+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Connivance & Confidence

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Connivance & Confidence

    Connivance & Confidence
    - - -
    CONNIVANCE - The act of conniving - to cooperate secretly in an illegal or wrongful action; collude.
    COLLUDE - to conspire together, esp in planning a fraud; connive.
    CON - To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.
    CONFIDENCE - Trust or faith in a person or thing.
    - - -
    I prefer the republican form of government, where all men are created equal (before the law - none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass. And absent consent of the governed, governments are limited to adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

    Of course, if you prefer to consent to the socialist democracy, that’s your right ... get "your number" and accept your mandatory civic duties to defend the government and pay your "fair share" of the cost - of government and of public charity (“entitlements”).
    ...
    Aren’t natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers, absolute ownership and immunities secured by government good enough?
    ...
    If one has absolute freedom upon one’s property, and freedom to travel upon the public ways, and government cannot trespass upon your rights and liberties - except by your consent -or- to secure the rights of an injured party, what more do you want?
    ...
    BUT if you want to rule others, in the democratic form, then you may consent to be governed, waiving all endowed rights since mandatory civic duties abrogate them. But if you do, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. The grant of government privileges (civil and political liberties aka “rights”) comes with obligations to serve.

    In American law, no government instituted to secure endowed rights can impose citizenship at birth, with its mandatory civic duties. To do so would violate the republican form as well as be unconstitutional involuntary servitude. No infant can consent to be governed. Ditto, for enrollment into “voluntary” national socialism (FICA / SocSec).

    Unfortunately, most Americans are victims of a CON - a collusion of public “servants” and their cronies in the legal profession and banking (usury), to strip away the endowments of the (m)asses, and endlessly enrich themselves. The fraud extends to the popular belief that government “prints up money,” and everyone owes their “fair share” to the collective State (and those who covertly control it).
    According to the law, we consented, so they can claim innocence.

    Everything done by government, beyond securing endowed rights, is based on our consent.
    ● Before consent is withdrawn, no remedy is possible.
    ● After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.

    Thanks to that fraudulent consent, we are voluntary serfs and slaves, selling ourselves and our precious children into slavery in order to enjoy “benefits” (public charity and other privileges).

    LIFE: RIGHT v PRIVILEGE
    If you were endowed with the right to life, you have the right to defend that life, with whatever weapon you may choose. Firearms are the most convenient tool at this time.
    If you were endowed with only the privilege of life, by government, you need their permission to defend that life and must only carry permissible weapons.

    While reading a story by Poul Anderson (The Queen of Air and Darkness), a single paragraph summed up our own situation:
    His pipe fumed furiously. "May I never see such bitterness again. He had been taught to believe he was free."
    That is the illusion Americans have been suffering under - the belief that they were “free” when all evidence to the contrary stared them in the face.

    Free men don’t need government permission (license) to live, wed, work, trade, buy, sell, own, travel, hunt, fish, enter occupations nor run a business. Free men do not accept violations of their privacy and property rights just because the State says so. Free men don’t work a portion of their lives for the benefit of another - under duress. Free men do not tolerate the imposition of endless rules and regulations and restrictions that have nothing to do with securing rights but everything to do with power and control. Free men don’t shirk their obligation to defend their rights to life, liberty and private property ownership, nor take kindly to disarmament by their servants.

    Learning the truth that one is a slave leaves one bitter - and angry. It is compounded when you discover that according to the law, it was all by your consent. That through applications, participation, and contracts, one has signed away his birthright, his endowment, the blessings of liberty that our forefathers fought and died to bestow, is quite a gut wrenching realization.

    Sadly, once consent is given, no remedy exists. One cannot elect a public servant who can free the elector. One cannot pass a law that revokes voluntary slavery. An armed revolt by “voluntary” slaves is absurd, and unnecessary. Once consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed. All the laws already explicitly recognize the sovereignty of the American national, his liberties (natural and personal), and his absolute ownership of private property. Honorable public servants have taken oaths to perform to the terms of their compact and all those laws that secure our rights. As to the fear that rogue government agents would inflict harm upon those who withdraw, do you really think that your cooperation with evil would stop them from doing evil?

    Tolerance of evil is unmerciful to their next victim. Remember, governments were instituted to defend against predators. But allowing predators to infiltrate and corrupt our institutions and governments has worked its evil ways.

    Ultimately, you must learn the facts, for yourself, and discern all the ways you granted consent, so that you can choose between servitude and sovereignty. They made slavery simple and comfortable, and so easy to succumb to. Just cooperate, compromise, and realign your moral compass to whatever direction they tell you. But your enslaved descendants may curse your name and memory forever.

