slug.com slug.com

7 1

This is a long read, but for those who really give a damn about the future of America, it is well worth it. Patience is a virtue and the ability to read something longer than a meme has its rewards.
[theduran.com]

lawrenceblair 8 Sep 12
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

That is a good read, I suspect that he is correct on much of his assessment.

1

I can't argue with his analysis, except that I don't think that all is lost quite yet.
We have struck (or been struck by) the iceberg, and the ship is indeed sinking, but we know where the hole is and we know how to fix it.
The American Patriot still has two options; hide in one of the lifeboats and wait for the opportunity to build a new ship on the nearest deserted island... or, get down there and help to fix the hole in this one.
The mechanism to fix the hole was quite purposefully built into Article V of the Constitution for just such a predicament; that is: a Convention of States to propose Amendments in spite of inaction, or even active opposition, by the sitting U.S. Congress.

The only question is, what Amendments are needed to repair the structural damage done by collectivists over the last 130-years or so?
I'm glad to see the author has recognized the self-destructive folly of the imaginary "right" to vote. I've written at some length on the topic here on Slug, so I'll just say here that Universal Suffrage should be among the first things to go, along with all associated initiatives ostensibly intended to make voting "easier".
That step is necessary, but not sufficient, to restore the integrity of the original Framework.
The other necessary measures, in my opinion, are three:

  1. Repeal the 17th Amendment, so that Senators will once again represent their respective States, rather than their respective political Parties.
  2. Implement the FairTax, H.R. 25, and thereby repeal the unConstitutional and endlessly-coercive national Income Tax.
  3. Outlaw any Federal involvement in the institution of Education/Science; exactly like the recognized need to maintain a separation of Church and State... and for exactly the same reasons.

Any Patriot who wishes to restore the Republic, rather than to simply wait it out and hope to float away safely when the water inevitably reaches their level... should be actively engaged in the on-going effort to call a Convention of States. Get below-deck and help to both get them, and to keep them, on the right track toward making those repairs to the Framework that are both necessary and sufficient to get us back under-way; to resume our original quest toward the ideal described by the Constitution.
[conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com]

And just how does one do your amendments in a government that will not do ti's constitutional duty because the constitution is null and void?

@lawrenceblair Establishing constraints and enforcing constraints are two different activities.
You need some broad agreement on where you are going, before you start planning how to get there.

Submitting Amendments that come from an Article V Convention of States for ratification is not optional. They will be submitted and they should pass... because the consensus was reached before they were even submitted. That is a means to establish new or renewed constraints.

But you bring up a good point; what about enforcing those constraints?
Another beneficial change could be a "one-strike and you're out" penalty for any appointed position, like a Federal Judge, when it's determined that a decision of theirs was unconstitutional; violating the very principles that they were sworn to uphold in the first place.
Another might be one that flags any Executive action as unenforceable until all constitutionality challenges are resolved.
But then... everything will simply be advertised as somehow an urgent matter of national security, so that workaround will also need to be addressed.
These are internal procedural corrections that should begin to fall into place, once we get the Senate working for their States again, instead of their Parties; and people voting for qualified and effective public administrators.... rather than "Prom Queen". That's why I believe repealing the 17th Amendment and establishing qualifying criteria for the privilege of voting are both fundamental concerns.

The one thing that is missing now, regarding enforcement of the Constitution, is accountability.
When the Constitution is ignored, it is because it "advances" the ideological football beyond their existing boundary... and when their action finally gets "struck down", if it does at all... much of the damage is already done. And... that strategy is risk-free, because they know that there will be no consequences even if their treachery is eventually revealed.
There need to be consequences.
Those consequences, for elected politicians, traditionally come from the ballot box. But, that integrity-mechanism has been undermined by the aforementioned corruption of key structural components of the original Framework. e.g., Socialized Education, Universal Suffrage, and the effective-nationalization of Senatorial elections.
That's why I think those are key; along with the unconstitutional Income Tax that serves as both a cattle-prod and a milking machine.

0

"We’re all confused"

A product of self-contradictory Nationalist Dogma?

0

Part III

“The properly prepared Patriots’ dramatic resurgence can then, relatively easily, possibly take the form of political secession from the crumbling union.”

