Sept. 2004Edition 61

[ Click here for Oct. posting Part Two ]

This is where we hope to keep you thinking.  The site does not focus on diversionary minutia.  You get enough of that  incessant spin coming from mainstream media.

 

by Robertus Frederickus

This issue deals with the question of sovereignty and the ethics and legality of corporations. There is an old saying: "If you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything." Morally upright people have been standing on the sidelines and not stopping corruption, even when they know when and where it exists.

Could this be a form of neutralism? Have these people become part of the problem as opposed to the solution? In my opinion, the basic reason for the decline of political and social standards in America and the maladies America suffers, can be traced back to perversions of the very truths upon which America was founded.

Do you have a gut feeling that things are wrong in America today? Do you know anyone who doesn’t? You’d probably get similar answers from any cross section of the American people because they know that something is wrong. They know that politicians aren’t what they used to be. Everyone wants an instant answer to the question; "How do we fix the problem?"

Before you try to answer the question, try to think of the following: If we are going to make a case to our friends, neighbors, relatives or associates about the various things we feel have gone wrong in America, don’t we need to be able to prove our views just like in a jury trial? Doesn’t there have to be sufficient evidence to convince a jury in a court of law?

Every opinion we have should be backed with sufficient knowledge, facts and common sense to argue and prove our point of view beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you have an opinion on anything, shouldn’t you be able to put forth the facts concerning the "who," "what," "when," "where" and "why" behind it? Just like journalists or investigative reporters who know how to ask questions, we in CCU must know how to answer all the questions which will be asked when we make our opinions known. If we can’t prove the veracity of our point of view to support our arguments, can we really expect to win? If we point out that there is something wrong with our country in any specific area, don’t we really need to define the problems first? When did it happen? How did it happen? Who did it? Where did they do it? Why did they do it? If we can answer these questions for our friends, relatives, neighbors and associates, we have already gone a long way in solving the problems in America.

I will attempt to answer these questions in this News Letter by describing corporations and whether or not they are lawful, legal ethical and moral. I will try to present the arguments in a basic way.

Hopefully, that which illuminates my thoughts will also shed some light on yours. I hope to increase your understanding. I will attempt to present ideas that provide the underlying reasons why things have drastically changed in America. I will reveal who has been doing the dirty work behind the scenes. I will expose their base of operations as well as their ultimate goals.

I’ll begin with one of the fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence, drafted by our forefathers in 1776. It contains these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain [unalienable] rights."

What does this tell us about fundamental principles, precepts, creeds and beliefs? Don’t we have something here that is self-evident? It doesn’t require proof, does it? Any rational person pondering this for just a few minutes probably thinks he understands what this means.

But, what does it mean? Do you really believe that everyone is created equal? Is this self-evident to you? In case you are hung up on semantics, let me be a bit more specific. When our forefathers were talking about the equality of men, they were not saying that every person could jump the same height or that everyone was exactly equal in intelligence.

Obviously, thinking this way does not make any sense at all. Weren’t they saying that everyone is created equal in terms of rights, powers and privileges under God? This implies that these powers are outside of government. It implies that these powers do not have their origin with government.

People who would tend to argue with this idea fall into special categories belonging to bigots, socialists, liberals1 and perhaps even Satanists.

In a pure sense, our forefathers were saying that no one person has any power over another person. This may not be obvious in today’s society and it may not have been realized very often in history, but, as a basic starting point, can you agree with the American forefathers’ basic concepts? Shouldn’t we be equal in our right to exist? Shouldn’t we be equal in our freedom of conscience and our freedom to make choices?

1 The word liberal in a political sense has special meaning. American usage would be quite similar to that used under Hitler. In the fullest sense, it means "National Socialism" which is what the word Nazi means.

There must be limitations. Think of it this way. Can there be a measure of freedom beyond which freedom can exist? If there were such an amount of freedom would it be sufficient to destroy freedom for everyone?

