Unalienable Rights –congress a type of Rev Wright
The Supreme Law of this land is the contract law known as the Declaration of Independence and it states in writing, in part from a long held basic human concept, that each and every individual is endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and among these (not limited to only my listing) Life, Liberty (no one over), and pursuit of Happiness (absolute property ownership). I do not know why folks have such a problem with this simple law? Why it was only a few short years ago that even if I wanted to I could not go to school with or marry a sub-human who GOD made to be inferior. Since some Folks say God has now made these folks equal to white, browns and yellow, he has now reserved per some “so-called book” that Christians can be killed for not believing in Allah and his designated writer/s, and per “another so-called book” killed or beaten for wanting to marry a like individual. I believe that the words that the California Supreme Court used was the state has no business trying to say that civil unions were equal to state supported marriage union. The used words of logic were the same one they used when ruling that separate but equal was a farce under the USC contract when it concerned black schools and taxes. The problem being that the inferior courts and congress are still trying to avoid saying that for years they have been crapping on the law made by the People of this land. Congress wants to be a king and king mob slaver over the People. Congress wishes to be a type Democratic King and be over you, not serve you via the contract you hired them to work by. Why I do believe I have heard many say (and I think Hillary Clinton also) that to listen to anyone such as Rev. Wright and not walk out is a sure sign of evil. Why? When Rev. Wright might read and think that any just God would think blacks were just as equal as whites, and had all the same unalienable Rights as endowed (given) freely and forever a gift from the Creator. The error I see in Rev. Wright expressed views, is that the Rev did not mention that all the whites of the body politics were also facing the same problem. The congress is playing as a king and using force to try to run whatever game rules congress is going by. I cut some slack for Obama (because he is a first term federal congress person). Hillary, McCain, and Paul all want me to vote for them to lead me. I have not heard a one of them say they wish to serve me per the USC contract. Nor have I hears a one of them say they will respect and honor my unalienable rights and keep their stealing hands out of my pockets.
Some of us (9 by state count) have moved to define the accepted and in-place USC contract. The contract does not call for a king (congress or president or bank) over We the People. The USC service contract also called for minted metal coins to be the money (not non-redeemable serial numbered paper) used within the states. It further has requirements for where the various congresspersons must or must not come from. It does not have a valid requirement to pick a President and vice-president from the same majority vote of the “electors”. Is the change that people want of which Obama is speaking of but not saying that he, Obama, is going to serve We the People per the contracts? The contracts are designed and written to best secure our (yours and mine) unalienable Rights from Creator. I for one would like and support that change. Why I bet even Rev Wright would support such a change.
Promoting a contractual peaceful resolution to the long unflawed but not properly followed contracts, much study and thinking on has been done, as well as the principles of law and justice. To that end, nine states (TN, CO, WY, IO, AL, MD, MO, CA, and NE) have been signed on and we the signers consider the contracts as given by us nine to be in full force and effect. If folks from other states wish a valid law, then consider signing on for your state. It is your choice. If you wish to learn more about the law as we are reading the contracts, please contact Mary Severance ---- severanceme@yahoo.com . There is nothing to buy, only read and think on. If you reach the conclusion we have a lawful point, or at least call the contract used question up for your use, then sign papers of your choice and mail to US Sec. of State for filing to affected persons. We suggest using priority mail with a confirmation of delivery, which makes your cost to post office under 6 bucks.
1. We the nine have made a claim of being, by our adoption, making owners of both the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the subordinate accepted United States Constitution (USC).
2. We hold both the DoI and the USC are contracts. Some folks use long dead folks and claim the dead actually were meaning to claim by writing or actions of long ago what the dead actually meant. The folks then use dead hear say to back their view. We use our sense of right and wrong in any contract that We take part in, especially as We claim to be one of the makers.