When former voluntary associates turn to aggressive attackers, by attempted fraud or otherwise, the common law go-to step has been to acknowledge that discovery as a fact that matters in the case, and then publicize (make known) a defensive announcement in opposition to the aggressive attackers. This is the moral thing to do when faced with any aggressive attacker upon anyone anywhere anytime: defend life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all.

So called “political secession” are words formed from Nationalist Dogma. What does politics (electoral politics) have to do with discovery of aggression (by former defensive, voluntary, associates, or not: foreign or domestic enemies) have to do with voting in an election for grand wizard or dog catcher?

If the Grand Wizard starts hanging people for failing to return runaway slaves, and you are next on the list of paying a higher “protection fee,” or else, there is a president for that, in charted waters.

“Hallam says, "The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a, vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long-enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects' swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king's authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom." - 3 Middle Age, 240-2.
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

Henry: “Hey, ah, give me more money.”
Joe: “What for?”
Henry: “You need protection.”
Joe: “What from?”
Henry: “Call up your neighbor, his legs are broke, he didn’t pay.”
Joe: “I thought we were friends.”

Nat: “What’s up Joe?”
Joe: “Henry broke Bills legs, and he is extorting us, what should we do, professor?”
Nat: “Ask nicely, and here is the magic wand, you wave it and suddenly Henry grows a conscience.”
Joe: “Thanks, isn’t that approved by Henry?”
Nat: “Sure, it is the only way.”

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Deliberate deliberation on the question concerning the publication of the Ancient Law Defiance adapted to modern times in 1776.

A Solemn Notice of Mixed War is based upon natural law, based upon Commercial and Military Lien Rights, natural rights, common sense, common law, reason, morality, courage in the face of tyranny, and economic calculation.

But, we are stupid and servile generally, and specifically, as individuals, and our collective stupidity and our collective servility isn’t an accident.

“But overall, waiting for The System’s collapse seems perhaps a better option than most anything. In this way, there will be more of us around to sit on the eventual Nuremburg II trial juries.”

Does this guy know that those trials were International? Is this guy waiting for the U.N. to move in and spread democracy in America with Nuremburg II trial juries? What criteria will be used to stack the jury? This professor already professed a need to stack the electorate, when electing the next Grand Wizard to Preside over the Legal Fiction Nation State posing as a republic.

The previous Grand Wizards did away with independent Grand Juries in America awhile ago, so it may be a good time to organically, from grass-roots, reconstitute the natural rights defended by due process of law with grand jurors accepting and validating accusations, commanding all jurisdiction civil and criminal, which, by the way, includes subpoena and posse comitatus.

Or not.

“Much as the tellers of history have endlessly recounted the tale of the Roman Republic, and its despairing death in 44 B.C., future chroniclers will record the dastardly demise of the American Republic in 2021, A.D.”

That would be falsified history.

June 6, 1788
George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

That is precisely what happened, and it is still happening, as warned when Majority Rule stole the Federation of Independent States, doing so by fraud.

I can correct that false history:

False history:

“Much as the tellers of history have endlessly recounted the tale of the Roman Republic, and its despairing death in 44 B.C., future chroniclers will record the dastardly demise of the American Republic in 2021, A.D.”

Much as the tellers of history have endlessly recounted the tale of the Roman Empire, and its despairing death in 44 B.C., future chroniclers will record the dastardly demise of the American Republics in 1789, A. D.

Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787
Page 4 Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852, Lysander Spooner
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

0

I may read further, but the initial message is false.

Whoever wrote this was indoctrinated into Nationalists Collectivist Dogma.

Uncle Sam was created when?

If Uncle Sam was created in 1776, then Uncle Sam died in 1789.

The Uncle Sam described in the article is pure fiction, since the author of the article makes the baseless claim that Uncle Sam is a republic.

If Uncle Sam was created in 1776, then Uncle Sam would have been a Federation of Republics, not a republic it's self. It was a self that was regulated by the states, a federation, it was not a self that regulates everything it can get its grubby hands on.

It is not a republic if it is not representative of the people as a whole, as the word from the Latin origin means The Public Thing. If it serves special interests, at the expense of targeted victims, it is not a republic. It started serving special interests in 1789.

Uncle Same from 1776 to 1789 was a Federation of Republics, and it did not own any of the Republics, for all the republics were joined on the equal footing doctrine.

The equal footing doctrine is based upon the golden rule, that which is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It was therefore indirectly of, by, and for the whole people in each republic, when each republic was of, by, and for each member of each state, bar none, excepting, of course, those who do not belong by their own voluntary choices. Here, let us protect each other, no, not here, we are not offering ourselves as your slave, thank you very much.

