One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
"The T***h About The Founding Fathers and Their Devious Intentions Part TWO
May 5, 2014 23:30:44   #
EricWhoRU
 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is in response to several comments of my first post on this topic.

I am combining my response her to all that I have so far read, so please, when you read what I wrote, only apply my response to you if such application would be appropriate.

One commenter wrote that he partially agreed and partially disagreed. It is impossible to respond to such a convoluted comment. Please be specific so I can respond appropriately.

I know that most of those persons who are concerned about the sad state of affairs we currently suffer under believe and are convinced that the Constitution established a Republic here, and that the Founders did a marvelous job in their creation of the Constitution and that the reason we are in the mess we are is simply because the intent of the Founders has not been followed, and all we need to do to restore everything to the way it was intended is to go back and follow the principles purportedly set by the Founders, such as (one commenter suggested), are set forth in the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, three men who wrote to sell their own product. It is much more significant to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, if it is desired to learn what those who found fault in the Constitution thought of it.

As I wrote in my original post, it is not a good idea to read what the Framers of the Constitution wrote outside of the Constitution in order to establish how the limitations purportedly set forth in the Constitution would be able to accomplish the controls the Framers otherwise contended they wrote in that document. If it is not in the Constitution then how could it possibly be enforced?

For example, most of us today agree that we need less government and lower taxes, but what does that very non-specific agreement accomplish? What is it that constitutes an acceptable "less" government, and how much "lower? is low enough? How could we ever reach an agreement without first establishing what it is that constitutes the source and extent of government authority?

By establishing the maximum level of taxation and the maximum level of control over our lives.

The problem with that is determining who will decide how much is reasonable and where do they get the authority to decide?

As I wrote in my original post here, what does "taxation with representation" mean. Any fair and honest evaluation will establish that "taxation with or without representation" is a totally wrong concept and is like trying to build a building without a foundation, by starting at the second floor or putting a tire on an automobile without using a wheel/rim.

What we are needing to establish here is what it is that actually constitutes Freedom, which the Founders did not do. I often hear it said that we are the freest people on the planet. I don't like that at all because that statement constitutes an admission that we are not truly Free, merely the free-est.

The point here is who gets to decide how free you will be allowed to be. "Allowed to be"? Who gets to decide the level of freedom to be allowed? Where does the authority arise from to allow such to be determined by some for others? By v****g? Who decided that? Where did the authority arise from to establish v****g? Who v**ed on that? How can it be in any way reasonable for men who were born and died long before I was born to possibly have had any authority to create rules I am bound to obey?

"But we must have some rules!?" That statement sure does sound reasonable but who gets to decide what those rules are and who they will apply to? "Well, we at least need to outlaw a******n and child molestation."

Yes, that does sound reasonable, but under that concept we have a situation where a seventeen year old fully developed woman seduces an older man and he is convicted of statutory rape because the"LAW" has determined she is not old enough to decide for herself who she will freely give herself to. When no individual (outside of her parents- and even that is questionable), can possibly have authority to determine her maturity, how can it be reasonably possible for total strangers who do not even know her to possibly have standing to regulate her activities?

And requiring parents to inoculate their children when there is overwhelming evidence that such inoculations have been fatal to several children? Where is there any proper authority for such as this?

"But we must have some rules!" Right?

All those who wrote critical comments in regard to my first post ought to really have a ball condemning this one. But when they do, let them be advised, what they are actually condemning is their own Freedom.

Defending the Framers of the Constitution because they could not possibly write a document that would address every issue might sound like a fair and reasonable defense of those "great" men, but I disagree because the two problems I have in mind should have been obvious to the Framers at that time and I contend that they were and that the Framers intentionally wrote the Constitution so that we would be where we are today.

Take a read at the bottom of your screen of the very tightly worded disclaimer notice established by One Political Plaza. This was written by someone who knows how some individuals will wiggle themselves into privileges that were never intended. All of the Founders were politicians, they knew very well how devious politicians can be in their manipulation of loosely written rules.

As politicians, the Framers certainly had to be aware of how politicians will create loopholes where none exist, so how could they have inadvertently given us a Constitution with so many loopholes in it that a school of whales could swim through without a violation?

Integrity, where has that ever existed in any government anywhere. There has, in my opinion, only been one honest Freedom Peace loving man to ever sit in the White House, and it was NOT Washington, Lincoln or Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, and he was a Democrat?

In my original post I mentioned how unreasonable it was to expect the framers to create a government that would displace them from their Aristocrat position, held by them for uncounted generations. Why is it that none of you have any concern in regard to the intent of the Founders?

Are you aware that it was Thomas Paine who first referred to this country as The United States of America, and Paine has been virtually written out of our history, and, as I previously mentioned, I have good information that indicates it was Paine who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is interesting that Jefferson never claimed to be the author until after Paine had died.

It is important to recognize that on July 4, 1776 all formal government ceased to exist on this land and everyone became politically equal, that is, everyone became immediately sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other and it would be totally unreasonable to assert that two or more could combine their non authority to enable them to create, as a group, an authority that none of them individually held. When such is done it is properly known as a police state!

It needs to be understood that the government then created was to be a government where there was to be no political status hierarchy, no Aristocrats and no commoners. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty. What does that mean? And to who? Pay attention to the words!

In the Declaration of Independence, it is established that all men have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean?

What is it that constitutes Liberty? Who gets to decide? Without a concise specific definition set forth in the Constitution, politicians can construe it any way they want. What does "Provide for the general welfare" mean? It means Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Agenda 21, Federal Aid to Education, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and Obamacare, and anything else the politicians want to conjure up out of thin air. (Public schools are one of the very worse programs ever implemented to destroy Freedom!)

Yes, it is true that the mess we are in has been brought about by dishonest politicians who did not follow the moral principles written about by the Founders outside of the Constitution. That is my whole point, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that acknowledges or establishes the basic authority of the government of a people who purport to be free. What is it that comprises that basic authority? Where does it come from? And what are its Natural limitations? Who gets to decide?

As I stated above, how can those who have no individual authority combine their lack of authority in order to create an authority none of them individually possess?

"Freedom is the societal condition that will exist when everyone has full, one hundred percent, control over their own property and the derivatives thereof. Children are not property." A.J. Galambos, Founder, of The Free Enterprise Institute.

The Constitution the Founders foisted off on us is a disguised version of the same form of government then existing in England. A Senate here, a House of Lords there; a House of Representatives here, a House of Commons there; a President here, a King there. What is the difference other than the names of the departments and a few minor details?

The Framers should have included a provision in the Preamble establishing that the government created under the Constitution should never ever be construed to have any more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single, individual man or woman. If that had been included, as it should, because that is the Natural Order of things, then the government would have had no authority to institute any of the socialistic v**e buying programs it has implemented.

The second major flaw in the Constitution is the provision assigning the Congress the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Freedom can never ever exist where any level of government is allowed to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from! I contend that this unlimited borrowing authority was the motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve System, of which there is substantial evidence is entirely owned and controlled by Congress, not by foreign bankers. The Fed is currently audited annually, contrary to the claims of Ron Paul. This must be changed, as I have indicated elsewhere in this instant writing.

Do any of you reading this writing have Natural authority to command anyone to pay for something you think is good but others do not? We all want lower taxes, the only level that can be proper, to enable Freedom to actually be recognized, is where there is no taxation allowed at any level for any purpose. Where taxation is employed, a police state has been implemented. Any argument against that is an argument in favor of a police state!

At the outset Federal government funding was limited to imposts and duties and otherwise left up to the states; however, neither could state governments have any such authority as state governments derive their authority from the same source as the Federal, and can be no greater than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man or woman.

The problem here is none of you actually understand what it is that constitutes Freedom! All of you want to decide for others what their limit of Freedom shall be, but you don't want to admit that. You want to hide behind v****g.

It is a point well taken that when v****g is utilized v****g will be used to destroy the economy. The suggestions that lobbying should be prohibited misses the point. If the proper authority of government was acknowledged, then no legislature would be empowered to regulate any manner of activity and lobbying would be futile.

We should return to the application of the common law to determine criminal activity and justice, where juries would be empowered to determine if criminal activity was being implemented, such as Monsanto. If we were properly operating under common law, Monsanto would not be able to hide behind legislation enacted by CONgress, or sanctioned by Obama, and would be put out of business and its executives executed for their common law crime of destroying the natural environment.

At our time, due to the universal implementation of electricity, all four levels of government here, city, county, state and federal, can be funded by interest collected on loans extended by The People's Central Bank to private sector borrowers. The PCB can be established by the Federalization of the Federal Reserve System, with the management taken from CONgress and assigned to the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

For those of you who thirst for a return to Constitutional gold and silver coin, you need to realize that such a monetary system would, by its very nature, cause or facilitate the very problems you want to correct.

It must be understood that the Federal Government has never ever "issued" gold or silver coin into circulation. At that time, the coins were struck from ore owned by private entities by the government mint, the ore or coins were not owned by the government. Those coins were returned to the entities that owned the raw ore and then spent into circulation by the private entities, not by government.

With about 80 million mortgages as our average, if we were to return to gold coins, loaned to fund mortgages by private lenders, with interest charged, how long would it be before all the gold in circulation became owned by the private bankers, and then what would the home mortgage holders use to make their monthly mortgage payments? How long would it be before the gold lenders became the owners of everything and everyone?