    God forbid that the republican form be eradicated from the face of the Earth. I hope to see the day when Americans rediscover their birthright and restore their sovereignty. The heavens will rock with their exultation: We Are Americans. We Are Sovereigns. Kiss My Royal American [bleep] !

  2. Link to Post #2
    United States Avalon Member Vangelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    586
    Thanks
    11,257
    Thanked 4,564 times in 567 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Excellent summation of the loss of sovereignty here in the USA. Well written and worth the read. Thank you ozmirage. Although the focus of this thread is American sovereignty, it is in my opinion, applicable to all human beings.

    May I quote the parts that hit me hard...

    Quote Posted by ozmirage (here)
    ...

    Everything done by government, beyond securing endowed rights, is based on our consent.
    ● Before consent is withdrawn, no remedy is possible.
    ● After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.

    Thanks to that fraudulent consent, we are voluntary serfs and slaves, selling ourselves and our precious children into slavery in order to enjoy “benefits” (public charity and other privileges).
    ...

    That is the illusion Americans have been suffering under - the belief that they were “free” when all evidence to the contrary stared them in the face.

    Free men don’t need government permission (license) to live, wed, work, trade, buy, sell, own, travel, hunt, fish, enter occupations nor run a business. Free men do not accept violations of their privacy and property rights just because the State says so. Free men don’t work a portion of their lives for the benefit of another - under duress. Free men do not tolerate the imposition of endless rules and regulations and restrictions that have nothing to do with securing rights but everything to do with power and control. Free men don’t shirk their obligation to defend their rights to life, liberty and private property ownership, nor take kindly to disarmament by their servants.
    ...

    Sadly, once consent is given, no remedy exists.
    ...

    Ultimately, you must learn the facts, for yourself, and discern all the ways you granted consent, so that you can choose between servitude and sovereignty. They made slavery simple and comfortable, and so easy to succumb to. Just cooperate, compromise, and realign your moral compass to whatever direction they tell you. But your enslaved descendants may curse your name and memory forever.

    ...
    Happiness comes from within, nowhere else.

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Vangelo For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (17th May 2023), rgray222 (17th May 2023), Sadieblue (17th May 2023)

  4. Link to Post #3
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Quote Posted by Vangelo (here)
    Excellent summation of the loss of sovereignty here in the USA. Well written and worth the read. Thank you ozmirage. Although the focus of this thread is American sovereignty, it is in my opinion, applicable to all human beings.
    Thomas Jefferson's words DO apply to all men. In the Declaration of Independence, it states all men. (In English usage, a masculine noun includes the feminine, so it's not sexist. Whereas feminine nouns exclude the masculine - and ARE sexist.)

    What is more fascinating, is that since Americans are born equal - none higher - they have the HIGHEST STATUS AT LAW (sovereign). No other nation has been founded on that premise.
    In all other nations, the people are subjects of their sovereign governments. No subsequent "revolution" dared to copy T.J.'s self evident truths.

    Consider that the French Revolution (1789) was 13 years after the American revolution (1776), and Thomas Jefferson was in France as ambassador. Yet the French did NOT recognize individual sovereignty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...of_the_Citizen
    Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
    Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.
    - - - -
    In France, you can only be a subject citizen. Nothing higher.

    IN AMERICA . . .

    SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
    “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
    “... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
    - - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

    In America, the governments are agents / regents / servants of the sovereign people.

    IN SUMMATION:
    Americans, under the republican form, are sovereigns - social equals of all other monarchs on Earth.
    In every other country, their people are subjects of the sovereign power, however that is organized.

    AMERICA IS UNIQUE
    That fact has been carefully erased from the collective minds of Americans, thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

    I have yet to find evidence of the republican form depicted in any product in the vast library of mass media (books, movies, comic books, TV shows, science fiction, etc).

    That shows the awesome power of the ministry of propaganda.
    (If you know of any, please post a link.)

  5. Link to Post #4
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Skeptics and Scoffers retort : what about slavery?

    SLAVERY is not permitted under the republican form where people are "sovereigns without subjects." In fact, slavery only existed by grant of a constitutional government - and it was a TAXABLE PRIVILEGE no less. In other words, the DEMOCRATIC form is at fault. It's also why the Southern states didn't simply withdraw consent from the democracy and return to the republican form. They could not own slaves as a right so their only option was to SECEDE.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanit...y-taxes-slaves

    The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to tax slaves as property in Article I, Section 9, stating:
    _ _ _ The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
    ... many states not only taxed slaves as property, but oftentimes taxed the slaves of non-residents at higher rates than the slaves of residents.