3. We hold the view (belief) that all contracts are civil in nature because to take part of the contract is to agree of ones own freewill to be bound by the contract terms. We have done so, as We read and understand the terms. Force is not a part of the contract equation for either of us or the hired help.
4. By the same token, since (if I understood your logic correctly) "inalienable --- means not subject to a being part of a contract" then for use the word has to be unalienable. If not; then, the hired help are equal to us the hiring masters. How could We contract for a house builder, if the builder could not accept that our wishes concerning the house were greater than his? That is why unalienable means the individual has to pick up the burden and place the burden (duty) on his own shoulders. To serve me, the hired hand has to; of the hired hand’s own free will accept that contractual duty. That duty is by the contract.
5. Since only the makers can change the contract and the 9 makers who accepted for their states long ago are dead, 9 of us present day makers have stepped forward and signed on as makers of the original and hence current USC contract and the so called first 10 amendments.
6. The signatory states makers are from CO, NE, TN, WY, IO, MD, AL, MO, and CA. If other individuals want their state to be covered by this contact, then they have to sign on of their own freewill, as we 9 did. What changes it will make, I have not a clue. We are trying to follow the contract terms as we read and understand. All 9 owners' letters have been sent to the Sec of State for her to notify the appropriate persons. I think there would be quakes to follow one law in 9 states and another law in the other 41. We shall see.
7. If you have no part of a contract, then any action against you via said contract has no jurisdiction to involve you. If by faulty presumption, others are going to claim contract covers you, then sign on and claim the contract makers' roles and the makers' superior status.
8. That way, one's claim of unalienable rights and the primary intent of the subordinate USC contract is to best secure those rights, gives you the logical lawful high road.
Yours for Unalienable Rights from the Creator
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Unalienable Rights & sandbox explanation 4-1-08
Unalienable Rights & Sandbox Explanation 4-1-08
Thanks to Larken Rose for the below link, which I am posting again. It is a simple sandbox explanation that makes the rules given in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) self evident to even a 3rd grader. If you watch and don’t understand, get a kid in a sand box to tell you what it means to him.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The link is on the order of an old movie theater Saturday double feature “short subject”. Enjoy.
May your unalienable Rights from the Creator be here for all: now and forever!
Thanks to Larken Rose for the below link, which I am posting again. It is a simple sandbox explanation that makes the rules given in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) self evident to even a 3rd grader. If you watch and don’t understand, get a kid in a sand box to tell you what it means to him.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The link is on the order of an old movie theater Saturday double feature “short subject”. Enjoy.
May your unalienable Rights from the Creator be here for all: now and forever!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
unalienable Rights & project 9
Unalienable Rights – Project 9 kick-off - 4-27-08
If Sherry Peel Jackson has no unalienable rights ((see Declaration of Independence (DoI)) or the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) is not honored, then the hired help of the DOJ and the Congress appointed and controlled inferior courts (federal and state) are using legal water boarding to attacked us; and not one can say they are free or have unalienable rights from Creator. I provided the best Habeas Corpus for Sherry to consider signing along with copies of filed DoI and the accepted subordinate USC to send the package up to the head inferior 9 persons of justice, for the USSC, appointed and controlled by congress. The 9 are only the single point contact and mouth pieces for the congressional member. If the nine persons will not correct or support unalienable rights, then such lays with the wishes of doing “what congress wants”. I can not say with 100% certainty what Sherry sent up or if she even sent it to the USSC, but I suspect she did. It should have been honored and Sherry out now; so, if Sherry does not have unalienable rights from the Creator and as a making owner of the subordinate USC can not have the law honored for her, then things suck. Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-27-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator – may they be here soon.