Consider this. If one of us were created more powerful than all of us, we simply would ask that one person to come forth with the evidence. We would simply place the responsibility of proof on that individual. We would say, "Show the rest of us that you were born into this world with a title of nobility or some God-given privilege which we do not have."

This is the problem our forefathers faced with the King of England. The King claimed to be a divine appointee of God. Do you remember your history?

Didn’t the King, claiming these powers, determine that he could dictate to the rest of the people?

Didn’t the King believe he had the power to regulate the people? Didn’t our forefathers take exception to that?

Don’t politicians, judges, and many bureaucrats including clerks, law enforcement people, the media and high ranking elitists in various institutions in our country today also think they have more power over us than we do? Don’t they tend to over-regulate?

Don’t they claim power over us, the people?

How did all this happen? It wasn’t always like that.

Let’s look at the next sentence in the Declaration of Independence concerning the protection of these rights.

 "Governments were instituted among men."

Let’s stop there. What does this say about the purpose of government? Isn’t the purpose of government to secure these [unalienable] rights of each and every person? This is the only purpose of government in a free nation! Did you ever think of that? Is our government doing this today? Is it protecting each individual’s [unalienable] right to life, liberty and property? The answer is an emphatic "NO." Then there must be something wrong. What is it?

Let’s start with a concept that ties in with the following hypothetical scenario. You are an individual carrying a lot of money while walking down a street. You are unarmed and alone. It is nighttime. Suddenly, you are confronted with a gang of 20-armed criminals. They know you have money and they want it. What chance do you have? You are unarmed. You are alone. You really don’t have a chance, do you? You are one person against an armed gang. Isn’t this self-evident?

Look at another hypothetical example: You are a family farmer in the old West. You are very successful at growing produce and you have special breeding techniques for your cattle and an abundance of good feed. This guarantees the finest beef around. Your neighbors realize that they cannot compete. They choose to gang up against you. They all combine their resources, their money and their collective power to go into business as one. Their intent is to put you out of business. They use force wherever necessary to prevent you from shipping your produce and cattle to markets around the country. They prevent you from communicating with authorities. What chance does one individual have against that economic gang?

There is no difference between this example and the first one. Your chances are zero.

The principle underlying these two examples is that the combination of powers is destructive to freedom. It is not compatible with individualism. No individual can compete against combinations of power. This is a fundamental truth! This should be self-evident!

The options are to join the combination, go out of business or form another combination equal to or stronger than the combination, which is infringing on your [unalienable] rights.

These three are the only alternatives.

Isn’t this a struggle between powers?

This detracts and steals from everyone.

Society doesn’t have room for individual freedom when this happens! It is like a thief in the night!

What do we call a combination of power in America?

I hope you are ready for this! It is called a corporation! Oh my goodness! I am sure you were never taught this in school. So, how can a corporation be lawful in America? The answer is, "it can’t" as long as the Constitution is the "Law of the land! This is self-evident. Or is it? When is the last time you heard anyone say this publicly or privately? But it is true and I shall present for your scrutiny the "who," "what," "when" and "where" and "why" corporations are unlawful entities in any society. Period!

If a corporation were a natural creation of God, you should be able to find it in the wilderness and in the midst of nature. It would then have [unalienable] rights.

Can you find a corporation in nature? This is self-evident also, isn’t it? Corporations do not have [unalienable] rights. Their power doesn’t come from God! Why is this?

Because they get their rights to exist from powerful people in government, who claim they have more power than the rest of us. And why do they get their rights to exist from these people in government? Because corporations are the "gang" and the "mob" I just talked about. They have combination(s) of powers over people. They are the thief in the night!

If you were to study the history of America, you would find that corporations are unlawful. So who made them lawful and "what," "when," "where" and "why" were they made lawful? Good questions. I think you already know the reason "why," don’t you?

To address the problem of the legality of corporations, we must understand the Laws of Mortmain. The term mortmain entered the English language from Latin "mortuus" (dead) and "manus" (hand) via Old French "mortemain." It means that a dead hand (worker, man) cannot own land. In the case of institutions such as churches, foundations and corporations, however, real estate cannot be transferred or sold because institutions cannot die and their possessions are therefore perpetual.