    The District of Columbia also taxed the slaves of non-residents at a rate higher than slaves of residents:
    _ _ _ Sec. 36. From and after the tenth day of April, eighteen hundred and twenty-three, the following tax be, and the same is hereby, imposed on slaves of non-residents hired to persons residing within the city of Washington, to wit: On every male slave above the age of eighteen years, and under forty-five, twenty dollars per annum; on every male slave under eighteen and above twelve years of age, twelve dollars per annum; and on every female slave between fifteen and forty-five years of age, two dollars per annum. Act, 5th April, 1823 §1 (Washington [D.C.] 38).
    = = = = = =
    Only privileges are taxable.

    There is no endowed right to enslave, thus it was never protected under the republican form of government.
    Of course, if one consents to be a "voluntary" slave - no harm - no foul.

  6. Link to Post #5
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Evidence of the WGPM*
    (* World's Greatest Propaganda Ministry)

    One of my favorite science fiction authors, was Robert A. Heinlein, and he was clueless.

    HEINLEIN on CONSCRIPTION
    “I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. CONSCRIPTION IS SLAVERY, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!”
    - - - Robert A. Heinlein, Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, Washington (1961)
    Ironically, though Mr. Heinlein was very intelligent and had an advanced education in the US Naval Military Academy, graduating from Annapolis in 1929, he was never exposed to the “Republican form” of government, nor the ramifications of subjugation that a citizen accepts in exchange for migrating to the “Democratic form.”

    Conscription (aka “Selective Service”) derives from the mandatory militia duty of all male citizens (able bodied, 17 - 45), that was part of the law since 1777.

    The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

    If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. And citizenship is 100% voluntary.
    “You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.”
    - - - Robert Heinlein
    Mr. Heinlein, your words just bit you!

  7. Link to Post #6
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    STATUS COLLAPSUS
    =\\==\\==\\==\\=
    The insane money system is at the breaking point. The Constitution is so bypassed, that calling for public servants to abide by it is a joke. "Voluntary" socialism has transformed America into "Takers" versus "Taken." And the wholly corrupted government still demands our obedience and support. So why would such "honorable" statesmen embrace ideology that is anti-American, anti-freedom?

    To misquote Cicero [Cato] :“America delenda est!” America must be destroyed!
    {Carthago delenda est! "Carthage must be blotted out!"
    - - - Cato }
    Why?
    Only America has a republican form of government, despite the vast majority being ignorant of it.
    In the republican form, the people are the sovereigns, with endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. And only by consent, can the government rule (govern). In all other countries, the people are subjects of their sovereign governments, whether they're monarchies, oligarchies, democracies, or totalitarian police states. The governed cannot give nor withdraw consent, but only pay and obey.

    America and its sovereign people cannot be allowed to survive, thrive and prosper. It would trigger a world wide revolution and topple the Powers That Be.

    Imagine a sovereign people prospering, creating their own mediums of exchange as needed, not needing to borrow, at usury, from abominations.
    Imagine a people who inspire others to throw off their chains, and shatter the dominion of the parasites and predators who rule this planet. Imagine the end of socialist slavery and genocide. Imagine the end of limited liability & artificial persons (corporations) who no longer can dominate individuals by their collective resources under the privileged protection of government. Imagine a people intolerant of any and all enemies of their endowed rights. Imagine a people who will expand their civilization into the outer spaces, in orbiting habitats and vivariums.

    To the PTB, that is frightening!

  8. Link to Post #7
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    THE IDEAL FORM
    “The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
    - - - Thomas Jefferson
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
    “I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
    - - - Samuel Adams;
    Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams
    “Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
    - - - George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
    http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../05-17-02-0282
    "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
    - - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

    As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
    And if you doubt that the Declaration is the basis of all law, you shall find the same promise in EVERY state constitution OR its statutes at large.
    . . .
    Did anything change the republican form since 1776?
    “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
    - - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
    . . .
    According to Mr Coolidge, the existence of Creator endowed rights is not open to argument. Ergo, the republican form is still secured by the States united and the United States in Congress assembled.
    . . .

    NOT 1 IN 100,000 AMERICANS KNOW THIS

  9. Link to Post #8
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Know this - our authoritarians, academics, and defenders of the status quo will lie to us... in public.