If Sherry Peel Jackson has no unalienable rights ((see Declaration of Independence (DoI)) or the subordinate United States Constitution (USC) is not honored, then the hired help of the DOJ and the Congress appointed and controlled inferior courts (federal and state) are using legal water boarding to attacked us; and not one can say they are free or have unalienable rights from Creator. I provided the best Habeas Corpus for Sherry to consider signing along with copies of filed DoI and the accepted subordinate USC to send the package up to the head inferior 9 persons of justice, for the USSC, appointed and controlled by congress. The 9 are only the single point contact and mouth pieces for the congressional member. If the nine persons will not correct or support unalienable rights, then such lays with the wishes of doing “what congress wants”. I can not say with 100% certainty what Sherry sent up or if she even sent it to the USSC, but I suspect she did. It should have been honored and Sherry out now; so, if Sherry does not have unalienable rights from the Creator and as a making owner of the subordinate USC can not have the law honored for her, then things suck. Each of you will have to decide which of the king congressperson to lick the boots and be a good serf or slave to. If you can not see the position of drawing a 20 inch vacuum on a king congressperson is different than being a thinking responsible making owner of the subordinate USC, may your kids and grandkids not curse you, even while they struggle for their birthright bowl of porridge you sold from your table.
This forum is being used to inform any reader that as of tomorrow 4-27-08 I have been informed a signing individual will sign for the ninth state and send both the signed public filed documents to the Sec. of State. We hold it is Sec of State’s duty to notify the states and the federal departments and any agencies of our contract actions. We 9 folks from various nine state having taking ownership of the accepted USC contract, have signed our name, hold we are true first class voters, Citizens of the US, and as such claim and hold that the USC is subordinate to the DoI and its primary purpose is to best secure our and your unalienable right. If you do not have part in a contract, you have no standing to have it apply to you. There is a fixed condition per my read of the USC contract that after any change; People in at least nine states must sign on, for it to become a valid active contract. The ninth is due (I am told) to be signed tomorrow and sent to Sec of State. It should arrive there by at least Thursday.
Since I am not sure how or what this current bunch of elected congress persons is using to do as they are doing, I can not tell you or even guess what this will accomplish. It will at least call the question of what they are attacking under to the fore front. It gives us a known law in which to hang our defense of self’s and others on. It will be interesting to see if it makes any changes, and if so how they explain it to the states who have not signed on – hence would maybe have a different law. The educated Chinese I am told have a strange curse for their enemies. It is: “Ah, may you live in interesting time”. Just remember, us 9 are here with you, even if we 9 are trying our best to have change. That change is to have the law as written and we have accepted followed. Since we are not trying to hide our actions or purpose from you but give you an opportunity to consider and maybe join us and add your state to the law, I will give you my email address. If you wish to write and request, I will send you the compete set of papers. Email sjcaruthers@yahoo.com and request the Project 9 paper work set. I will email when my schedule permits.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator – may they be here soon.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Unalienable Rights from Creator versus USC ostrich slavers
Unalienable Rights from Creator versus USC ostrich slavers
Do any of you out there have a well mannered kid you wish to sell me for my use of my work needs, my pleasures, and possibly to resale for profit or pay bills (debt)? Shucks if you will let your hired congresspersons run up a bill. If you and most everyone wants to believe your kids have to take responsibility for the debt you and your hired servants bought your daily drugs with, then I will try to buy one or two of the chattel kid. Unless I get in real debt trouble and have to sell them or pledge the purchased chattel as collateral, someday I might decide to give them unalienable rights. And make them equal to me. See what a good deal you would be doing for yourself and you kids. You get money today for drugs, and they get hope for some future day.
This is the actual view the hired servant (congresspersons, presidents) has of you and your kids. Where else do they come up with the concept they are our king. By hiding there actual deeds under the inferior court system rulings. Congress created and selects the inferior administrative black robes and calls them judges. If the judges don’t do as congress wishes, then congress writes or rewrites a law and tell created judges this is the (our) rule.
Please remember, I will tell you what I believe and hold and where I come up with it. Not so the inferior court system and the money hungry congresspersons.
