust)…………. Contractual obligation

Responsibility ……………… Limited liability (incorporated)

Unalienable (inherent) ………… Alienable (not permanent)

De Jure ……………………………………………………… De Facto

Lawful …………………………………………………… Color of law

The words unalienable and inherent can be defined as essential and intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the idea that life is an unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and duty that men should not kill other men… or as it is more commonly known: “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animal’s natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey – thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe… The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.

The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.

And people think animals are dumb?

The difficult aspect here is to make people understand that as citizens they are not free, but are also livestock under the United States farm which grants the alienable privilege of “freedom”. Breaking through the “it’s a free country” paradox and fallacy of the American people seems to be the biggest challenge of our modern life and times.

Perhaps the most difficult of these opposite terms is the way in which a right creates an opposite duty. The individual natural right of “liberty” creates an opposite natural duty for all other individuals to respect the right of each others’ individual liberties. It would be the duty, for instance, for the people to use arms against government for violating their natural negative rights, no differently than if it was just a neighbor. For a natural right is something to be cherished and protected to the death. And it is a man’s duty to protect his own rights and that of others. It is a man’s duty to not interfere or trespass upon others rights – the duty to protect each others’ negative rights.

But when government offers political rights to citizens (artificial persons), the moral duty changes into a contractual obligation under legal law. The obligation of legal duty is no longer a choice, but rather a forced positive right – a right that forces you to conduct yourself in an activity that may be against your own interests or those of other individuals’ interests. The negative right requires only the opposite negative duty – a moral obligation to do no harm to others or yourself and to defend your negative rights with your life if necessary. But the contractual relationship of citizenship stifles negative rights (the right to not have your own rights trampled) so that positive rights are agreed to by the persons under contract. In other words, citizens agree to abandon their natural (negative) rights and accept under contract with government or corporations a replacement to their natural rights with the political (positive) rights offered by government, and accepted through contract by citizens. Thus, while in the natural realm government has no power over a man. But in the political realm government has total control over the person/citizen. For a positive law to be acceptable to natural men, that positive law must not be in violation of any negative right.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines a the word Duty:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. 2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. 3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind… 4. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites. 5. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

To live under natural law is to follow the laws of non-interference, responsibility of ones own actions, and honor to fulfill one’s moral obligations under promise and private contract.

On the contrary, the magnetic opposite of this natural law called duty is offered by government through contract, as a political or positive right:

DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things; in its more restrained sense, it is often used as equivalent to customs, (q. v.) or imposts. (q. v.) Vide, for the rate of duties payable on goods and merchandise…

When the services of government are forced upon the people, the people must pay duties (taxes) on those services whether they enjoy or require those services or not. The right to pay taxes is a positive right, and the right to be punished for not paying those taxes is also a positive right. Punishment is an artificial duty created upon the positive right to be taxed – extortion being the right granted by government to persons. You, as a citizen/person, have the positive right to be taxed without the negative right to say no. The imprisonment you may enjoy as punishment for not paying mandatory taxes is also your positive right and duty. And most importantly, the right to pay more and more taxes on more and more things and accept more and more government services with more and more duties, as well as the right to allow government to raise those taxes at its own whim, is also your positive right.

Again, a right is not voluntary in the positive legal realm. So unfortunately, tyranny through extortion is certainly your right if government says it is so, and creates the positive law declaring it as such.

Positive law is involuntary service at the barrel of a gun…

It is perhaps easiest to comprehend these two completely opposite kinds of “rights” by using an analogy of magnets. Most people have played with magnets in their lifetime, attempting to push together two equal magnets that are opposed to each other in their polarities. A positive and a negative are diametrically opposed to each other. The harder we push those magnets together, the harder it becomes to push them, until the negative magnet throws off the positive magnet with a protective shield. And so the only way to make those magnets stick to each other is to turn one magnet around so that the polarities are equal, allowing them to join together. When speaking of God’s law and natural rights (negative rights), our opposing magnet in this case is government code and legality (positive rights). In essence, we must turn our back on law and our natural rights in order to function within government and its legal law and codes. The natural law is magnetically opposed to the positive (legal) law, just as negative rights are magnetically opposed to positive rights.

The first thing to consider whenever attempting to discern the legal language is to remember that emotion must be left out of the equation; that morals and ethics happen in men, not in legal codes. The legal language is just words, with a specific meaning, and with no humanity or consideration of morals or ethics. A contract, for instance, is just an agreement as written in this legal language. It has no moral obligations in an of itself to do anything, but instead establishes the specific positive rights and counterpart duties that will be followed. The moral and ethical parts of the fulfillment of that contract happen outside of the contract, in the hearts, minds, and actions of the men who signed that contract. The contract itself is a bridge between the moral realm and the legal realm, allowing what would otherwise be a natural duty to become an enforceable positive right. For instance, the right to be paid in exchange for an already delivered service or thing as agreed to within a private contract is a positive right, enforceable by law if one party to that contract doesn’t fulfill. Multiply this by 1 million and you have a government contract with men to be citizens, and in exchange the men as citizens must accept the services of government’s legal codes as a forced legal duty to accept. This is also positive law, the difference being that the former contract between men is done in good faith, where no legal recourse is needed, while the contract of citizenship is done without understanding, intention, comprehension, or good faith. A contract steeped in fraud is not enforceable by law, unless the law has been replaced by the positive laws created by government that allow that fraud to be law. This is government.

Just remember that rights are a double-edged sword, which can be positive or negative. In defining what this means, the term positive should not be misconstrued to mean good, no more than the word negative should be misunderstood as a bad thing. They are legal terms, and so attaching an emotional meaning to these words will only lead to confusion.

–=–

Equality – Ladies Acting As Men

–=–

A woman reading this may have an emotional response and espouse that women may sign contracts too, so why only mention “men” here? The confusing answer to this question is that in law, women are men. This is not my opinion, it is just legal law. All people are part of mankind, regardless of sex. The legal language sees no sex and feels no emotion or obligation to appease the feminist or male perspective, unless specifically written into that code as an artificial construct. The word “men” simply refers to the species man, regardless of color, race, creed, or sex. In this way, the basic legal language itself is a higher language, not weighted down with petty intricacies and debates about whether women and men are equal, or whether all men are created equal. In actuality, the legal language has no ability in and of itself to make such a discernment, and is only concerned with defining the artificiality of mankind as “persons”. It is just a tool. Thus it does not recognize sex unless it is specifically told to, and then does so only in terms of a legal “status”. Legal code cannot be prejudiced, for it has no emotion or predisposition. A natural (real female) woman has equal rights with a natural man only if that natural woman has the legal status assigned to her as a legal fictional man called a legal “woman”. The legal term “Woman” is a status, not a natural state of a living being – not a living man (mankind). For legal does not recognize a natural living man or woman, only the artificial persons of these living people – which have no sex unless specifically defined that way in the code for legal separation purposes (rape, etc.). But this is no different legally than separating different species of ants for research and classification. There is no realization of feminism or masculinity in legal code, because a piece of paper has not the ability to make such distinctions or realizations. Paper has no emotions, any more than the legal words written on that paper. And so any sexual or other emotional or physical distinction between these two artificial persons is solely a construct of science and legal status, no different than distinguishing between garbage and recyclables. To the legal language, garbage and recyclables are the same thing – trash. Only when the legal codes are changed to recognize a certain type of trash as recyclable will a legal status be created allowing certain rights, restrictions, and benefits to be placed upon certain trash legally defined as “recyclables”. Though all garbage is created equal, certain garbage has a status. But that status can only be granted if all trash is first made equal under the legal law. Similarly, women have equal rights with men in law only because they take upon themselves the artificial person-hood status called “woman”, creating this status in positive law which states that persons shall be equally protected and punished under the law and shall have equal rights under the legal law known as “positive rights” but called “Equal Protection Under The Law”.

