 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The phrase "sovereign debt" has become popular. I used Google to search for "sovereign debt" and got over six million hits. Yet I cannot recall hearing the phrase as recently as 2007. If I ever did hear it, I did not pay attention to it. It was called "government debt" back then.
The adjective "sovereign" refers to legal sovereignty, a characteristic of civil governments. It is applied to national governments. What does it mean? It means that a private citizen or a lower civil government cannot sue a government agency in a national court without the consent of that court, because the national level of civil government contains the nation's supreme court. The nation answers to no higher sovereignty.
The call for the establishment of a world government is a call to establish a higher sovereignty: a supreme court that determines who may or may not bring a lawsuit in its jurisdiction.
Gary North has switched gears from the topic of 911 back to what he obviously knows best, which is political economy, only I know better than Gary North, as far as I know so far, among those vocal few who profess such authority.
The quoted words above address the political aspect of political economy, of which Gary North is almost always spot on, accurate, and rarely expresses a false, or misleading viewpoint.
To those words quoted above I can offer a response, before reading the rest of the latest offering from Gary North.
http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/15.1/
Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century
Please use your own brain for awhile. Consider a jury. You are on that jury. You have been picked randomly, as Trial by Jury was initially intended to work. The power of law is focused on the presumption of innocence; however there is a claim made by someone, lawfully, that someone else is guilty of some very serious crime, and that person stands before you, faced with this accusation.
You, by the power of law afforded to you, as a jury, have the power to veto any claim of guilty upon that person. That is the extent of your sovereign, individual, power.
You also have a collective power, as a 12th part in judging the meaning of law in this case. You represent one 12th part in unleashing the power of law if you agree with 11 other people as to the guilt of the person who you presume to be innocent, until you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt, and you, as a part of a whole, a 12th part, 1 of 12, you, collectively, can open the bottle, and let the genie out.
Consider please: a lie is powerless once the intended victims of the lie gain the inside information required to expose the lie, as a lie, and once the intended victim gains the power of accurate perception, in regards to the lie, the victim gains the power of knowledge, and the victim is no longer powerless in the face of the lie. That power to know better requires the power of good judgement, which is a consequence of a working moral conscience.
Look at the words:
Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century
You are on a jury.
You have the single, sovereign, lawful, individual, exclusive, only, one, power to acquit the accused, and set the presumed to be innocent person free, to liberate him, or her, and that is your legal power just like everyone else, who share that same absolute power alone, as your single, exclusive, solitary lawful power.
If you want to punish, after reviewing the evidence, to your satisfaction, your individual power of judgement, then you have to get 11 other people to agree, and absent that process, no one, ever, has to face the wrath of our government.
You can be fooled. You can be told lies, and then you can make believe that the lies are true, and you can then be disarmed, and you can then be rendered powerless, or you can know better.
If the people return to common sense, and return to voluntary association, and return to liberty, and return to due process of law, and return to Trial by Jury, and return to a competitive Democratic Federated Republican form of government, the money we create will be competitive, it will be higher in quality, and it will be lower in cost compared to any other monetary product, and people like Mayer Amsched Rothchild, or his predecessors, will care.
They will have to care enough to produce something that other people want, or they will have to make everything they consume alone, or they will eat their fellow criminals, or they will be accused, tried, and very likely found guilty, and punishment will rain down upon them as their victims access due process, in favor of vengeance, and instead of retribution hiding behind a thin veil, false front, of pretend justice.
Just US
Back to Gary North.
In the seventeenth century, the phrase "divine right of kings" referred to the king as immune to lawsuits. The theory insisted that there was no court which could lawfully impose sanctions on the king, other than God's court. As an agent of God, the theory asserted, the king was supreme in matters political.
Please consider reading the following:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
From that you may gain a higher quality and lower cost (to you) perspective on the history of political economy. When a group of people hit bottom, a large group of networked people had had enough, they decided to express their own power, and the result was something called Magna Carta, and it included Trial by Jury.
Trial by Jury was an offer, that was not to be refused, offered to a king. The king, who had driven everyone in that social network to that condition of having hit bottom, complained about the offer, that he could not refuse, because Trial by Jury, as the complaint went, gave every free man as much power as the king.
Every single freeman in England was given the power to veto any law, and thereby render any law powerless, and each individual person, each sovereign citizen, had that power from that day onward, at least until Trial by Jury was corrupted by those among us who are good at corrupting all that is good.
Good is in the eye of the beholder. You have two, I have one good one, the other one is lazy, and not so good.
No one but you can overpower the power of lies, and until you can gain that power, you will continue to be the victim of lies.
Back to Gary North.
Then came the American Revolution. That ended Parliamentary sovereignty in North America. The colonials established a higher court.
Know, please, that the time between Parliamentary sovereignty and the enforcement of The Constitution of the United States of American was a time when The Articles of Confederation worked as the law of the land. Under those Articles a former colony, or State, such as Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts, could be a part of the voluntary union or part from it, as a rule, and that rule was changed.
Note too, please, that under those Articles, between the time when people were legal slaves to the British Monarchy, and the time when The Constitution was enacted, and enforced, in that time period in between those rules of law, The People were legally afforded the legal power to throw out a criminal government, or rebel, or proceed with insurrection, as was the case in Massachusetts during the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion.
Time line:
A.
Master/Slave rule by the British Monarchy upon the targeted victims living in The 13 Colonies.
B.
Voluntary association, Democratic Federated Republican form of government experiment, in active rebellion, processing insurrection, and defeating the invading mercenary war profiteers sent by the Monarchy leadership, with help from the French.
C.
Return to involuntary servitude as the supporters of Monarchy, such as Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated the fraud that became known as The Constitution, as those criminals, including Robert Morris, sold a lie to the sovereign people of America, and revoked, with that fraud, that Constitution, the power of Trial by Jury, and the power of competition among separate and sovereign States, and the power to rebel against a criminal government.
Please note these facts, and if you have any doubt, and reasonable doubt at all, or even a shadow of doubt, as the the accuracy of the words you are reading, ask those vital questions, and get the accurate answers, and settle for no less. Stop, please, settling for lies. They are not good enough.
While atheism is a legally recognized option, lack of citizens' faith in a nation's sovereignty – faith in the right of revolution – is allowed only in theory. To deny in public that the national government is beyond the sanctions imposed by a higher institutional authority is heresy. When exercised in wartime, it is treason.
I do not have access to Gary North, so I may never know what he means with those words. I would like to know, and I can try harder, as I try to make sense of those words. Those words appear to be interesting, and worth the effort to understand.
I can use help with those words. Anyone?
Right now I will take a break and get some lunch, no time to edit.