Skip to main content

The Breakdown of Rights in America - Basic Concepts

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

In this series:


Pick up a newspaper or turn on the news, and you're likely to encounter the latest scandalous result of the political rot that's set in with this country. Another political mishap, corporate botch of epic proportions, or notable political figure either going off the rails or getting chewed out for getting caught at it. Perhaps worse is the dreaded Slow News Day, when something huge and relevant is happening somewhere, but what's on your screen is a clip of a kitten playing the piano.

We're affected by the hidden costs of political breakdown every day, but few people seem to know how it happened or how to put a stop to it. I've researched the situation for over a decade, and HubPages makes a great place to promote awareness of the situation.

Or if you'd prefer, here's the kitty clip instead.


Sovereignty is a concept we very seldom hear of anymore in the U.S..  It refers to someone who is free, and the master of their own affairs.  In Britain, the only sovereign is the monarch.  Everyone aside from the monarch is his subject, meaning that they are subject to his will.  From the lowest common-born Briton to the highest-ranking titled knight, they're all considered to be serfs to some extent or another.

When the colonies fought the War for Independence and won it, sovereignty in this country devolved back upon the people.  Every man was considered to be his own king, with nobody to lord it over but himself.  Imagine a society in which everyone was considered to be their own king!  The U.S. truly was unique, recognizing more rights held by its citizens than any other country in the world.  As your own king, you could do anything you liked whatsoever, provided that you didn't harm any other sovereign's life, liberty or property, and so long as you abided by any contract you chose to enter into.  No speed limits, no gun control, no victimless crime legislation, no war on drugs, no overseas wars.  Before the onset of the nanny state, citizens were considered to be competent to manage their own affairs.  And the moment their choices detrimented their fellow sovereigns, they were held liable.

Rights were considered to be intrinsic, coming directly from our Creator to us.  No man could stand between a man and his rights, and when someone encroached upon those rights there would be quite a reckoning for the offense.  This was, and is, the American common law.  And through systematic distortions, legal trickery and corrupt politics the citizenry have all but forgotten the actual laws and freedom of their own country.  How did we get from a society where you could do anything you wanted that didn't harm others, to one in which politicians routinely encroach upon the rights of citizens and form public policies according to back-room deals and filthy lucre?  And what can be done to correct the damage?  That's what this new series will be checking into.

"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, — 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

  - The Declaration of Independence

What a phenomenal sentiment.  The writers of the Declaration acknowledged that rights were an intrinsic component of people, granted to them by their Maker.  They stated that governments were founded with the sole purpose of making sure those rights were kept safe.  This is obviously a far cry from what the U.S. government does today when it encroaches upon the rights of its citizens at the stroke of a legislative pen.

So what happened?

The first thing necessary to shifting government from being a safeguarder of rights to an encroacher upon them was to devise a scenario in which a citizen's rights could ever be lacking or absent.  If rights are given to people by their Creator, this is of course preposterous right from the start.  If someone held a loaded gun to my head and pulled the trigger, they would most likely take away my life.  They would naturally be guilty of murder, precisely because I had a right to life.  They would have taken away my life, but not my right to it.  But what had to be crafted was a scenario in which someone was actually devoid of their rights themselves.  So a one-letter alteration was made in the Declaration, which changed the legal definition of one word very profoundly.

The word "unalienable" was altered to read "inalienable".  Unalienable means something that can never be taken, lost, given away, haggled on, or in any other way go missing.  By contrast, the word "inalienable" means something that can never be lost without the consent of the person who's got it.  This seemingly miniscule alteration created the scenario by which people could be presumed to have done something to voluntarily give their rights away.

Unalienable vs. Inalienable

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.


Republic vs. Democracy

How many times have you heard of how much the U.S. politicians do for democracy?  About preserving democracy, restoring democracy, spreading democracy, and making the world safe for democracy?  This would all be terrific, but for the fact that the Union is a republic.  Sound odd?  Think back to the Pledge of Allegiance you learned back in school for a moment.  "...and to the Republic, for which it stands...".  Any politician who doesn't know what form of government their own country has should either be ousted for incompetence or shot for treason.  Both, for preference.

In case you're not familiar with the distinction between the two forms of government, a republic holds rights as being absolute.  Inviolate.  In a democracy, everything's up for grabs by the majority of voters.  In a democracy, citizens can vote the rights away from a minority group.  This includes who can or can't get married, who gets what tax breaks, who may continue to live on life support, who needs a government license to go about their business, or even who has the right to own property and under what circumstances.  Democracy is majority rule, pure and simple.

Except that usually, it's not even that simple.  Whoever can lobby and campaign the hardest had the most influence over shaping public policies, and that usually comes down to who has the most money.  This is where things have gotten today, and it's a long way from a state where everyone's rights are inviolate.  Most federal citizens seem to have forgotten what we'd started with, and so those who try to do something constructive usually end up struggling harder to advance their own particular special-interest group or demographic minority.  This totally misses the point of absolute rights, and without that you have fractionalization of the citizenry.  When everyone's struggling to pull harder in their own direction than everyone else, it becomes very easy for politicians to manipulate these special interests and do whatever they please.  All because the citizens have missed the point of their common ground: absolute rights are something that everybody needs, and something that we can agree on.  Without them, everything falls apart.


So it's all well and good to argue over whether or not gay people should be able to marry, or when to pull the plug on someone else's life.  But each of these hotbutton issues has been designed to keep citizens divided, just as long as they can be kept from remembering that our rights are never up for grabs by other people.  Whenever we act on the premise that they are, we find ourselves ushering in governmental tyranny regardless of whatever issue we're currently pulling for.  And this is one way that a government keeps the majority of its citizens arguing in favor of their own slavery.

Scroll to Continue

You may want to promote awareness of this fact by bookmarking this Hub.  The next time you're in a forum and you find someone arguing passionately for this or that latest trendy, media-inspired argument to pare down the rights of citizens, you can paste them a link.  Until we can get the citizenry to stand for our absolute rights instead of fighting to determine who gets what treats from their government, we'll just have a merry-go-round of arguments for various types of slavery while the country deteriorates.

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.


A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby."

- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."

- Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." - Hurtado v. California

"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government."

- Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

Law vs. Legislation

Many citizens in the U.S. have fallen victim to the notion that whatever acts or bills the federal government puts on the books suddenly becomes law. I recently visited a site that keeps close tabs on legislation that's been coming down the pipe. The page I was on was evaluating something called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010". It purports to allow the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and without trial in the case of terrorism. People were up in arms over it, and posting what they evidently thought were dangerously revolutionary questions about whether one of the latest trendy political groups, the Tea Partiers, could be labelled as terrorists and imprisoned without trial indefinitely under this act. Responses went back and forth about this, until I demonstrated that it didn't have the power to allow that. In fact, it couldn't. I posted a cite from American Jurisprudence, Sixteenth Edition explaining why.  Namely that the moment something is written that goes against the Constitution it's automatically null and void. The cite is on the page, linked to above.

Most citizens still don't seem to know the difference between legislation and law.  We have a country where citizens decided to cede a fraction of their rights to the government to allow it to safeguard their rights.  The rights went from the Creator, to the People, to the founding documents, to their government.  But today, they seem to think that rights come from their government, and that their government can grant or take away rights on a whim.  Never mind that it encroaches on those rights willy-nilly, because repeated treason can never make it lawful even when it becomes commonplace.

For something to become law, it must actually have the valid authority in law to stick.  By contrast, legal dictionaries describe legislation and things legal as that which "has the form and appearance of law, without necessarily having the substance of law".  And usually, it lacks that substance these days.  Legislation and legal are terms of bureaucracy.  Were the right forms submitted?  Were they turned in on time?  The correct parties sign them?  Awesome.  But that still doesn't make it law!  To be valid law, it must have the valid authority in law as well.  Goverment lately has been writing all kinds of things that purport to give itself authorities it was never given.  How wonderful that must be!  For me to get something I don't already have, I generally have to earn it.  I could steal it from someone else, but then I'd be a thief.  When the government purports to give itself authorities nobody gave it, government is a thief.  No less than Thomas Paine said,

"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either."

All powers not delegated to the government are retained by the People. When the government usurps more powers or authorities, it necessarily takes them from the People. This makes the government a usurper against the People, and makes the politicians who do so guilty of a conspiracy of treason. Treason remains a capital offense, and the only thing preventing the People from trying their politicians for treason are the Peoples' own inaction. Even while they don't, however, their politicians remain outlaws, having chosen to be well outside the law. What happens when the average citizen becomes accustomed to having outlaws dictate the law, and even pay their paychecks? The average citizen becomes a party to a conspiracy of treason, and the majority of citizens subsidize an overthrow of lawful government. At that point it makes little sense to hear one complain about the very problems they subsidize, like an enabler complaining about domestic violence.

Next up:

In the next Hub in this series, I'll go into the deeper meaning of the First Amendment. Not just meant to separate Church and State, it attempted to keep the politics and law of this country free from being shaped according to shifting personal opinion. Then I'll go into how the 14th Amendment strove to undo that, bringing us a new second-class citizenship and with it an effort to shape public opinion and policy... ushering in mob rule instead of the republic the country was founded as.

Read on, to The Breakdown of Rights in America - The Dumbening.

Why is the U.S. military camped out in our newsrooms?

Radioactive waste now hidden in everyday household products

Dispelling the Myths about your Miranda Rights

The most frequently-missed tax deduction


A Little TRUTH on June 26, 2011:

The process you describe the second paragraph (of your previous comment, Satori) seems to be inevitable. I’ve heard it referred to as “Chaos Theory”. Many dynamic systems are governed by it. The system goes through an increasingly chaotic period, and then either changes to a higher level of order, or destroys itself and a new system takes its place. An example is a road. When it’s built, it’s wonderful, useful and the traffic is light. In time, more and more people use it until the traffic is bumper to bumper. People start driving on the shoulder, on the sidewalk, through the subdivisions; you have road rage, accidents, shootings, slowing of commerce. If, as a result of the chaos, the road is widened, there is even more chaos until it is complete. When complete, the system is at a higher level and the process starts all over again. The other option is for the system to destroy itself, which would be played out if everyone ditched their cars and bought helicopters. I believe the amplitude of the chaotic periods can be lessened with forethought. In the road example, the chaos is less in the more affluent communities.

I don’t know much about Confederation History, thanks for the link.

Re. the separate solution groups, I believe they are generally aware of the hacking and infiltration that is being done, and are able to resist. The Freedom Force site, for example, talks about how they are a “holographic organization”, as opposed to a typical top-down leadership structure. If you cut a holograph in two, you get two smaller images, but each image is still complete. Cut it into a hundred, and you have 100 small, complete images that can grow. That is how this group plans to survive such things as a shutdown of the internet and/or other communications, boarder patrols, road blocks, assassination, population reduction, etc. They talk about how the elite do their infiltration, and are using the same methods to un-do what’s been done over the generations - to take back control of the “power centers of society”. They also refuse any donations that are contingent on anything.

What seems to be more successful than hacking and infiltration, is the deliberate creation of groups as part of the “controlled opposition”. Any solution group needs to be thoroughly questioned as to its unstated purpose, which is evidenced by its activities.

For the groups that do get infiltrated and taken over, well, it’s just a weeding out process that serves its purpose. One needs to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

As a side note along these lines of protection for solution efforts, Jim Humble’s copyright release on his second book on MMS (first book is free) comes to mind. If he should happen to meet up with something like a jail term or disappearance or death, his book would be available to all free and can sold for profit by anyone. I think the elite would rather have him alive and well and free, even though he’s taken a huge bite out of the profits of the pharmaceutical and medical industries, and saved thousands of lives of the poor and middle class. But he’s been operating out of Mexico just in case.

Yes, it would be good if the groups were tied together better. There is some attempt at that by the Americans Restoring America group with such a provision on their website, but I don’t know how much it’s used or how well it works.

Be Well Too,

- A Little TRUTH

Satori (author) from California on June 24, 2011:

It's just fine Truth, I appreciated being referred to a group making a good effort to assist us in recovering.

Truth, mankind certainly seems to have a pattern going for itself here. Create a society, have it sabotaged, it gets unstable, other societies emerge, eventually the masses notice them and enjoin them when the disparity between them becomes obvious enough. Surely there must be a better way.

I was thinking about that today, actually. This agenda so indicative of the Roman Empire's expansion tactics seems to hack any system that grows prominent enough to appear on their radar. At the same point in time, in various areas different groups are being hacked by the same group. For some of these groups, the infiltration is just beginning. For others, the onset is more advanced. In a few cases, these systems are just shy of collapse. The specifics differ in the individual cases, as the hacking attempts are made specific to the system targeted. But very often, many of the same techniques are re-used and simply relabeled.

Wouldn't it be nice, I thought, if there were some communication between these target systems. A means of comparing notes. Sharing information. Collaborating on efforts. And propagating solutions jointly.

And I realized that such an effort would look much like the Union did, before it got hacked itself. Sovereign individual systems, united in principle and grouping together for their mutual well-being. And I thought back to the Articles of Confederation as established within the Union. Have a look at this Wikipedia section: It seems like the Articles of Confederation were eventually hacked, deliberately to drift them into having a strong Federal presence. Prior to that, they were just a grouping together of sovereign nation-states. That seems like a very effective approach to this kind of hacking. And perhaps for that reason, enough pinpricks occurred to prompt them to distort it into something less effective, and eventually corrupt. A massive Federal authority arguably as bad as the one the Colonists left behind.

It looks as though our Founding Fathers left us with an interesting legacy to use against this same problem. We can rediscover it, and apply it today for essentially the same reason. These various groups, like the one you shared here in the comments, attempting reorganization would be able to do so much more effectively together than separately. And if they knew in advance some of the hacking efforts that would eventually be used against them, they could prepare for them and even thwart them collectively.

Your thoughts on this?

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 24, 2011:

You’re welcome for the link, Satori. I didn’t mean to insert a link, but just text of the URL, in case you don’t want an additional link in your hub. I guess it automatically turned into a link. I didn’t think putting links in comments was allowed, I think the author should be the only one to decide what, if any, outgoing links go in his hub.

The mechanism you describe starting in your second paragraph is sad, but it can only go on so long, and it has to crash. You can only have so many living off of everyone else. You can’t have everyone living off of everyone. A Democracy ends when the last two wolves vote to have the last sheep for dinner – or maybe before that if a foreign entity forecloses on it.

Yes, it’s very nice to see that there are many, many groups that are well along with their respective solutions. I have links to the ones that I know of, and believe are going in the right direction toward a workable solution, at the end of my Hub “Biggest Scam Ever – Millions Affected”. (The re-inhabited Republic site is one of the links.) The purpose of said hub is to reach out to those, maybe not even searching for truth at the time, but even quite the opposite – scams, and to expose them to the crux of the world’s problem, and some solutions that are in the works and need support, along with some good reading material to back it all up.

I see your point about the moral lack issue of the masses. It’s the “lady in the red dress” effect (coined in the “Matrix”). The elite (agents) can, and are, using everyone who isn’t aware, and so can be corrupted. One can resist the corruption only if he is aware of it. Yes, people aren’t going to change much, but they will flock to a new system after tragedy makes it attractive, which reminds me of the book “Tragedy and Hope” by Carroll Quigley.

Take Care,

- A Little TRUTH

Satori (author) from California on June 24, 2011:

I think the link you mention could significantly improve the lot of the People and in large part restore the Republic, if properly managed. The biggest risk factors other than military reprisals would be from corruption within, lack of knowledge within, or drift caused by outside forces. My response was slightly delayed as it took me a bit to ascertain what their program specifically was. I'm now in e-mail correspondence with them on a few points. If knowledgeable people support them by supplying information where it's lacking, it should do well. Thank you for the link.

It leads me to clarification of my other point. I agree, the majority of people left to their own devices will tend to adhere to their True Nature and try to do good. The corruption these Hubs are discussing systematically targets not the majority of people at first, but those within the system. Bribe a few, and those few will begin to network and turn the system into something which favors more "flipping" of others within the system. When the system has become riddled with corruption, it slowly turns on the People. I know lots of people around me who now depend on government subsistence checks, for instance, and therefore must adhere to government requirements. Those living on subsidies have described filling out paperwork to stay on the list as being a full-time job, and those requirements, both official and unofficial, increase on a whim. That's just one example, and various of their schemes require more unofficial corruption than is generally-known. Their cause stalking in local areas is typically done with recruitment of manpower from those living on government subsidies, often through their drug dealers. It's amazing how many informal benefits can be conferred from within a discreet network for those willing to morally stoop in informal ways known only within that network. Why, all you'd need would be a centralized database like the one at the Information Awareness Office and peoples' unofficial activities in furtherance of corruption would give them preferred status over the average citizens - thus initiating a covert rat race among moral sell-outs. The evidence I've encountered suggests that this is being done, and though the average citizen is often unaware of this practice, those who are selling out are getting ahead materially at their expense. Just like the single-income households of the fifties turned into two full-time jobs and barely making it, the same effect is occurring with this today. Eventually, the average person will almost have to become a sell-out just to survive, and this is how fascist states form.

So while the average person, uninfluenced, will usually Choose rightly, they are very seldom uninfluenced. All manner of gimmicks exist which detriment people for not colluding with them, and most are informal and evidently not common knowledge. Premature exposure would be devastating for corruption, but once it's prevalent the pattern has been to make it not merely overt but practically mandatory.

And while these covert corruptions are still in hiding, the only resistance to the widespread frauds against the public is for people to always insist on what's morally right, lest they unintentionally feed into a corrupt system and enable it to flourish even more. Because the average person will generally have no means to know the corruption is deliberate or even, usually, happening at all. That's the only way networks of corruption can operate, at least at their onset.

So groups like the one you've linked to are very good ideas. How well they're implemented depends on the sagacity and capability of those in them, and their resilience to outside influences not just in terms of active opposition, but also subtle drift introduced via corruption. Any contradictory system tends to encounter at least one or the other, and in the modern federal system military reprisals seem to be the method of choice. Simpler all around, and there are seldom public repercussions with the media in-pocket, so why not? Thus, competing systems tend to keel over from deliberate application of force or sabotage, resulting in little or no successful alternatives for the People. Or indeed, any system able to provide them with the wisdom necessary to restore the system they've already got.

Which means we should be supporting and encouraging these systems as much as we can to make them thrive. Eventually, the system becomes noticeably trashed to the average person, and the support from the public begins to shift. That's invariable, and it's already occurring. A decade ago, the average person wouldn't entertain ideas about this sort of subject - they were comfortable and convinced that everything was fine. Now, they're starting to get it. It's a matter of enlisting public support before the military renders that all but impossible. And so that it can't. Because from there, system breakdown is inevitable and stopping the corruption before that point is always much more pleasant an option.

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 21, 2011:

Might such a proper court and lawful structure of the Union come into existence via the people at along with the forty-something Republic State sites?

Re. the Post Script: I don’t think it’s been so much a matter of the elite doing a tempting and getting people to flip – in some cases of higher ups, such as Allan Greenspan, yes. But, I think most “public servants” are just conditioned to believe that they are doing good – like the man that turns his neighbor in – like Morpheus said to Neo, if they are not one of us they are one of them (meaning that they can be used by them without knowing).

Maybe I don’t understand your point, but I don’t think morality is an issue that prevents a remedy. I think the vast majority of people have high moral standards – generally speaking, and not paying attention to any specific religious dogmas. People generally don’t want to hurt others, but would rather show love. They open doors for strangers, return lost valuables to strangers expecting nothing in return, move over a lane to let someone thru traffic, etc. - these people are the vast majority. I even had a stranger offer to pay for my tank of gas at a gas station after I realized I didn’t have the ability to pay, and I did the same once for a guy at the Secretary of State (although the public servant was incensed, she thought she had the guy nailed because he would have missed some deadline). My wife left a purse in a cab in New York, and I left a phone in a cab in The Dominican Republic, and both were returned.

I think the problem has more to do with ignorance of the vast majority, and not having a way out for the somewhat informed smaller majority, rather than morals. And this ignorance is mostly due to a lifetime of conditioning. Many attorneys start their careers because they love true justice and want to do their part to make sure the world has more of it, only to later find out that they need to do pretty much the opposite in order to keep their job. Many Police Officers start their careers because they want to serve and protect and keep order amongst the people, only to later find that must join a SWAT team and knock women and children to the ground and put a gun to their head because they’re growing tomatoes in their back yard. Same goes for the military. (I don’t think it applies to politicians, though.) Yes, some get corrupted in the process and stay for the personal benefits, but I think that most want out but need a workable alternative to become available and known. They need a better offer for themselves and their progeny. I think most would love the Republic if they knew what it was. Regarding this, the website above claims to be reaching out to the corporate military and police to encourage them to be informed and ready to switch over and support the Republic when the corporation fails.

Satori (author) from California on June 21, 2011:


They say you learn by doing, or sometimes teaching. In correlating the Genesis mythology with the corruption of the Union, I find a new insight which I hadn't completely realized before. Wanted to share it with you, as it provides an interesting and metaphysically solid means of resolving this corruption.

I stated that man attempted to depose his Creator by putting his ego at the center of his model of Creation where it didn't belong, rather than the Creator. This is true upon evaluation of the myth, and yet the myth itself alleges something different. It attributes the rebellion against the Creator from an external source, a sort of adversary. Yet, the Choice was man's.

This is how their corruption works, too. All their bribery and backroom dealings involve recruiting and subverting people from within the system they're attempting to compromise. Naturally, their attempts would not be successful if there were no personnel who converted to their cause. There's a tempting, then a successful recruiting - and that depends on the hearts of those they've tempted. In a healthy society, nobody would flip. Supposedly, virtue among the People would prevent them from accepting even corrupt government officials' agendas, because they'd fall short of the moral standards of the People. It's only because they've subverted those moral standards that the government, and the People, ever go along with it.

So not only is wisdom among the People crucial, but a solid moral basis is as well. All the corruption agenda can do is tempt; it takes complicity.

Granted, in this society with systematic moral counterfeiting I don't know that it's possible to sort peoples' moral compasses out from here. We're too far from a healthy structure, and just a bit too early for people to hit rock-bottom and decide to do better collectively. So it may well just be another justification by the corrupting group to pin the blame on the victim, similar to various cliche'd rapists' rationalizations ("She was wearing a short skirt, Your Honor." "She was asking for it."). But as a piece of propaganda designed to keep the masses going along with it once they find out and as they knowingly become complicit, it's a pretty devastating little piece of psychological hardware.

Still, the lesson may serve us well. Moral standards may be very effective in putting a stop to this, despite the fact that people with them are by now in the slim minority. Perhaps it's time to band together, those who are civilized, in order to retain civilization at all. And to do as our common law forefathers did, and shun people they called "no-account trash". =)

At this point, it's pretty much an open bet whether that would catch on and be effective, or merely succeed in reducing you to an even slimmer and more easily mopped-up minority. Any thoughts?

Be well,

- Satori

Satori (author) from California on June 21, 2011:

Ah yes Truth, you understand me well. Glad I was able to convey the point intelligibly.

The Genesis creation myth describes man attempting to place his mis-perceived sense of self, his ego, at the center of his model of Creation where his Creator belongs. It was a description of his attempted usurpation. The result was a flawed model that was necessarily dysfunctional: without the Creator in the center where He belongs, any model of Creation is distorted and vaporizes in practice.

Interestingly, we find the same dynamic at work in the corruption of the Union. Using words that have been given alternate legal definitions - this is an old crime of fraud called "words of artifice" - they attempted to defraud the Union and depose the People - and through them the Creator - as the basis of the Union, and in their place seat the federal government. Again, this resulted in an alternate, dysfunctional model of the Union which is of course vaporizing in practice.

Rather tellingly, the capitol of the federal government in its outlaw capacity, beyond the scope of the Constitution, is Washington D.C., with the White House constructed with its back on the rest of the Union and directed instead toward Britain. The District was created by converting chunks of what had been Virgin-ia and Mary-land (emphasis mine, and evidently a reference to a set of "immaculate conception" imagery used by the Vatican to reference their steathly covert infiltration of systems). However, the true capital of the federal government in its proper capacity remains Philadelphia. The distinction between the two locations seems to parallel the exit from Eden, the state of perfection, that Adam encountered when he attempted to depose his Creator from the center of his own model of Creation. Somebody knew their metaphysics when they pulled this corruption, and based on the historical evidence I'm guessing it was the Masons, who knew quite well what they were doing.

The inference is further corroborated by historical research such as this: Evidently, the only reason the War for Independence was no longer fought on a military basis is because private arrangements had been made to usher in the very corruption they'd been opposing. We can therefore note the initial date of the corruption of the Union's government to approximately 1783, with it gradually seeping further in since then via Masonic networking. Ever since, the Union has been carried - so much as it has been - only by the People themselves, continually sabotaged by systematic Masonic corruption acting from within, and from without, government.

Getting back to your comment and the absolute rights insight we've been discussing, it's worth noticing that the "presumptions" they keep using are a form of commercial law, not the common law of the Union. Where they directly conflict with the common law and the absolute rights of the People, they are necessarily void as you describe. But with networked corruption from within the system - attorneys, I'm looking right at you here - the gradual encroachment involved not only a widespread defrauding of the People with their words of artifice, but discreetly-organized complicity to assert new concepts like these "presumptions" directly into the structure of the Union and collectively describe the alterations as being legitimate. In this way they designed to "hack the system", and what they were banking on was that the information would never become common knowledge and that the original structure of the Union would gradually be eroded away until, as we find today, there IS no "proper court" you refer to to try these traitors in. Nowadays, the People tend to believe that whatever legislators and magistrates decide, IS the law.

This makes the distribution of knowledge to the People, to re-implement the lawful structure of the Union and the proper courts you mention, of vital importance.

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 20, 2011:

Had to read your comment twice carefully, like you say Satori, it is outside of general reasoning, and it took a bit to sink in. Never realized the switch from unalienable to inalienable – pretty much opposite meanings – like non-flammable (un-flammable) and inflammable. (Even so, some people insist that the two words had the same meaning in the forefather’s minds.) This has huge implications: no amount of fancy legal maneuvering, redefinition of words and stealthy adhesion contracts, or even blind or secret trusts can decriminalize someone under common law who has taken away an unalienable right. It would be a matter of bringing them to trial in a proper court – no presumptions to rebut.

Excellent point, thanks for the learn, and I look forward to your third article in this series.


- A Little TRUTH

Satori (author) from California on June 19, 2011:

That's the general reasoning, Truth, and I think it's not accurate.

We know from Genesis that everything was originally Created as "and it was good". It wasn't until man took into himself the Knowledge of both what was Good - at that point, this was everything - and what was Evil - which at that point did not exist - that he left the perfect state.

The story describes him taking into himself knowledge of both what was, and what was not. This describes a magickal act. To perform an act of magick, a practitioner must believe in or Will something which does not yet exist or is not manifest. Essentially, my understanding of Genesis describes an act of Will to manifest Evil - and of course, this being mutually-exclusive with the perfect Creation which God made, left man jettisoned from it by the nature of his own Choice and in a state whose primary defining characteristic was that it was imperfect.

Similarly, the first inroad we know of that was made in the political structure of the Union was to make the minute alteration of "unalienable" rights - rights which were given by God and self-evidently unable to be taken away - to "inalienable" rights: rights that are "in a lienable condition", or more technically rights which CAN be taken away under certain circumstances. As soon as the fiction of some other state than absolute, self-evident and irremovable God-given rights was conjured up by this, it manufactured a situation where one could be "presumed" to have forfeited ones' rights by doing the wrong thing, not doing the right thing, saying things the wrong way, or looking at the judge in a funny way. Do you see? This possibility of not having rights was a necessary precursor to the presumption that someone even could give them away. And that must have been deliberate as the first inroad, without which none of the corruption would have seemed to make a lick of sense.

If these rights are [self-evidently] given by God and cannot be taken away, and this was a fundamental precept the Union was founded on, then any conflicting idea is treasonous and, perhaps more importantly, void from the beginning.

From this perspective, the story described in Genesis takes on some very interesting theological ramifications. I definitely invite you to evaluate them, because the implications are quite profound.

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 19, 2011:

Regarding the wife beating type of question, where a truthful answer doesn't exist, I think the thing to do is ask a question regarding clarification or form of the question. If you make a statement, you are testifying - probably about something outside of the question, which you don't need to do; but if you ask a question, it's a counter-offer.

The brute force is justified in their thinking because we are presumed to be voluntary slaves. Yes, the contracts are all invalid as you say due to no meeting of the minds, but, an invalid contract stands until it is rebutted. I think that trust law also comes into play, however, where full disclosure or even any disclosure is not required.

You're right, there is no law being exercised in the United States of America, because the laws are in the Republic, which is idle for now. The Democracy has rules, regulations, statutes, codes, ordinances and executive orders, but no laws.

The way I understand and deal with the mess we're currently in is that there are two jurisdictions. A) The Republic with it's law of the land, currently sparely populated. B) The corporate Democracy with it's "law" of the sea (Captain's Orders) and military rule, created by as a temporary emergency wartime action, but was never reverted back to the Republic because the bankers love the control it gives them. All are presumed to be employees (citizens, persons) of the Democracy by voluntary submission (ethics need be set aside) by accepting any public benefit. I think that, in limited situations depending on your skill and knowledge of law, that if you can "hold your ground" that you are a man standing on the ground in jurisdiction A, and not on a boat on the high seas (be careful crossing the bar (gunwale) in the courtroom) in jurisdiction B, that you can live some parts of your life as a free man retaining your unalienable rights, rather than a "person"/ slave on the plantation with some government granted privileges.

Satori (author) from California on June 18, 2011:

Interesting stuff, especially the Hegelian Dialect! So many times, what we've been encountering as two supposedly different "sides" to an issue are really two dysfunctional mutations derived by taking a healthy idea and chopping it into two broken pieces. Never knew the name for it, but the transcendence of the purported duality occurs when you can take the poles, reconcile the disparity and make your Choice of positionality based on something other than the synthetic dichotomy that's been presented to you. For instance, if you were on the witness stand and were sworn to answer truthfully, yes or no, and then asked, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", either answer would do you wrong. It's a no-win scenario, which is precisely what these people create for everyone. The only hope comes from thinking beyond the tiny context they've presented. "I've never beaten my wife," or in some cases, "What wife?" At that point, it's the system that's obviously at fault, for not allowing you to answer in a valid way.

That same "lack of law" in the system is apparent nearly any time brute force is relied upon systematically. The "presumption in law" that you've referred to generally ISN'T "in law", for the reasons we've described. Similarly, an executive order purporting to give the government authority the People never gave it is a void writ, as the government has gone beyond its function. That the People were defrauded into not chin-checking their government as soon as it got out of line, they can hardly be blamed for. And while it's true that one must, by necessity, stoop to some extent under de facto quasi-law, that again is due to brute force and not legitimacy of law. The maxim in Bouvier's, I think, is "An act done by me against my Will is not my act.". We're hardly liable for any sort of contract entered into unwillingly, such as due to force. So it doesn't obligate us in a lawful or moral sense, it's merely a constraint which defies the law, is outside of it ("without the law" might make it clearer as well), and is a form of militarized occupation which has been growing less subtle. When they've abandoned law like this, their "presumption" is not in the legal sense, but rather in the colloquial - they're being downright presumptuous, and the law has really got nothing to do with it. But you'll read more about that in The Dumbening. =)

You know, they say if you repeat something often enough people will tend to accept it. That's even true in sovereignty circles, to some extent or another. Without absorbing the reasoning behind the stuff in law we find, we're prone to getting thrown into an erroneous tizzy of distortion anyway. Nobody individually, I don't think, is capable of existing in a vacuum and dispelling all the distortions being introduced systematically and daily. It's probably only possible in a community of more than one, so that one person can catch what the other may have missed. So I present corrections to you when I think I've noticed a flaw in their arguments that you've missed, and hope you'd do the same for me. =)

Thanks again for your readership, and the great information.