The reality for women is that their legal status is detrimental to their natural rights as men (mankind), and they become whatever the legal codes say they are as artificial constructs. Equal rights for “women” in law makes them no better or no worse than men, but instead makes them “equal” – removing any sexual differences unless specifically enumerated within that code and how it applies to that particular status of “woman” in opposite to men. Once this equality is established, then special positive rights can be assigned to the legal status of “women”. Thus, a “woman” can have unequal rights giving them special privileges over their supposed equal citizens of the male persuasion. The same goes for “African American” or other ethnicity’s – who are given a special status of “minority”, which then allows them to claim certain positive rights which trample all other citizen’s natural rights or lesser positive rights. In this way, it is the lesser status citizens who have inequality forced upon them, of which it is their contractual duty to accept that positive right and give up their right to sue for what would otherwise be blatant discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is an example of this. Protected rights of a certain status of citizens requires unfair and unequal treatment of all other citizens. Equality steals away the individualism of a human (regardless of sex, color, race, etc.) and makes everyone not special in any way. It peals away the sex, the color, the race, the religion, and the humanity of each individual living man and woman and places them all in one giant legal blender – a melting pot of unwarranted equality. The end result of this multicultural duel-sexed cornucopia of persons is called legal “U.S. citizens”, whom in the end are in no way equal under law due to the assigned legal status’ called entitlements. If one person is entitled to a positive right that other persons are not entitled to, then the negative right of liberty does not exist in that legal system.

This is not to say that the legal language doesn’t neutrally define these unique traits of mankind in a scientific and unemotional way, it is just to say that it treats them no different than any other legal concept (like the trash example), and its basis is not founded on anything but simply defining these terms without the hindrance of human emotional traits. In short, the legal language only deals with artificiality in the form of corporations, contracts, and persons (i.e. citizens). These citizens are artificial things, not living people. Thus, when defining legality, emotion and humanity really has no place, race becomes a legal weapon, and equality exists only when considering positive rights and punishment for not obeying the forced contractual obligation of legal codes.

Back in 1856, this was the definition of “Sex” in Bouvier’s and other dictionaries, which shows that “women” is a status:

SEX. The physical difference between male and female in animals. 2. In the human species (of animals) the male is called man, (q. v.) and the female, woman. (q. v.) Some human beings whose sexual organs are somewhat imperfect, have acquired the name of hermaphrodite. (q. v.) 3. In the civil state the sex creates a difference among individuals. Women cannot generally be elected or appointed to offices or service in public capa-cities. In this our law agrees with that of other nations. The civil law excluded women from all offices civil or public: Faemintae ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt. Dig. 50, 17, 2. The principal reason of this exclusion is to encourage that modesty which is natural to the female sex, and which renders them unqualified to mix and contend with men; the pretended weakness of the sex is not probably the true reason. Poth. Des Personnes, tit. Vide Gender; Male; Man; Women; Worthiest of blood.

A mature and thinking natural female human should be able to see that though this legal definition has changed over the years, the status is still the same. Legal persons called “women” have now been made to have equal status with legal persons called “men”. This is to say that the equality established in the legal code is completely artificial with respect to the hearts and minds of men. And though this status seems to benefit the female sex of mankind, you as a woman must remember that government defines you first as an “animal” here, and then assigns you a special status of woman-human-animal. So while you may certainly enjoy the positive rights bestowed upon you as “wo-man”, you must accept these positive rights with the knowledge that they create inequality among all natural men. In other words, equality in law is not true natural equality, but is an artificial status granted by a corrupt government that by definition tramples the negative rights of half of the population (male-human-animals). You, as a female of the species human, will only ever know true natural equality when men are not forced by law to treat you as such by positive law. As it is in legal code, men are forced to accept your legal equality, which in the end creates a resentment between sexes in the natural realm. This goes for creed, race, sex, and any other status that is “protected”. And in this way, citizens are forced to accept the most deviant and sinister of persons as equal, even when those persons act completely against the morals and values of others’ negative rights, and even as organizations of these persons legally extort from others. These persons are equal under punishment of legal law. Ironically, the struggle for equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups necessarily requires the unequal state of equality and status for certain individuals, but in no way creates equality among mankind.

If you are emotionally angry right now, then you are speaking a different language than the legal one, and your emotions are getting in the way of understanding your own enslavement.

As a woman, you are a legal fiction.

As a man, you are a beautiful creature of emotion, love, and flesh and blood.

Here is how these legal terms are defined in Bouvier’s Law Dict, 1856:

MAN. A human being. This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species, but women and children… 2. In a more confined sense, man means a person of the male sex; and sometimes it signifies a male of the human species above the age of puberty. Vide Rape. It was considered in the civil or Roman law, that although man and person are synonymous in grammar, they had a different acceptation in law; all persons were men, but all men, for example, slaves, were not persons, but things.

–=–

MANKIND. Persons of the male sex; but in a more general sense, it includes persons of both sexes; for example, the statute of 25 Hen. VIII., c. 6, makes it felony to commit, sodomy with mankind or beast. Females as well as males are included under the term mankind. See Gender.

–=–

GENDER. That which designates the sexes. 2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included… 3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included.

–=–

WOMEN, persons. In its most enlarged sense, this word signifies all the females of the human species; but in a more restricted sense, it means all such females who have arrived at the age of puberty. 2. Women are either single or married. 1. Single or unmarried women have all the civil rights of men; they may therefore enter into contracts or engagements; sue and be sued; be trustees or guardians, they may be witnesses, and may for that purpose attest all papers; but they are generally, not possessed of any political power; hence they cannot be elected representatives of the people, nor be appointed to the offices of judge, attorney at law, sheriff, constable, or any other office, unless expressly authorized by law; instances occur of their being appointed post-mistresses nor can they vote at any election. 3. The existence of a married woman being merged, by a fiction of law, in the being of her husband, she is rendered incapable, during the coverture, of entering into any contract, or of suing or being sued, except she be joined with her husband; and she labors under all the incapacities above mentioned, to which single women are subject.

In the modern definition, Webster’s English Dictionary defines the word woman not as a natural being, but as an artificial person. Most people will not realize what is being defined here:

WOMAN-

a : an adult female person

b : a woman (person) belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilwoman>

In the legal language, the term woman is never used in legal code to describe the natural state of a female, but only to issue a legal status.

However, the word female is used:

FEMALE. This term denotes the sex which bears young. 2. It is a general rule, that the young of female animals which belong to us, are ours, nam fetus ventrem sequitur. The rule is, in general, the same with regard to slaves; but when a female slave comes into a free state, even without the consent of her master, and is there delivered of a child, the latter is free.

If right now, while claiming to be a “woman”, you wish to call me sexist, a chauvinist, racist, or other false paradigm, you could be no further from the truth than I can possibly imagine – and you need to reread this section. In fact, I may be one of the few men in existence who actually recognize your natural/negative equality without the threat or need of being punished by the positive legal system if I don’t!!!

For those who can separate the legal and English languages with logic and reason, we can move on…

–=–

Love And Marriage

–=–

Love and hate are not considered in this legal language when speaking of the contract of legal marriage. Marriage is nothing but a contractual state of being between (as persons) the man, the woman, and the State. It is paper with legal words written on it, and signed by all parties involved. It has no emotion, ethics, morals, values, etc.

Children produced by this marriage contract are not treated as living breathing humans, because the legal language does not deal with living breathing humans. Rather, it treats children as artificial things that are State property – things which are disputed due to the avoidance or negation of a contract by the artificial persons contracted in that legal marriage. Children are no less fictitious persons than the persons who birthed them, when considering the legal nature of human animals.

Again, judging or discussing the legal language with emotion is foolish, since it has no emotion when it defines you. It does not understand love any more than that for which it may necessarily define love as a legal concept. Like an android, the legal language may sometimes simulate the emotions of living man, but will never actually feel them. And like an android with its humanoid appearing synthetic skin and outer shell, our own artificial persons may appear to be living men and women; but are in fact made up of nothing but the wires and circuitry of this legal language.

Love and marriage are distinctly different concepts. One is an emotion and one is a legal arrangement through contract. Love is for the most part incredibly outside of our control while marriage is a legal set of rules and regulations defining a state of contract controlled by government. Love is not in any way dependent upon the contract of marriage, nor is love required in a contract of marriage – for the legal language knows not love! But this does not mean that attempts by modern society, religions, and the courts have not presupposed the conjoining of these two concepts. But love is an emotion, and marriage is a thing (a signed paper contract). But most importantly, love is not controllable by law while marriage is.