The Laws of Mortmain are part of our Common Law.

Our forefathers understood these principles but today hardly anyone is familiar with them, not even attorneys. Knowing about the Laws of Mortmain is helpful in understanding the arguments over the first corporation in America, the "First Bank of the United States." George Washington, the first President, and Hamilton, his Secretary of the Treasury, decided that America needed a central bank. It would be more accurate to say that they thought that the federal government needed a central bank.

However, Thomas Jefferson challenged the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Jefferson argued that this act of Congress would combine a group of stockholders into a corporation and that their combined power would be a contradiction of individual freedom. Thomas Jefferson argued that 2 At that time in World History the powerful and influential elitist central banking cartel in Europe had a strangle hold on the leaders of most countries.

 You have to see this scenario in terms of common crooks looking for their next victim. American wealth was growing quickly because of basic freedom. The powerful and influential criminal, international, elitist, central-banking cartel-thugs in Europe saw America as their next victim. They began their quest of plundering our wealth by using their money and influence on everyone in authority in America or their friends elsewhere.

Corporations are not a creation of God but of government. They are not alive and cannot do anything a living person can do. They cannot procreate. They cannot die and therefore any land held by them would be held in perpetuity. The land and property would therefore, forever be lost to the people, as they could never be transferred or sold.

This was according to the Laws of Mortmain. They would forever be held by a clique of power brokers and their posterity.

There is a fundamental difference between God’s creation and that of man. A corporation does not have any natural and lawful rights. A corporation cannot go into the courts without the help of a person. It cannot do anything on its own. It cannot take an oath before God to tell the truth. There are no lawful remedies for corporations. Every law has built-in remedies and recourse for people but not for corporations as they are not lawful entities the way people are.

Today corporations are everywhere. They are powerful combinations and exist by permission of the government. They are one of the government’s larger sources of revenue. This, however, is not the only reason why governments incorporate, license and regulate churches, foundations and corporations.

Another reason is that government can control them. Corporations are a subtle form of slavery.

Do corporations ultimately provide a public good?

When you think about it carefully, you’ll discover that the answer is also an emphatic "NO."

Do they promote individual [unalienable] rights? Absolutely not!

What happens to the little mom and pop business when a big corporation like Walmart comes to town?

What happens to the family farm when the conglomerates move in and take over?

The creation of corporations by the government is at the expense of sovereign Citizens3 and their personal freedom.

Today, no one is left protected from the wrath of corporations. Corporations DO NOT REPRESENT FREE AND COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE! They are a conduit for gradually institutionalizing monopolism. They are a slick form of creeping socialism. They lead to dictatorship! If you investigated all the businesses that supply jobs to Americans, at least 90% or more of American have the "C" in citizen in upper case because I wish to emphasize that this type of Citizen is sovereign and supreme.

Workers are working for corporations of one sort or another, or for government created entities such as;

DBAs, partnerships or even proprietorships that are under the control of the government, which, in our day and age we have learned is also a corporation and was created by bogus means. Doesn’t this indicate that we might have a problem?

These combinations of power are working against individuals and their liberty. They are actually destroying individual sovereignty and [unalienable] rights.

Let’s try to gain a deeper understanding of this.

Look at the Bible. In the very beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth and finally He created man. The Law was very simple: "You can do anything you want in the garden, except for one thing. Thou shall not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." So He put man in the garden to tend and keep it. It seems that Man from the very beginning was rebellious against the law.

God said that He was the Law, but He allowed man the freedom to choose right from wrong. Man was essentially free to make his own law. He didn’t need God to make his choices.

Didn’t Eve help Adam ignore the fact that God told them not to partake of the fruit of the tree? Didn’t she convince Adam to eat the fruit?

Look at this carefully. Aren’t they both taking a position of being "above" God, claiming an authority they realized they had? Aren’t they elevating themselves equal to or above God Almighty? Isn’t it two against God, deciding they can make their own laws? What did God have to say about this?