It is important to remember that the r*******n against King George III, in 1776, was not the first time there had been a r*******n against a British Monarch. At the beginning of that revolution, prior to Thomas Paine coming on the scene, it was expected that if there was a r*******n where King George was ousted, that a new kingdom would be established here, and a new king crowned, and that such king would be George Washington. And you really believe that Washington was happy with what Paine taught all the commoners?

However Thomas Paine did arrive and he wrote a small book titled "Common Sense", wherein Paine convinced the commoners that they did not need a king, that they could govern themselves.

During that r*******n Paine's writings were critical to support of General George Washington's military endeavors, as was then acknowledged by General Washington. After the war was over, Paine went to England and then to France where he was active in the expulsion of the French King. However, due to Paine's opposition to the k*****g of the French King, Paine was arrested and thrown in the French Bastille, where a letter from then President George Washington could have had Paine released, but Washington refused to write such a letter. Paine became very ill and almost died in the French jail.

I am very well read on the Federalist Papers. written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. I would suggest you read the Anti Federalist Papers to get a clearer view. And take off your rose colored glasses.

I did not write previously anything negative in regard to the Thirteenth Amendment or suggest that the Founders had any direct input to that creation, and in my response here, in my remarks in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, such are not intended to be critical, only explanatory. The Fourteenth Amendment only applies to those who volunteer themselves into United States citizen subservient status, so, if you were born on this land, the 14th only applies to you if you volunteer yourself into U.S. citizen status, otherwise, if you properly claim to be of the People of the United States as such established themselves in the Preamble, then you can be free and clear of the IRS and other government controls of your life. I strongly contend that the Thirteenth Amendment is the best tool we have to keep the government out of our lives.

Unless the government can present proof that you willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit yourself to its authority under United States citizenship, it has no standing to command you in any slight way!

If the Constitution were as good as some of you wish and dream, then why did all of the Thirteen States reject it as originally written and presented?

There in nothing in the Federal Constitution that declares the Federal Government to be a republic, only a guarantee that all states will have a republican form of government. What is a republican form of government? And why did the Founders guarantee such a form to the states?

There are about a hundred totalitarian countries on this planet right now that have the word "republic" in their official names? What is the similarity between all those countries, like China, North Korea and others, with the United States? The similarity is that all have two political classes, (1) Those appointing themselves to make the rules (The People of the United States), and (2) Those appointed by the People to follow those rules (those who volunteer themselves into subservient United States citizen status).

It seems to me, that as a republic is a form of government where there are two political classes, that the purpose of the Founders guaranteeing that state governments would be republican in form, was to inform all their Aristocrat buddies that they could establish their own Dukedoms here on this land, where they could govern the commoners, the only difference would be that here the Dukedoms would be known as states, and the Dukes known as Governors and the subjects known as citizens, rather than as commoners or subjects. Just more of the same old political change the name game.

I have found it very interesting that there is no clearly established legal or lawful provision where someone born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof. It is most certainly not in the Fourteenth Amendment. All the 14th does (very importantly) is establish the duties and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, and most importantly, assigns full unlimited authority over citizens of the United States to the Executive Branch, President Obama, to command as he sees fit, with no limitation what-so-ever.

None of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to mere citizens. The word "People" is used therein five times, the word "citizen" is noticeably absent. And, the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship due to mere birth. Pay attention to the words!

The best I can come up with is that United States citizenship is available to anyone born here who is foolish enough to claim such subservient tax-payer status. Does that surprise you that I would write that? It would not if you understood that People of the United States and citizen of the United States are entirely different. Pay attention to the actual meaning of the words, and the context, not what you have been indoctrinated to believe!

An important factor, however, in regard to the word "People" is the context in which it is used, particularly in the Preamble which is surreptitiously reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

The context in which the word "People" is set in the Preamble, imbues the word "People" with a political meaning anywhere it is used in the Constitution, which will include all of the Bill of Rights. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to the People and THEIR posterity. There is no mention of mere citizens being included, therefore, citizens are excluded! Pay attention to the words!

There were no citizens of the United States at that time. everyone then present was of the People of the United States and all were included in the Preamble and in the Bill of Rights, wherever the word "People" was used, being in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The word citizen was not used in the Bill of Rights. Why Not?

The political class, citizen of the United States is surreptitiously established in Section Two of Article One, but no where defined, not until the Fourteenth Amendment. Why did the Founders write these critical items this way? (Here, I am in reference to the manner in which the Founders manipulated the words "People" and "citizen" in the Constitution, this is not a reference to any direct complacency of the Founders in the writing of the 13th and 14th amendments).

It is significant here too, to pay attention to the qualifications established in Section Two of Article One, for service in the House or Senate, 25 years of age and 7 years a citizen; and 35 years of age and 9 years a citizen? Why the disparity if the reference was to a status acquired by birth?

Is it not clear that the Founders were therein intending to surreptitiously acknowledge and establish that United States citizenship was a status expected to be assigned to naturalized persons, or as later set up in the 14th Amendment, to apply to those of the People of the United States who could be indoctrinated in public schools to believe they were born into such servitude status. Yes, I know, the Founders did not write the 14th Amendment, but they did plant the seeds in Section Two of Article One.

My purpose here is not so much to castigate the Founders as it is to castigate those readers who refuse to take their blinders off to acknowledge that the Constitution is greatly flawed and must be amended if we are to ever establish Freedom on this land.

In the Fourteenth Amendment, pay attention to the words, "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...". These words negate any application of the Bill of Rights to those People who volunteer themselves into subservient United State citizenship status (such citizens were already excluded, but such was not made clear until the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to have been ratified). There is no mention or inclusion in the Bill of Rights of any application thereof to mere citizens. Pay attention to the actual words, not what you have been programmed to believe in the government's schools and by society in general.

At the time the Constitution was originally presented it was rejected by all the states (how could it be that the Founders could not present a first draft that would be accepted? And would need several amendments agreed upon beforehand?)

After its rejection the commoners of the Thirteen States wrote approximately fifty proposed changes, many duplicates due to difficulty in communication at that time. When the fifty were presented to the Founders, the fifty were distilled down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Founders themselves, for a total of twelve presented to the States for consideration and ratification. The two added by the Founders were rejected.

It is often stated that the reason the Founders put Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment and Gun Protection in the Second, was because the Founders considered those two to be the most important, and in that order.

However, as to what the Founders actually considered to be the most important, if the order of inclusion in the twelve be indicative, the two amendments added by the Founders that were rejected were number one and two on the list of twelve. Number one had to do with the pay of Congress and Number two had to do with how many constituents would be represented by a member of the House of Representatives. So there we have what was truly most important to the wonderful Founders.

I contend that the Founders positioned their two inane amendments in there to draw attention away from the wording of the First and Second Amendments, most especially the First, which is clearly divided into two sections, with the Redress of Grievance strictly limited to the People of the United States. Pay attention to the words and grammatical structure!

I suggest those interested go to this site to read the original changes proposed by the commoners:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

Please take note that the wording of the commoners in their proposed amendments is general in nature. It was their clear intent that the protections they were suggesting should be worded so that these protections would be applicable to everyone, with none of the protections limited to any particular political class, of which there were supposed to be none in their new government, however the devious Founders had other intentions.

The devious Founders created a republic, where the People would be the ruling class and the citizens would be the ruled class.

I became informed in about 1973, by a then active United States Deputy Prosecutor, that the IRS and the Federal Government, only have political d******n over citizens of the United States (or foreign guests who have entered the United States on some form of Passport).

This was after I had beaten the IRS in Federal Court in 1970, where I had been criminally charged with willful failure to file or pay income tax. I beat the IRS in that prosecution in less than five minutes.

I stopped the prosecution when the IRS Prosecutor uttered only nine words in his opening statement. "Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah, blah, blah..."

My objection was a challenge to the Prosecutor to present proof from the government's file that I was a citizen of the United States, even though I was (to the best of my knowledge), born in California.

When neither the IRS Prosecutor or the Federal Judge were able to present such proof, the Federal Judge then said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago and I am still waiting.

It does not make me happy to write what I have here, as for Hillsdale's Constitution 101, I am very well aware of Hillsdale and the damage it does every day misleading those interested in correcting the problems in our government. Hillsdale refuses to acknowledge that there are any weaknesses in the Constitution, only in the failure to follow its principles - what principles?

When there are politicians who strongly believe that commoners are intellectually incompetent to determine whether their children should be inoculated, and Agenda 21 is being moved forward by Obama and all of this and more, is properly enabled under the 14th Amendment., and Hillsdale fails to understand what a republic is, and how the People of the United States are duped into "volunteering" themselves into servitude citizenship, then I have no use for Hillsdale. I have sent several letters to Dr. Arnn, with no response.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone,
The United States of America

Reply
May 6, 2014 00:14:18   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
In 1972 I read In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff.
It's been quite awhile but if I remember correctly his findings shredded
all forms of government except anarchism. He found that anarchism
only worked on the condition there were no subjects. Just the anarchist. But, it worked without flaw under that condition. I would suggest you give it a whirl and report back in 100 or so years. You will most likely prove his theories. We will slug along during your absence in this horrid mess.





EricWhoRU wrote:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is in response to several comments of my first post on this topic.

