August 18, 2019

Nothing happens that the Federalist King does not allow to happen.

Nothing happens that the Federalist King does not allow to happen. Nothing. It’s like all of this division and hatred, the Federalist King is behind it all because that King taught you and I our beliefs. Allegiance to the United States is a prerequisite of both our dogmas. Yet we hate one another’s beliefs taught us by the very same institutions at one time or another. Every citizen-serf-subject-slave owes paramount allegiance to the COTUS and corporate “government” of the United States. And NO law or ordinance of any of the fifty states in contravention or subdivision there of can have any binding force. No secede, no taking of federal lands allowed according to the Federalist International compact other wise known as the COTUS according of the states own constitutional agree ments with the Federalist King.

This applies to the original COTUS recognized by the international community in 1783 and the post Civil War revised COTUS of 1868-1872 era. You’re all in one form or another rebel dissidents without cause. It’s simple, you have no political authority. Imagined political authority. You reader who claims to be a stakeholder in all of this corporate bi-law do not even begin to comprehend the corporate bi-laws you’ve entangled yourself in via corporate person straw man citizen subject slave contract status. The 1783 United States of America, then revised, the 1872 United States, is owned by the Crown Bank of London, The largest depositor of Gold in that bank has always been the Vatican. That banking Cartel has been there since the days of Rome. “Londinium .”

We are observing the resurrected anti christos system of Rome going global. It’s not a man folks, it is a corporation. The beast system not a beast man. Doubt me? Please show me where our Messiah said he will breath life into this dead man who allegedly rises up as the man of perdition? Please show men where Satan has the power to raise a dead man from the grave? Satan is not the life giver, he has no such power, and you dear reader certainly know it. But through his demonic forces he controls the men who control the Kingdoms of this world, those nations, including this Nation since it’s birth in 1783.

{Londinium (/l?n?d?n??m/) was a settlement established on the current site of the City of London’s Crown Banking Cartel around AD 50. It served as a major commercial centre for the Roman Empire until its Alleged abandonment during the 5th century} Interesting how it has been revived from its death.

So should true Bible believing people support the Constitutional U.S. Government? Does Christ Jesus want you to support the Constitutional bi-laws of a private corporation owned by the Holy Trinity spoken of in the 1783 Paris Treaty? These various documents known as the 1783 Treaty of Peace, the Jay Treaty, The Treaty of Verona and those two constitutions of the corporate Empire has deceived the people for over Two Hund red years.

The God of the Bible tells us we are to have no other gods. The U.S. COTUS corporation is a god and that god has its corporate bi-laws and COTUS to go by. Followers of this god are deceived and are apparently ignorant of the Biblical warning admonishing us to have no other gods – false gods.

A republic is a corporation, the etymology of the word bares this out. Rome was a republic and Rome adopted the law of Hammurabi in becoming a republic. That law is the law merchants code. The law of Hammurabi is used in every country in the world, even the Vatican uses it. So does Yeshua (Christ} tell us to use a law merchant con job?? No and true Bible believing men know better and never will. I suggest people learn the truth about the corporate document debt slave instrument by the corporations that devised it. Do you really want to be a constitutor which legally means you are responsible for their debts??

To any who still believe that the banksters – Rothchilds – Rockefellers Control the economy I suggest seeking what the Bible teaches us as to who is controlling politics, economies, sciences, international and nations laws which are dictated by international laws via Concordats or Modus Vivendi ; The Right wing gets the Concordat the left wing, Communists get the Modus Vivendi..

The Vatican makes concordats with rightwing governments, whether absolute monarchies or fascist dictatorships. However, it snubs equally authoritarian governments on the left. It only makes quiet working arrangements with communist countries, since their regimes compete with the Church ideologically, rather than complementing it.

This guy here was a University Professor in England for thirty years teaching evolution;

Occult Explosion – Jesuits Exposed – by Walter ( part 1 )

Share

Karen Budd-Falen Speaking At Sheriffs Stand TALL for Constitution

Interesting comments made in this video. Perhaps the first correct statement made is when she says our rights come from God. After making comments about the Constitution, she then speaks briefly about how environmentalists are stealing our money to destroy us. Her comment was (paraphrasing) that we are funding our own destruction.

