I got tired of waiting for my FOIA request to go through so I went to Maury and asked him if it was true when they said I had the freedom to choose.
We are told that our country’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, support our right to self determination and the consent of the people to their government. We are told that this is the hallmark of what distinguishes our country from so called tyranny.
So is what we are told true about our right to self determination and the consent of the people? Unfortunately, like most things they teach us, no, it is not true.
The Constitutional “scholars” who are presented to the people, discuss the two documents as though they are interchangeable, part of the same line of thought. That is just not true. The documents are not connected. They were written about 14 years apart for starters. Think about THAT. Some garbage Bill Clinton cobbled together back in the 90’s and then some crap B.O. tries to pass off when he is elected. That is the time lag. But there are more fundamental problems. So let’s look at the Declaration.
An acclaimed constitutional scholar demonstrates how the Declaration and the Constitution fit perfectly together. Remember, they went to Harvard and wrote a book. What did you do?
The “Declaration of Independence” is a document that does precisely ONE THING. It makes the “political” case for why the then “colonies” were breaking away from English rule. It was drafted in a manner to try and guarantee the greatest likelihood of generating support for the colonists’ cause, from the enemies of England. That is what it did and why it was written as it was.
The romanticized nonsense they teach the people is just a fairy tale. But the people don’t know this because they remember one tiny bit of the document, and then the media and “experts” re-enforce the misconception over and over. So let’s just look at it. This is the part of the document that everyone knows.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
It sounds high and noble and so people assume that the rest of the document continues along those same noble lines. But it doesn’t. The document, as constructed, is mostly just a long list of complaints. That language “everyone knows” that I just cited, is, in legal terms, called surplusage. It is Meaningless. It does nothing. You could just strip it out of the document entirely and not ONE MATERIAL THING WOULD CHANGE. Do you understand that?
It’s not what you think. She said it was a political statement about a male dominated society and the hypocrisy of our founding documents claims of being endowed by a creator equally. Or at least I think that’s what she said. I told her I didn’t think many people would get it, then I asked if I could see what that kind of freedom felt like.
Remember how we all learned in our mandatory government schools about how dangerous it was to have signed the Declaration. But think about it. If that pap about freedom and happiness was all it supposedly “stood for” then it wouldn’t have been any big deal to sign. That is my point. That language is meaningless fluff. Here is the dangerous language. The activating language of the document stripped of the cover story:
We hold these truths to be self-evident… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world…
Look at that language. That is why it was a dangerous document. It asserts a right for the people to choose their own government.
They teach the people about it in a way to leave the Impression that those ideals about freedom and happiness are incorporated into our government through that document. But that is NOT what the document even Claims to do. And any objective reading of the document shows it does not do that. And any objective observation of our government shows it clearly is not Operated along those lines.
The point I am making is simple. The reality of the Declaration of Independence is that it is just a fancy sales brochure to the world of England’s enemies saying, come help us, we have a good story you can sell to your own people to justify giving us men and arms to fight. That way you can get what you want, which is to screw England, by using the cover story we have created. It is a win win. That is the REALITY.
Most people are unaware that Jefferson pushed hard for a completely different format for the Declaration of Independence. He just didn’t think the single color parchment had enough ‘punch” to get the job done. Here, from the archives is one of the few surviving mockups he proposed.
And remember, it isn’t signed on behalf of the “United States”. It is signed on behalf of EACH individual State. Each state considered itself to be the New “sovereign”. About a year later, they drafted the Articles of Confederation which formed the basis for the new government, but THAT government was nothing like our federal government. It was small and controlled by the states.
Now let me ask you. What is probably the only thing you “remember” about the articles of confederation from your government schooling? Most likely, it is that it didn’t work very well because the federal government “wasn’t strong enough” under it. Well isn’t that a convenient thing to remember? What a laughable show.
Now you have seen what the Declaration of Independence actually is and what it stands for, so what about the Constitution ? As to the constitution in general, go read what I wrote about the supposed constitution’s creation. Today I just want to examine whether it stands for the idea that the people have a right to self determination and to consent to their government. Here is what the Supreme court has said about that:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation… The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
This guy was sure we were free to choose our own government. When I asked him how he knew he said he learned it in school. His gf didn’t say anything.
The Supreme court cannot make it any clearer. You get no choice. “Your choice” was made by someone else a long time ago. You can’t leave unless you win a war, or everyone ELSE agrees to give you what YOU want. Got it? Where is the right to choose and to consent? Nowhere. You don’t have it under the constitution. Period.
There is NO WAY to reconcile this position with what the Declaration of Independence says. No way. All attempts will fail. The two ideas make no sense together.
The case I cited, Texas v. White was a post civil war case about Bonds. The Civil war was about money, power, growing the federal government and MOST IMPORTANTLY ENDING your right set out in the Declaration of Independence to choose your government. Period. Not slavery.
The distraction about the civil war being about slavery was as much of a manipulated cover story as the story that the Declaration of Independence and the constitution were about creating a government where everyone was treated equally when there was slavery in every state at the time and women couldn’t vote.