    And when you confront them with the contrary facts, watch how they wilt.
    I once heard a law professor (from Emory university) stand up and claim that the Articles of Confederation were weak and didn't give enough power to Congress.
    I immediately called him out, and said, "Name one power granted under the Constitution that wasn't already granted under the Articles."
    He caved.
    The fact is that the USCON gained ascendancy over the States, via the requirement for all state officials to swear an oath to the USCON, thus making it the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. (Art. 6)
    All the other stuff - the reorganization of the United States in Congress assembled into three branches, etc, etc, were merely internal.

    Those who worship the USCON as some inspired document are sadly mistaken. As Patrick Henry replied, when asked why he wouldn't attend the Constitutional Convention: "I smelt a rat."

    You never want to claim "constitutional rights." No constitution gives rights - only privileges. Our Creator endowed rights are superior. But if we surrender them, we're out of luck.

    Never ask a simple question that gives them an easy out.
    Ex: Please name the law that imposes citizenship on an infant?
    BAD.
    Whatever they come back with will stymie you.

    Instead, ask : "Please name the law that abrogates the endowed rights of an infant by imposing citizenship with its mandatory civic duties."

    NOW, if they claim such a law exists, you can retort : "Aren't all American governments instituted to secure endowed rights? How can any government void them at birth? How did the infant consent to be governed?"
    SOUNDS LIKE FRAUD TO ME...

  10. Link to Post #9
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    ENDOWED RIGHTS v trans-human v trans-sexual rights
    <<<|||||>>>
    Term warfare & confusion
    • Transhuman - a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans.
    • Transexual - a transgender person, especially one who has undergone gender reassignment.
    • Trans-sexual is a term to describe a person who has a different gender identity to the sex that a doctor assigned them at birth.
    • Human right - a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
    • Endowed right - Being endowed by our Creator with unalienable Rights, means the rights come from the Creator and not from Government. Unalienable rights are endowed, self-evident and not to be taken by Government, but secured by Government.
    . . . .
    We know that consent to be governed (as a citizen) involves civil and political rights (government privileges) that come with mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership.
    . . . .
    So the question about gender identity has to be first considered with respect to a person's status at law.
    A sovereign can do what they wish, as long as it doesn't trespass the rights of another, and government can't do a thing about it.
    Whereas a subject who has duties and obligations to the state may be restrained in the exercise of behavior that does not trespass the rights of another.

    Furthermore, one who is a socialist serf with obligations to the collective (and thus to all other serfs), may be restrained from harming their value to the collective. It is against public policy for one to deliberately make oneself a crippled recipient, to be supported at public expense.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not address endowed rights, and actually involves government granted privileges ("civil and political rights") as well as socialism (compulsory charity), so it could be construed to not apply to sovereigns.
    Sovereigns who have endowed rights do not have "human rights" if such rights are defined as government privileges.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the propaganda
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...f_Human_Rights

    UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
    https://www.un.org/en/about-us/unive...f-human-rights

    DEATHTRAPS to beware:
    Article 8.

    Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GRANTED HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY LAW.

    (No Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, etc, etc)


    Article 10.

    Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, IN THE DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS and of any criminal charge against him.

    (Only subjects have obligations)


    Article 13.

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and RESIDENCE within the borders of each state.
    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    (No domicile - no permanent, legal home!)


    Article 22.

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    (SOCIALISM uber alles ! Compulsory charity and confiscation of surplus.)

    Article 25.

    (1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the RIGHT TO SECURITY in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    (Guess who will be compelled to supply that "right" by involuntary servitude? Who defines that standard? What happens to those who disagree?)


    There many more "gotchas" and "trap doors" in the declaration, but you'll have to read it for yourself.


    BEWARE THE TRICKS USED TO GET YOUR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED, and to "voluntarily surrender" your endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership.

  11. Link to Post #10
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    We get it, Oz.

    But what I feel the take-away is, is that whether endowed rights or human rights, the one with the biggest gun gets to say what the rules are.

    Because of this there is only the consent of the government to govern as they see fit. The governed have the right to do as they are told or suffer the consequences.

    In reality, there are no rights, only privileges.

    This will always be so, so long as there is no consensus on the trajectory of civilization. If there is no over-arching plan, there can be no binding social a̶d̶v̶a̶n̶c̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ contract.
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 20th May 2023 at 18:04. Reason: strikethrough
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  12. Link to Post #11
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    We get it, Oz.

    But what I feel the take-away is, is that whether endowed rights or human rights, the one with the biggest gun gets to say what the rules are.