Share

1973 Endangered Species Act: A return of the Dark Centuries?

Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” is described by National Review as a “serious work of legal scholarship on the return of the prerogative to our government.”

The professor shows how the unlimited power of the administrative state comes from the King’s prerogative, a special power that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Published in 1890, Bancroft’s Works* Vol. 38 Essays and Miscellany at page 284 describes the English-American jury trial right as the end to the King’s prerogative.

And that begs the question: Did the Nevada rancher get a jury trial with regard to the taking of his preference grazing rights? Will we get jury trials when the same bureaucrats impose encumbrances through the 1973 Endangered Species Act on private Texas land?

Bancroft: “The right of trial by jury comes to the Englishmen more directly in the form of a victory. During the dark centuries, prerogative or despotism denied such a right.” Bancroft refers to the “… subtleties of the royal prerogative, or the learned malevolence.” Malevolence is defined as a vicious ill will.

“But later, with increase in intellectual strength and material stability, the people intrenched[sic] themselves in their rights, and since the magna charta this privilege has been held the dearest of a progressive people. It was a right guarded with vigilant care, and for which intelligent freemen everywhere would fight and die. To America came this sentiment, and was embodied in the constitutions of several states.”

“The victory originally achieved by the people over the government by the establishment of the jury system was the right of participation in the administration of the law. No man might thenceforth be jeopardized in person or property without appeal to his fellows for redress.”

“It was a sign of the increasing purity of political character and growing love of honesty and fair play.”

Bancroft goes on to state that, “When the government and the people were one the victory was complete.”

But with the lesser prairie chicken land grab, there is no jury trial right. We are called to evening meetings to participate in our own centrally planned and controlled impoverishment, the systematic destruction of American exceptionalism, and are allowed only to make ignorable comments about confiscatory administrative regulations that routinely and stubbornly violate ancient state land law, the US Constitution and our human dignity.

Control equals wealth. State/centralized control equals wealth for a tiny few politically well-connected people who can sometimes be referred to as oligarchs. Decentralized control means decentralized wealth, the same system that allowed my family and many millions of others to prosper in America according to our personal industry, luck, decision-making, risk-taking and more. The wealth from decentralized control created the highest per capita income in the world for Americans since the early 1830’s. On the other hand, centralized control of the modes of production, as Karl Marx puts it, is a proven 180 year loser, not to mention some 100 million deaths, subhuman misery and enslavement.

The politically deadly characteristic of the reborn prerogative is that it can contain and disguise and impose any -ism, if you will, on the American people. The prerogative can harbor the cancer of Communism, fascist Nationalism, environmentalism, worship in Gaia, animal liberation, earth liberation and Satan’s attitude of scarcity, just whatever the King wants. And all the -isms except individualism rob us of our God-given rights as set out in the Constitution.

By keeping us under-educated, a nationalized American educational system can serve to keep us too ignorant to learn how to simply say No and to get things turned around. The idea of personal liability imposed on the errant bureaucrat as discussed by Prof. Hamburger is appealing and might be the exact place to start. Especially on those who turned loose the wolves. In my opinion, it is worth a try.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

*Notice that this volume of Bancroft’s Works was once owned about the 1950’s by a Texas public high school.

HubertBancroft

Share

Discussion of Habitatism refined

To some, the stupid nonsense of the 1973 Endangered Species Act claims to elevate the habitat needs of the subhuman to the same level of human needs. But experience proves that compromise is not possible, that one or the other wins the irreconcilable conflict, and for the past 40 years the needs of the subhuman win out over the needs of some 315 million Americans.

For example, any one of the some 315 million Americans could own preference grazing rights in Nevada. And a Nevada rancher’s preference grazing rights were superior to any competing grazing rights of all other humans on the face of the earth. But under the ESA, the human rancher’s preference grazing rights were not superior to the needs of the subhuman tortoise in Nevada. In such dehumanizing struggles, it is instructive to note that the victims of the holocaust were also denied their property rights, their dignity, their human rights. While Marx described property as theft, our Founders described property rights as human rights.

Under the ESA, the concept of habitat for subhumans is indistinguishable from the dominance of the greater good of the fascist Communist commune over sacred individual human rights set out in the US Constitution. Those sacred individual rights include the strict forbiddance of the taking of private property without just compensation. A time may well return when bureaucrats who use regulation to violate the law will be held personally liable for conduct deemed unlawful. Such personal liability may well extend also to those who aid, abet, encourage and contribute to causes that promote the dehumanization of the American public. When one person’s rights are trumped by militaristic bureaucratic centralized control, the bell tolls for all 315 million of us.