"You have violated My Law. You have been rebellious against Me. Because of this there is punishment." And they were punished.

They were driven from the garden . . . never to go back. They were in fact given a death sentence. God said, "because of this, you will surely die."

Man became mortal and was able to replenish and grow. God established His government upon the Earth. He gave the Law. He said, "Obey this Law," and He appointed a set of judges to rule according to His Law. For a period of time, His people lived under that Law. There came a major turning point as the outgrowth of a "declaration." It was born into existence by declaration. It is under the authority of God almighty and not the government. Government is required to follow the written "law" of the contract. It cannot do what it wants to do but is constrained and bound down by the chains of the Constitution.

Described in First Samuel. Samuel was the Judge. He was getting old and therefore his sons were judging in his place. What happened to his sons? They were corrupted with bribes from special interest groups much like American judges are today. The children of God went to Samuel to protest against the corruption. They told Samuel that they refused to live under these judges, that they wanted a man, more specifically a King, to rule over them. Isn’t this a fundamental change; an entirely different concept?

This is a paradigm shift in governing, if there ever was one.

Samuel went to the Lord and said, "Lord, look at what they have done. They have rejected me." What did the Lord tell Samuel? "Samuel, they haven’t rejected you, they have rejected Me."

Think of it. No longer did the people want to live under nature and nature’s God. They said that they wanted to live under the law of man. This is a dramatic change.

What did God tell Samuel? "Samuel, you go back and tell your people that if they want a government of man, I will ordain that government. You must also tell them that if they accept the rule and law of man, certain things will surely happen to them. Once they accept the rule of man, they will go into bondage. Men will dictate to them and take everything they own. These same men will become dictators and will take the peoples’ sons and put them in their army to enforce their projects. These dictators will take their daughters. They’ll take their vineyards. They’ll take whatever the people own and put it to use for their own benefit."

So, Samuel went back and told the people what the Lord had said. He told them what was going to happen to them.

 What did the people tell Samuel?

"Samuel, you don’t know what you are talking about. We know what is better for us. We want a King." And so the Lord gave them a King. If you know the scriptures, you know what happened. Taxes were imposed. The yoke of oppression became commonplace. Liberty was taken away and so great was the anguish of the people that they began to argue about who would make the least bad King.

Within two generations, they had a revolution. They split into two groups. In a very short time, one group went into captivity under the Assyrians. Within a few generations, the Southern group was captured,

Note: The exact same paradigm shift has now taken place in America. Americans are now in bondage for the same age old reason, lack of knowledge.

Subjugated and placed into bondage also, among the Babylonians. People lived under the rule of ruthless Kings for more than a millennium until finally in 1215 A.D., a group of people on a little island in the Atlantic Ocean stood up. They said that they would no longer live under the rule of a man. They said they were children of God and would go back to the rule of nature and nature’s God. This occurred on the battlefield of Runnemede in England. At the point of a sword, they forced the man, the King, to sign a document. It was called the Magna Carta. This document became the foundation of American Law and the rule of our nation. American Law is based on the Common Law of England. No longer would a King have unlimited power over the people.

The people returned to the Common Law. The people made the decisions of law according to their individual conscience and not according to some statute, some dictate, code or ordinance. No one was held to answer for a crime unless the people agreed, through their prosecutor, that there had been a crime committed. Government only prosecuted with the permission of the people and only through a body called a grand jury.

Government had no powers to charge the people for statutory crimes. This was a huge step in the direction of individual freedom and liberty. This meant the King and his cronies would no longer judge the people, nor would he be able to define their crimes. This placed limitations upon the powers of government. It unshackled the people and allowed them to rule according to the laws of nature and nature’s God. The people finally recaptured their God-given freedoms.

The law of man and the Law of God are incompatible. The rule of man is not compatible with God-given individual [unalienable] rights of freedom and liberty. The man-made combinations of power are not compatible with individual [unalienable] rights. Combinations or corporations are not compatible with individual sovereignty.

