unalienable Rights, born, & judicial power

I am going to postpone for now the listing of the criminal wrongs which have been done in not giving/honoring several of the previously listed individuals their unalienable Rights from Creator. I hold to attack them because they were only standing on their unalienable rights is no different than a hate crime against a gay. Are the attackers (congress, DOJ, President, congress created black robed inferior court system) using the very false reasoning on the 14th Amendment that until they are born, they have no civil rights. If so then it would mean that the individual was being considered, unborn because they had not said they claimed as making owners, the unalienable Rights of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and making owner of the subordinate United States Constitution (USC). A group of attackers, who do not give the true reason and exact law for the attack, ranks no higher in my mine than a pedophile.

Thanks to an Alfred Adask DVD on the Declaration of Independence for the following. He got the impression that the different in a Republic where each individual had been given unalienable rights. And this current democracy system operation was the People were still supposed to be Sovereign, but only on a collective base, not on an individual base as in a Republic. I have a few problems with part of what he doesn’t say about contracts and an individual’s status with respect to those contracts. We each have to start some where, and this might be a good start for most. One can purchase the DVD, only my guess, from cptexas.org. My copy was sent to me by a friend.

Let talk about being born in the US to be president as the dummy newspapers and most educators say is required by the USC. That is a flat out lie, by simply dummies or liars. If you bother to check the USC the written words say (one must be Native Born) not natural born. The USC being a contract, the words Native Born have a contract meaning, not a baby’s actual birth of passing out his mother’s womb through the standard birth canal or even a C-section.
Goldwater ran but was not chosen, and he was birthed in the territory of Arizona not the USA, Cain was birthed in Panama Canal Zone, This means Arnold S. who is currently governor of California, could be president this coming term or in the future.

Wonder if the electors want to make Arnold’s day.



______________________________
Author in black.
I am sorry but I cannot make heads or tails out of what your comments are or what they are supposed to mean. It is evident you do not differentiate between the public/political side and the private non-political side of the government. Until we get that "little" item, we can only reason in circles. I think posting my words and your comments will not help the situation, only confuse even more anybody who reads the same.

If you are reading this on an open forum, please know I had requested permission of the author as I have an advantage in commenting on what was a feed-back to about an hour conference call last week between several of us. I think he says some things that my neighbors need to think about. His words above in black were his suggestion that it would just be confusing to you as he and I saw things in a different logic fashion. I have removed his name, but the subject is one I think important. I hope he is mostly wrong and you get some understanding out of this exchange of thoughts.

Lady: I am a private individual endowed by my Creator (not government) with certain unalienable rights. We agree that our rights are unalienable. I hold that the use of the word Creator in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a singular usage of the many that hold that view of each one’s rights. Those unalienable rights reside in each and every individual. They do not reside in only a king.
Until the individual wakes up and smell the coffee and get the scales off of his/her eyes as to whom he/she is, the individual will consent to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from the consent of the governed.
I agree that until one wakes up and learns they have to be a judicial power for them selves, they will not realize what their power to consent is. I teach/hold that both the DoI and the United States Constitution (USC) are contracts. The primary purpose of the USC is to best secure our unalienable Rights from Creator. At least if you claim to be by adoption, a making owner. As one of the contract makers, your position is above that of the created persona of the persons who chose to service us. Lady likes the term Cui Bono (for our benefit). We owners wrote the USC for our benefit as its primary function.
You can't be sovereign and consent to be governed by government instituted among men, because such government gets its just Power from your consent.
As an owning maker, that contract does not have my consent to have the created hired help be over me or judge me. What fool would do that. If you or they get that read of the contract, then all you are left with is by what right does the created use the barrel of the gun to enforce what they try to claim is the hired man’s right to rule. That logic does not fly with me. I may get beaten, robbed, or killed, but it will not be by law. As to the sovereign part, I agree and teach that I as a making owner of the USC can only deal with that law, via my owner’s status or persona. Since my status as a class one voter, allows me to be my own judicial power for my USC contract matters, I generally choose to be a judicial power of the “one supreme Court”.
The Declaration of Independence contains no law of man; it does however contain principals of law from God. Your statement that the Declaration of Independence is Supreme Law of the Nation might have merit or be correct if you have not consented to be governed by governments instituted among men deriving their just Power from your consent to be governed.
Why would one consent to force being used against one? We chose to read and understand the contract differently.
The 13 former British colonies did send delegates to Pennsylvania to hammer out a new constitution for the federal government that was created in 1777 by certain Articles of Confederation, now styled the United States of America. However, these delegates did not represent State governments; they represented the People in their own conventions and not as State government’s delegates. The State governments had no part in creating the Constitution but it bound the State governments without their consent, by ratification and then on March 4, 1789, by adoption by the federal government.
Ratification means to make you a party to something,
Adoption means to bring under your control.
That is why by adoption as a making owner, I have control of the contract.
The ten amendments were proposed by Congress properly done under Article V which required only the Congress and State votes. The authority to change by amendment has never required all the People of the United States authority. Congress and the States get their authority from the People of the Several States which does not include all the People of the United States.
We differ on our read of Article V. The hired help can only suggest We the People consider a change to our rules. The hired hands can’t do it. Such logic would mean the farm animal ran the farmer and the farm. The Created can suggest the owners in the states consider the change, but that is all. Those making owners, who are first class voters, are called by their handle of Legislatures in Article V. Legislatures are law givers. In that light, since we hold whining hired help are much like kids, just because they keep asking per Article 5, after the first census, if the Legislatures don’t vote, then the required approval percentage is not reached. I vote no by going fishing. Not voting does not does imply or mean contract consent per Article 5.
One thing you are right on, "The People are the judicial Power." "They hold Court where they are and are the one supreme Court, justice, clerk, jury, and etc. If this be the case and it is, then sitting of the People's Chief Justice above the present created chief justice John Roberts would also create sovereign and subject, with the people being the subject. Not so the Lady.
I would agree except the contract created person of the Chief Justice is not above the judicial power of the owners. It is mostly a quality assurance clerk’s position and only in and as the single point of contact for filing certain impeachment papers and then the trial of the president is the Chief Justice truly a judge. Even then the Senate does the voting, but it makes it an open court trial with control of the process by the Chief Justice and the Senator speaking and voting in an open court trial where they can be held accountable.
The Federalist Paper #33 by Hamilton also expressed "just bound of its authority." The Declaration of Independence stated, "That to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." Government gets it just Power from the People's consent.
The Constitution is not a distribution of Powers between the United States and the States but the Constitution is a reservation to the People [as individuals] of all powers not granted. The Constitution however is an Organic Law in which all three sovereign Powers co-exist within the United States must mutually agree upon.
We are guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, in which the Powers of Sovereignty are vested in the People and may be exercised by the People , either directly, or indirectly through delegates (representatives) chosen by the People to whom the People specially delegate their sovereign power to such representative. This special delegation is your consent either by silence or your expressed authority to be governed further than the confines of the Constitution and its Amendments. Government derives its just Power from the consent of the governed, expressed or implied.
We differ on what it takes to say no to the use of force by the hired help. So far I have not found any reason to think any sane individual would agree to be robbed, raped, pillaged, or held by force of arms in a three hots and a cot cage. I simply do not think the USC was ever given that contract law. I know I have never or would have never adopted USC if there was any way in hell that a sane individual could even get close to that logic.
Have a great day.