When it claims ownership of people, it is no longer a republic, by definition. By definition, when it claims ownership of people, it becomes despotic, it becomes tyrannical, it becomes organized crime, and it is no longer serving, let alone protecting, all the people it serves and protects.

To claim otherwise is to claim that slavery is good. That is called Stockholm Syndrome. Those suffering imposed Stockholm Syndrome are imposed with ignorance, as a rule.

It started down the road of Stockholm Syndrome in 1789, and that was when it claimed ownership of the states, and the people in the states, which were competitive versions of republics before Consolidation by the criminal special interests. Some republics were not so republican as others, since some were run by Organized Criminals claiming to own people; clearly not a republic in those cases.

June 17, 1788

George Mason:
Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

I may read the rest of the article, and my guess is that I will be one of the few reading anything these days, let alone an article that is demonstrably false in the first few sentences, and false in the title. It is also a practical viewpoint to presume that no one is going to read my comment, let alone understand it.

Messages are either understood, in context, or they are not understood, and the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. I understand the message offered by this author and so many other authors captured into the version of Stockholm Syndrome known as Nationalism. The Nationalists are faced with worse criminals than Nationalists, so the Nationalists Criminals, psychopaths, sociopaths, and their armies of Stockholm Syndrome infected sycophants, belong in their collective collection of Nationalists, because they love Nationalism, and anyone who doesn't love it, ought to leave it, or else. Or else what?

I can go to a worse place with even worse criminals organized into a fake government organization falsely claiming to serve and protect The People as a whole, as prescribed by the Nationalists hiding behind their Nationalist dogma. I say, whatever, you leave.

Love it (Criminal Organization Counterfeiting Government) or leave it, say the Nationalists. I say, take a hike.

What do the Nationalists say about infections infecting their Nationalism arriving in the form of socialists, communists, globalists, monarchists, tyrants, despots, oligarchs, technocrats, aristocrats, or other FELLOW counterfeiters of republican republics representing The People as a whole?

Here is an example:

"The last straw for poor Sam was the Supreme Court’s (non)decision, December 11, 2020, effectively holding that Americans do not have the right to a fair presidential election."

Who offers that type of stupid and servile message? Might this one with Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps incapable of acknowledging the facts that matter in this case, credit the gift of arbitrary power into the hands of a communist Supreme Court?

Those against stupid and servile Nationalism, which was then called Consolidation, explained:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

That is a sound bite, a meme from the past. Many more have extrapolated the same message in greater detail, including the Sixth President presiding over the Federation of States before Consolidation.

Here is another meme:

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

One of the Nationalists exposed by Thomas Paine was the one using Summary Justice Court Systems ("given" appellate jurisdiction to these few “justices” over every single individual from one end to the other of the Legal Fiction Nation-State) to punish dissent. Nationalists counterfeiting government offices were enforcing gag rules. Thou shalt not infringe upon a criminals right to counterfeit government office: Alien and Sedition Acts.

Facebook punishes dissent, where do you think the psychopaths running Facebook learned how to punish dissent? Do they share a rule book? Is it written in the Nationalist Literature? Who credits dogma with the credit worthy term literature?

Who would know, when from birth The People targeted for enslavement are bombarded with Nationalist Dogma up until modern times, and then, in the recent decades, the slaves are bombarded with Globalist Dogma, and so the Nationalists are up in arms, well, not arms, but armed to the teeth with Nationalist Dogma.

Oh my, the censors are being censored! Dust off the Nationalist Dogma and be quick about it.

Who needs a censor when people won't even read the evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Uncle Sam was never intended to be “A Republic”, not when it was originally formed as a federation of, by, and for Republics (plural), and then certainly not when the federation of independent states were Consolidated into one Legal Fiction Confidence Scheme, Nation-State, with all the bells and whistles required to keep the slaves happier.

Lies.

People are not beat into a condition known as Stockholm Syndrome alone, there must be lies, and this is as solid a link as facts and truth. Violence and lies are two peas in a pod. Facts and truth are also useful in a team effort.

Should I read more lies from Nationalist Dogma Central?

How about the following?

"But, if true Patriots of the future ever near attainment of meaningful power, they will simply be “Trumped,” and their electoral victory will be “disappeared.”