The declaration of independence and the constitution are no more about “freedom for all”, than Obamacare is about improving access to medical care. Until you Stop romanticizing our holy founding, you will never be able to see reality.
Try to be objective for a minute. Go down the LIST of inequalities that existed when the documents were signed. Here is the language in the Constitution specifically allowing for slavery. Yet we are supposed to believe these writings represent the height of brilliance and freedom?
What we need is more police. At least that’s what I heard on the TV from a guy in a suit.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Slavery was enforced by government and perpetrated on the people by the same guys who were driving this supposed freedom bus. The same political class of people who now impose debt slavery on everyone through legal tender laws and fiat script, and income taxes and on and on.
They have changed the game because they figured out that these are now a MORE EFFICIENT FORM of slavery than chattel slavery. But they were fine with chattel slavery as long as it was the best game in town. Get it. Don’t look at what they say, look at what they DO and did! Please don’t tell me that you actually believe that the government is there to benefit YOU. Surely you’re not that naïve?
And if you think that language was a fluke, then here is more from the opinion.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
This hand is known as “the judges straight”. I learned about it playing at a weekend bench and bar retreat. The hand was made famous by the Justice who drafted the opinion in Texas v. White. I tried using it later and they said that I couldn’t. I got the message.
Look how absurd this holy opinion is. The people in Texas had voluntarily voted to exercise the right we are told we all have under the Declaration of Independence, and the court has made it clear that there is NO such right under the Constitution.
You see, the problem for the court and the Union was simple. If the war was not a rebellion, then that fact creates an immense number of legal complications. Wars for “conquest and subjugation” which is what it ACTUALLY was, have very different “rules” regarding debts and “reconstruction”. And, if it was a conquest, then it would have been impossible to justify what congress was doing as though it was “under” our constitution. Get it? Hence the massive lie and cover up about the nature of the war.
For example, in the Texas v. White case, it would have meant that the defendants would be off the hook from paying 10 million in bonds. Which was REAL money back then. So the court blessed this nonsensical “indissoluble” union legal argument promoted by Lincoln to cover the Union’s proverbial ass. It is laughable from a legal stand point.
The court also blessed this argument about how the secession had been a legal nullity and had never actually occurred. Think how absurd that is. A state votes, then they go to war based on it for years, and yet, now the S.Ct. says it never happened. Yet that is how preposterous the “analysis” has to be in order to create a “coherent” legal “theory” to support the war and call it a rebellion. Which they had to do!
There is no getting around the fact that the southern states were within their so called constitutional rights to keep slaves. That was in the holy constitution. And the Declaration of Independence said they had the right to leave ANY union. And those are supposedly OUR founding documents! So when the Southern states chose to leave there was no way to logically argue that they were not within their legal rights. So the court was left with no choice but to eliminate that right and act as though it wasn’t changing anything. And they have covered that fact up with double talk and schmexperts and “liberty movements” ever since.
An aspiring Court clerk used the reasoning from Texas v. White, to also prove that Humpty never fell, and that if he had that he had in fact been put back together and he was fine and living in Akron.
There is no way to support the idea that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution BOTH represent our founding principles because they stand for opposite concepts!. Any possible connection between the two documents ended with the civil war.
You are not free to choose your own government. You do not get to consent to your government. You are a prisoner. WE are all prisoners. The court’s language is unambiguous. Just read it again. And if you still don’t believe me, then try just Discussing the right to throw off the US Gov and see what happens.
Yet the myth about self determination and the consent of the people being the basis for our country’s greatness is continually pushed. It is everywhere. How many poor brainwashed people have died for it or been maimed for it since that war?
So do you see why it is hopeless to try and create political theories and movements based upon “our founding documents”? Quoting from Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence is DEAD LETTER. You don’t have those rights. Any discussion of “liberty” and self determination and consent of the people that leaves out the S.Ct. case I just showed you is a FRAUD.
All discussions always leave this case out because it cannot be rectified with the “we’re a free people” nonsense they are pushing!!
This guy was hitting the back to the constitution movement hard when I met him. He told me all about how it was going to make a real difference man. I tried to show him the impact it was actually having on him, but It’s hard to get through to people once they’re hooked.
Those patriot movements are allowed to “flourish” and are financed precisely because they can never succeed in creating meaningful change. But make no mistake, those patriot movements are succeeding brilliantly at the one thing they are actually designed to do, unbeknownst to their members. Waste everyone’s time and energy steering them into a dead end.
The “back to the constitution” movements are analogous to public education. Public education is NOT failing! It is succeeding beyond the wildest hopes and expectations of those who dreamed it up and steer it. You see a “failure” because you are using the wrong measure of success. YOU misunderstand what things are ACTUALLY designed to do.
Our country’s founding documents are a myth. They can never be read together, even if they did what they claim, which they don’t. So wake up. It is all just a game to control you. Nothing more. You do not have some constitutional right to self determination set out in the Declaration of Independence. And you never have.
Okay, I’m done for today. I know I left a LOT out. I had to. There are space limitations. I will write on the topic again. But for now, I hope you learned something.
Take care my brainwashed fellow inmates. Don’t be down, move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.
Legalman IS the law