I am combining my response her to all that I have so far read, so please, when you read what I wrote, only apply my response to you if such application would be appropriate.

One commenter wrote that he partially agreed and partially disagreed. It is impossible to respond to such a convoluted comment. Please be specific so I can respond appropriately.

I know that most of those persons who are concerned about the sad state of affairs we currently suffer under believe and are convinced that the Constitution established a Republic here, and that the Founders did a marvelous job in their creation of the Constitution and that the reason we are in the mess we are is simply because the intent of the Founders has not been followed, and all we need to do to restore everything to the way it was intended is to go back and follow the principles purportedly set by the Founders, such as (one commenter suggested), are set forth in the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, three men who wrote to sell their own product. It is much more significant to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, if it is desired to learn what those who found fault in the Constitution thought of it.

As I wrote in my original post, it is not a good idea to read what the Framers of the Constitution wrote outside of the Constitution in order to establish how the limitations purportedly set forth in the Constitution would be able to accomplish the controls the Framers otherwise contended they wrote in that document. If it is not in the Constitution then how could it possibly be enforced?

For example, most of us today agree that we need less government and lower taxes, but what does that very non-specific agreement accomplish? What is it that constitutes an acceptable "less" government, and how much "lower? is low enough? How could we ever reach an agreement without first establishing what it is that constitutes the source and extent of government authority?

By establishing the maximum level of taxation and the maximum level of control over our lives.

The problem with that is determining who will decide how much is reasonable and where do they get the authority to decide?

As I wrote in my original post here, what does "taxation with representation" mean. Any fair and honest evaluation will establish that "taxation with or without representation" is a totally wrong concept and is like trying to build a building without a foundation, by starting at the second floor or putting a tire on an automobile without using a wheel/rim.

What we are needing to establish here is what it is that actually constitutes Freedom, which the Founders did not do. I often hear it said that we are the freest people on the planet. I don't like that at all because that statement constitutes an admission that we are not truly Free, merely the free-est.

The point here is who gets to decide how free you will be allowed to be. "Allowed to be"? Who gets to decide the level of freedom to be allowed? Where does the authority arise from to allow such to be determined by some for others? By v****g? Who decided that? Where did the authority arise from to establish v****g? Who v**ed on that? How can it be in any way reasonable for men who were born and died long before I was born to possibly have had any authority to create rules I am bound to obey?

"But we must have some rules!?" That statement sure does sound reasonable but who gets to decide what those rules are and who they will apply to? "Well, we at least need to outlaw a******n and child molestation."

Yes, that does sound reasonable, but under that concept we have a situation where a seventeen year old fully developed woman seduces an older man and he is convicted of statutory rape because the"LAW" has determined she is not old enough to decide for herself who she will freely give herself to. When no individual (outside of her parents- and even that is questionable), can possibly have authority to determine her maturity, how can it be reasonably possible for total strangers who do not even know her to possibly have standing to regulate her activities?

And requiring parents to inoculate their children when there is overwhelming evidence that such inoculations have been fatal to several children? Where is there any proper authority for such as this?

"But we must have some rules!" Right?

All those who wrote critical comments in regard to my first post ought to really have a ball condemning this one. But when they do, let them be advised, what they are actually condemning is their own Freedom.

Defending the Framers of the Constitution because they could not possibly write a document that would address every issue might sound like a fair and reasonable defense of those "great" men, but I disagree because the two problems I have in mind should have been obvious to the Framers at that time and I contend that they were and that the Framers intentionally wrote the Constitution so that we would be where we are today.

Take a read at the bottom of your screen of the very tightly worded disclaimer notice established by One Political Plaza. This was written by someone who knows how some individuals will wiggle themselves into privileges that were never intended. All of the Founders were politicians, they knew very well how devious politicians can be in their manipulation of loosely written rules.

As politicians, the Framers certainly had to be aware of how politicians will create loopholes where none exist, so how could they have inadvertently given us a Constitution with so many loopholes in it that a school of whales could swim through without a violation?

Integrity, where has that ever existed in any government anywhere. There has, in my opinion, only been one honest Freedom Peace loving man to ever sit in the White House, and it was NOT Washington, Lincoln or Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, and he was a Democrat?

In my original post I mentioned how unreasonable it was to expect the framers to create a government that would displace them from their Aristocrat position, held by them for uncounted generations. Why is it that none of you have any concern in regard to the intent of the Founders?

Are you aware that it was Thomas Paine who first referred to this country as The United States of America, and Paine has been virtually written out of our history, and, as I previously mentioned, I have good information that indicates it was Paine who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is interesting that Jefferson never claimed to be the author until after Paine had died.

It is important to recognize that on July 4, 1776 all formal government ceased to exist on this land and everyone became politically equal, that is, everyone became immediately sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other and it would be totally unreasonable to assert that two or more could combine their non authority to enable them to create, as a group, an authority that none of them individually held. When such is done it is properly known as a police state!

It needs to be understood that the government then created was to be a government where there was to be no political status hierarchy, no Aristocrats and no commoners. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty. What does that mean? And to who? Pay attention to the words!

In the Declaration of Independence, it is established that all men have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean?

What is it that constitutes Liberty? Who gets to decide? Without a concise specific definition set forth in the Constitution, politicians can construe it any way they want. What does "Provide for the general welfare" mean? It means Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Agenda 21, Federal Aid to Education, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and Obamacare, and anything else the politicians want to conjure up out of thin air. (Public schools are one of the very worse programs ever implemented to destroy Freedom!)

Yes, it is true that the mess we are in has been brought about by dishonest politicians who did not follow the moral principles written about by the Founders outside of the Constitution. That is my whole point, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that acknowledges or establishes the basic authority of the government of a people who purport to be free. What is it that comprises that basic authority? Where does it come from? And what are its Natural limitations? Who gets to decide?

As I stated above, how can those who have no individual authority combine their lack of authority in order to create an authority none of them individually possess?

"Freedom is the societal condition that will exist when everyone has full, one hundred percent, control over their own property and the derivatives thereof. Children are not property." A.J. Galambos, Founder, of The Free Enterprise Institute.

The Constitution the Founders foisted off on us is a disguised version of the same form of government then existing in England. A Senate here, a House of Lords there; a House of Representatives here, a House of Commons there; a President here, a King there. What is the difference other than the names of the departments and a few minor details?

The Framers should have included a provision in the Preamble establishing that the government created under the Constitution should never ever be construed to have any more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single, individual man or woman. If that had been included, as it should, because that is the Natural Order of things, then the government would have had no authority to institute any of the socialistic v**e buying programs it has implemented.

The second major flaw in the Constitution is the provision assigning the Congress the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Freedom can never ever exist where any level of government is allowed to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from! I contend that this unlimited borrowing authority was the motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve System, of which there is substantial evidence is entirely owned and controlled by Congress, not by foreign bankers. The Fed is currently audited annually, contrary to the claims of Ron Paul. This must be changed, as I have indicated elsewhere in this instant writing.

Do any of you reading this writing have Natural authority to command anyone to pay for something you think is good but others do not? We all want lower taxes, the only level that can be proper, to enable Freedom to actually be recognized, is where there is no taxation allowed at any level for any purpose. Where taxation is employed, a police state has been implemented. Any argument against that is an argument in favor of a police state!

At the outset Federal government funding was limited to imposts and duties and otherwise left up to the states; however, neither could state governments have any such authority as state governments derive their authority from the same source as the Federal, and can be no greater than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man or woman.

The problem here is none of you actually understand what it is that constitutes Freedom! All of you want to decide for others what their limit of Freedom shall be, but you don't want to admit that. You want to hide behind v****g.

It is a point well taken that when v****g is utilized v****g will be used to destroy the economy. The suggestions that lobbying should be prohibited misses the point. If the proper authority of government was acknowledged, then no legislature would be empowered to regulate any manner of activity and lobbying would be futile.

We should return to the application of the common law to determine criminal activity and justice, where juries would be empowered to determine if criminal activity was being implemented, such as Monsanto. If we were properly operating under common law, Monsanto would not be able to hide behind legislation enacted by CONgress, or sanctioned by Obama, and would be put out of business and its executives executed for their common law crime of destroying the natural environment.

At our time, due to the universal implementation of electricity, all four levels of government here, city, county, state and federal, can be funded by interest collected on loans extended by The People's Central Bank to private sector borrowers. The PCB can be established by the Federalization of the Federal Reserve System, with the management taken from CONgress and assigned to the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

For those of you who thirst for a return to Constitutional gold and silver coin, you need to realize that such a monetary system would, by its very nature, cause or facilitate the very problems you want to correct.

It must be understood that the Federal Government has never ever "issued" gold or silver coin into circulation. At that time, the coins were struck from ore owned by private entities by the government mint, the ore or coins were not owned by the government. Those coins were returned to the entities that owned the raw ore and then spent into circulation by the private entities, not by government.

With about 80 million mortgages as our average, if we were to return to gold coins, loaned to fund mortgages by private lenders, with interest charged, how long would it be before all the gold in circulation became owned by the private bankers, and then what would the home mortgage holders use to make their monthly mortgage payments? How long would it be before the gold lenders became the owners of everything and everyone?

It is important to remember that the r*******n against King George III, in 1776, was not the first time there had been a r*******n against a British Monarch. At the beginning of that revolution, prior to Thomas Paine coming on the scene, it was expected that if there was a r*******n where King George was ousted, that a new kingdom would be established here, and a new king crowned, and that such king would be George Washington. And you really believe that Washington was happy with what Paine taught all the commoners?