Readings from “The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers”, Scott, 1902, make clear that the fundamental law of our Constitutional form of government is based on a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to legislatively alter. Congress has no authority to fundamentally change humans-first public policy either by expressly setting out radically new public policy as it purports to do in the Endangered Species Act any more than it has the authority to put fascist Nationalism, the Communist commune, the environment, Mother Earth, Gaia, Martians or mythical characters in priority over our human civil rights.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today’s administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

Share

Opinion: ESA Needs More Than an Amendment

The decades of failure of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)’s brand of centralized control disqualifies it as a solution for anything American. And no wonder. Hegel’s, Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas of centralized control have likewise failed countries world-wide repeatedly for the past 180 years or so.

As reported in the Lubbock AJ 3/31/2014 “Leaders aim to reform prairie chicken law”, the WildEarth Guardians say that “formal oversight” is more effective than traditional American voluntary efforts because there has been no “… population recovery (of the chicken) over the last several years, …”
The ESA’s involuntary formal oversight of privately owned property and its illegitimate ad hoc balancing test at 16 USC sec. 1533 (b)(2) violate the Takings and Ex Post Facto clauses and the humans-first policy set out in the fundamental law of the US Constitution to which all public official swear upon oath to God to actively defend. Involuntary formal oversight is another way of describing the old discredited European top-down central planning and control models that our forebearers fought against in two World Wars.

The resounding success of the traditional American approach with the ring-necked pheasant compared to the 20 or so years of failure with the spotted owl fiasco prove that the ESA is dangerous for America in these economically perilous times that invoke fears for our national security.

The ESA needs more than an amendment. It screams for a thorough in-depth investigation and repeal or reformation in accordance with proven American economic models of the past 200 years.

J. Collier Adams Jr.
Attorney at Law
Morton Texas

Share

Connecticut Police State: Act of Aggression, Inciting Violence

ConnLetter

Share

More Than One Way for a Dictator to Disregard Constitution and Create His Own Laws

fascistpropaganda - Copy

From the White House:

FACT SHEET: Strengthening the Federal Background Check System to Keep Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands

Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system.

Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence. While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.

The Administration takes a comprehensive approach to mental health issues by expanding coverage of mental health services so care is affordable, launching a national conversation on mental health to reduce stigma associated with having a mental illness and getting help, directing funds we have now to improve mental health facilities, and proposing more funds be used for efforts such as training additional mental health professionals.

At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun. The federal background check system is the most effective way to assure that such individuals are not able to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. To date, background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands.

The Administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.

Progress to Strengthen the Federal Background Check System

Over the past year, the Administration has taken several steps to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used to run background checks on those who buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers to make sure they are not prohibited by law from owning a firearm. For example:

The President directed federal agencies to make all relevant records, including criminal history records and information related to persons prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons, available to the federal background check system. This effort is beginning to bear fruit. In the first nine months after the President’s directive, federal agencies have made available to the NICS over 1.2 million additional records identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms, nearly a 23% increase from the number of records federal agencies had made available by the end of January.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a letter to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

States are one of the key sources of data on persons prohibited from having guns, including felons and those prohibited for mental health reasons. That’s why the President took action to invest an additional $20 million this year to improve incentives for states to share this information with the federal background check system. In September 2013, DOJ awarded $27.5 million to 42 states and one territory to strengthen the firearms background check system by improving their abilities to share information with the NICS. In addition, the Administration is proposing $50 million for this purpose in FY2014, and Congress should act to provide these critical resources.

Two New Actions to Further Strengthen the Federal Background Check System

Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.

Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.

Calling on Congress to Act

While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence. The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.

In addition, the President’s FY 2014 Budget proposes a new $130 million initiative to address several barriers that may prevent people – especially youth and young adults – from getting help for mental health problems. The President and the Vice President continue to call on Congress to appropriate funds for these important purposes.

Share

Judge Says Emanualland Can’t Bar Selling Guns in City

CHICAGO (AP) – A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.<<<Read More>>>

Share