Thursday, October 31, 2013
God given right? Do we really need to invoke a creator to claim our own sovereignty vs another equals false claim over you?
Do we not have the same rights as any other living man? Why would one even need to invent a third party, that one has no proof of, to qualify for the same rights as any other man? For that matter, why would anyone need to invoke the permission of a public servant to get married, earn a living threw production and use of one's own abilities, or the ability to move from point A to point B? Are these not rights? Are they somehow lesser rights than your right to vacuum your carpet when it starts to get dirty? If not, then why are you not required to beg for permission from your overlords to vacuum your carpet on a weekly basis as well?
Why does ANYONE ask people who are no smarter or deserving of rights than yourselves for permission to exercise a right? WHO DIED AND LEFT THEM GODS? Quick answer is, YOU DID BY YOUR OWN CONSENT! Knock it off! QUIT DOING IT! Learn what consent means! STOP IT! Learn what rights are! QUIT ACTING THE PART OF THE SLAVE! The basic concepts of law are as easy as buying sliced bread. YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE! Just do it! INVESTIGATE! Learn some history! THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF YOUR SERVITUDE! You can do it if I can do it! IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Any first grader can tell you about it, but they would probably not understand your stupid question.
Yeah, despite this post, I do still respect the God given rights argument in law. That flows into my own spirituality and understanding of the universe, and I'm not going to write a book on that here and now on this subject in this post. The point of this post is not to degrade anyone's beliefs, but rather to just show that one need not include a God or religion into their Claim Of Right among other men who are equal in those rights from birth to death. If anything, most religions support this claim right off the bat!
If you are a subject, or are subjugated, then at least in the free world, it's a matter of choice. If you continue consenting to be subjects, to be subjugated, then it IS your own fault! Quit complaining if your not willing to learn what it is to be free and sovereign over your own affairs. It's not rocket science. It's all there in black & white. It's not even hidden. It's all plain as day in your face! It's simplicity is blinding you! The darkness is all the legality the swindlers and thieves hide behind while they rob steal and murder under color of law. Natural Law is easy. It's the statutes and acts enforced by consent that are almost impossible for the average man to understand and learn. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE! What if I told you that real law is probably less than 1/100th of 1% that of acts, statutes, and other rules that are nothing more than color of law, even if you consent to it ignorantly?
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) Emmerich de Vattel
If you think reading law is boring, then take a look at some of these subjects!
This is some really neat stuff! I'm adding this page to the link list right now for EZ future reference.
I have a lot more to say about Emmerich de Vattel and his writings, but I'll leave that for another post.
- Title Page, Advertisement, Prefaces - 67k
- Preliminaries - 50k
- Chap. 1: Of Nations or Sovereign States - 20k
- Chap. 2: General Principles of the Duties of a Nation Towards Herself - 29k
- Chap. 3: Of the Constitution of a State, and its Duties and Rights - 27k
- Chap. 4: Of the Sovereign, His Obligations, and His Rights - 62k
- Chap. 5: Of States, Elective, Successive, Hereditary and Patrimonial - 53k
- Chap. 6: Principal Objects of a Good Government; First, to Provide for Necessities - 14k
- Chap. 7: Of the Cultivation of the Soil - 18k
- Chap. 8: Of Commerce - 38k
- Chap. 9: Of the Care of the Public Ways; and of Tolls - 14k
- Chap. 10: Of Money and Exchange - 20k
- Chap. 11: Second Object of a Good Government, to Procure True Happiness - 45k
- Chap. 12: Of Piety and Religion - 115k
- Chap. 13: Of Justice and Polity - 55k
- Chap. 14: Third Object of a Good Government, to Fortify Itself Against Attacks - 27k
- Chap. 15: Of the Glory of a Nation - 20k
- Chap. 16: Protection Sought by a Nation, and Submission to a Foreign Power - 21k
- Chap. 17: How a Nation May Renounce Her Allegiance to Her Sovereign - 16k
- Chap. 18: Establishment of a Nation in a Country - 22k
- Chap. 19: Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It - 49k
- Chap. 20: Public, Common, and Private Property - 41k
- Chap. 21: Of the Alienation of the Public Properly, or the Domain - 25k
- Chap. 22: Of Rivers, Streams, and Lakes - 33k
- Chap. 23: Of the Sea - 40k
- Chap. 1: Of the Common Duties of a Nation Towards Other States - 57k
- Chap. 2: Of the Mutual Commerce Between Nations - 35k
- Chap. 3: Of the Dignity and Equality of Nations, of Titles, and Honour - 33k
- Chap. 4: Of the Right to Security, and the Independence of Nations - 36k
- Chap. 5: Of the Observance of Justice between Nations - 15k
- Chap. 6: Of the Concern a Nation May Have in the Actions of Her Citizens - 21k
- Chap. 7: Effects of the Domain, Between Nations - 43k
- Chap. 8: Rules Respecting Foreigners - 38k
- Chap. 9: Rights Retained after the Introduction of Domain and Property - 33k
- Chap. 10: How a Nation Is to Use Her Right of Domain - 26k
- Chap. 11: Of Usucaption and Prescription between Nations - 33k
- Chap. 12: Of Treaties of Alliance and Other Public Treaties - 109k
- Chap. 13: Of the Dissolution and Renewal of Treaties - 30k
- Chap. 14: Of Conventions Between the Sovereign and Private Persons - 59k
- Chap. 15: Of the Faith of Treaties - 40k
- Chap. 16: Of Securities Given for the Observance of Treaties - 49k
- Chap. 17: Of the Interpretation of Treaties - 162k
- Chap. 18: Of the Mode of Terminating Disputes Between Nations - 81k
- Chap. 1: Of War, its Different Kinds, and the Right of Making War - 17k
- Chap. 2: Of the Instruments of War, the Raising of Troops, etc. - 45k
- Chap. 3: Of the Just Causes of War - 73k
- Chap. 4: Of the Declaration of War, and of War in Due Form - 38k
- Chap. 5: Of the Enemy, and of Things Belonging to the Enemy - 18k
- Chap. 6: Of the Enemy's Allies, Associations, Auxiliaries and Subsidies - 49k
- Chap. 7: Of Neutrality, and the Passage of Troops through a Neutral Country - 72k
- Chap. 8: Of the Rights of Nations in War, What We Have a Right to Do - 98k
- Chap. 9: Of the Right of War, with Respect to Things Belonging to the Enemy - 39k
- Chap. 10: Of Faith Between Enemies, of Stratagems, Artifices in War, and Spies - 44k
- Chap. 11: Of the Sovereign Who Wages an Unjust War - 18k
- Chap. 12: Of the Voluntary Law of Nations, as it Regards Regular Warfare - 23k
- Chap. 13: Of Acquisitions by War, and Particularly of Conquests - 46k
- Chap. 14: Of the Right of Postliminium - 39k
- Chap. 15: Of the Right of Private Persons in War - 31k
- Chap. 16: Of Various Conventions Made During the Course of the War - 65k
- Chap. 17: Of Safe-conducts and Passports, and Questions of Ransom - 36k
- Chap. 18: Of Civil War - 37k
- Chap. 1: Of Peace, and the Obligation to Cultivate It - 21k
- Chap. 2: Treaties of Peace - 45k
- Chap. 3: Of the Execution of the Treaty of Peace - 29k
- Chap. 4: Of the Observance and Breach of the Treaty of Peace - 48k
- Chap. 5: Of the Right of Embassy, of Sending and Receiving Public Ministers - 37k
- Chap. 6: Of the Several Orders of Public Ministers, and the Honours Due - 31k
- Chap. 7: Of the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of Ambassadors, etc. - 127k
- Chap. 8: Of the Judge of Ambassadors in Civil Cases - 37k
- Chap. 9: Of the Ambassador's House and Domestics - 39k
Force or Fraud = Murder, Slavery, and Theft
"Whatever
may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the
act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or
forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do
you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.
"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.
"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'—and neither is possible to man without the other.
"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.
~John Galt
"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.
"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'—and neither is possible to man without the other.
"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.
~John Galt
I'll add to that another excellent speech from the movie The Fountainhead by Gary Cooper.
Person
I've understood that I am not a person, and that I have persons, Library card, drivers license (expired) etc for some time now. Lately, reading so many legal definitions in code, acts, and statutes I started abandoning that logic and thinking the word Person as something with duality. Thanks for bringing my head back down to reality Rob. Sometimes when ya immerse yourself in the stink of it all, you get used to the smell and need reminding that it just stinks. Thanks for the breath of fresh air.
"An examination of the definition of the term 'person' as found in the Interpretation Act. Does it mean 'people AND corporations', or does it mean 'ONLY corporations'. You decide."
NOTE: The Interpretation Act belongs to the corporation of Canada, but here in the States there is an act that says the same thing. In fact, every corporation State will have a similar or exactly the same worded definition. Also one can look up the definition in about any law dictionary. The good ones will have it.
I also find it helpful to look up not just the legal definitions in a law dictionary, but also to see where the words came from in an Etymology Dictionary.
- person (n.)
- early 13c., from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona
"human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character,"
originally "mask, false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by
the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c.
explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty ...." Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." Klein goes on to say this is ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.
Of corporate entities from mid-15c. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). In person "by bodily presence" is from 1560s. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls. - persona (n.)
- 1917, "outward or social personality," a Jungian psychology term, from Latin persona "person" (see person). Used earlier (1909) by Ezra Pound in the sense "literary character representing voice of the author." Persona grata is Late Latin, literally "an acceptable person," originally applied to diplomatic representatives acceptable to the governments to which they were sent; hence also persona non grata (plural personæ non gratæ).
- personal (adj.)