Therefore love is a negative right whereas marriage is a positive right.

Love has no limits, whereas marriage is nothing but limits.

So now we may begin to personally see and feel the difference between positive and negative rights – like feeling the difference between heat and cold. When it comes to love, it is safe to say that our natural or God-given right is that we should be able to love any man or woman we choose, and that in fact it is not even a controllable choice – as love is an emotional feeling that, as most of us have certainly felt, is way outside of our emotional control. So love is not something that can be controlled by government with regards to law.

But the government deals especially well in the creation and enforcement of contracts. And marriage is nothing but a legal contract, which has nothing to do with love or emotion in the eyes of legal law. Therefore, marriage is indeed something that can be controlled by government with regards to positive law.

This again makes love a negative right and marriage a positive right.

I imagine right about now your emotion has kicked in again and you are feeling something that is causing you to perhaps forget that legality has no hindrance of emotion. This disposition may be getting in the way of your understanding of why or how love can ever be considered a negative thing. And some folks may musingly be thinking the opposite about marriage being a positive thing! But the confusion is only there because you are assigning emotion to the equation of the definitions of a legal construct. You must never do this. And one of the most difficult aspects of truly understanding the law and how it applies to living man is to be able to switch back and forth between the conversational and the legal language. For while we express our emotions through our interjectional conversations among other living humans, we must assume an unemotional state of person-hood when we switch over to the legal language. For the legal language is nothing if not a perversion of the natural state of man. Thus, we must recognize this perversion and imitate it in order to succeed in legal dealings and communications. If I am going to speak to an android, I would not expect that machine to contemplate morals or ethics other than what is written into its software and codes as a simulation. So why should I do anything different when speaking the legal language to an attorney or a judge? To them, you are nothing but an artificial person, and they are speaking the legal language without the limitations of human emotion if indeed they are doing their jobs correctly. They, in their capacities and regulations as officers of the court, are perversions of man that can only act within the scope of their written code and court procedures. They are legal automatons working in a fictional legal world that in my opinion no man should ever lay his natural rights or trust within. Doing so creates a contract of acceptance of the moral perversions of the legal language, the giving up of negative rights for positive ones, and acquiescence to all of the codes that are created and opinion-ed by such legal automatons in government.

And so your confusion about why a negative right is actually a good thing can be compared to traveling to another country and attempting to speak a new language there. In China, a horse may have the same name as a pig does in America. Thus, confusion may stem in conversations with the Chinese people when they call a horse a pig. But after a while, one becomes accustomed to switching back and forth between ones natural or “1st” language and that of the foreign language.

To most people, the legal language is certainly a foreign one. And so for now, simply realize that any confusion that you may be experiencing is just a loss in translation from your normal every-day conversational language to the foreign legal language.

A negative right is very much a good thing. Sometimes negative rights are referred to as “liberties”. Negative rights are also stated to be “unalienable” – which in legal language means that a legal lien cannot be taken out against that negative right. The constitution lays out some of these unalienable rights in a legal context, but is certainly no guarantee of such an unalienable status upon those constitutional (positive) rights. The thought that any legal document can ever guarantee another legal thing or right as unalienable is pure fallacy. For remember, a legal right is a positive right. And a legal positive right can be revoked at any time by its creator. Perhaps this is why God’s law in its permanence over man’s law is so important. We will talk about that in a moment.

Instead, the constitution as a legal document contradicts the very essence of protecting negative or “unalienable” rights as it boldly describes the ways in which such supposedly unalienable rights may indeed have liens put upon them or against them through legal means. And because of this, you will continuously hear me state loudly and fervently that my “rights” are absolutely not derived from the constitution or any other man-made law or legal code.

I have stated many times before that the 5th Amendment of the “BILL OF RIGHTS” in the U.S. constitution is perhaps the worst example of the deceptive nature of the legal language I have ever encountered. Perhaps in understanding what a “liberty” is as a negative (natural) right can help us to understand why the constitution in no way whatsoever gives individuals unalienable (negative) rights.

The 5th Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Geez, the constitution uses longer run-on sentences than I do!

Firstly, this is the right of persons, not men. A fictional person cannot have unalienable rights. A person can only be granted political positive rights.

Secondly, we must know what a “bill” is:

BILL, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment. After it has gone through both houses and received the constitutional sanction of the chief magistrate, where such approbation is requisite, it becomes a law.

This nickname given to the first ten amendments to the constitution is not an official legal term, but instead borrows from the original English term of the “Bill Of Rights”, which was a declaration granted by Royals William and Mary who reigned England. But this was not a declaration of natural rights of the British people, but was instead a declaration of the rights bestowed upon the SUBJECTS of the crown. Again, this can be compared to a farmer declaring positive rights of a bail of hey to be fed to his cows (subjects) twice a day. But with these seemingly wonderful rights also come the duties to submit as subjects to all other rights forced upon the subjects.

And what is the legal definition of “subject”?

SUBJECT, contracts. The thing which is the object of an agreement.

–=–

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.

–=–

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others. 2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is understood the subjection to the authority of public persons.

–=–

CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. 2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that ” the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Art. 4, s. 2. 3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.

Now, you should be wondering how a “right” can ever be “lost”. Of course, only political (positive law) rights can be taken away by government. Natural rights must be voluntarily given up to government.

But you may also be wondering why I am including these antiquated definitions within this essay.

The answer is an important realization about rights in general. For to declare that all men are created equal, and then to claim citizenship only for white persons should be a big clue to you that the legal law sees no equity but that for which is written by the hands of privileged men. And the preponderance by 100’s of millions of U.S. citizens that the constitution ever granted equal rights in natural men is the greatest fallacy of our time. Instead, the constitution literally and clearly states that only certain individuals (persons) are equally privileged and have the right to entitlements as positive rights that trample on the negative rights of all other colored or female persons.

And if you are not a citizen… let’s face it folks, then you are just an animal without government granted privileges and positive rights.

But even more importantly to comprehend here is that just because the constitution and other legislation has been changed over time to reflect “equality” in all persons regardless of sex or color, this if anything proves that nothing in the constitution or civil rights is in anyway an unalienable negative right. In other words, as they were changed in the past, so too can they be changed in the future.

Just ask the Japanese American citizens who were imprisoned during World War II if all citizens are equal regardless of race or color?

Here in this Bill Of Rights we have a listing of 10 positive entitlements that people mistakenly refer to as unalienable negative rights or liberties. But these are not in any way negative rights. They are instead listed here as positive rights that can be aliened upon through what is called “due process of law“.

This is why I call these an “exception clause”… and the constitution and all of legal code is riddled with them.

If your protections from double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and your protections of the rights of life, liberty, and property are indeed absolute and unalienable, then there would be no need to write them down in the first place, let alone place an exception clause within this statement (bill) of rights that allowed “due process of law” to deny you those very rights. In this way, these listed constitutional positive rights are not at all unalienable, and the constitution states clearly the “process” of how a lien can indeed be placed upon these listed positive rights – with due process of law.

Just ask anyone whose had their land stolen by government for “public use” through “eminent domain”; having watched in horror and helplessness as that land was then sold off to private corporate developers for a parking garage, a strip mall, or housing projects. Then ask that person whether they feel that their rights to property and liberty are secure and unalienable?

The 5th Amendment is the entire basis of the positive right of eminent domain claimed by government. In eminent domain cases, the 5th Amendment is noted as being the “takings clause“. This refers to the “exception clause” as noted within the 5th Amendment that property can be “taken” for public use by government with due process of law and “just compensation“. It is a fallacy to mistake the term “due process of law” with the “protection of natural rights”. Law and legal code can only protect legal or positive rights without exception.

If property rights were truly negative in nature for citizens, then government would be forced to respect the nature of that negative right without the ability to apply its right of positive law to nullify that individual persons’ negative right. In other words, the negative or natural right would not be able to be tread upon by a legal concoction of codes and concepts. A positive right by true republican idealism and rules of ethics can never trump a negative right.

