 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"These different topics all have a common theme: that we are in dialogue with each other, attempting to distinguish truth from falsehood. We are going to do this peacefully, for there is no other way." If that were true then there would be evidence showing that we are in dialogue with each other. If that were true than someone like Haren Hudes would offer substance, such as the evidence that shows how the American federal government is no longer working according to rue of law. Then someone like me will respond with quotes from the 6th President of the United States of America when the American federal government was working under rule of law, and in his words he explains (dialogue) how the criminals will take over the federation with their legal fiction fraud. But then Karen Hudes censors me; which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Karen Hudes refuses to participate in dialogue: the same dialogue that she now claims to be her proof of her authority. I'd prefer that the world of people do not divide and destroy each other with (fraudulent) Currency War, (fraudulent) Trade War, and then another World War, where people running a former Network of Global Corporate Control divide among themselves, and become themselves antagonistic criminal gangs (under the color of law) fighting over who regains control over the worlds people (victims), with the help of Karen Hudes, and with the help of The Global Currency Reset, and with the help of any whistleblower past (Richard Henry Lee, Gieorge Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Henry Ford, John Boyd, John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.) or present. But claims of participating in dialogue are missing, and it might be a good idea to find out why people willfully (or unwillingly) decide to censor the vital information that clearly proves - beyond reasonable doubt - that the criminals use their criminal Constitution of 1787/89, as a legal fiction, legal corporation, false front, false flag, cover-up, of their private, for their exclusive profit, extortion and fraud racket, where they are the racketeers and we the people no longer have rule of law, for the people, by the people, and of the people, as we did have between 1775 and 1789.
And what about the concept of federation? If it is clear in the minds of most of the people (if not all the people) in America that their country (actually their states) are republican (for the people, by the people, and of the people), and not corporations for the "elite," by the "elite," and of the "elite," at the expense of the people the "elite" pray upon - if that is clear - then what compliments many republics such as many states may be united into one voluntary, mutual defense, federation? What is a federation? Look here: "There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. " From here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp07
Claims are being made concerning the authenticity of those words that constitute (anti) federalist papers. Claims are also being made concerning the authenticity of papers assembled into a whole with a title of Elliot's Debates. From Elliot's Debates are words - in the original federal record - explaining the meaning of federation. Now that you see clearly - from the historical record - what a republic is (public good) and what a national government is (government control of the people by the government on an individual level) and so what - pray tell - is a federation? From Elliot's Debates - the American federal congress records - is the following useful description of what a federation is: "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 usa 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:"
Claims are being made concerning the authenticity of those words that constitute (anti) federalist papers. Claims are also being made concerning the authenticity of papers assembled into a whole with a title of Elliot's Debates. From Elliot's Debates are words - in the original federal record - explaining the meaning of federation. Now that you see clearly - from the historical record - what a republic is (public good) and what a national government is (government control of the people by the government on an individual level) and so what - pray tell - is a federation? From Elliot's Debates - the American federal congress records - is the following useful description of what a federation is: "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 usa 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:"