The principle behind law is to accurately account for the facts that matter in any case of abuse of power whatsoever, it goes deeper into the foundation of law, as deep as the golden rule at least. But focusing on the principle of accurate accounting, for now, it can then be seen what happens when voluntary association (the golden rule) empowers people to connect with each other and build back better, or prevent ever having to build back better, since building back better assumes that some collapse of society has happened, as would be the case with the crime known as The Business Cycle, a cyclic Boom and Bust phenomenon created and maintained to move power from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who wield this type of covert power.

Violence begets more violence. A single psychopath allowed to run amok in the playground is bound to inspire children to become sociopaths, as they are beat into senseless, powerless, weakness, and defenselessness, by their tormentor. Now you have a potential army of sociopaths being run around, following orders, issued by the one psychopath.

So..nip that in the bud: accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the case. You can't identify the one psychopath Marching to the Sea, burning, raping, and pillaging, all along the way, when you yourself claim that this particular psychopath is earning credit, medals, and higher positions in counterfeit, aggressive, involuntary, government.

"But, if true Patriots of the future ever near attainment of meaningful power, they will simply be “Trumped,” and their electoral victory will be “disappeared.”

It was well enough known at the time of the Consolidation of the Republics (some were not deserving the title), that the events leading to Consolidation were events that give too much power, absolute power, to a few people, and as well known is the principles that work on human beings, the natural laws that turn good people bad, as already mentioned.

Not only does violence beget violence, but absolute power corrupts people absolutely, and this is not news. If someone, somewhere, decided to censor this, they failed. What was not failed, on the other hand, is the free and absolute access to posterity afforded the psychopaths who have been very busy indoctrinating each successive army of slaves into Nationalist Dogma, up until the past few decades at least. Now the globalists have their way, or will the Nationalists regain their free access to absolute power that corrupts absolutely? Stay tuned.

"But, if true Patriots of the future ever near attainment of meaningful power, they will simply be “Trumped,” and their electoral victory will be “disappeared.”

Few people today have any interest in knowing that it was proven a far back as The Golden Age of Greece, that electoral politics leads to oligarchy. The oligarchs, as a rule, will lie, threaten, lure, and assault their way into positions of power, and once the slaves are sleeping, they - as a rule - give themselves absolute power.

Is that even questioned by anyone today?

It is a fact that matters, yet no one seems to know, and no one seems to care, except comedians like the late George Carlin.

In the past, before Consolidation, the obvious move that would have been known, considered, and likely used by The People in a Republic such as Texas, when faced with overwhelming evidence of election fraud, would be to submit, in writing, a formal Cause of Action against the named offenders caught red-handed in the treasonous offense of Federal Election Fraud, and the Federal Government Court System, created for settling States in dispute with other States, would convene, and try the case. Failing that, there was also available, to all the people, a Notice of Liability, or Solemn Notice of Mixed War, or Declaration of Independence, all based upon the same principles of law. Not Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Equity, or other Summary Justice system of arbitration, rather actual law, such as the common law, which is based upon the aforementioned natural law.

Wait, during the Federal years, between 1774 and 1789, the states elected the presiding officer who presided over the federation of independent republics, so never-mind.

Common law is the organic law, the grass-roots law, the spontaneous law that is always brought forward from Ancient times until this very day, as a matter of demonstrable fact, because it is based upon discovery and use of facts that matter in any case of trouble among human beings in civilized society maintained by maintaining the process by which facts are discovered and used to settle disputes in a civilized manner: peacefully. Due process of law is not a legal fiction, it is a step by step process driven by the need to know the facts that matter in order to adjudicate a case of controversy from small to large, from cat-napping on duty, to treasonous fraud.

Texas, having failed to have their case heard by the willfully deaf, dumb, and blind "Supreme Court" at the Federal level (not National), would have packed their things and their membership dues, and left the Federation on terms favoring the people of Texas, BEFORE the known criminals in the other states stole yet more power from the people of Texas.

That is always the right thing to do.

When faced with this:

"There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."

When faced with that, which would be the case when criminals running a Supreme Court refuse to hear a case of ongoing election fraud, a treasonous case of ongoing election fraud, the obvious thing to do is this:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
First Congress forming Uncle Sam

The obvious things to do for protecting life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all, are not obvious to the Nationalists. I wonder why?

Part II

"But we cannot be certain of this, as we are obviously in entirely uncharted waters here.”