In the case of eminent domain, with the backing and righteousness of the constitution itself, the government claims that it is your political “positive” right to literally have your land and home stolen by providing a remedy of what it terms to be “just compensation” for the imposing of that positive right upon you. We know this is a positive right when government won’t take no for an answer…

Imagine if I came up to your front door and handed you a check for $10,000 for the forceful purchase of your home that has a market value of $200,000 – me being just some guy with no government or militarized police force to back me up. Your first inclination would likely be to tell me to go stick my check where the sun don’t shine. But when government comes-a-knocking, our knees quiver and our head spins; for we know not how to tell government to stick its positive law where the sun doth not shineth.

So what’s the difference between when an average every day Joe “offers” you the contract of his version of “just compensation” in exchange for your home and when government makes you the same legal contractual offer?

Ah, this is where positive and negative rights truly come into play…

When the man approaches you to purchase your home, you use your negative right to say no to the contract offered by this individual man. You did not recognize his person, and refused the right of contract – acting in a negative capacity. This means that you have imposed the consequence of your negative right upon the man and expect him to fulfill his natural duty to uphold your right to say no. The abeyance and non-retaliation against your own negative rights by others with similar negative rights is called a “duty”. Thus, when average Joe made the offer for your home at a ridiculously low price, well below the market value of what you might sell that same house to another individual, it was your negative right to deny that offer of contract. It is now the duty of average Joe to respect your negative right to say no by walking away from the offer without force, retaliation, or theft of your property.

Duty has a direct association with negative rights. The consequence of a man declaring his natural, God-given, negative rights means that all other men of good conscious have the duty to respect that negative right. Thus, a negative right creates a duty in others to refrain from taking action against another. So a negative right is best explained as the right to not have “due process of law”, violence, or coercion forced against you. Therefore, a negative right is the right to be left alone. So Joe would respect your negative right to say no to his offer by fulfilling his natural or negative duty to not coerce you to sell your house to him. When this process is complete, the natural or unalienable right has been fully implemented and respected.

Under this system of respect and integrity between men, a lawful society without government can be imagined. But since we live in and except the artificial world of fictional persons we must understand how this mutually respectful system of trust and integrity-based law has been perverted by government legal codes and its courts – which claim the very power of “due process of law” as listed in the Bill of Rights. In this regard, the constitution is in direct violation of all of man’s natural rights.

Before we can go on, this realization must be acknowledged: that the constitution does not give inalienable rights to individuals. Without this conscious admission, we cannot proceed. And we must fully realize and appreciate that the difference between a negative right and a positive right is that a negative right will never be written down as a legal right. Only a positive right must be written down, for this is the only way that a positive right may be enforced through due process of law to have power over a negative right. A positive right is adjudicated under positive law. And through the perversion of the legal code and its contractual nature, men are tricked into accepting positive rights that are in direct conflict with their natural/negative rights. They voluntarily relinquish the right to utilize negative rights against legal positive rights. Without the contractual nature of legal codes, no positive right of men could ever overshadow a negative right of God. In other words, the duty of men to respect and acknowledge the natural rights of their fellow man would never be excusable under color of law just because that man has a government ID, a police uniform, or a judges robe. The acceptance of a voluntary contractual obligation of positive rights by “citizens” allows other men to act as perverted beasts – artificial persons that trample upon any semblance of another man’s natural/negative right to not to be trampled on in the first place, with the excuse that their duty to respect man’s negative rights do not exist in legal code and are justified through due process of law, which is forcibly served upon that person/citizen for the benefit of the collective “public”. And in doing so, any recompense or remedy for their actions is applied not to the man himself for committing these acts of violence, coercion, and theft (taking) of property against the natural rights of another man, but are instead considered legal actions by an artificial person against another artificial person and its estate. You might say that no man was harmed, but only his dead or artificial person. This is referred to as acting under the “color of law”. Thus, the man doing the taking is not responsible for his own actions – actions taken by an artificial person (an incorporated entity with limited liability) on behalf of the due process of law of government. Positive rights then really equate to moral corruption of the living man in lieu of legal protections granted to the artificial person for which that man carries – the veil of artificial and limited liability corporation status called person-hood. And with this disposition; as in the art and atrocities of war where men kill men while claiming the positive right to do so as their perverted legal “duty” in the following of orders; men avoid their true and natural duties to protect the sanctity, integrity, freedom, and livelihood of the rest of their fellow man by claiming that due process of law allows constitutional and legal authority to do so. And government protects that positive right.

And so we now take for our example the constitutionally proclaimed power by government to at any time, through due process of law and with just compensation, “take” your property through this process of eminent domain. To do this, the government exercises the true nature of your constitutional “rights” by utilizing the legal system of which government created in the first place. Thus, the taking of your property is justified by these artificial persons in government with the disclaimer that they as men are not responsible for the theft of your property because the due process of law allows such perversion of responsibility to be delegated to an artificial construct within the protection of legal code. Government officers are not men, but instead an incorporated group of persons. They have the positive (government granted and protected) right to ignore their duties to uphold and respect your negative rights because you agreed through contract to consent and be subject to these positive rights granted by government. They claim this positive right for one and only one reason: because you unwittingly told them they could. You gave up your natural rights when you became a citizen, accepting positive rights through contract. And every time that you state a pledge of allegiance to the “flag” of this artificial corporation called the United States (not a pledge to the other people within these united states of America and their natural rights, mind you), and every time you check the box that states you are a “citizen of the United States”, and every time you claim legal constitutional rights instead of negative natural rights, you are literally giving your consent and permission for government to tread on you and your negative rights via contractual obligations and duties to government’s provided positive rights and services.

Understanding and proving to government that you are alive 100% of your life seems like a ridiculous notion. But the truth is that government requires you to be dead for any transaction in commerce or contract with itself, and assigns you an artificial person for such commerce and communication. Proving that you are alive every minute of every day of your life while claiming only natural rights is the only true defense against government tyranny. Any other right provided by government and claimed by you in court is of a contractual nature, meaning it is by default a revokable and enforceable positive right – the validity of which will be decided by an artificial person known as a judge.

A negative right is the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man has the right not to be subjected to the actions and coercion of another man, person, or government.

A citizen has the right to be subjected to the actions and coercions of another man, person, or government.

A free man enjoys the negative right to be free under God and nature, deriving his rights as such.

A citizen enjoys the positive right (privilege) to be free under government, as long as and only if he obeys the law (legal codes) of that government no matter how tyrannical and inhumane they become.

The perversion of the words positive and negative is just one example of how the legal language harms man’s natural state of being by perverting even the basic definition of natural words. However, legal words only apply in the fictional legal realm, which is why of course living men must be attached to an artificial person.

But I digress, for the title of this writing is “Tyranny Requires Equality”.

And so I had better now qualify why I believe that this is so…

Just as the words negative and positive have been perverted into different meanings than we are accustomed to in our everyday speech, so too have the words equality and rights.

It is important to understand that as with all legal terms, when the legal language uses the word equality it does not predispose that such equality is espoused by living men. Remember, the legal code does not deal in living beings. It can only define legal terms for artificial persons attached to human animals. Thus, when the government states that all men are created equal, it doesn’t really mean that in literal terms. It is referring to persons. And it is referring to the way in which the law punishes equally that of all persons under the law.

Let’s face the hard truth… When the constitution and Declaration of Independence was penned over two centuries ago, the term men combined with the term equal only applied to white male land-owners. As much as it pains us to admit that the constitution did not in any way make all men equal, and in fact made some men 3/5 a person (not a man) for political purposes, we must admit that the constitution was only a legal document granting subjects of the government certain entitlements. It did not deal in men as flesh and blood human animals, it dealt strictly with artificial persons. A statement of equality as is laid down in the constitution does not necessitate the conversational meaning of that word when describing flesh and blood men, race, or color. In fact, since the constitution only applies to persons as citizens, its privileges also only apply to persons as citizens. Remember, a legal government document only applies to men who have taken the perversion of artificial person-hood. The constitution promoted slavery and entitled only the privileged class to “freedom” – which again means the requirement to obey the law. And it can only be considered a document of freedom for those who contractually accepted the legal definition of freedom to “obey the government’s laws”. The constitution, if anything, made all men un-free, but gave the privileged class of white male citizens the “freedom” to arbitrarily own other men and be higher in legal status than the female half of the species. Of course, the contract of marriage created the STRAWMAN Dominus name change that allowed women to obtain some of the rights of their husbands via a legal contractual nature.