The long trek back towards [unalienable] rights and sovereignty began under the auspices of that important document, the Magna Carta. This is our legacy in America. Our forefathers brought it over from England. The Magna Carta became the foundation of our American government.

We need to look at other aspects of royal power. The earliest settlers of the "New World" were not totally free. Remember, the King claimed that he had divine authority. He had powers above and beyond others.

Some Kings even claimed they had power to create life. They certainly could create corporations. This is important to remember.

Kings did create corporations. When America was discovered, the King and his wealthy elitists realized that they could send people to the new world to colonize it. They could develop trade. They had reports of its great resources. This could be very profitable. The King and his cronies chartered Royal Corporations. They created trading companies.

Remember the Trading Company of Virginia
and that of Massachusetts?

The first colonies in America were not countries. They weren’t even states. They were Royally Chartered Corporations. They were financed in whole by the King and his cronies, the stockholders. They claimed exclusive trading rights through their corporations. Conflicts over fundamental concepts developed. The King of England claimed that the colonists lived under the authority of the "Crown’s Corporations," wholly controlled by the King.

However, our forefathers claimed, under the Magna Carta, that the King did not have absolute power over them and that they had the rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta.

American trade developed so quickly that it became almost equal to the combined total trade of the British Empire, the leading nation of its day. The King of England claimed exclusive trading rights under the auspices of his corporations. Essentially, the King said that the colonists could trade only through his corporations and that they were indentured to his Kingdom. Americans were required to use the King’s ships and his money under the statutes written for his loyal subjects. In other words, the colonists were ruled by the King’s oligarchy.

Our forefathers said that, as Englishmen, they were entitled to all the rights of Englishmen as clearly expressed by the Magna Carta. They told the King that he did not have the powers he claimed over them.

There is still another part to this. The French to the North became allies with the Indians to the West and North, who invaded the colonies. This was an attempt to take territory by conquest. The colonists had to defend themselves against this invasion. As trading corporations, they didn’t have an army and they didn’t have an organized government. Therefore, our forefathers asked the King of England to send troops to help protect them and to prosecute the French and Indians for the war. The King refused. Essentially he said that the colonists were doing fine over here and that we had a lot of people and resources. He said we did not need his help and that the colonists had to be responsible for their own defense. He said it cost a lot of money to send troops to fight wars. Indeed, his treasury was low at the time because the English had been fighting the French for about 40 years.

However, our forefathers did not accept what the King said. They demanded that the King protect his subjects since they were Englishmen. They said that since he received all the profits from the trading rights, he had an obligation to protect them. They demanded troops. The King finally gave in and hired the Hungarians. They formed a mercenary army at a considerable cost to the King. This was a cost he could not afford. These troops successfully prosecuted the French and the Indians and the colonists were protected.

Afterwards, the King said that the colonists were going to have to pay for the troops. Taxes were levied. They included, as an example, the Stamp and Sugar Taxes. The army remained in America so it could police the tax collection effort and enforce the King’s statutory rule over the colonists. It cost a lot of money to send the troops, but it cost even more to maintain them. The colonists were required to pay for their maintenance as well. They now had a double dilemma.

Conflicts began to develop. In 1774 our forefathers called for an assembly. It was the First Continental Congress held in Philadelphia. It really was a combination of power to neutralize the power of the King.

Remember the two previous examples of combinations of power? In the first you were in a dark street and a gang of 20 armed thugs decided to rob you and the second where you were a farmer?

You didn’t stand a chance to defend yourself against CCU Quarterly Insights Volume #1 Issue #1 7 the other farmers. Remember that combinations and corporations are the enemy of individual liberty. Don’t ever forget the importance of this principle.

Our forefathers really did understand that corporations were unlawful. They knew quite well that every type of combination or corporation was unlawful, or did they?

In American history has there ever been an authorized combination that was not injurious to individualism and liberty? Has there ever been a combination authorized under God’s Law? The answer is "yes." It was the assembly of the people of God. Was it a combination? It was the greatest combination of all. It was then and is now, the body of Christ. This was the original combination in America that challenged the King’s corporations. It was natural and was the most powerful of all. So there was indeed one combination that had authority.