Martha Steward was attached and had her unalienable rights taken by the hired servants. It was wrong in that the attack and taking was not in the owners’ one supreme Court. I will guess and agree Martha walked in to the inferior administrative court forum on the advice of the lawyer. Why would a boss, go into an inferior court. Since the lawyer makes his living off the bogus inferior court system why would he explain: I and my fellow lawyers are just shearing you for our benefit and to keep others in line with fear? After the so-called trial, they do what is called an allocution or where jurisdiction is then finally decided. Guess what, as far as I know, that is the only place other that the front end challenge of Jurisdiction where the judge is required to answer your question and that probably includes jurisdiction. Maybe not even the jurisdiction question on the front end, as I have never seen them stop their process of attack for jurisdiction reason on the record or answer it. Of course the system procedure rules; allow, permit, encourage, your hired or appointed lawyer to ask or not ask for you and to accept or not accept, not tell you the first thing about selling you down the river. The lawyer may ask you to sign the “pre-sentence report”, but by then you have been in and out of the tattoo parlor. You and your tattoo are down the river in a very old and leaky inner-tube. For justice to live and ensure domestic tranquility; jurisdiction has to be the very first item determined and be part of the record before an action begins.
This allocution is where they do the “pre-sentence report” and it is written in such style if signed, then you are admitting to guilt and your prescribed written in the code books punishment is as the presentence report gives. All that is generally left for appeal is procedural error or an incompetent lawyer. System really don’t like their rottenness brought up. Now Martha is down to doing time, then to get out on house arrest, the “parole papers” one has to sign to get a longer tow cable. On those papers, one has to admit they did the “crime” and agree that they do not claim any rights that the DOJ doesn’t want them to. In order to get the longer tow rope, skip the 3 hots and a cot in a 4 by 8 cell the paroles have to agree in writing on parole paper. If you want to call this type procedural behavior of the DOJ freewill consent of the paroles, good for you, I do not call it freewill consent. I have scant hope for Martha’s appeal because of all the above reasons. Yet there are quite a few who prevail after spending time even complete sentence (years or months) in jail, and after having paid the system lawyers a bundle to defend your rights. Means, after years of attacking and taking from you, they ruled in a higher court that the attack was wrong.
I realize all you ostriches have your head buried in the rabbit hole with Alice, but I also know that many of you have your exposed gut feeling something is not correct in this land of the unalienable Rights from the Creator and the subordinate USC.
Wesley Snipes is at this time going down almost the same road as Martha. Sherry Peel Jackson, Ed and Elaine Brown of NH are on very similar paths as concerns USC contract conditions. I wish them all luck and that their dream of law and justice and unalienable Rights are very shortly accorded to them in full measure as the law of this land intends.
Eddie Ray Kahn was tried with Snipes, but did not volunteer to walk into an inferior, clandestine inferior court. They have had Eddie in jail for over a year, and will not answer the jurisdiction issue he raised. Instead on the record, they put that he plead not guilty. Not only are they attacking Eddie and thereby his wife in direct violation of the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms and conditions, but they are also only creating a false record for the higher inferior court to see on review. The KKK did better than DOJ; they never lied about why they hung the victim. I guess uppity freedom lovers are fair game, as were uppity blacks.
Drop back for coming articles, articles will cover in more details several of the names above. My land’s wall of shamefully treated individual has more names than I like to see. One is one to many. If you disagree with that number please let me know how many it take to be shameful. 10, 20, 1000, 5000, 1,000,000 I hope when it reaches your number, you will do something, even if it is only to take your head out of the rabbit hole.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator ---- today and all tomorrows
Do any of you out there have a well mannered kid you wish to sell me for my use of my work needs, my pleasures, and possibly to resale for profit or pay bills (debt)? Shucks if you will let your hired congresspersons run up a bill. If you and most everyone wants to believe your kids have to take responsibility for the debt you and your hired servants bought your daily drugs with, then I will try to buy one or two of the chattel kid. Unless I get in real debt trouble and have to sell them or pledge the purchased chattel as collateral, someday I might decide to give them unalienable rights. And make them equal to me. See what a good deal you would be doing for yourself and you kids. You get money today for drugs, and they get hope for some future day.
This is the actual view the hired servant (congresspersons, presidents) has of you and your kids. Where else do they come up with the concept they are our king. By hiding there actual deeds under the inferior court system rulings. Congress created and selects the inferior administrative black robes and calls them judges. If the judges don’t do as congress wishes, then congress writes or rewrites a law and tell created judges this is the (our) rule.
Please remember, I will tell you what I believe and hold and where I come up with it. Not so the inferior court system and the money hungry congresspersons.
Martha Steward was attached and had her unalienable rights taken by the hired servants. It was wrong in that the attack and taking was not in the owners’ one supreme Court. I will guess and agree Martha walked in to the inferior administrative court forum on the advice of the lawyer. Why would a boss, go into an inferior court. Since the lawyer makes his living off the bogus inferior court system why would he explain: I and my fellow lawyers are just shearing you for our benefit and to keep others in line with fear? After the so-called trial, they do what is called an allocution or where jurisdiction is then finally decided. Guess what, as far as I know, that is the only place other that the front end challenge of Jurisdiction where the judge is required to answer your question and that probably includes jurisdiction. Maybe not even the jurisdiction question on the front end, as I have never seen them stop their process of attack for jurisdiction reason on the record or answer it. Of course the system procedure rules; allow, permit, encourage, your hired or appointed lawyer to ask or not ask for you and to accept or not accept, not tell you the first thing about selling you down the river. The lawyer may ask you to sign the “pre-sentence report”, but by then you have been in and out of the tattoo parlor. You and your tattoo are down the river in a very old and leaky inner-tube. For justice to live and ensure domestic tranquility; jurisdiction has to be the very first item determined and be part of the record before an action begins.
This allocution is where they do the “pre-sentence report” and it is written in such style if signed, then you are admitting to guilt and your prescribed written in the code books punishment is as the presentence report gives. All that is generally left for appeal is procedural error or an incompetent lawyer. System really don’t like their rottenness brought up. Now Martha is down to doing time, then to get out on house arrest, the “parole papers” one has to sign to get a longer tow cable. On those papers, one has to admit they did the “crime” and agree that they do not claim any rights that the DOJ doesn’t want them to. In order to get the longer tow rope, skip the 3 hots and a cot in a 4 by 8 cell the paroles have to agree in writing on parole paper. If you want to call this type procedural behavior of the DOJ freewill consent of the paroles, good for you, I do not call it freewill consent. I have scant hope for Martha’s appeal because of all the above reasons. Yet there are quite a few who prevail after spending time even complete sentence (years or months) in jail, and after having paid the system lawyers a bundle to defend your rights. Means, after years of attacking and taking from you, they ruled in a higher court that the attack was wrong.
I realize all you ostriches have your head buried in the rabbit hole with Alice, but I also know that many of you have your exposed gut feeling something is not correct in this land of the unalienable Rights from the Creator and the subordinate USC.
Wesley Snipes is at this time going down almost the same road as Martha. Sherry Peel Jackson, Ed and Elaine Brown of NH are on very similar paths as concerns USC contract conditions. I wish them all luck and that their dream of law and justice and unalienable Rights are very shortly accorded to them in full measure as the law of this land intends.
Eddie Ray Kahn was tried with Snipes, but did not volunteer to walk into an inferior, clandestine inferior court. They have had Eddie in jail for over a year, and will not answer the jurisdiction issue he raised. Instead on the record, they put that he plead not guilty. Not only are they attacking Eddie and thereby his wife in direct violation of the DoI and subordinate USC contract terms and conditions, but they are also only creating a false record for the higher inferior court to see on review. The KKK did better than DOJ; they never lied about why they hung the victim. I guess uppity freedom lovers are fair game, as were uppity blacks.