This ownership of people was without question or doubt the “original intent” of the constitution. Just read the damn thing! And remember that slavery was outlawed in England long before it was in the United States.

Over the decades, incremental change began to be seen, amendments passed, and legislation created that allowed for all “persons” to obtain “equal rights” under the law. But remember that these were certainly not natural rights granted by the government, but were instead positive rights. And slowly but surely all persons were made civilly equal. But what this really meant was that all men were allowed to accept the perversion of their natural state of being men and were allowed to become persons. And so again, I cannot stress enough that the constitution only makes contractual obligations of men as persons for which it calls “equal” and “civil” rights. Again, any natural man, woman, or child who wonders into the fictional borders of the United States will know immediately that all men are not equal, but that equality requires the voluntary agreement and contract of tyranny of citizenship. An illegal alien is simply a man who has not sold his soul for the positive rights and entitlements of citizenship. And the treatment, imprisonment, and exportation of these “human animals” by government and it’s millions of citizens is enough evidence to me to call any woman, black man, or legal immigrant a total and complete hypocrite – one who screams for their equal rights from a government and constitution that for centuries denied their ancestors those same rights that they now deny all other men of the world. Americans are hypocrisy defined – free men enslaved by their own freedom. And the white, property-owning citizen is ironically the only non-hypocrite… but only because his ancestors were born into the privileges of citizenship in the first place that denied all others their own rights and entitlements.

Never again should any United States citizen falsely and hypocritically declare that all men are created equal. For they are not men – as citizens they are not even alive.

This is the oft quoted fallacy that plagues the people of the United States and other governments. For government can not declare all men as equal and free, but can only declare its citizens as equal with freedom. For what happens when one bucks their government and tries to act upon their natural God-given rights in their negative capacity and as protection against the forcibly assigned positive rights violently bestowed by that government upon its people? Why of course the government violates the man’s natural rights claiming that his person’s positive rights come first!

And this is the most difficult thing about law and rights to comprehend. For most people believe that rights are somehow voluntary, and don’t realize that there is such a thing as positive rights that are involuntary. It’s certainly a confusing concept – that there should be in existence a human right that is enforceable by punishment from government, whether you want that right or not. Well… that’s because people think only in terms of humanity, and not in the terms of their artificial person for which those forced rights apply.

Another example I like to use over and over is this one from TITLE 42 of U.S. CODE. This code is in my opinion the perfect examination of how a “positive right” is actually a forced privilege through coercion and violence upon persons and not men:

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction of every kind, and to no other

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

And so here in one neat little package, the tyranny requires equality concept comes shining through. Remember, as stated here, the nature of “civil rights” is not to make men equal, but to make all persons equally screwed under the law. Government does not define men. It’s legal language simply makes all human animals as equal citizens – which means equal protection of the positive rights that are forced upon those citizens. This is the tyranny of legal equality. True natural equality will only ever happen in the minds of men, not through statute or positive right. It will never happen in all men, and no legal statute will ever succeed in this task. For the acceptance of all men as equal is a negative right, and this type of acceptance can only happen within men, not without. The bottom line is that respect for human and animal rights must be earned and learned, not entitled and forced.

First, in Section (a) of this U.S. CODE we have an explanation of your positive rights as an (artificial) person within the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government) – the federation controlling the “union” of States. It tells you that you have the positive right to enter into contract equally with all other persons, and most importantly into contracts with government. And then it tells you that by committing to such a contractual nature, the positive rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction (literally defined as legal extortion) are applied to you under that contract. If you sign a government or other contract, you are subject to positive rights. If you sign a contract, you give up your power of natural negative rights in acceptance of politically assigned privileges called positive rights. And in doing so, as a person and citizen, you are subject to all of the coercive measures that government allows itself to use against you to enforce those positive rights against you, including pain, punishment, and extortion.

Notice here that taxation and extortion are listed here side by side as a your right. There is hardly a difference between the two, and the avoidance of both gives you the positive, forceful, contractual duty to give acceptance to your right to be receive (enjoy) penalties, be punished, and be put in pain.

Now do you understand what a positive right is?

In Section (c) it states something that is also very important. It implies here that State laws, when compared to Federal laws, are subservient to these Federal U.S. CODES. By stating that the laws of the government of the individual States are only assigned to be as authoritative as to the “color of law”, this code is stating that you have no positive State’s rights that will protect you against these stated Federal positive rights. Federal contract law (citizenship), in other words, trumps any state law that may protect any other right you enjoy, either positive or negative. In other words, as a citizen you really have no negative rights!!!

But most important here is the legal right that all persons have to be equal with every other person. The last thing that government wants is for a man to break out of his or her artificial person/cage and be special – and claim to be unequal in the eyes of the legal code. Only with equality can democracy exist. Only with uniform equality can the people be considered a “body politic”. And only in a body politic can the government claim to act with the consent of all the equal people through representative government – representatives of the whole equal citizenry.

Some folks think that by exercising their right not to vote in elections that they are withdrawing consent to the election itself. But not voting is just another political positive right that persons have, in that this duty is not enforced as a requirement. Not voting is technically voting “no contest” to what the majority votes. Government doesn’t mind at all if individuals don’t vote in its public elections, for not voting means nothing at all. Even with less than 50% of the people voting in an election cycle, the majority of those actual votes still creates a majority vote. There is no law stating otherwise. And the president is not elected by the people anyway, but instead by the “electors”. That’s right, the constitution clearly states that the president is not elected by the people (voters) by popular vote, but by appointed electors. Amazingly, the majority of United States citizens believe that they actually elect the president every four years – a laughable psy-op that creates the illusion of authority of that office.

If this is news to you, you’ll be tickled to death to know that migrants who obtain citizenship in the United States know more about our presidential election process than most natural born citizens do!

Here is a link to the questions asked of potential legal immigrants before they become citizens. You’ll notice that question #16 asks: “Who elects the President of the United States?”

Scroll down a ways and you’ll see “The Electoral College” as the official answer.

LINK: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/typical-citizenship-examination-questions.html?DCMP=ADC-IMMI_Citizenship-NaturalizationTestQuestions&HBX_PK=the+naturalization+test+questions

Elections are a positive, not a negative right. Citizens do not have negative rights, other than those which have not been supplanted YET by positive ones.

What is the definition of the word “negative”?

NEGATIVE. This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. Vide Veto. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him, and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it. Vide Affirmative Innocence.

NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. 2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. Vide Onus Probandi.

And from Webster’s 2012 dictionary:

NEGATIVE-

(1) a: marked by denial, prohibition, or refusal <received a negative answer>; also : marked by absence, withholding, or removal of something positive <the negative motivation of shame — Garrett Hardin>

b (1) : denying a predicate of a subject or a part of a subject <“no A is B” is a negative proposition> (2) : denoting the absence or the contradictory of something <nontoxic is a negative term> (3) : expressing negation <negative particles such as no and not>

c : adverse, unfavorable <the reviews were mostly negative>

(5) a : not affirming the presence of a condition, substance, or organism suspected to be present; also : having a test result indicating the absence especially of a condition, substance, or organism <she is HIV negative>

By these definitions we can construct a view of how the word negative applies to and interacts with the word positive in law. A negative right attempts to remove or refuse a positive right, and a man seeks to withhold or remove the positive right with his negative right. Negative rights are a prohibition against positive ones. A living man may deny a positive right exists by denoting the contradiction of that positive right to his negative right. A living man must prove the non-existence of a positive. Positive rights directly contradict negative rights, negating the inherent and replacing it with the artificial, creating an absence of liberty. Positive is adverse and unfavorable to the negative. Men must not affirm the presence of a positive right, unless he is prepared to accept the conditions of its disease.