You can find that combination and its authority in chapter 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D. It said essentially: "If the King violates the rules of law and tries to impose his will over man, the people are to call for an assembly. In that assembly they will state the reasons the King is in violation of the law of nature and of nature’s God. They will present a petition for redress to the King. They will give him notice of his wrong doings. The King will be given 45 days to correct them. Should he fail to make corrections, the Barons and all the people will then have the absolute right to go against the King with arms, if necessary, to protect their God-given [unalienable] rights."

This is about the best description of sovereignty you’ll ever find in history. Finally, in 1774, two years prior to the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers called for that assembly. It is known as the First Continental Congress. Following that assembly, they drafted a petition of redress to the King and the Parliament of Great Britain. How many people have read that petition? It is called "The Petition Adroit" which means it is a Petition of Rights. This is a reference to their God-given [unalienable] rights. It is a declaration of their sovereignty, not that of the King.

The first paragraph of that petition says everything needed to be said: "Whereas, since the close of the last war,6 the British Parliament claiming a power of right to bind the people of America by statute in all cases whatsoever."

Isn’t this the law of man? The Parliament and the King are simply dictating. They are enforcing this dictate with a standing army. This has been going on since the end of the last war. This is what that means.

Once the army was in place, the statutes could be enforced. So, continuing, ". . . have in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them and in others, under various pretenses, for the purpose of raising a revenue."

A board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers imposed rates and duties on the colonies.

This is 1774. What was the Constitution in America in 1774 prior to the Declaration of Independence? We didn’t have the Constitution of these united states of America then, did we? What was the colonist’s Constitution in 1774? It was The Magna Carta, wasn’t it?

The colonists simply said, "Look at what the King has done. He has established this Board of Commissioners without Constitutional authority. This was done strictly for the purpose of raising revenue for himself and his cronies. He is extending the jurisdiction of the courts of the Admiralty."

What were the courts of the Admiralty? These were the courts of the military. England was an island nation. Its federal military was a navy. So, the King was given naval power to protect the English people from invasion from the sea. But once on land, who had the power? The answer is, "the people." This is the Common Law. The King couldn’t have standing armies in times of peace. But in America, the King established an army to collect taxes, imposts and duties from the colonists. He established an Admiralty Jurisdiction on American soil. More exactly, the King established Courts of the Admiralty.

And continuing, ". . . but for the trial of causes merely arising in the body of the County." The body of the County. What is this? This is within the land. England didn’t have states. It had counties. And so we see military rule in America by the King. This 6 10 years had passed since the French and Indian war. The King established the standing army on the land and never removed them as he was required to do by the Magna Carta. CCU Quarterly Insights Volume #1 Issue #1 8 is power over the people. These were the issues our forefathers were debating.

The next paragraph says, "And, whereas in consequence of other statutes, judges who before held their estates at will in their office, had been made dependent upon the crown alone for their salaries." This meant they worked for the King, not the people. It meant that standing armies were forced upon the people in time of peace without their consent. The army was left in place for ten years after the war. The King was using it to enforce his power over the people.

This is the reason our forefathers drafted a petition for redress to the King and the Parliament of Great Britain. They essentially said to the King that what he had done was in violation of the law of nature and of nature’s God. It was in violation of personal rights, freedoms and liberties and they petitioned him with their redress of grievance according to chapter 61 of the Magna Carta. He now had 45 days to correct the situation. This is known as "Notice and Grace."

This is the Remedy portion of the law of the Magna Carta.

What did the King do? He did nothing. Are there some parallels here when compared to today’s situations in America? The King ignored the colonists.

Under the Common Law, our forefathers very specifically spelled out their grievances. They now had the right to do what? They could now come against the King, even with arms, if necessary, to solve the problem. They didn’t want to do this. They didn’t want war. They wanted reconciliation. They continued a dialogue with the King and with Parliament.