Since the subject matter is of interest to me I read further in the vain hope of finding something worth reading.

"But we cannot be certain of this, as we are obviously in entirely uncharted waters here.”

Those are the words of someone who has claimed earlier:

“I have dedicated decades preparing for and then becoming a professor of US and Texas government, teaching thousands of students how to better understand our broken institutions so that they could hopefully help us fix our beloved country before it was too late.”

The professor professing to have dedicated decades preparing for and then becoming a professor of US and Texas Government, fails to recognize basic principles of law?

Failing that, how can he profess to know government, with a straight face?

Ignorance does not qualify someone as an authority on anything other than ignorance, and that is a natural law, as much a natural law as is the fact that deception only works on those who are deceived, and as gravity works, so does natural laws, what goes up, must come down, deception does not work on those that are not deceived.

There is no power in deception, when the targets of deception discover the facts that are material to the case of deception.

We are not suffering through uncharted waters here, let alone “entirely uncharted waters.”

U.S. Constitution II (the first federal one was The Articles of Confederation, the second one is National, not federal):

“7. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.”

Put on your thinking caps now. Don’t be fooled by false professors. If someone, anyone, even people occupying offices of real, or offices of fake government, perpetrate a crime, any crime, they are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty HOW?

“7...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.”

What does that mean, professor? I don’t mean to ask the question to just anyone, I mean to ask the question FOR everyone. Everyone is supposed to profess the law from naturally occurring powers born into naturally born people, such as empathy, sympathy, moral conscience, reason, and common sense, such as the common sense required for common laws commonly shared by common people, for common people.

What law process is narrowly escaped, but nonetheless referred to in the quote offered?

“7...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.”

No one. No one professes? Everyone is ignorant? Everyone is stupid? Everyone is servile?

Really?

When someone walks in on a Mad Dog ripping apart children, going from one to the next one, does someone hide under their desk, having no professed jurisdiction to intervene, to arrest the progress of the Mad Dog, and to preserve life? Does there need to be a trial? What is the first step in this case?

Why is it any different if the Mad Dog is a psychopathic Despot running a Despotic Organized Crime Cabal hiding behind a false flag of “legal” authority?

It isn’t.

Basic natural laws organically grow from grass-roots in human souls, each one, each one with soul. Those without souls may need some help, but would they want any help?

“7...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.”

First step?

Here is some data, just for all you professors out there:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

Key points:
(1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury

Who woulda’ thunk such a stupid and servile first step?

Ok, well, professor, did you know that George Mason refused to sign the National Constitution, having published factual warnings to anyone who would care to know the facts that matter in the case?

Who was credited with the Bill of Rights movement? Was it George Mason?

What is in the Bill of Rights? Not Constitution II, what is in the Bill of Rights, the one contradicts the other one?

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

Mad dog psychopath rioting the blood of the innocent, enemy foreign and domestic, perpetrator of election fraud, infringing upon every natural right, caught red-handed in the act, and no one has a clue as to what the first step might be nonetheless having as yet not tried for impeachment by fellow Mad Dog psychopaths infesting counterfeit Federal Government offices?

No one has any idea, certainly not the professors who are so busy teaching all the children how to be better Nationalist slaves.

Some one goes to an independent, common law, grand jury, and those people, who are NGOs, has all legal power, all civil and criminal jurisdiction, to validate the accusation for cause, and put the accused on his trial before the people, before a trial jury.

Nothing?

Silence?

A dust devil blows through?

Hmmm, I ain't got the time nor patience to read your holier than thou diatribe laden with true, false, and innuendo. Have a good day.

0

@A1fredo, this article has a lot of the history of the decline of the United States of America and with it the Western democracies. You ought to check it out.
I believe that a remnant can separate from the insanity and form a republic like unto that which has been destroyed. The tyrants can not now nor have they ever been able to support their authoritarian empires for any longer than the end of the economies of the lands under pillage.

0

It’s a good read but it’s depressing. Maybe there is another opinion that rebuts this.

You are indeed a fast reader if you read the whole thing. Possibly you are depressed because you did not read the whole essay.

@lawrenceblair I read the whole thing. Maybe your reading is perhaps a little slow? You should not be so quick to impose your erroneous observations on me.
I read the article and the conclusion it basically arrived at was just hope.
It inspired me to action.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:266527
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.