Even the word enjoyment has been twisted into a legal perversion, as defined in Bouvier’s:

ENJOYMENT. The right which a man possesses of receiving all the product of a thing for his necessity, his use, or his pleasure.

And Black’s Law Dictionary online defines Enjoyment as:

ENJOYMENT: 1 (a) possession and use <the enjoyment of civic rights>

And from Webster’s:

ENJOYMENT: The exercise of a right; the possession and fruition of a right, privilege, or incorporeal hereditament.

So while you may emotionally enjoy living somewhere, enjoyment is a legal term with no emotional attachments. It is the state of usufruct to which you are a person who enjoys the use of property, but do not legally own that property. Paying off a loan to a bank, it turns out, has absolutely nothing to do with ownership, as the home never belonged to the bank in the first place. A “lien” position is not an ownership position, but rather just a status of legal claim.

Legislative records explain this positive right of equal enjoyment best:

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933

“The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” –Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, and referring to the Act of March 9, 1933.

Enjoyment is use, as a user, of government property. Persons are not owners, they are users. Persons enjoy incorporeal use of real estate. The word estate in Latin means “status”. And a status of course is an entitlement – a positive right.

But don’t worry, all property holders have equal rights under the law – which really means that all property holders cannot say no when the government wants to eminent domain (legally steal) their property. Equal rights means equal enjoyment of equal extortion, which means equal victim-hood of the people is equally enjoyed as persons under the contractual nature of citizenship. Does it make you feel better that at any time the government can take anyone’s property, including your own? Does this equate to the disposition we take when our friends and neighbors have their property stolen by government for the public good? You are the “public”, you know.

Is it this equality of the possibility of legal theft upon all citizens that stops us from defending the property of our fellow man?

Have we been artificial for so long that we are becoming emotionless?

Have we grown to love our servitude, as Huxley declared so long ago?

Perhaps we have just lost our ability to do anything but legally enjoy our servitude – and have forgotten how to be free men.

Equality in legal terms is a detriment to all men, for no two men are alike. Under the law, men and women have no sex, except as a mechanical function in science. Their uniqueness is stripped away and replaced by a legal status. Their thoughts and ideas are stunted so that equality can prevail. By accepting the artificial person, the living soul becomes nothing but a user of the body – with enjoyment of the artificial person which interacts with the artificial world. In this way, the man hides away behind the mask of his or her person.

But the person is not the man, it is not created by the man, and it is not owned by the man. The person is a creation of and property of the government, assigned numbers and statistics which define each artificial person. And only the creator of persons can establish forced equality and tyranny among all persons equally.

And so I leave you with these final questions…

If government is the creator of persons, then isn’t it time to stop worshiping these idols of the false god of government and get back to nature’s and God’s law?

Who is your creator?

Isn’t it time to become a man again?

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, February 19, 2013

14 Comments

by realitybloger on February 19, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in 10 Commandments, Citizenship, constitution, Slavery is legal, STRAWMAN

Posted by realitybloger on February 19, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/19/tyranny-requires-equality/

A World Without Gray – Episode 3 – For Land And Country

Episode 3, for your listening enjoyment. This is my interview with Vicky Davis, writer and researcher of ChannelingReality.com

I highly recommend that you read the following information (below) before or after listening to this interview, for I believe it is one of my most important research projects yet in uncovering the true nature of the United States. Also, please watch the two videos at the end, for a glimpse of the future of mankind and America…

Download here: https://realitybloger.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/awwg_e3_02072013.mp3

–=–

For Land And Country

–=–

What does it mean to you when someone says “fight for your country”?

For some, the concept of just what a “country” is becomes blurred between two completely different things. While the conversational term for country usually defines the living people, the physical land, and the fictional government together in one neat package, the fact is that these things are quite different from one another, and are only connected through ink and consent of those living people as a “body politic”.

The “land” – the real and tangible thing we call home – is indeed not legally the “country”. Living men are also not legally the country.

The country is in fact a reamed folder of legal papers, notarized and signed by the appropriate members of a corporate “federation” called the United States. It’s borders are demarcated within this paperwork, but these too are not part of the actual physical land. It sets its own rules, changes those rules with the signing of a pen, and does so without the will of the people.

The land and the living people who inhabit it are called a country – a body politic – but only in a legal sense. The people, in order to inhabit this artificial country legally as “residents”, must also become artificial. They must become persons through contract so as to be part of (citizens) of this legal “country”.

“A “federation” is by definition an unincorporated entity, but a “federated” entity is corporated. A “union” of states is not a corporate entity, but that the “United” States is a corporation.”

Confused? You are supposed to be.

Instead of taking my word for it, I wonder what the government, the courts, and the Supreme Court thinks?

“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation,” –Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981), 644 F.2d, at 1383.

“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” –Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, Supreme Court, 332 U.S. 380

From the West LegalEdcenter’s Securities Litigation Report:

Link: http://corporate.findlaw.com/finance/cftc-sees-dodd-frank-reforms-essential-to-reduce-future-risk.html

“International Coordination”

“Twenty-first century finance knows no true geographic borders. Money and risk can move around the globe with a touch of a button. Sober evidence of this was AIG’s swaps affiliate, AIG Financial Products, which had its major operations in London. When it failed, the U.S. economy and taxpayers shouldered a tremendous burden.

The current debt crisis in Europe is but a stark reminder of our interconnectedness. Moreover, it is precisely during times of heightened market uncertainty that transparent pricing of risk is essential. While European leaders are working to avert a deepening crisis, it is critical that we implement the Dodd-Frank Act to protect the American public.

We are actively consulting and coordinating with international regulators to promote robust and consistent standards in swaps oversight. We are sharing many of our memos, term sheets and draft work product with international regulators. Building on these efforts, I will be traveling to London to discuss derivatives reform as well as issues relating to high-frequency trading.

We also will work with international colleagues on memoranda of understanding for access to information and cooperative oversight. We also have a long history of recognizing foreign regulatory regimes. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFTC to recognize foreign regulatory frameworks that are comprehensive and comparable to U.S. oversight of the swaps markets in certain areas. We also anticipate seeking public input on the application of Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which says that the law doesn’t apply to activities outside the United States unless those activities have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce.“

So, let’s get this straight… The Dodd-Frank Act was a tool by Congress to prohibit one of government’s regulatory corporations (the Commodities Futures Trading Commission – CFTC) to act outside of United States jurisdiction as long as the activities to be regulated are outside of the United States? Yes sir. But the reality of what this means is even more shocking. For when the term “outside of the United States” is utilized here, it is referring to United States borders (remember, they are paper borders created by treaty and international agreements). This is where “Inland Ports” and “Foreign Trade Zones” come into play. This is how your “country” (both the land and the government) is incrementally being pulled out from under your feet – while American Idol agonizingly plays in the other room – through contracts, treaties, and international agreements.

If we were to look at a true representative interactive map of the borders of the United States, it would actually look like a U.S. shaped slice of Swiss cheese. Incrementally, as each Inland Port and Foreign Trade Zone is implemented, a new hole in the middle of the United States appears, where U.S. laws are non-existent.

Let’s take a land-locked state like Colorado for example. As there are no oceans (international waters) touching any of Colorado’s borders (the land), there is only one way to create an Inland Port in this state. The state must become a virtual body of water.

When an Inland Port is created, it becomes an international jurisdiction under international Maritime Law. And since Maritime/Admiralty law is the “law of the sea”, the land must become a port among a body of water in legal terms. Thus, as a port receiving trade through trade-routes, the land now becomes international jurisdiction. it’s brilliant really, when you stop and think about it. Suddenly a port pops up in the middle of of the land, with no water around it whatsoever. And yet it falls under the law of the sea!