However Thomas Paine did arrive and he wrote a small book titled "Common Sense", wherein Paine convinced the commoners that they did not need a king, that they could govern themselves.

During that r*******n Paine's writings were critical to support of General George Washington's military endeavors, as was then acknowledged by General Washington. After the war was over, Paine went to England and then to France where he was active in the expulsion of the French King. However, due to Paine's opposition to the k*****g of the French King, Paine was arrested and thrown in the French Bastille, where a letter from then President George Washington could have had Paine released, but Washington refused to write such a letter. Paine became very ill and almost died in the French jail.

I am very well read on the Federalist Papers. written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. I would suggest you read the Anti Federalist Papers to get a clearer view. And take off your rose colored glasses.

I did not write previously anything negative in regard to the Thirteenth Amendment or suggest that the Founders had any direct input to that creation, and in my response here, in my remarks in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, such are not intended to be critical, only explanatory. The Fourteenth Amendment only applies to those who volunteer themselves into United States citizen subservient status, so, if you were born on this land, the 14th only applies to you if you volunteer yourself into U.S. citizen status, otherwise, if you properly claim to be of the People of the United States as such established themselves in the Preamble, then you can be free and clear of the IRS and other government controls of your life. I strongly contend that the Thirteenth Amendment is the best tool we have to keep the government out of our lives.

Unless the government can present proof that you willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit yourself to its authority under United States citizenship, it has no standing to command you in any slight way!

If the Constitution were as good as some of you wish and dream, then why did all of the Thirteen States reject it as originally written and presented?

There in nothing in the Federal Constitution that declares the Federal Government to be a republic, only a guarantee that all states will have a republican form of government. What is a republican form of government? And why did the Founders guarantee such a form to the states?

There are about a hundred totalitarian countries on this planet right now that have the word "republic" in their official names? What is the similarity between all those countries, like China, North Korea and others, with the United States? The similarity is that all have two political classes, (1) Those appointing themselves to make the rules (The People of the United States), and (2) Those appointed by the People to follow those rules (those who volunteer themselves into subservient United States citizen status).

It seems to me, that as a republic is a form of government where there are two political classes, that the purpose of the Founders guaranteeing that state governments would be republican in form, was to inform all their Aristocrat buddies that they could establish their own Dukedoms here on this land, where they could govern the commoners, the only difference would be that here the Dukedoms would be known as states, and the Dukes known as Governors and the subjects known as citizens, rather than as commoners or subjects. Just more of the same old political change the name game.

I have found it very interesting that there is no clearly established legal or lawful provision where someone born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof. It is most certainly not in the Fourteenth Amendment. All the 14th does (very importantly) is establish the duties and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, and most importantly, assigns full unlimited authority over citizens of the United States to the Executive Branch, President Obama, to command as he sees fit, with no limitation what-so-ever.

None of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to mere citizens. The word "People" is used therein five times, the word "citizen" is noticeably absent. And, the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship due to mere birth. Pay attention to the words!

The best I can come up with is that United States citizenship is available to anyone born here who is foolish enough to claim such subservient tax-payer status. Does that surprise you that I would write that? It would not if you understood that People of the United States and citizen of the United States are entirely different. Pay attention to the actual meaning of the words, and the context, not what you have been indoctrinated to believe!

An important factor, however, in regard to the word "People" is the context in which it is used, particularly in the Preamble which is surreptitiously reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

The context in which the word "People" is set in the Preamble, imbues the word "People" with a political meaning anywhere it is used in the Constitution, which will include all of the Bill of Rights. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to the People and THEIR posterity. There is no mention of mere citizens being included, therefore, citizens are excluded! Pay attention to the words!

There were no citizens of the United States at that time. everyone then present was of the People of the United States and all were included in the Preamble and in the Bill of Rights, wherever the word "People" was used, being in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The word citizen was not used in the Bill of Rights. Why Not?

The political class, citizen of the United States is surreptitiously established in Section Two of Article One, but no where defined, not until the Fourteenth Amendment. Why did the Founders write these critical items this way? (Here, I am in reference to the manner in which the Founders manipulated the words "People" and "citizen" in the Constitution, this is not a reference to any direct complacency of the Founders in the writing of the 13th and 14th amendments).

It is significant here too, to pay attention to the qualifications established in Section Two of Article One, for service in the House or Senate, 25 years of age and 7 years a citizen; and 35 years of age and 9 years a citizen? Why the disparity if the reference was to a status acquired by birth?

Is it not clear that the Founders were therein intending to surreptitiously acknowledge and establish that United States citizenship was a status expected to be assigned to naturalized persons, or as later set up in the 14th Amendment, to apply to those of the People of the United States who could be indoctrinated in public schools to believe they were born into such servitude status. Yes, I know, the Founders did not write the 14th Amendment, but they did plant the seeds in Section Two of Article One.

My purpose here is not so much to castigate the Founders as it is to castigate those readers who refuse to take their blinders off to acknowledge that the Constitution is greatly flawed and must be amended if we are to ever establish Freedom on this land.

In the Fourteenth Amendment, pay attention to the words, "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...". These words negate any application of the Bill of Rights to those People who volunteer themselves into subservient United State citizenship status (such citizens were already excluded, but such was not made clear until the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to have been ratified). There is no mention or inclusion in the Bill of Rights of any application thereof to mere citizens. Pay attention to the actual words, not what you have been programmed to believe in the government's schools and by society in general.

At the time the Constitution was originally presented it was rejected by all the states (how could it be that the Founders could not present a first draft that would be accepted? And would need several amendments agreed upon beforehand?)

After its rejection the commoners of the Thirteen States wrote approximately fifty proposed changes, many duplicates due to difficulty in communication at that time. When the fifty were presented to the Founders, the fifty were distilled down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Founders themselves, for a total of twelve presented to the States for consideration and ratification. The two added by the Founders were rejected.

It is often stated that the reason the Founders put Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment and Gun Protection in the Second, was because the Founders considered those two to be the most important, and in that order.

However, as to what the Founders actually considered to be the most important, if the order of inclusion in the twelve be indicative, the two amendments added by the Founders that were rejected were number one and two on the list of twelve. Number one had to do with the pay of Congress and Number two had to do with how many constituents would be represented by a member of the House of Representatives. So there we have what was truly most important to the wonderful Founders.

I contend that the Founders positioned their two inane amendments in there to draw attention away from the wording of the First and Second Amendments, most especially the First, which is clearly divided into two sections, with the Redress of Grievance strictly limited to the People of the United States. Pay attention to the words and grammatical structure!

I suggest those interested go to this site to read the original changes proposed by the commoners:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

Please take note that the wording of the commoners in their proposed amendments is general in nature. It was their clear intent that the protections they were suggesting should be worded so that these protections would be applicable to everyone, with none of the protections limited to any particular political class, of which there were supposed to be none in their new government, however the devious Founders had other intentions.

The devious Founders created a republic, where the People would be the ruling class and the citizens would be the ruled class.

I became informed in about 1973, by a then active United States Deputy Prosecutor, that the IRS and the Federal Government, only have political d******n over citizens of the United States (or foreign guests who have entered the United States on some form of Passport).

This was after I had beaten the IRS in Federal Court in 1970, where I had been criminally charged with willful failure to file or pay income tax. I beat the IRS in that prosecution in less than five minutes.

I stopped the prosecution when the IRS Prosecutor uttered only nine words in his opening statement. "Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah, blah, blah..."

My objection was a challenge to the Prosecutor to present proof from the government's file that I was a citizen of the United States, even though I was (to the best of my knowledge), born in California.

When neither the IRS Prosecutor or the Federal Judge were able to present such proof, the Federal Judge then said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago and I am still waiting.

It does not make me happy to write what I have here, as for Hillsdale's Constitution 101, I am very well aware of Hillsdale and the damage it does every day misleading those interested in correcting the problems in our government. Hillsdale refuses to acknowledge that there are any weaknesses in the Constitution, only in the failure to follow its principles - what principles?

When there are politicians who strongly believe that commoners are intellectually incompetent to determine whether their children should be inoculated, and Agenda 21 is being moved forward by Obama and all of this and more, is properly enabled under the 14th Amendment., and Hillsdale fails to understand what a republic is, and how the People of the United States are duped into "volunteering" themselves into servitude citizenship, then I have no use for Hillsdale. I have sent several letters to Dr. Arnn, with no response.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone,
The United States of America
There are none so blind as those who will not see.... (show quote)

Reply
May 6, 2014 09:28:42   #
Ve'hoe
 
I too have a friend who tried what you claim,,, he is just getting out of a federal prison for tax evasion.


I too am not pleased with the current state of affairs. The founding fathers did not create a govt as much as they created a "framework" for a government. That relied on "the christian ethics" of the people involved.. which failed us. JFK???? I dont know,,,, with all the lies and affairs in his life I dont know how he could be all that trustworthy.

I am cheyenne, and my people were indeed free, but we still had structure, we had a tribe and elders, and you had better have listened to what they "suggested" or someone would put an arrow in you, no trial, no warning. Banning from the tribe was almost certain death, and anarchy reigned. I dont think that was "better" but it was free-er.