    Because of this there is only the consent of the government to govern as they see fit. The governed have the right to do as they are told or suffer the consequences.

    In reality, there are no rights, only privileges.

    This will always be so, so long as there is no consensus on the trajectory of civilization. If there is no over-arching plan, there can be no binding social a̶d̶v̶a̶n̶c̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ contract.
    (ed. note: In retrospect, I didn't notice you were a subject of the English monarchy, and presumed you had been tricked into subjugation - my bad)
    Au contraire, mon frere.
    Your reply shows you're a victim of the world's greatest propaganda ministry. (WGPM)
    You think you're obliged to follow their rules and fear their bigger guns.

    The predators might wish you to believe that, because they aren't stupid. They hate it when their prey shoots back at them.
    Every abomination requires consent, even slavery. If a slave refused, and was killed, a dead slave has no value.

    Ultimately, when "we" say "NO!" - they're toast.
    That's why they try so hard to build the ILLUSION that we all consent to their governance. Endless opinion polls, etc, are used to hammer home the idea that "the majority" has spoken. . . especially when it hasn't. Because it doesn't matter.

    No government (subset of a set) can "rule" without meek acquiescense of the overall set.
    That's why the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT had to be eradicated from the collective memory of Americans.
    A sovereign is a majority of one.
    And American law still recognizes that undemocratic condition.
    Of course, "they" work hard at destroying America so they can pull those pesky organic documents like the Declaration of Independence... Can't have a people believing they were born equal and not subjects of the great and powerful gubmint. Nor can you entice them with government "rights" when Creator endowed rights supersede them in all ways.

    I could post a long list of court decisions and legal references that refute the notion that we're born subject serfs. But often those references only address one topic.

    Here's a generic rebuttal to any thought that government could do what it wishes - just 'cause.
    ❏ SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
    - - - Blacks Law dictionary, 6th ed., p.1375

    ❏ MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
    - - - Blacks Law dictionary, 6th ed., p.979
    If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience. Few Americans are made aware of this fact, and thus are tricked into submitting to laws that have no legal applicability.

    What constitutes a "private right"?
    Creator endowed rights. Inherent rights. Inalienable rights. Sacred rights. Not-granted-by-public-authority rights.

    Here's one reference about liberty, personal liberty, an endowment from our Creator.
    "PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or Natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most SACRED and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
    - - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
    ...
    No government or its citizens can vote to abolish our fundamental / natural / inherent / sacred / inalienable / common law rights. No bigger gun can change that fact.

    Of course, being victims of the WGPM, we are taught only about those mandatory civic duties of citizenship (allegedly imposed at birth - a legal impossibility). We're never informed how and when we consented, or that alternatives exist.

    And to further confuse, their disinformation agents pumped "sovereign citizen" nonsense into the vernacular. Ignoring the fact that it's an oxymoron, it implies anyone asserting "sovereignty" is an idiot.

    BUT IF YOU BOTHER TO READ LAW....
    You'll find that

    _ Sovereigns (people) have endowed rights, liberties, and powers.
    _ Subjects (citizens) have government granted privileges and immunities BUT waived their endowment in exchange.

    At one time, Americans were aware of the difference... especially before national socialism (1930s). An example of the lost knowledge of our forefathers comes from “The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.
    .................................................................
    ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
    - - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
    (download available from www.gutenberg.org)
    .................................................................
    His audience had to know what he was referring to in order to "get the joke."
    And if Americans weren't sovereigns, why can foreign nobility marry Americans without violating their local laws forbidding marriage to "commoners"?
    Check the record - they don't have to grant titles to Americans in order to marry them. But look at King Charles' wife, Camilla - she had to be "elevated" before legally marrying him. She was made the Duchess of Cornwall (2005–22).

    Wallis Simpson, wife of Edward VIII, was granted the title of Duchess AFTER the fact, not before the marriage.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_Simpson

    The irony is that Americans who marry foreign nobility are stepping DOWN in status. But they think they're rising to nobility....SIGH.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 20th May 2023 at 20:22.

  13. Link to Post #12
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
    “ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
    - - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
    https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
    . . .
    The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
    But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.

    Why?

    Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.
    It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.
    Imagine if they told us that asserting citizenship was a "suicide mission"?

    . . . .
    SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
    “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
    “... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
    - - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

    This supreme Court citation is from 1793, so one can be sure it reflects the republican form and not the democratic notions that later followed in the 1820s.