So how is this accomplished?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the controversial NAFTA Super Highways…

You see, the rest of the United States (the land) becomes a “land-bridge” over virtual (paper) water between these ports and zones, and the roads and highways now outside of the United States called NAFTA represent international virtual waterways under international Admiralty Law going from Inland Port to Inland Port. Thus, the whole structure of ports and highways are under the law of the sea – outside of the United States. Why start a limited corporation in the great state of Colorado when you can move 10 miles away into an unlimited Foreign Trade Zone? Why hire American workers with all of their demands and minimum wages laws when you can hire foreigners living in these Foreign Zones? After all, anyone can live and work in the Zones without being a United States citizen. And with no U.S. labor laws, health insurance, or pension funding requirements for retirement, why hire American when you can hire Chinese, Indonesian, or Indian at a fraction of the cost? It’s just on the other side of the Highway you know…

In the middle of America…

So now let’s get back to government’s opinion:

“The House and Senate Reports accompanying the legislation virtually compel this conclusion, explaining as they do that “a foreign government’s . . . employment or engagement of laborers, clerical staff or marketing agents . . . would be among those included within” the definition of commercial activity. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 16 (1976) (House Report); S. Rep. No. 94-1310, p. 16 (1976) (Senate Report)…”

“I had thought the [507 U.S. 349, 369] issue put to rest some time ago when, in a slightly different context, CHIEF JUSTICE Marshall observed:

“It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many States of this Union who have an interest in Banks, are not suable even in their own Courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The State of Georgia, by giving to the Bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the Bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act.” –U.S. Supreme Court, Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia (1824) 22 US (9 Wheat) 904, 6 L.Ed 244

See also Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 695 -696 (1976) (plurality opinion).”

(Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=507&invol=349)

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, under the definition for the word “corporation”, it states:

“Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,” continues the judge, “it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use.”

(Author’s Note: It is important to note here that technically the corporation of the United States or portions thereof can be “conveyed” to foreign hands, including the United Nations. Remember, this is all on paper, through treaties and agreements. And it wont likely make the nightly news as it happens piece by piece, port by port, zone by zone… This can all be done while never changing the corporate charter name of “United States” or of states, counties, cities (municipal corporations), and districts.)

And this legal definition goes on to state:

Corporation: “Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly.”

And Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines the word corporator as:

CORPORATOR. One who is a member of a corporation. 2. In general, a corporator is entitled to enjoy all the benefits and rights which belong to any other member of the corporation as such. But in some corporations, where the rights are of a pecuniary nature, each corporator is entitles to those rights in proportion to his interest; he will therefore be entitled to vote only in proportion to the amount of his stock, and be entitled to dividends in the same proportion. 3. A corporator is not in general liable personally for any act of the corporation, unless he has been made so by the charter creating the corporation.

(Author’s Note: This means the American people can be made liable for United Nations debt or funding, and that the United States is a member- i. e. not a “sovereign” entity – with only a “vote” in world affairs, including its own.)

Note here that the United States is a “member” of the United Nations, and of the International Monetary Fund (World Bank).

Can you put the pieces together?

And of course when Bouvier’s defines the United States, it says:

UNION. By this word is understood the United States of America; as, all good citizens will support the Union.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. The United States… 5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property.

Again from the Supreme Court – near the year of the founding of this “country”…

“If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province in the first instance. When the obnoxious acts of Parliament passed, if the people in each province had chosen to resist separately, they undoubtedly had equal right to do so as to join in general measures of resistance with the people of the other provinces, however unwise and destructive such a policy might and undoubtedly would have been. If they had pursued this separate system, and afterwards the people of each province had resolved that such province should be a free and independent state, the state from that moment would have become possessed of all the powers of sovereignty internal and external — viz., the exclusive right of providing for their own government, and regulating their intercourse with foreign nations — as completely as any one of the ancient kingdoms or republics of the world, which never yet had formed or thought of forming any sort of federal union whatever. A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person) I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens which compose that state and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it, all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republics) in general is that in the former, the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the case, for it has not been so universally.

But in a republic, all the citizens, as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is in effect an act of the whole community which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their politic capacity only. Thus A. B. C. and D., citizens of Pennsylvania and as such together with all the citizens of Pennsylvania, share in the sovereignty of the state. Suppose a state to consist exactly of the number of 100,000 citizens, and it were practicable for all of them to assemble at one time and in one place, and that 99,999 did actually assemble. The state would not be in fact assembled. Why? Because the state in fact is composed of all the citizens, not of a part only, however large that part may be, and one is wanting, in the same manner as 99 is not a hundred, because one pound is wanting to complete the full sum.

But as such exactness in human affairs cannot take place, as the world would be at an end or involved in universal massacre and confusion if entire unanimity from every society was required; as the assembling in large numbers, if practicable as to the actual meeting of all the citizens, or even a considerable part of them, could be productive of no rational result because there could be no general debate, no consultation of the whole, nor of consequence a determination grounded on reason and reflection, and a deliberate view of all the circumstances necessary to be taken into consideration, mankind has long practiced (except where special exceptions have been solemnly adopted) upon the principle that the majority shall bind the whole, and in large countries, at least, that representatives shall be chosen to act on the part of the whole. But when they do so, they decide for the whole, and not for themselves only.

Thus when the legislature of any state passes a bill by a majority, competent to bind the whole, it is an act of the whole assembly, not of the majority merely. So when this Court gives a judgment by the opinion of a majority, it is the judgment, in a legal sense, of the whole Court. So I conceive when any law is passed in any state in pursuance of constitutional authority, it is a law of the whole state acting in its legislative capacity, as are also executive and judiciary acts constitutionally authorized, acts of the whole state in its executive or judiciary capacity, and not the personal acts alone of the individuals, composing those branches of government. The same principles apply as to legislative, executive, or judicial acts of the United States, which are acts of the people of the United States in those respective capacities, as the former are of the people of a single state. These principles have long been familiar in regard to the exercise of a constitutional power as to treaties. These are deemed the treaties of the two nations, not of the persons only whose authority was actually employed in their formation. There is not one principle that I can imagine which gives such an effect as to treaties that has not such an operation on any other legitimate act of government, all powers being equally derived from the same fountain, all held equally in trust, and all, when rightfully exercised, equally binding upon those from whom the authority was derived.

I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the state governments was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province in the first instance and afterwards became citizens of each state; that this authority was conveyed by each body politic separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or states jointly, and of course that no authority could be conveyed to the whole but that which previously was possessed by the several parts; that the distinction between a state and the people of a state has in this respect no foundation, each expression in substance meaning the same thing; consequently, that one ground of argument at the bar, tending to show the superior sovereignty of Congress in the instance in question, was not tenable, and therefore that upon that ground the exercise of the authority in question can not be supported.”

(Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html)

This important opinion tells you one very important thing… You do not now or did they then live in a true idealistic republic! If you are a citizen, you are nothing more than a part of the whole citizenry (in this case equality is a bad thing, for it takes away your rights). You are the State – a tiny piece of the jigsaw puzzle made up of equal size citizens. The people and the State are the same thing. “Distinct individuals have no power or sovereignty – only the state does as a body politic of all the people combined. This literally squashes the theory that in the United States all men are kings of themselves. This is just a falacy to be shelved with all the other “free country” myths out there. And the State creates these treaties and agreements with Foreign entities with the legal presumption that you don’t give a damn!

You aren’t fighting it, if you even know about it, and so the plans for world governance and the conveyance of the United States lands into United Nations (NWO) hands goes on unhindered.

For some clarification, here are the Bovier’s Law Dictionary definitions of a “Republic”:

REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government. 1 Toull. n. 28, and n. 202, note. In this sense, it is used by Ben Johnson. Those that, by their deeds make it known, whose dignity they do sustain; And life, state, glory, all they gain, Count the Republic’s, not their own, Vide Body Politic; Nation; State.

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; it is usually put in opposition to a monarchical or aristocratic government. 2. The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that “the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government.” The form of government is to be guarantied, which supposes a form already established, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect. See Story, Const. §1807.

Yet another common fallacy squashed by the constitution itself!

Some how the people of the United States have mixed up the notion that the “United States” government – the central government of Washington D.C. as a federation – is supposed to be a republic. But this is not what the constitution states at all. The only requirement of the United States Federal Government laid out in its constitution is that the United States corporation in Washington D.C. must protect the already establish form of government of each individual state. Remember, the citizen is subject to two forms of government, one the state and one Federal.