- late 14c., "pertaining to the self," from Old French personal (12c., Modern French personnel), from Late Latin personalis "pertaining to a person," from Latin persona (see person). Meaning "aimed at some particular person" (usually in a hostile manner) first attested 1610s. The noun sense of "newspaper item about private matters" is attested from 1888. As "a classified ad addressed to an individual," it is recorded from 1861. Personal computer is from 1976.
- personable (adj.)
- "pleasing in one's person," early 15c., from person + -able, or else from Middle French personable. Related: Personably.
- personality (n.)
- late 14c., "quality or fact of being a person," from Medieval Latin personalitatem (nominative personalitas), from Late Latin personalis (see personal). Sense of "a distinctive character" is first recorded 1795, from French personnalité.
Personality is the supreme realization of the innate idiosyncrasy of a living being. It is an act of courage flung in the face of life, the absolute affirmation of all that constitutes the individual, the most successful adaptation to the universal conditions of existence, coupled with the greatest possible freedom of self-determination. [C.G. Jung, 1875-1961]
Meaning "person whose character stands out from that of others" is from 1889. Personality cult is attested from 1956. - personification (n.)
- 1755, noun of action from personify. Sense of "embodiment of a quality in a person" is attested from 1807.
- personhood (n.)
- 1878, from person + -hood.
- personify (v.)
- 1727 "to attribute personal form to things or abstractions" (especially as an artistic or literary technique), from person + -fy or from French personnifier (17c.), from personne. Meaning "to represent, embody" attested from 1806. Related: Personified; personifying.
Person is the act. The actors mask. The Strawman.The facade one sees in commerce, but not the man himself. Just an acceptable mirror image of the living breathing man.
Understanding how to fight city hall, William "Bill" Foust - The Secretary of State
What I can say about Bill, is that he was murdered by code enforcement officer Shawn Wilson in Arizona before I got a chance to understand the things he was talking about in his video's. The mans spirit and dedication to law, and sovereign rights will live on in the hearts, minds, and actions, of people who learn from his legacy on video. If your new or old to learning your rights, then his work is well worth watching. Bill once said that he was a nobody, and that some of the people he knew were like Superman. Like Neo at the end of the first movie at the phone booth, he told them how it would begin before flying away. Well, if he was a nobody, then I have yet to meet the people he was referring to as Supermen / Neo. This work is good to go over for the beginners, and is very entertaining for the more advanced. When you learn about this stuff, the jokes he's making make sense, and are as funny as they appear to be in the vid's. When you understand what's being laughed at, then you have stepped up and know who you are, and what you need to do by that point. I've posted his stuff on this blog before, when I first started the blog, but intend to post all his video's in the next few weeks and adding the links to one of the lists for easy reference.
"Man on the Land, William Dale Foust or Bill for short http://republicforarizona.org talks about the relationships between the the United States and the Americans that live on the land as well. it is evident the United States is a foreign corporation operating as a government and the Secretary of State is the bridge between them.
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy.The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President's chief foreign affairs adviser.
Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State's duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties-the activities and responsibilities of the State Department-include the following:
• Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
• Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
• Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
• Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
• Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
• Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
• Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
• Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
• Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Administers the Department of State;
• Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.
In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The knowledge behind the pen...
The knowledge behind the pen that denies consent is mightier than the sword!
- Christopher Aaron, Of the family: Duke
PS. Especially if you would like nothing more than to murder the bastards who deserve murdering!
Stateism Is A Mental Illness
Pic from Mad Max
“We can go one small step further and ask the question, “Do I support the use of violence against myself?” At the end of the day, all laws and policies that we dispassionately and apathetically assume will apply only to other groups of people in the abstract can ALWAYS ultimately be used against us. As a perfect example of this, here in the state of Queensland, Australia the state government has just passed the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill, which criminalizes membership in motorcycle gangs and makes gathering in groups of more than three such members a jailable offense. These new laws are now the most draconian anti-association laws in the world. And while no one I know supports the activities of criminal motorcycle gangs, a quick read of the first few pages of the bill will demonstrate to anyone with half a brain just how broadly this legislative act can be applied within the definition of “a member of an association”. So the question is not, “Should members of criminal motorcycle gangs be prevented from associating with whoever they wish?” but rather, “Should I be prevented from associating with whomever I wish?” “Do I support the use of violence and force against myself?” Framed in that context, the abstract is drawn into sharp personal focus and statism is seen for what it truly is – the advocating of violence and force against oneself.”
"Support of statism is therefore the ultimate form of masochism, self-loathing and self-betrayal – essentially, a form of mental illness. So next time someone says, “Oh but we need the police to enforce whatever” or “people shouldn’t be allowed to whatever” or “this thing that offends me should be banned”, never mind asking “against me?”, strike to the very heart of the matter and ask them the ultimate question, the most personal question of all, “Do you support the use of violence and force against yourself?” To any sane person, the answer should be obvious."
- Marissa Nielsen