Drop back for coming articles, articles will cover in more details several of the names above. My land’s wall of shamefully treated individual has more names than I like to see. One is one to many. If you disagree with that number please let me know how many it take to be shameful. 10, 20, 1000, 5000, 1,000,000 I hope when it reaches your number, you will do something, even if it is only to take your head out of the rabbit hole.
Yours for unalienable Rights from Creator ---- today and all tomorrows
Sunday, February 3, 2008
unalienable rights, accepted USC, salt pillars&other fairy tale lies
Unalienable rights, accepted USC, salt pillars, & other fairy tale lies
I am trying to keep these articles short enough so those interested will check back for the next serial. The articles will not be 30 second sound bites, but will be done as a connected series style. Future articles are considered which will cover the very unlawful attacks on Ed Brown and his wife Elaine of NH, Martha Steward, Eddie Kahn and Wesley Snipes and the third member of that attacked group.
Back to this article. First let me paraphrase two stories from an old well known book in the present day language use. A man and his family were told to leave a wicked system, and not turn back (look back). Which the woman (staff) did and was turned to a pillar of salt. Salt represents a preservative. This story is reinforced a number of time with instructions not to consult with the dead. The second story tells the created to not eat (take) of the fruit of a tree of the land (garden). In the book, this was the instructions given by the Creators/Makers. The Creator’s reason for the rules was not necessary to be given. The Creator sets the rules as the Creator sees fit. If you have a Divinity who does not give you free will, then my adopted contact rules should give you all the freedom you wish.
Since I view the DoI and subordinate USC as contracts, let look at those documents as contracts for understanding interpretation and construction. All contracts are civil in nature and require a free will meeting of the minds by both the writing party and the created or accepting party. How you would do it I can only guess, but I would never take part of/in or write a contract to hire someone to be over me. Since I used the contract form to best protect my unalienable rights, I would never set the hired servants as the only police power “one supreme Court”. Only the bosses can set on that court and judge the hired servants per the contract terms. I realize that many of the hired servants, inferior administrative court black robes, politicians, newspapers, claim we are based on England’s law. That lie comes from scum who does not like unalienable rights or some dummies who know no better. The law of England was based on one king over all. That system is in no way close to or a fore-runner of our contract system. The two are not in any way comparable. By trying to preserve the king system, many wrongs have been done under my government’s name.
I have never hired a president or congress to run a king system and to do so pretending that is what the/my contract says.
There are many dummies out here who say to not have anything to do with my USC contract. There are also dummies saying they are Sovereigns. One, if following the USC contact as I understand the contract, I see no problem for me or any other believing-in-justice individual following those contact rules. Let me make it clear to any readers, I only accept what I consider a valid USC contract, not the servant add on. Only the makers can change their created contract. Once created, the makers can only change the contract as agreed to in the making. I know many of the People have their heart in the right place, but their logic and law language is not what I consider correct. One can only use or deal via the USC as a person, not a Sovereign. As a contract person, the makers can in any issue matter against the created, have and maintain a higher status. Last input this article, whether an owner or a created person, all who deal/use per the USC have to know the USC can only be used as an Adhesion Contract. Until the next article, may your mind be active on this land’s law.
I am trying to keep these articles short enough so those interested will check back for the next serial. The articles will not be 30 second sound bites, but will be done as a connected series style. Future articles are considered which will cover the very unlawful attacks on Ed Brown and his wife Elaine of NH, Martha Steward, Eddie Kahn and Wesley Snipes and the third member of that attacked group.
Back to this article. First let me paraphrase two stories from an old well known book in the present day language use. A man and his family were told to leave a wicked system, and not turn back (look back). Which the woman (staff) did and was turned to a pillar of salt. Salt represents a preservative. This story is reinforced a number of time with instructions not to consult with the dead. The second story tells the created to not eat (take) of the fruit of a tree of the land (garden). In the book, this was the instructions given by the Creators/Makers. The Creator’s reason for the rules was not necessary to be given. The Creator sets the rules as the Creator sees fit. If you have a Divinity who does not give you free will, then my adopted contact rules should give you all the freedom you wish.
Since I view the DoI and subordinate USC as contracts, let look at those documents as contracts for understanding interpretation and construction. All contracts are civil in nature and require a free will meeting of the minds by both the writing party and the created or accepting party. How you would do it I can only guess, but I would never take part of/in or write a contract to hire someone to be over me. Since I used the contract form to best protect my unalienable rights, I would never set the hired servants as the only police power “one supreme Court”. Only the bosses can set on that court and judge the hired servants per the contract terms. I realize that many of the hired servants, inferior administrative court black robes, politicians, newspapers, claim we are based on England’s law. That lie comes from scum who does not like unalienable rights or some dummies who know no better. The law of England was based on one king over all. That system is in no way close to or a fore-runner of our contract system. The two are not in any way comparable. By trying to preserve the king system, many wrongs have been done under my government’s name.
I have never hired a president or congress to run a king system and to do so pretending that is what the/my contract says.
There are many dummies out here who say to not have anything to do with my USC contract. There are also dummies saying they are Sovereigns. One, if following the USC contact as I understand the contract, I see no problem for me or any other believing-in-justice individual following those contact rules. Let me make it clear to any readers, I only accept what I consider a valid USC contract, not the servant add on. Only the makers can change their created contract. Once created, the makers can only change the contract as agreed to in the making. I know many of the People have their heart in the right place, but their logic and law language is not what I consider correct. One can only use or deal via the USC as a person, not a Sovereign. As a contract person, the makers can in any issue matter against the created, have and maintain a higher status. Last input this article, whether an owner or a created person, all who deal/use per the USC have to know the USC can only be used as an Adhesion Contract. Until the next article, may your mind be active on this land’s law.
Monday, January 28, 2008
DoI --the supeme law of the this land
Since this blog is concerning the law of this land, I think it is appropriate to very near the blogs operational start to make a few comments and then, post the supreme law in it's entirety.
The DoI is a covenant to us that claim the law, by being either very old or knowning adoption. I did by birthright and knowing adoption. As a square is to a general parallelogram, a covenant is to a contract. A contract with very defined contract conditions. You can be a Sovereign, accept and follow the DoI as your law and still deal with others as a Sovereign. Not so for the subordinate USC contract. Please note: many and most of the legal system use the word "inalienable" instead of the actual word "unalienable". The two word are not really the same. Since the DoI is a contract, the word "unalienable" means no burden can be laid on you if you don't want to pick up the burden of your own freewill. Many of the religious say their God gave them freewill, so does the supreme law of this land. Prevew of coming blog post. In the next blog posting, we will get to the subordinate USC contract and your status to use or deal with.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--John HancockNew Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
I/We the undersigned claim and declare this written law as the supreme law of this land. I/We uphold and adhere to the intent of the law.
The DoI is a covenant to us that claim the law, by being either very old or knowning adoption. I did by birthright and knowing adoption. As a square is to a general parallelogram, a covenant is to a contract. A contract with very defined contract conditions. You can be a Sovereign, accept and follow the DoI as your law and still deal with others as a Sovereign. Not so for the subordinate USC contract. Please note: many and most of the legal system use the word "inalienable" instead of the actual word "unalienable". The two word are not really the same. Since the DoI is a contract, the word "unalienable" means no burden can be laid on you if you don't want to pick up the burden of your own freewill. Many of the religious say their God gave them freewill, so does the supreme law of this land. Prevew of coming blog post. In the next blog posting, we will get to the subordinate USC contract and your status to use or deal with.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--John HancockNew Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
I/We the undersigned claim and declare this written law as the supreme law of this land. I/We uphold and adhere to the intent of the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