On this, the Supreme Court state its opinion:

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.“ –The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”

While you may live in a republic within your individual state, you do not live in a republic called the United States. The distinction here is absolutely key, and the tempering of fallacious considerations of the intent of the national government

And if “Common Law” is your bag, you should know that in the same case the Supreme Court stated its opinion about the Common Law:

“It is a rule at common law (the reason applies in equity and other civil law cases) that if a party can plead a fact material to his defense, and omits to do it at the proper time, he can never avail himself of it afterwards.”

Now why would anyone in their right mind agree to such a sinister and offending rule as this? And why would anyone submit to this?

Can you imagine…

You: Oh yeah judge, I forgot to mention that I have a video tape and 20 witnesses that saw me 1,000 miles away from the scene of the crime at the exact time of the crime.

Judge (as his gavel smashes down): Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!

It goes on to say:

“The law rather chooses that a party should incur a risk of this nature than leave a door open to endless litigation upon pretenses the truth of which it is very difficult to discover.”

God forbid we should have long litigation in order to discover the truth!

This is called the “justice system”, by the way. And the only thing common about common law is that it is commonly tyrannical just like any other legal system. Even if you had a good experience in court by a judge who seemed lawful or constitutional, this does not dismiss the fact that at any time this type of “opinion” can arise. It’s a rule that a judge may choose to follow at his whim. And while a man acting as judge may certainly consider late evidence, he certainly is not required to. Law means nothing to a corrupt politician or judge. And it is certainly a fallacy to overlook the rules just because once you had a good experience. The fallacy: This judge acted fairly and constitutionally, therefore all judges act fairly and constitutionally.

In this particular case, believe it or not, the “person” harmed was actually physically dead, but since the defendants did not claim this fact within the discovery process, this fact actually had no bearing on the case. The fact that the person was dead was not considered when doing wrong to that person. Image how that felt to the defendants when those words were uttered by the judge, who were no doubt thinking… Why in the hell would this fact even need to be mentioned???

It states:

“II. The death of Doane has been alleged for another purpose.

It is said that the decree is to restore to Elisha Doane, which was impossible because Elisha Doane was not then in being. Admitting that upon this record we are to take judicial notice that Doane was dead at the time of pronouncing the decree (in which I am by no means clear), yet if this was the real reason why the plaintiffs in error had withheld the property or its proceeds, they might themselves have said so. They have not, and as each party generally makes the best of his own case, we are to presume that did not in fact constitute their reason. In this case it could be of no avail but at the utmost to prevent the allowance of interest until a demand actually made. It never could destroy the whole beneficial effect of a decree given in rem, and when the parties who make the objection were in court and parties to the very decree complained of. I think nothing can be more evident than that if the decree be not totally void, the administrators are entitled to the benefit of it, at least until it is set aside for error, if there be any error in it, and such a remedy is now practicable. If a scire facias was necessary before execution could have been obtained out of the court which passed the decree, it could be for no other reason than that the other party might have an opportunity to contest the validity of the letters and the existence of the administration, if any such objection could be supported. Such an objection might have been made here. It has not been made. There is therefore, I conceive, no principle of law or justice which forbids giving effect to the decree upon this ground.”

You: But judge, the victim was already dead before I had anything to do with her!

Judge: Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!

Ok, extreme I admit. The point is that the possibility – as a rule – is that at any time a judge can dismiss crucial evidence that would prove your innocence without considering it.

But listen to what was stated even later in this case:

“A court of justice, indeed, ought at its peril to take notice of its own jurisdiction, and it is not often that cases of such doubt arise that a judge can be at a loss on the subject. But it may happen and does sometimes happen that innocent and serious doubts are really entertained. Is a court therefore, because its judgments may be finally dissented from by a superior tribunal, to be considered as flying in the face of the law, so that parties before it shall not only be protected in disobeying it but punished for their obedience? If this be the case, the old maxim cedunt arma togae (let arms yield to the toga – modern: let military power give way to civil power) will very ill apply to courts of justice. Instead of being the peaceful arbiters of right and the sacred asylum of unprotected innocence, their very forums will be the seat of war and confusion.”

Why is this all so important to the establishment of a New World Order Government?

Well let’s see… so far the Supreme court has allowed corporations to be people with rights, allowed these corporations to merge and acquire each other to establish monopolies and trusts, allowed these corporations not only to clone life but to create new genetically altered life and then patent that life-form as a novel (unique) property of the corporation and government, it has ruled that children can be vaccinated without parental consent, it has allowed the United Nations to claim a part of the City of New York as international land immune from U.S. law, and seems to not be at all concerned with the thousands of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders that have allowed everything from martial law in America to unmanned drones for the use of killing Americans abroad and spying on them nationally.

Now why in God’s name would I put my trust in this body of “Justices” to do the right thing in protecting me or my country or to combat the implementation of world governance? They are, after all, appointed by the same president and congress that is allowing it to happen in the first place! They aren’t even voted in by the people who suffer their opinions!!!

So what does it mean to you to” fight for your country”?

Well, you better start comprehending that your country and your state is in the control of a rogue government, and that to save the land the government must not be allowed to expand globally by expanding its ream of paper to include all of the United Nations as it’s master.

The “United States” is in the process of becoming nothing more than an admiralty law-based “land-bridge” between oceans and countries, a port of call for the world government and its corporations built with your taxpayer money.

And all of this proving the pen is mightier than the sword, simply because the people will not wield the sword as their fore-fathers supposedly did.

In our interview, we discussed that in order to create a new World Government, the current borders of the United States must be destroyed. It is, however, important to state that the individual state governments and borders need not be demolished simply because the Federal government and borders are abolished. It is in fact the contractual nature of the individual states to this central government which is the cause of the loss of individual state sovereignty. As individual republics, under a new United States “union” the country would be no less grand.

Is it only me that feels this way?

…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

–Constitution of the united states of America

“Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

–New Hampshire Constitution, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”

–Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky Bill of Rights

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”

–Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights

“3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.”

–North Carolina Constitution, November 21, 1789

“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

–Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.”

–Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, United Nations (paying lip service to this decree with despicable arrogance and confidence as it subsumes all other constitutions!)

So what part of this aren’t you comprehending?

And just what do you think the 2nd amendment is for?

Better listen to the show now folks, and start to grasp exactly what’s happening in a local, county, district, state, and national government near you. For right this very second, government is doing all of the above for you, on paper, handing over the “country” to a global corporate federation, making the above options of abolition obsolete and unlawful with each treaty and contract your representatives sign, conveying the land to foreign interests…

And remember, just because you don’t see it doesn’t change the fact that it”s happening…

This is what you are truly fighting:

And the future of food (just replace metal powder with protein powder):

Truth is so much stranger than fiction, and so much closer to science fiction than imaginable.

In closing, I can only say that no matter what your “country” means to you; no matter how you define it – I think now would be a good time to start fighting for it while it’s still recognizable as such, and while we still have a resemblance to natural humans.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, February 11th, 2013

10 Comments

by realitybloger on February 11, 2013 • Permalink

Posted in constitution, Declaration of Independence, democracy, Globalism, new world order, Technology, Transhumanism, united nations, united states

Posted by realitybloger on February 11, 2013

https://realitybloger.com/2013/02/11/a-world-without-gray-episode-3-for-land-and-country/

A World Without Gray – Episode 2 (Special Edition)

Episode 2: Total Genealogical Immersion…

What is the true secret of the ruling class? What does it mean to be “related by blood”? Is it possible that just one royal family rules over this entire planet? Were our “founding fathers” really who they are portrayed to be in our history books?

The proof of these strange and disturbing facts are laid out in this sourced and incredibly disturbing 4.5 hour audio presentation. I beg of you to learn the truth about our collective middle-class consumer-enslavement to this small percentage of the human population.

Listen in parts or all at once; but please, please, please listen.

Download and share freely without copyright here:
https://realitybloger.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/total-geneological-emersion_awwg_2.mp3

Join me again this Thursday, 4pm Pacific, on WeROAR.ws.

—————————————————————————————————-

The following is a partial list of sources and information for this show (click on the links below). You may wish to copy or photocopy these just in case they disappear…