In 1775 they assembled again in the Second Continental Congress and drafted a second petition to the King. It was called "The cause and necessity for taking up arms." And again, the King and the Parliament did nothing. They did not listen.

On July 4th of 1776, they drafted a third and final petition for their redress. This document was called "The Unanimous Declaration of Independence."

They said that the King and the Parliament were not fit to be the leaders of a free people. They said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal." This included the King. It emphasized that the King and Parliament had no right to impose their despotic will upon the people of America. They said that all governments serve one purpose: to preserve and protect the [unalienable] rights of individuals and not to use them for the Crown’s benefit. The next sentence says, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." Notice that they didn’t say if these governments did this. They said when.

They understood the nature of man.

Do you understand the fear of our forefathers when they made that Unanimous Declaration of Independence? What did our Constitution create for this new land? It formed a gigantic combination, didn’t it? It was called America. The independent colonies were not yet united. At this point it would be a big stretch to refer to them as the united states of

America. However, it was a combination of all the powers of the entire territory into one single government. They knew the dangers inherent in such a government (combination). They knew that when powers of this nature are combined into one central entity, it creates incalculable potential for the destruction of individual sovereign and [unalienable] rights. This potential for destruction made the document unique in history. The problem was how to form this combination for protection from the King and other European tyrants, while at the same time limiting its potentially destructive power over its own people.

They focused on individual rights. They did not promote protecting the group as a whole. They spelled out exactly what the powers of the government would be. They explicitly stated that the government would have only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution and that all other powers would be reserved to the individual states and to the people. This is essentially what the 10th Amendment of the Constitution says7. They intended to bind down this government with the chains of a Constitution and to reserve freedom for the states and for the people.

Above all else, they required a separation of powers in the central government as well as in the Constitutions of each state.

Shouldn’t there be a separation of the military? Any time there is a standing army more powerful than the militia of any one state, couldn’t that army take over the state. This is why the federal Constitution of these united state of America forbids the federal 7 The 28 words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

CCU Quarterly Insights Volume #1 Issue #19 government from funding a standing army for more than two years. There should be no standing army in times of peace. Check Article I, Section 8 and Paragraph 12 of the Constitution. The army should be raised from the state militia. Every state was charged with the responsibility to maintain its own army. If a state calculated its militia to be under-prepared, it might opt to have it organized for the purpose of training but that would be the exception, not the rule. And, of course, there was the separation and balancing of powers on the federal and state levels of government and down to the County and local levels as well. The Second Amendment8 shows how far we moved away from our heritage. Our children are no longer taught our national heritage. No one understands any longer what constitutes freedom and how it must be maintained. A disarmament mentality is pushed upon Americans from every liberal/socialist/communist point of view.

Back to the King of England. We said he didn’t have power because he violated the public trust. We said we would, if necessary, go to war against the King to regain the [unalienable] rights of the people guaranteed in the Magna Carta.

The Second Amendment teaches Americans that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of our [unalienable] rights and that without it freedom would quickly cease. Without a well-regulated militia in each of the sovereign and independent 50 states of these united states of America, the federal government will have sufficient power to "take over," and it will. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You had better believe this! It is true. The day the federal government thinks it can win a strategic military battle against the American people, it will make an attempt to totally enslave us. If you don’t believe this, you simply don’t understand the carnal nature of man or the course of history. It makes you naive and deficient in worldly wisdom and lacking in judgment.

It shows that you are uninformed.

We didn’t assign or give away our rights to the inland army of the King. We told the King that we, the colonists, were the inland army. We told the King we would follow Common Law.

8 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do we now have, in America, derogations of power, combinations and corporations working against the common good of the people? Against the people’s [unalienable] rights; against their personal freedom and liberty? You bet we do! Do we have standing armies in times of peace? Of course we do! Do the standing armies in times of peace cost a lot of money? Of course! Are taxes always going up? "Yes!" Does our Congress impose rates and duties upon Americans? "Yes!" Have they imposed the jurisdiction of the courts of the Admiralty upon us? Absolutely! Is this Admiralty jurisdiction being used to collect taxes on us? "Yes!" "But for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of the County." Do you remember that? Is it happening here in America again? "Yes!" Not only has the federal government taken our rights and liberties, consider what the bureaucrats have done to our children. More accurately, what have we let them do to our children? Unborn future generations are enslaved by debt! This is high treason!

