 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Time 20:13 is reported the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats." and that works in both finance and law (currency reset and return to rule of law after interregnum) in similar ways that can be understood is simple terms whereby there is no absolute necessity to seek, find, and utilize a professional whose specialty is finance and/or law. In simple terms the tide can be understood as economic wealth production through freedom in liberty. The tide rises as less economic productivity is spent on deterrence against crime, and more economic productivity is thereby invested toward increasing the ability to increase the production of economic wealth, as fewer and fewer potential producers turn to crime, resulting in fewer and fewer victims - because deterrence actually works - and as crime no longer pays well, and as the high pay rate of crime no longer lures - otherwise good people - into crime, and as their chosen way of life turns to economic wealth production instead of crime, then former criminals are adding to, not taking from, that rising tide. So the rising tide is an increase in the ability to increase wealth production resulting in more economic wealth over time. The tide rises because there are fewer crimes, fewer criminals, fewer victims, and more people set free, in liberty, to produce wealth because wealth production - not crime - now pays well due to the rising tide of rule of law, which is deterrence. The rising tide of deterrence (rule of law) lifts up all boats including the boats that would have be pirate ships, as those former pirate ships would sail as free traders in liberty instead of choosing to sail as pirate ships, so even the pirates, the criminals, are lifted with the tide of rule of law: deterrence. One might argue that the increase in economic wealth production affords criminals greater opportunity, with greater amounts of loot to be stolen, and therefore the rising tide increases the lure - and the pay rate - of crime, which then inspires more (not less) people to turn to crime, because it is easier with an abundance of wealth ripe for the plucking. That argument falls when the idea is to combine the rising tide of finance (economy invested into increasing - not stealing - economic wealth production) with the rising tide of deterrence. This can be seen when looking at the counterfeit versions of both finance and rule of (color of) law. First a link on counterfeit finance, and then imagine what might happen if the criminals took over rule of law and turned rule of law into their method of protecting themselves at the expense of everyone else, instead of rule of law existing as the method of protected everyone including the criminals from any crime, any place, anytime. The link is a way to find an explanation called The Parasite City: http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm#4
Time 23:00 is another case of the Pot calling the Kettle Black from my view. You Karen Hudes could take my temperature on this subject and find cause to know - beyond any doubt - that I am willing to explain to you exactly why you are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, despite the fact that you are being mislead by false versions of history. I can take you to the sources of the information that confirm, again beyond reasonable doubt, how the criminals (Network of Global Corporate Control) took over the working, democratic, federation, as it was organically - grass roots - formed as a voluntary mutual defense association under known principles of rule of law, in between 1775 and 1787, and those criminals took over in 1787/89, those criminals took over with an illegal Constitutional Convention. A key point to ponder as you attempt to fence with your enemies is the concept of adaptation in real time, to get ahead of the attacks perpetrated against you, attacking what you stand for, and against your goals of Global Currency Reset and return to Rule of Law after interregnum. Earlier in this report mention was made of National Liberty Alliance and charges brought forward indicting the Governors of the Nation States (which are independent mutual defense associations formed into a federation according to the original founding under rule of law0, where these free people, defending their public liberty, in these independent Nation States were operating the process knowable as the common law. The people commanded common law as their process for their voluntary mutual defense. I've told you in the past that the people at the National Liberty Alliance are knowledgeable about the process known as the common law. Among those people - as with any group - there are those who are mislead, and there are those who are willfully deceiving, polluting, the process and the people whose true intention is to return to common law, with processes such as grand jury indictment, which is one step on the way to trial by jury according to the common law. Again, and without confusion, trial by jury according to the common law, was, is, and can be sanctuary for free people in liberty, offered to everyone, including those who are presumed to be innocent, but placed on their trial by the country, and including the criminals who are found guilty. The whole country (not the federation, but the free people defending their public liberty in independent Nation States) decides the facts, the law, and any punishment in each individual case. That is how people adapt, to get ahead of the attacking criminals, as with fencing, or with any other duel. This is not just me running at the mouth. http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial10.html#p189 "
"The consequence is, that jurors must have the whole case in their hands, and judge of law, evidence, and sentence, or they incur the moral responsibility of accomplices in any injustice which they have reason to believe will be done by the government on the authority of their verdict."
Yes, if a second (unlawful) Constitutional Convention can be risked in order to return to a true voluntary mutual defense association, where free people defend their public liberty within independent Nation States, as part of a voluntary mutual defense federation, then it is worth the risk to run that second (unlawful) Constitutional Convention. The first order of business once the free people defending their public liberty in independent Nation States, on the return to rule of law, at the federal level, would be, logically, to try the case involving the original crime perpetrated by the original formers of the criminal (counterfeit) federation. Why spend a moment on a witch hunt for current perpetrators when those current perpetrators are needed in discovering the truth about how the criminals took over in the first place? At this time many of those people running the (illegal, counterfeit, and false) federation actually believe they have lawful authority earned legitimately. That is far from the truth, and so what is the truth, and why is anyone afraid to know the truth? A true federal government power is explained precisely in the records of the original founding (not the criminal counterfeit version "founded" in 1787/89), and therefore the first order of federal business, assuming the risk of a second (illegal) Constitutional Convention pays off with a return to a true federal government, is to document precisely what is a federation, and precisely what is not a federation. Link and quote next:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"