The question is: Is man capable, and deserving of freedom, when he doesnt exhibit the necessary controls of himself to warrant, establish, or maintain it?

EricWhoRU wrote:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is in response to several comments of my first post on this topic.

I am combining my response her to all that I have so far read, so please, when you read what I wrote, only apply my response to you if such application would be appropriate.

One commenter wrote that he partially agreed and partially disagreed. It is impossible to respond to such a convoluted comment. Please be specific so I can respond appropriately.

I know that most of those persons who are concerned about the sad state of affairs we currently suffer under believe and are convinced that the Constitution established a Republic here, and that the Founders did a marvelous job in their creation of the Constitution and that the reason we are in the mess we are is simply because the intent of the Founders has not been followed, and all we need to do to restore everything to the way it was intended is to go back and follow the principles purportedly set by the Founders, such as (one commenter suggested), are set forth in the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, three men who wrote to sell their own product. It is much more significant to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, if it is desired to learn what those who found fault in the Constitution thought of it.

As I wrote in my original post, it is not a good idea to read what the Framers of the Constitution wrote outside of the Constitution in order to establish how the limitations purportedly set forth in the Constitution would be able to accomplish the controls the Framers otherwise contended they wrote in that document. If it is not in the Constitution then how could it possibly be enforced?

For example, most of us today agree that we need less government and lower taxes, but what does that very non-specific agreement accomplish? What is it that constitutes an acceptable "less" government, and how much "lower? is low enough? How could we ever reach an agreement without first establishing what it is that constitutes the source and extent of government authority?

By establishing the maximum level of taxation and the maximum level of control over our lives.

The problem with that is determining who will decide how much is reasonable and where do they get the authority to decide?

As I wrote in my original post here, what does "taxation with representation" mean. Any fair and honest evaluation will establish that "taxation with or without representation" is a totally wrong concept and is like trying to build a building without a foundation, by starting at the second floor or putting a tire on an automobile without using a wheel/rim.

What we are needing to establish here is what it is that actually constitutes Freedom, which the Founders did not do. I often hear it said that we are the freest people on the planet. I don't like that at all because that statement constitutes an admission that we are not truly Free, merely the free-est.

The point here is who gets to decide how free you will be allowed to be. "Allowed to be"? Who gets to decide the level of freedom to be allowed? Where does the authority arise from to allow such to be determined by some for others? By v****g? Who decided that? Where did the authority arise from to establish v****g? Who v**ed on that? How can it be in any way reasonable for men who were born and died long before I was born to possibly have had any authority to create rules I am bound to obey?

"But we must have some rules!?" That statement sure does sound reasonable but who gets to decide what those rules are and who they will apply to? "Well, we at least need to outlaw a******n and child molestation."

Yes, that does sound reasonable, but under that concept we have a situation where a seventeen year old fully developed woman seduces an older man and he is convicted of statutory rape because the"LAW" has determined she is not old enough to decide for herself who she will freely give herself to. When no individual (outside of her parents- and even that is questionable), can possibly have authority to determine her maturity, how can it be reasonably possible for total strangers who do not even know her to possibly have standing to regulate her activities?

And requiring parents to inoculate their children when there is overwhelming evidence that such inoculations have been fatal to several children? Where is there any proper authority for such as this?

"But we must have some rules!" Right?

All those who wrote critical comments in regard to my first post ought to really have a ball condemning this one. But when they do, let them be advised, what they are actually condemning is their own Freedom.

Defending the Framers of the Constitution because they could not possibly write a document that would address every issue might sound like a fair and reasonable defense of those "great" men, but I disagree because the two problems I have in mind should have been obvious to the Framers at that time and I contend that they were and that the Framers intentionally wrote the Constitution so that we would be where we are today.

Take a read at the bottom of your screen of the very tightly worded disclaimer notice established by One Political Plaza. This was written by someone who knows how some individuals will wiggle themselves into privileges that were never intended. All of the Founders were politicians, they knew very well how devious politicians can be in their manipulation of loosely written rules.

As politicians, the Framers certainly had to be aware of how politicians will create loopholes where none exist, so how could they have inadvertently given us a Constitution with so many loopholes in it that a school of whales could swim through without a violation?

Integrity, where has that ever existed in any government anywhere. There has, in my opinion, only been one honest Freedom Peace loving man to ever sit in the White House, and it was NOT Washington, Lincoln or Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, and he was a Democrat?

In my original post I mentioned how unreasonable it was to expect the framers to create a government that would displace them from their Aristocrat position, held by them for uncounted generations. Why is it that none of you have any concern in regard to the intent of the Founders?

Are you aware that it was Thomas Paine who first referred to this country as The United States of America, and Paine has been virtually written out of our history, and, as I previously mentioned, I have good information that indicates it was Paine who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is interesting that Jefferson never claimed to be the author until after Paine had died.

It is important to recognize that on July 4, 1776 all formal government ceased to exist on this land and everyone became politically equal, that is, everyone became immediately sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other and it would be totally unreasonable to assert that two or more could combine their non authority to enable them to create, as a group, an authority that none of them individually held. When such is done it is properly known as a police state!

It needs to be understood that the government then created was to be a government where there was to be no political status hierarchy, no Aristocrats and no commoners. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty. What does that mean? And to who? Pay attention to the words!

In the Declaration of Independence, it is established that all men have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean?

What is it that constitutes Liberty? Who gets to decide? Without a concise specific definition set forth in the Constitution, politicians can construe it any way they want. What does "Provide for the general welfare" mean? It means Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Agenda 21, Federal Aid to Education, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and Obamacare, and anything else the politicians want to conjure up out of thin air. (Public schools are one of the very worse programs ever implemented to destroy Freedom!)

Yes, it is true that the mess we are in has been brought about by dishonest politicians who did not follow the moral principles written about by the Founders outside of the Constitution. That is my whole point, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that acknowledges or establishes the basic authority of the government of a people who purport to be free. What is it that comprises that basic authority? Where does it come from? And what are its Natural limitations? Who gets to decide?

As I stated above, how can those who have no individual authority combine their lack of authority in order to create an authority none of them individually possess?

"Freedom is the societal condition that will exist when everyone has full, one hundred percent, control over their own property and the derivatives thereof. Children are not property." A.J. Galambos, Founder, of The Free Enterprise Institute.

The Constitution the Founders foisted off on us is a disguised version of the same form of government then existing in England. A Senate here, a House of Lords there; a House of Representatives here, a House of Commons there; a President here, a King there. What is the difference other than the names of the departments and a few minor details?

The Framers should have included a provision in the Preamble establishing that the government created under the Constitution should never ever be construed to have any more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single, individual man or woman. If that had been included, as it should, because that is the Natural Order of things, then the government would have had no authority to institute any of the socialistic v**e buying programs it has implemented.

The second major flaw in the Constitution is the provision assigning the Congress the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Freedom can never ever exist where any level of government is allowed to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from! I contend that this unlimited borrowing authority was the motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve System, of which there is substantial evidence is entirely owned and controlled by Congress, not by foreign bankers. The Fed is currently audited annually, contrary to the claims of Ron Paul. This must be changed, as I have indicated elsewhere in this instant writing.

Do any of you reading this writing have Natural authority to command anyone to pay for something you think is good but others do not? We all want lower taxes, the only level that can be proper, to enable Freedom to actually be recognized, is where there is no taxation allowed at any level for any purpose. Where taxation is employed, a police state has been implemented. Any argument against that is an argument in favor of a police state!

At the outset Federal government funding was limited to imposts and duties and otherwise left up to the states; however, neither could state governments have any such authority as state governments derive their authority from the same source as the Federal, and can be no greater than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man or woman.

The problem here is none of you actually understand what it is that constitutes Freedom! All of you want to decide for others what their limit of Freedom shall be, but you don't want to admit that. You want to hide behind v****g.

It is a point well taken that when v****g is utilized v****g will be used to destroy the economy. The suggestions that lobbying should be prohibited misses the point. If the proper authority of government was acknowledged, then no legislature would be empowered to regulate any manner of activity and lobbying would be futile.

We should return to the application of the common law to determine criminal activity and justice, where juries would be empowered to determine if criminal activity was being implemented, such as Monsanto. If we were properly operating under common law, Monsanto would not be able to hide behind legislation enacted by CONgress, or sanctioned by Obama, and would be put out of business and its executives executed for their common law crime of destroying the natural environment.

At our time, due to the universal implementation of electricity, all four levels of government here, city, county, state and federal, can be funded by interest collected on loans extended by The People's Central Bank to private sector borrowers. The PCB can be established by the Federalization of the Federal Reserve System, with the management taken from CONgress and assigned to the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

For those of you who thirst for a return to Constitutional gold and silver coin, you need to realize that such a monetary system would, by its very nature, cause or facilitate the very problems you want to correct.

It must be understood that the Federal Government has never ever "issued" gold or silver coin into circulation. At that time, the coins were struck from ore owned by private entities by the government mint, the ore or coins were not owned by the government. Those coins were returned to the entities that owned the raw ore and then spent into circulation by the private entities, not by government.

With about 80 million mortgages as our average, if we were to return to gold coins, loaned to fund mortgages by private lenders, with interest charged, how long would it be before all the gold in circulation became owned by the private bankers, and then what would the home mortgage holders use to make their monthly mortgage payments? How long would it be before the gold lenders became the owners of everything and everyone?

It is important to remember that the r*******n against King George III, in 1776, was not the first time there had been a r*******n against a British Monarch. At the beginning of that revolution, prior to Thomas Paine coming on the scene, it was expected that if there was a r*******n where King George was ousted, that a new kingdom would be established here, and a new king crowned, and that such king would be George Washington. And you really believe that Washington was happy with what Paine taught all the commoners?

However Thomas Paine did arrive and he wrote a small book titled "Common Sense", wherein Paine convinced the commoners that they did not need a king, that they could govern themselves.

During that r*******n Paine's writings were critical to support of General George Washington's military endeavors, as was then acknowledged by General Washington. After the war was over, Paine went to England and then to France where he was active in the expulsion of the French King. However, due to Paine's opposition to the k*****g of the French King, Paine was arrested and thrown in the French Bastille, where a letter from then President George Washington could have had Paine released, but Washington refused to write such a letter. Paine became very ill and almost died in the French jail.

I am very well read on the Federalist Papers. written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. I would suggest you read the Anti Federalist Papers to get a clearer view. And take off your rose colored glasses.

I did not write previously anything negative in regard to the Thirteenth Amendment or suggest that the Founders had any direct input to that creation, and in my response here, in my remarks in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, such are not intended to be critical, only explanatory. The Fourteenth Amendment only applies to those who volunteer themselves into United States citizen subservient status, so, if you were born on this land, the 14th only applies to you if you volunteer yourself into U.S. citizen status, otherwise, if you properly claim to be of the People of the United States as such established themselves in the Preamble, then you can be free and clear of the IRS and other government controls of your life. I strongly contend that the Thirteenth Amendment is the best tool we have to keep the government out of our lives.

Unless the government can present proof that you willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit yourself to its authority under United States citizenship, it has no standing to command you in any slight way!

If the Constitution were as good as some of you wish and dream, then why did all of the Thirteen States reject it as originally written and presented?

There in nothing in the Federal Constitution that declares the Federal Government to be a republic, only a guarantee that all states will have a republican form of government. What is a republican form of government? And why did the Founders guarantee such a form to the states?

There are about a hundred totalitarian countries on this planet right now that have the word "republic" in their official names? What is the similarity between all those countries, like China, North Korea and others, with the United States? The similarity is that all have two political classes, (1) Those appointing themselves to make the rules (The People of the United States), and (2) Those appointed by the People to follow those rules (those who volunteer themselves into subservient United States citizen status).

It seems to me, that as a republic is a form of government where there are two political classes, that the purpose of the Founders guaranteeing that state governments would be republican in form, was to inform all their Aristocrat buddies that they could establish their own Dukedoms here on this land, where they could govern the commoners, the only difference would be that here the Dukedoms would be known as states, and the Dukes known as Governors and the subjects known as citizens, rather than as commoners or subjects. Just more of the same old political change the name game.

I have found it very interesting that there is no clearly established legal or lawful provision where someone born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof. It is most certainly not in the Fourteenth Amendment. All the 14th does (very importantly) is establish the duties and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, and most importantly, assigns full unlimited authority over citizens of the United States to the Executive Branch, President Obama, to command as he sees fit, with no limitation what-so-ever.

None of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to mere citizens. The word "People" is used therein five times, the word "citizen" is noticeably absent. And, the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship due to mere birth. Pay attention to the words!

The best I can come up with is that United States citizenship is available to anyone born here who is foolish enough to claim such subservient tax-payer status. Does that surprise you that I would write that? It would not if you understood that People of the United States and citizen of the United States are entirely different. Pay attention to the actual meaning of the words, and the context, not what you have been indoctrinated to believe!

An important factor, however, in regard to the word "People" is the context in which it is used, particularly in the Preamble which is surreptitiously reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

The context in which the word "People" is set in the Preamble, imbues the word "People" with a political meaning anywhere it is used in the Constitution, which will include all of the Bill of Rights. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to the People and THEIR posterity. There is no mention of mere citizens being included, therefore, citizens are excluded! Pay attention to the words!

There were no citizens of the United States at that time. everyone then present was of the People of the United States and all were included in the Preamble and in the Bill of Rights, wherever the word "People" was used, being in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The word citizen was not used in the Bill of Rights. Why Not?

The political class, citizen of the United States is surreptitiously established in Section Two of Article One, but no where defined, not until the Fourteenth Amendment. Why did the Founders write these critical items this way? (Here, I am in reference to the manner in which the Founders manipulated the words "People" and "citizen" in the Constitution, this is not a reference to any direct complacency of the Founders in the writing of the 13th and 14th amendments).

It is significant here too, to pay attention to the qualifications established in Section Two of Article One, for service in the House or Senate, 25 years of age and 7 years a citizen; and 35 years of age and 9 years a citizen? Why the disparity if the reference was to a status acquired by birth?

Is it not clear that the Founders were therein intending to surreptitiously acknowledge and establish that United States citizenship was a status expected to be assigned to naturalized persons, or as later set up in the 14th Amendment, to apply to those of the People of the United States who could be indoctrinated in public schools to believe they were born into such servitude status. Yes, I know, the Founders did not write the 14th Amendment, but they did plant the seeds in Section Two of Article One.

My purpose here is not so much to castigate the Founders as it is to castigate those readers who refuse to take their blinders off to acknowledge that the Constitution is greatly flawed and must be amended if we are to ever establish Freedom on this land.

In the Fourteenth Amendment, pay attention to the words, "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...". These words negate any application of the Bill of Rights to those People who volunteer themselves into subservient United State citizenship status (such citizens were already excluded, but such was not made clear until the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to have been ratified). There is no mention or inclusion in the Bill of Rights of any application thereof to mere citizens. Pay attention to the actual words, not what you have been programmed to believe in the government's schools and by society in general.

At the time the Constitution was originally presented it was rejected by all the states (how could it be that the Founders could not present a first draft that would be accepted? And would need several amendments agreed upon beforehand?)

After its rejection the commoners of the Thirteen States wrote approximately fifty proposed changes, many duplicates due to difficulty in communication at that time. When the fifty were presented to the Founders, the fifty were distilled down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Founders themselves, for a total of twelve presented to the States for consideration and ratification. The two added by the Founders were rejected.

It is often stated that the reason the Founders put Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment and Gun Protection in the Second, was because the Founders considered those two to be the most important, and in that order.

However, as to what the Founders actually considered to be the most important, if the order of inclusion in the twelve be indicative, the two amendments added by the Founders that were rejected were number one and two on the list of twelve. Number one had to do with the pay of Congress and Number two had to do with how many constituents would be represented by a member of the House of Representatives. So there we have what was truly most important to the wonderful Founders.

I contend that the Founders positioned their two inane amendments in there to draw attention away from the wording of the First and Second Amendments, most especially the First, which is clearly divided into two sections, with the Redress of Grievance strictly limited to the People of the United States. Pay attention to the words and grammatical structure!

I suggest those interested go to this site to read the original changes proposed by the commoners:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

Please take note that the wording of the commoners in their proposed amendments is general in nature. It was their clear intent that the protections they were suggesting should be worded so that these protections would be applicable to everyone, with none of the protections limited to any particular political class, of which there were supposed to be none in their new government, however the devious Founders had other intentions.

The devious Founders created a republic, where the People would be the ruling class and the citizens would be the ruled class.

I became informed in about 1973, by a then active United States Deputy Prosecutor, that the IRS and the Federal Government, only have political d******n over citizens of the United States (or foreign guests who have entered the United States on some form of Passport).

This was after I had beaten the IRS in Federal Court in 1970, where I had been criminally charged with willful failure to file or pay income tax. I beat the IRS in that prosecution in less than five minutes.

I stopped the prosecution when the IRS Prosecutor uttered only nine words in his opening statement. "Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah, blah, blah..."

My objection was a challenge to the Prosecutor to present proof from the government's file that I was a citizen of the United States, even though I was (to the best of my knowledge), born in California.

When neither the IRS Prosecutor or the Federal Judge were able to present such proof, the Federal Judge then said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago and I am still waiting.

It does not make me happy to write what I have here, as for Hillsdale's Constitution 101, I am very well aware of Hillsdale and the damage it does every day misleading those interested in correcting the problems in our government. Hillsdale refuses to acknowledge that there are any weaknesses in the Constitution, only in the failure to follow its principles - what principles?

When there are politicians who strongly believe that commoners are intellectually incompetent to determine whether their children should be inoculated, and Agenda 21 is being moved forward by Obama and all of this and more, is properly enabled under the 14th Amendment., and Hillsdale fails to understand what a republic is, and how the People of the United States are duped into "volunteering" themselves into servitude citizenship, then I have no use for Hillsdale. I have sent several letters to Dr. Arnn, with no response.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone,
The United States of America
There are none so blind as those who will not see.... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
May 6, 2014 12:54:15   #
JimMe
 
EricWhoRU wrote:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is in response to several comments of my first post on this topic.

I am combining my response her to all that I have so far read, so please, when you read what I wrote, only apply my response to you if such application would be appropriate.

One commenter wrote that he partially agreed and partially disagreed. It is impossible to respond to such a convoluted comment. Please be specific so I can respond appropriately.

I know that most of those persons who are concerned about the sad state of affairs we currently suffer under believe and are convinced that the Constitution established a Republic here, and that the Founders did a marvelous job in their creation of the Constitution and that the reason we are in the mess we are is simply because the intent of the Founders has not been followed, and all we need to do to restore everything to the way it was intended is to go back and follow the principles purportedly set by the Founders, such as (one commenter suggested), are set forth in the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, three men who wrote to sell their own product. It is much more significant to read the Anti-Federalist Papers, if it is desired to learn what those who found fault in the Constitution thought of it.

As I wrote in my original post, it is not a good idea to read what the Framers of the Constitution wrote outside of the Constitution in order to establish how the limitations purportedly set forth in the Constitution would be able to accomplish the controls the Framers otherwise contended they wrote in that document. If it is not in the Constitution then how could it possibly be enforced?

For example, most of us today agree that we need less government and lower taxes, but what does that very non-specific agreement accomplish? What is it that constitutes an acceptable "less" government, and how much "lower? is low enough? How could we ever reach an agreement without first establishing what it is that constitutes the source and extent of government authority?

By establishing the maximum level of taxation and the maximum level of control over our lives.

The problem with that is determining who will decide how much is reasonable and where do they get the authority to decide?

As I wrote in my original post here, what does "taxation with representation" mean. Any fair and honest evaluation will establish that "taxation with or without representation" is a totally wrong concept and is like trying to build a building without a foundation, by starting at the second floor or putting a tire on an automobile without using a wheel/rim.

What we are needing to establish here is what it is that actually constitutes Freedom, which the Founders did not do. I often hear it said that we are the freest people on the planet. I don't like that at all because that statement constitutes an admission that we are not truly Free, merely the free-est.

The point here is who gets to decide how free you will be allowed to be. "Allowed to be"? Who gets to decide the level of freedom to be allowed? Where does the authority arise from to allow such to be determined by some for others? By v****g? Who decided that? Where did the authority arise from to establish v****g? Who v**ed on that? How can it be in any way reasonable for men who were born and died long before I was born to possibly have had any authority to create rules I am bound to obey?

"But we must have some rules!?" That statement sure does sound reasonable but who gets to decide what those rules are and who they will apply to? "Well, we at least need to outlaw a******n and child molestation."

Yes, that does sound reasonable, but under that concept we have a situation where a seventeen year old fully developed woman seduces an older man and he is convicted of statutory rape because the"LAW" has determined she is not old enough to decide for herself who she will freely give herself to. When no individual (outside of her parents- and even that is questionable), can possibly have authority to determine her maturity, how can it be reasonably possible for total strangers who do not even know her to possibly have standing to regulate her activities?

And requiring parents to inoculate their children when there is overwhelming evidence that such inoculations have been fatal to several children? Where is there any proper authority for such as this?

"But we must have some rules!" Right?

All those who wrote critical comments in regard to my first post ought to really have a ball condemning this one. But when they do, let them be advised, what they are actually condemning is their own Freedom.

Defending the Framers of the Constitution because they could not possibly write a document that would address every issue might sound like a fair and reasonable defense of those "great" men, but I disagree because the two problems I have in mind should have been obvious to the Framers at that time and I contend that they were and that the Framers intentionally wrote the Constitution so that we would be where we are today.

Take a read at the bottom of your screen of the very tightly worded disclaimer notice established by One Political Plaza. This was written by someone who knows how some individuals will wiggle themselves into privileges that were never intended. All of the Founders were politicians, they knew very well how devious politicians can be in their manipulation of loosely written rules.

As politicians, the Framers certainly had to be aware of how politicians will create loopholes where none exist, so how could they have inadvertently given us a Constitution with so many loopholes in it that a school of whales could swim through without a violation?

Integrity, where has that ever existed in any government anywhere. There has, in my opinion, only been one honest Freedom Peace loving man to ever sit in the White House, and it was NOT Washington, Lincoln or Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, and he was a Democrat?

In my original post I mentioned how unreasonable it was to expect the framers to create a government that would displace them from their Aristocrat position, held by them for uncounted generations. Why is it that none of you have any concern in regard to the intent of the Founders?

Are you aware that it was Thomas Paine who first referred to this country as The United States of America, and Paine has been virtually written out of our history, and, as I previously mentioned, I have good information that indicates it was Paine who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is interesting that Jefferson never claimed to be the author until after Paine had died.

It is important to recognize that on July 4, 1776 all formal government ceased to exist on this land and everyone became politically equal, that is, everyone became immediately sovereign over their own person, with no authority to command the subservience of any other and it would be totally unreasonable to assert that two or more could combine their non authority to enable them to create, as a group, an authority that none of them individually held. When such is done it is properly known as a police state!

It needs to be understood that the government then created was to be a government where there was to be no political status hierarchy, no Aristocrats and no commoners. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty. What does that mean? And to who? Pay attention to the words!

In the Declaration of Independence, it is established that all men have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does that mean?

What is it that constitutes Liberty? Who gets to decide? Without a concise specific definition set forth in the Constitution, politicians can construe it any way they want. What does "Provide for the general welfare" mean? It means Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Agenda 21, Federal Aid to Education, No Child Left Behind, Common Core and Obamacare, and anything else the politicians want to conjure up out of thin air. (Public schools are one of the very worse programs ever implemented to destroy Freedom!)

Yes, it is true that the mess we are in has been brought about by dishonest politicians who did not follow the moral principles written about by the Founders outside of the Constitution. That is my whole point, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that acknowledges or establishes the basic authority of the government of a people who purport to be free. What is it that comprises that basic authority? Where does it come from? And what are its Natural limitations? Who gets to decide?

As I stated above, how can those who have no individual authority combine their lack of authority in order to create an authority none of them individually possess?

"Freedom is the societal condition that will exist when everyone has full, one hundred percent, control over their own property and the derivatives thereof. Children are not property." A.J. Galambos, Founder, of The Free Enterprise Institute.

The Constitution the Founders foisted off on us is a disguised version of the same form of government then existing in England. A Senate here, a House of Lords there; a House of Representatives here, a House of Commons there; a President here, a King there. What is the difference other than the names of the departments and a few minor details?

The Framers should have included a provision in the Preamble establishing that the government created under the Constitution should never ever be construed to have any more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single, individual man or woman. If that had been included, as it should, because that is the Natural Order of things, then the government would have had no authority to institute any of the socialistic v**e buying programs it has implemented.

The second major flaw in the Constitution is the provision assigning the Congress the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Freedom can never ever exist where any level of government is allowed to determine how much money it needs or where such money shall come from! I contend that this unlimited borrowing authority was the motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve System, of which there is substantial evidence is entirely owned and controlled by Congress, not by foreign bankers. The Fed is currently audited annually, contrary to the claims of Ron Paul. This must be changed, as I have indicated elsewhere in this instant writing.

Do any of you reading this writing have Natural authority to command anyone to pay for something you think is good but others do not? We all want lower taxes, the only level that can be proper, to enable Freedom to actually be recognized, is where there is no taxation allowed at any level for any purpose. Where taxation is employed, a police state has been implemented. Any argument against that is an argument in favor of a police state!

At the outset Federal government funding was limited to imposts and duties and otherwise left up to the states; however, neither could state governments have any such authority as state governments derive their authority from the same source as the Federal, and can be no greater than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man or woman.

The problem here is none of you actually understand what it is that constitutes Freedom! All of you want to decide for others what their limit of Freedom shall be, but you don't want to admit that. You want to hide behind v****g.

It is a point well taken that when v****g is utilized v****g will be used to destroy the economy. The suggestions that lobbying should be prohibited misses the point. If the proper authority of government was acknowledged, then no legislature would be empowered to regulate any manner of activity and lobbying would be futile.

We should return to the application of the common law to determine criminal activity and justice, where juries would be empowered to determine if criminal activity was being implemented, such as Monsanto. If we were properly operating under common law, Monsanto would not be able to hide behind legislation enacted by CONgress, or sanctioned by Obama, and would be put out of business and its executives executed for their common law crime of destroying the natural environment.

At our time, due to the universal implementation of electricity, all four levels of government here, city, county, state and federal, can be funded by interest collected on loans extended by The People's Central Bank to private sector borrowers. The PCB can be established by the Federalization of the Federal Reserve System, with the management taken from CONgress and assigned to the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

For those of you who thirst for a return to Constitutional gold and silver coin, you need to realize that such a monetary system would, by its very nature, cause or facilitate the very problems you want to correct.

It must be understood that the Federal Government has never ever "issued" gold or silver coin into circulation. At that time, the coins were struck from ore owned by private entities by the government mint, the ore or coins were not owned by the government. Those coins were returned to the entities that owned the raw ore and then spent into circulation by the private entities, not by government.

With about 80 million mortgages as our average, if we were to return to gold coins, loaned to fund mortgages by private lenders, with interest charged, how long would it be before all the gold in circulation became owned by the private bankers, and then what would the home mortgage holders use to make their monthly mortgage payments? How long would it be before the gold lenders became the owners of everything and everyone?

It is important to remember that the r*******n against King George III, in 1776, was not the first time there had been a r*******n against a British Monarch. At the beginning of that revolution, prior to Thomas Paine coming on the scene, it was expected that if there was a r*******n where King George was ousted, that a new kingdom would be established here, and a new king crowned, and that such king would be George Washington. And you really believe that Washington was happy with what Paine taught all the commoners?