    TL,DR (translation):
    • American people (non-citizens) are sovereigns.
    • American government (& its subject citizens) are servants.
    Note that NO SOVEREIGN AMERICAN administers the government. Anyone eligible to serve has to surrender sovereignty and become obligated to pay and obey.
    THAT IS UNIQUE IN THE WORLD.
    NO OTHER NATION HAS A REPUBLICAN FORM.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 20th May 2023 at 20:34.

  14. Link to Post #13
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Can I claim that sovereign rights are an idea? So that only if the idea is held sacrosanct by all sovereigns is it of any value. Sovereign rights have to be protected and upheld.

    How can a sovereign choose to become a servant of the people, to uphold their rights, if in the process they loose their status and become citizens of the state, subject to its laws?
    That is a non-choice for a sovereign.

    Is a sovereign an anarchist, then?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  15. Link to Post #14
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    Can I claim that sovereign rights are an idea? So that only if the idea is held sacrosanct by all sovereigns is it of any value. Sovereign rights have to be protected and upheld.

    How can a sovereign choose to become a servant of the people, to uphold their rights, if in the process they loose their status and become citizens of the state, subject to its laws?
    That is a non-choice for a sovereign.

    Is a sovereign an anarchist, then?
    All law is for the protection of property rights. In a monarchy, the law secures the monarch's right to property and the rents / taxes derived from it. Ditto, for the privileges held by the subjects / citizens.

    Coincidentally, American "sovereigns" can execute trespassers without benefit of trial. As illustrated by posted property : "Private property. No trespassing. Trespassers will be shot."
    That is one heckuva sovereign prerogative. (Doesn't apply to real estate held with qualified ownership, though)

    HOW? Perhaps you mean WHY? A sovereign without subjects may wish to "rule others". But to do so, he must surrender his sovereignty, by consent, and become subject to and object of the power of the government instituted to secure the endowed rights of the sovereign people.

    Under the original format, a prospective citizen / elector had to be a property owner, tax payer, militiaman, and held to a higher standard of behavior. That was the founders' way of limiting government. Since no endowed right was taxable, only government privileges were subject to taxation. And the prerequisites were so stringent that the government would have limited resources as well as limited subjects to rule.
    This way, the "secret rule" Grow or Die, would be restrained.

    Anarchy is the absence of law. Sovereignty is the source of law. A sovereign has dominion over his private property that is absolutely owned. What the servant government offered was its collective assistance in securing his rights, by adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals and defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    FWIW - the end of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776) spells it out:
    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.
    The Founders (and subsequent citizens) pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to form the government that secures rights.
    All citizens therefore have NO endowed right to life, private property, nor independence, since they are honor bound to obey, serve and pay.
    That is why one cannot argue that one requires "representation" before taxation, or why militia duty is not involuntary servitude. Once you're a citizen, you pledged it all to the STATE.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 21st May 2023 at 00:33.

  16. Link to Post #15
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution (1789)
    . . .
    “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
    - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
    IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

    LONG VERSION. The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (qualified ownership of estate, via ad valorem taxes, etc), by his consent to be governed.
    Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

    However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
    . . .
    Make no mistake!
    • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
    • But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
    • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
    • But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
    • The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
    • But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

    If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
    Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
    Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

    The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
    The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
    All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.). Citizens, like the Founders, have pledged their lives, property and sacred honor in service to others and to the government.
    ONLY Non-citizen nationals (people) retain their endowed rights.
    (The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)

    Of course, this information is not divulged to the (m)asses, thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry. Most Americans believe the government works for "them." But in reality, all citizens work for the government, which in turn, serves the sovereign people - what few remain.
    Last edited by ozmirage; 21st May 2023 at 00:31.

  17. Link to Post #16
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    Now, back to the REPUBLICAN FORM - - -
    "What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
    - - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

    If one has not consented, no one nor a government can "govern" him.
    Absent consent, all government is authorized to do is secure his endowed rights - as in adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals (who deliberately trespassed his rights, liberties, property, etc), and defending against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

    Not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin. That is a major victory for the propaganda ministry.

  18. Link to Post #17
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    16th January 2016
    Location
    Jawjah, OOSA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    937
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 2,886 times in 760 posts

    Default Re: Connivance & Confidence

    If you are endowed with rights to life, liberty (natural & personal), inherent powers, absolute ownership (of private property), and governments are instituted to secure those rights, what more do you want?

    And to get what you want, are you willing to surrender your endowment to get it?

    (P.S. - no government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax, regulate or trespass them. Only government granted privileges are taxable, regulated, etc.)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts