Part 1. Looks pretty good, as far as their comprehension goes - but to speak specifically to that, the phrase in the Constitution's Preamble "We, the People . . ." did NOT refer to the population of the states in general. The book, Which One Are You? by the late Harry Coombs' (a.k.a. The Informer), is a very detailed analysis of the language of the Constitution, and demonstrates, using nothing more than the plain rules and construction of the English language, that it referred ONLY to the signers of the document who were already members of the corporation. The Articles of Confederation (and the subsequent modification of that contract, the Constitution) brought into being a corporation, the articles of which applied ONLY to the members of that corporation. It COULD NOT apply to the general population, because they were not signatories to that document. THAT is why people will sometimes hear judges say that the Constitution does not apply to them in their court. That's because people are USUALLY in court for a violation of the terms of some contract they've entered into, either knowingly or, as is usually the case, unknowingly.
What the second amendment did was to not only acknowledge our NATURAL right to keep and bear arms, but specifically told the members of the corporation that those rights were not to be infringed. The Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the members of the national government corporation ONLY, and make it clear how they were to conduct themselves when interacting with the other people NOT "of" the corporation. The rules of Congress, the Executive and the Judicial branches of that corporation DO NOT apply to us out here in the states - they ONLY apply to the members of the corporation, in the same way that the corporate rules of IBM apply ONLY to members and employees of THAT corporation. The natural law, or, if applicable, the COMMON law applies to us, NOT their corporate law, unless we enter into some kind of contractual relationship with them.
That's what I've been talking about these past several months.
We ALREADY HAVE the natural rights to self defense and the associated rights to keep and bear arms - OF WHATEVER KIND WE WANT, up to and including (if stupid people bring up the question) nuclear arms. Of course that argument is stupid, in that the general population can't afford (or understand) nuclear weaponry - so that is a moot point. But the principle is what's important for all of us to understand: that we do not have to apply for permission to exercise a right, and they are not allowed to infringe upon those rights, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court, or any of the corporation's regulatory agencies say. So kowtowing to the ATF every time we buy a gun through a licensed dealer is, essentially, an act of cowardice. But they've basically got us over a barrel, since sellers in private purchases have either been brainwashed into thinking only in-state "residents" are lawful buyers. Not that any of that stuff is bothered with by criminals - but that's a different topic, albeit one which brings up the question of a "prohibited" person's own right to keep and bear arms. The ONLY reason someone might be "prohibited" is because we all go along with the corporation's pronouncement of that man or woman being "prohibited". They're only "prohibited" in THAT CORPORATE SYSTEM from purchasing or possessing arms via licensed dealers and brainwashed "citizens". (continued . . .)
Part 2 I'm not advocating that violent or wacko people have access to whatever they want in a peaceful society, although that is an infringement on THEIR rights. I'm just saying that the extension of prohibition to others, just because they might be economically hamstrung (i.e. people unable to pay a ridiculously high fine on a traffic ticket or even divorced fathers unable to pay exhorbitant child support who are then labeled as "fugitives from so-called 'justice' " by a court) or even those who were unjustly accused of "domestic violence" for yelling at their spouse shouldn't be automatically branded a "prohibited person". But that's what the corporation does to people who are IN that system by ignorance or by uninformed consent (through what's called adhesion contracts).
What I AM saying is that we have been brainwashed by the government schools to accept what they say is the truth, when it most definitely is not. Even attorneys who have been through the best law schools are usually unaware of the true nature of the corporate nature of government. Those who DO become aware of it and have some kind of conscience see that either they have to abandon their profession and try to adapt their life to some other less lucrative style, or bite the bullet (pardon the pun) and do what they can to justify their actions which they know are wrong and misapplied to innocent and very ignorant clients. If they dare speak out, they get sanctioned or even disbarred. But I doubt very many ever really wake up. I think Mr. Vieira has dealt with this question. In my correspondence with him, he comes close, but he doesn't quite have the same point of view I've discussed here - yet. If he does, he hasn't opted to put it in writing or abandon his profession (can't blame him, it's pretty lucrative). And if he has come to the same viewpoint, I can understand him not making it public, because he can't really give voice to anything that might bring him under scrutiny of the courts. They can be pretty nasty to their own "officers of the court" when one of their won spills the beans about the true nature of the beast.
Part 1. Looks pretty good, as far as their comprehension goes - but to speak specifically to that, the phrase in the Constitution's Preamble "We, the People . . ." did NOT refer to the population of the states in general. The book, Which One Are You? by the late Harry Coombs' (a.k.a. The Informer), is a very detailed analysis of the language of the Constitution, and demonstrates, using nothing more than the plain rules and construction of the English language, that it referred ONLY to the signers of the document who were already members of the corporation. The Articles of Confederation (and the subsequent modification of that contract, the Constitution) brought into being a corporation, the articles of which applied ONLY to the members of that corporation. It COULD NOT apply to the general population, because they were not signatories to that document. THAT is why people will sometimes hear judges say that the Constitution does not apply to them in their court. That's because people are USUALLY in court for a violation of the terms of some contract they've entered into, either knowingly or, as is usually the case, unknowingly.
ReplyDeleteWhat the second amendment did was to not only acknowledge our NATURAL right to keep and bear arms, but specifically told the members of the corporation that those rights were not to be infringed. The Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the members of the national government corporation ONLY, and make it clear how they were to conduct themselves when interacting with the other people NOT "of" the corporation. The rules of Congress, the Executive and the Judicial branches of that corporation DO NOT apply to us out here in the states - they ONLY apply to the members of the corporation, in the same way that the corporate rules of IBM apply ONLY to members and employees of THAT corporation. The natural law, or, if applicable, the COMMON law applies to us, NOT their corporate law, unless we enter into some kind of contractual relationship with them.
That's what I've been talking about these past several months.
We ALREADY HAVE the natural rights to self defense and the associated rights to keep and bear arms - OF WHATEVER KIND WE WANT, up to and including (if stupid people bring up the question) nuclear arms. Of course that argument is stupid, in that the general population can't afford (or understand) nuclear weaponry - so that is a moot point. But the principle is what's important for all of us to understand: that we do not have to apply for permission to exercise a right, and they are not allowed to infringe upon those rights, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court, or any of the corporation's regulatory agencies say. So kowtowing to the ATF every time we buy a gun through a licensed dealer is, essentially, an act of cowardice. But they've basically got us over a barrel, since sellers in private purchases have either been brainwashed into thinking only in-state "residents" are lawful buyers. Not that any of that stuff is bothered with by criminals - but that's a different topic, albeit one which brings up the question of a "prohibited" person's own right to keep and bear arms. The ONLY reason someone might be "prohibited" is because we all go along with the corporation's pronouncement of that man or woman being "prohibited". They're only "prohibited" in THAT CORPORATE SYSTEM from purchasing or possessing arms via licensed dealers and brainwashed "citizens".
(continued . . .)
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating that violent or wacko people have access to whatever they want in a peaceful society, although that is an infringement on THEIR rights. I'm just saying that the extension of prohibition to others, just because they might be economically hamstrung (i.e. people unable to pay a ridiculously high fine on a traffic ticket or even divorced fathers unable to pay exhorbitant child support who are then labeled as "fugitives from so-called 'justice' " by a court) or even those who were unjustly accused of "domestic violence" for yelling at their spouse shouldn't be automatically branded a "prohibited person". But that's what the corporation does to people who are IN that system by ignorance or by uninformed consent (through what's called adhesion contracts).
What I AM saying is that we have been brainwashed by the government schools to accept what they say is the truth, when it most definitely is not. Even attorneys who have been through the best law schools are usually unaware of the true nature of the corporate nature of government. Those who DO become aware of it and have some kind of conscience see that either they have to abandon their profession and try to adapt their life to some other less lucrative style, or bite the bullet (pardon the pun) and do what they can to justify their actions which they know are wrong and misapplied to innocent and very ignorant clients. If they dare speak out, they get sanctioned or even disbarred. But I doubt very many ever really wake up. I think Mr. Vieira has dealt with this question. In my correspondence with him, he comes close, but he doesn't quite have the same point of view I've discussed here - yet. If he does, he hasn't opted to put it in writing or abandon his profession (can't blame him, it's pretty lucrative). And if he has come to the same viewpoint, I can understand him not making it public, because he can't really give voice to anything that might bring him under scrutiny of the courts. They can be pretty nasty to their own "officers of the court" when one of their won spills the beans about the true nature of the beast.
-MM