However Thomas Paine did arrive and he wrote a small book titled "Common Sense", wherein Paine convinced the commoners that they did not need a king, that they could govern themselves.

During that r*******n Paine's writings were critical to support of General George Washington's military endeavors, as was then acknowledged by General Washington. After the war was over, Paine went to England and then to France where he was active in the expulsion of the French King. However, due to Paine's opposition to the k*****g of the French King, Paine was arrested and thrown in the French Bastille, where a letter from then President George Washington could have had Paine released, but Washington refused to write such a letter. Paine became very ill and almost died in the French jail.

I am very well read on the Federalist Papers. written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. I would suggest you read the Anti Federalist Papers to get a clearer view. And take off your rose colored glasses.

I did not write previously anything negative in regard to the Thirteenth Amendment or suggest that the Founders had any direct input to that creation, and in my response here, in my remarks in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, such are not intended to be critical, only explanatory. The Fourteenth Amendment only applies to those who volunteer themselves into United States citizen subservient status, so, if you were born on this land, the 14th only applies to you if you volunteer yourself into U.S. citizen status, otherwise, if you properly claim to be of the People of the United States as such established themselves in the Preamble, then you can be free and clear of the IRS and other government controls of your life. I strongly contend that the Thirteenth Amendment is the best tool we have to keep the government out of our lives.

Unless the government can present proof that you willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit yourself to its authority under United States citizenship, it has no standing to command you in any slight way!

If the Constitution were as good as some of you wish and dream, then why did all of the Thirteen States reject it as originally written and presented?

There in nothing in the Federal Constitution that declares the Federal Government to be a republic, only a guarantee that all states will have a republican form of government. What is a republican form of government? And why did the Founders guarantee such a form to the states?

There are about a hundred totalitarian countries on this planet right now that have the word "republic" in their official names? What is the similarity between all those countries, like China, North Korea and others, with the United States? The similarity is that all have two political classes, (1) Those appointing themselves to make the rules (The People of the United States), and (2) Those appointed by the People to follow those rules (those who volunteer themselves into subservient United States citizen status).

It seems to me, that as a republic is a form of government where there are two political classes, that the purpose of the Founders guaranteeing that state governments would be republican in form, was to inform all their Aristocrat buddies that they could establish their own Dukedoms here on this land, where they could govern the commoners, the only difference would be that here the Dukedoms would be known as states, and the Dukes known as Governors and the subjects known as citizens, rather than as commoners or subjects. Just more of the same old political change the name game.

I have found it very interesting that there is no clearly established legal or lawful provision where someone born in the United States becomes a citizen thereof. It is most certainly not in the Fourteenth Amendment. All the 14th does (very importantly) is establish the duties and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship, and most importantly, assigns full unlimited authority over citizens of the United States to the Executive Branch, President Obama, to command as he sees fit, with no limitation what-so-ever.

None of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to mere citizens. The word "People" is used therein five times, the word "citizen" is noticeably absent. And, the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship due to mere birth. Pay attention to the words!

The best I can come up with is that United States citizenship is available to anyone born here who is foolish enough to claim such subservient tax-payer status. Does that surprise you that I would write that? It would not if you understood that People of the United States and citizen of the United States are entirely different. Pay attention to the actual meaning of the words, and the context, not what you have been indoctrinated to believe!

An important factor, however, in regard to the word "People" is the context in which it is used, particularly in the Preamble which is surreptitiously reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

The context in which the word "People" is set in the Preamble, imbues the word "People" with a political meaning anywhere it is used in the Constitution, which will include all of the Bill of Rights. In the Preamble it is established that the purpose of the Constitution was/is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to the People and THEIR posterity. There is no mention of mere citizens being included, therefore, citizens are excluded! Pay attention to the words!

There were no citizens of the United States at that time. everyone then present was of the People of the United States and all were included in the Preamble and in the Bill of Rights, wherever the word "People" was used, being in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The word citizen was not used in the Bill of Rights. Why Not?

The political class, citizen of the United States is surreptitiously established in Section Two of Article One, but no where defined, not until the Fourteenth Amendment. Why did the Founders write these critical items this way? (Here, I am in reference to the manner in which the Founders manipulated the words "People" and "citizen" in the Constitution, this is not a reference to any direct complacency of the Founders in the writing of the 13th and 14th amendments).

It is significant here too, to pay attention to the qualifications established in Section Two of Article One, for service in the House or Senate, 25 years of age and 7 years a citizen; and 35 years of age and 9 years a citizen? Why the disparity if the reference was to a status acquired by birth?

Is it not clear that the Founders were therein intending to surreptitiously acknowledge and establish that United States citizenship was a status expected to be assigned to naturalized persons, or as later set up in the 14th Amendment, to apply to those of the People of the United States who could be indoctrinated in public schools to believe they were born into such servitude status. Yes, I know, the Founders did not write the 14th Amendment, but they did plant the seeds in Section Two of Article One.

My purpose here is not so much to castigate the Founders as it is to castigate those readers who refuse to take their blinders off to acknowledge that the Constitution is greatly flawed and must be amended if we are to ever establish Freedom on this land.

In the Fourteenth Amendment, pay attention to the words, "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...". These words negate any application of the Bill of Rights to those People who volunteer themselves into subservient United State citizenship status (such citizens were already excluded, but such was not made clear until the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to have been ratified). There is no mention or inclusion in the Bill of Rights of any application thereof to mere citizens. Pay attention to the actual words, not what you have been programmed to believe in the government's schools and by society in general.

At the time the Constitution was originally presented it was rejected by all the states (how could it be that the Founders could not present a first draft that would be accepted? And would need several amendments agreed upon beforehand?)

After its rejection the commoners of the Thirteen States wrote approximately fifty proposed changes, many duplicates due to difficulty in communication at that time. When the fifty were presented to the Founders, the fifty were distilled down to ten, with two additional amendments proposed by the Founders themselves, for a total of twelve presented to the States for consideration and ratification. The two added by the Founders were rejected.

It is often stated that the reason the Founders put Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment and Gun Protection in the Second, was because the Founders considered those two to be the most important, and in that order.

However, as to what the Founders actually considered to be the most important, if the order of inclusion in the twelve be indicative, the two amendments added by the Founders that were rejected were number one and two on the list of twelve. Number one had to do with the pay of Congress and Number two had to do with how many constituents would be represented by a member of the House of Representatives. So there we have what was truly most important to the wonderful Founders.

I contend that the Founders positioned their two inane amendments in there to draw attention away from the wording of the First and Second Amendments, most especially the First, which is clearly divided into two sections, with the Redress of Grievance strictly limited to the People of the United States. Pay attention to the words and grammatical structure!

I suggest those interested go to this site to read the original changes proposed by the commoners:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

Please take note that the wording of the commoners in their proposed amendments is general in nature. It was their clear intent that the protections they were suggesting should be worded so that these protections would be applicable to everyone, with none of the protections limited to any particular political class, of which there were supposed to be none in their new government, however the devious Founders had other intentions.

The devious Founders created a republic, where the People would be the ruling class and the citizens would be the ruled class.

I became informed in about 1973, by a then active United States Deputy Prosecutor, that the IRS and the Federal Government, only have political d******n over citizens of the United States (or foreign guests who have entered the United States on some form of Passport).

This was after I had beaten the IRS in Federal Court in 1970, where I had been criminally charged with willful failure to file or pay income tax. I beat the IRS in that prosecution in less than five minutes.

I stopped the prosecution when the IRS Prosecutor uttered only nine words in his opening statement. "Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah, blah, blah..."

My objection was a challenge to the Prosecutor to present proof from the government's file that I was a citizen of the United States, even though I was (to the best of my knowledge), born in California.

When neither the IRS Prosecutor or the Federal Judge were able to present such proof, the Federal Judge then said he was taking the matter under consideration and that I would be notified. That was forty-four years ago and I am still waiting.

It does not make me happy to write what I have here, as for Hillsdale's Constitution 101, I am very well aware of Hillsdale and the damage it does every day misleading those interested in correcting the problems in our government. Hillsdale refuses to acknowledge that there are any weaknesses in the Constitution, only in the failure to follow its principles - what principles?

When there are politicians who strongly believe that commoners are intellectually incompetent to determine whether their children should be inoculated, and Agenda 21 is being moved forward by Obama and all of this and more, is properly enabled under the 14th Amendment., and Hillsdale fails to understand what a republic is, and how the People of the United States are duped into "volunteering" themselves into servitude citizenship, then I have no use for Hillsdale. I have sent several letters to Dr. Arnn, with no response.

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone,
The United States of America
There are none so blind as those who will not see.... (show quote)


Your own distinction between the Founding Fathers' use of "People" and "Citizen" is a well written dialog...

But you even say that in 1787, there were no "Citizens" until the Constitution was Ratified...

This is Reason Enough For The Founding Fathers To Not Use "Citizen" but rather "People" in the Writing of the Constitution & Bill of Rights (where "Citizen" was used in the Constitution regarding Electing Representatives is a Clear Indication the Founders Understood "Citizenship" came AFTER RATIFICATION)...

And the Founding Fathers were made-up of Representatives of the 13 Colonies & to have the Colonies establish a Federal Republic & NOT Stipulate the Colonies to be Republics Themselves would be... Silly, don't you think?!?

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.