Our forefathers knew that armies cost a lot of money, and they didn’t want to pay that bill! Today, Congress, in lieu of payment, simply writes mortgages, which are forced indentures against unborn future generations. Today’s Congress deficitspends at the expense of unborn future generations and their economic freedom. They mortgage the heritage of every American, born or unborn. This has been done over and over and is on-going and getting worse. This is slavery! To call this anything else is high treason!

Congress has, on a continual basis and even now, monetized the debt9 for their self-aggrandizement.

These activities have all been charged against unborn future generations.

Today our Congress is funding their international armies and paying for the consolidation of power globally with American sweat equity. They are providing all their cronies with jobs, homes, holidays, vacations, education, health care and every other type of benefit imaginable, while their retirement benefits dwarf those of the working class.

9 Monetized the debt is a fancy way of hiding the fact that Congress has been declaring "national bankruptcy" and has had reorganizations from time to time. In effect, Congress never discharges the bankruptcy, it extends it and makes it perpetual. CCU Quarterly Insights Volume #1 Issue #1

10 This is all charged against the working potential of our children yet unborn. All modern day Congresses have sold into bondage the people and their children and future generations. Good Americans have allowed this to happen. This is a pity! We should be ashamed of ourselves. May God forgive us! May we repent for remaining at the sideline while America, our nation, was being fleeced, our children imprisoned, and our national wealth plundered.

Do we have a problem in America? Yes we do!

Who is responsible for government in America? It is supposed to be the peoples’ responsibility, isn’t it? If it isn’t, please show me "who," "what," "when," "where" and "how" this changed? I’d like to know.

Who is responsible for raising our children? This is also supposed to be our responsibility, isn’t it? If it isn’t, please show me the "who," "what," "when," "where" and "how" this changed? I’d like to know all about that, too. We, the people, have a job to do, don’t we? Should our children be attending "government" schools? Who mandated public education? Was this done as an outcry of the people?

Of course not! You’ll see why!

We need to zero in on how we got to where we are.

We need to look at the means the liberals/socialists/communists in American government, and top positions in every conceivable aspect of our American culture, used to do what they did. We need to learn how our form of government was changed and how the people were deceived.

Now, let’s review briefly God’s Plan. We’ve seen that God gave each of His sons and daughters [unalienable] rights. He didn’t give rights to some collective group or a government creation or association of any type. What God gave each of us, as mortal beings, as His creations was equality. I’ve explained, in somewhat general terms, some derogations to those God-given rights. I’ve shown how each of us has the right to life, liberty and ownership of property and that government was created to protect those rights. I used two examples where collective power is used against you without a chance for you to defend yourself. Do you remember that? The point was that one individual could not compete against a gang with the objective of the gang being to overpower the individual. I also made the point of the economics of the individual who was prevented, by a gang, from enjoying his rights to do business in a private and wholesome way. Do you remember the farmer’s example? You may not have agreed, at first with these examples, but by now, they are self-evident, aren’t they? This doesn’t require proof. It takes just a little bit of rational thinking and intellectual honesty. I stated that combinations, synonymous with corporations (collectivism), and DBA’s, partnerships, and proprietorships, all registered and licensed under the auspice of government, are not compatible with individualism, unalienability, freedom and personal liberty. They are all repugnant to the federal and state constitutions. That makes them all illegal and unconstitutional.

Period!

http://www.coastal.edu/newsletter/

To Be Continued In Oct. Pearl

[ Click here for Oct. posting Part Two ]

   

[ Home ]

Click here to enter this hundreds of postings

Address Questions or comments to [  admin@pushhamburger.com  ]