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 18, 2011:

I like your spelling of the "New World Odor"! That, together with the rest of your comment reminds me of a quote from Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore in "Apocalypse Now": "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." These days they are probably saying "I live the smell of aluminum, barium and strontium in the morning". But I think they avoid it themselves; I think that when one of them visits a city, they stop spraying the skies in that area for that week or two.

Regarding not having motivation to turn the world into a scrapheap, I think they know the earth has remarkable ability to heal itself, and so they view the current activities is just necessary collateral damage that is reversible in time - and their plans are very long term. I believe that one of their most prized tools that they use over and over again is the Hegelian Dialect. It is the basis behind WW1, WW2, 911, Republican vs. Democrat, and probably most conflicts in recent history. The Trilateral Commission calls it "managed conflict" in order to create a predetermined history.

I checked out It's so nice to see so many sites springing up with the purpose of exposing the truth to the masses and working toward a solution. That's much better than some sites which do an excellent job of exposing truth, but just leave it at that, and let the reader/ viewer go away depressed.

Stewart Rhodes seems to be missing an important piece of the puzzle, though - that the de jure Republic has been overrun by the de facto Democracy - and even though the Republic does still exist and is now being re-inhabited, one needs to be very skilled to overcome the presumptions of being under the jurisdiction of the Democracy. Stewart is trying to invoke the Constitution of the Republic, while sitting in the jurisdiction of the Democracy (he even has the gold fringed Admiralty wartime flag behind him in the video). (I hope Stewart Rhodes isn't related to Cecil Rhodes, one of the early forefathers of this great mess we're in now.) He has a very noble mission, convincing people, especially police and military, to switch over to the Republic; but I think he would have much greater success if he realized that the Democracy was created by executive order under emergency war powers and all "persons" are "in the same boat" on the high seas under Admiralty Law by presumption; and until the ship sinks, we need to at least colourably do what the Captain says if we can't rebut the presumption.

- still wanting to get to your next hub in this wonderful series

Satori (author) from California on June 17, 2011:

Speaking of, Truth, that aspect of the New World Odor never really made sense to me. Whoever's in the position of running that rerun of a show, they must be hip not only as to what a functional system looks like and how it works, but also to how they're breaking the world in order to rule it. To impose their semblance of authority, they have to stupify the majority, do away with everyone else, and take the world's processes and oversimplify and sabotage them so that nothing works. Nobody who can keep it together enough to sabotage valid systems, not to mention thwart coups by their underlings, would have the slightest motivation to turn the world into a scrapheap in order to rule over it. They'd have too much to lose, themselves. So the typical thinking about them seems full of monolithic plot holes. Nevertheless, the second- and third-order rights violations they've caused happen to us every day, so we're left to sort out the mess. Still, I have to think that even they truly don't want it.

Speaking of police and military restoration, you may find just what you're looking for. When I author my solutions Hub in this series, I'll doubtless make promoting them in ones' local community to PD and soldiers one solution.

Be well,

- Satori

A Little TRUTH on June 17, 2011:

Yes, it can't last because people are waking up at an accelerating rate. Hopefully the police and military are also waking up fast enough. I think many of them will slow down or stop participation when they find out what's going on. So many movies show an evil self-made ruler employing armies of workers, only to dispose of them when they resist or he no longer needs them - they should get the idea.

Looking forward to reading the next hub later today.

Satori (author) from California on June 16, 2011:

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Truth.

My intro was designed to show people the absurdity of what they were being given by the mainstream media. I actually believe there's a need for Adorable in the world. But it shouldn't be a choice between Adorable and a system that's Functional. Ideally, Adorable Functionality would be the standard. Instead, we have sites like LOLcat increasingly driving a wedge between the priorities. It's a form of sabotage you'll learn more about in the next Hub of this series. Enjoy!

And yes, a government can't help but exist by the consent of the governed. And uninformed consent, as has become prevalent in this society lately, can't last forever. Which probably accounts for the military buildup and training of the troops to do house-to-house searches and regime changes. Fortunately, even oppressive military regimes never last against the Will of the People for very long. For one thing, they require vastly more resources to enforce and maintain than they ever actually produce. Perhaps they're hoping that this time, advances in technology will make up for the inefficiency there. I don't think they'll be able to do it.

Thanks again for your readership, and your comments.

A Little TRUTH on June 16, 2011:

Very informative with many important, but little known facts, and I learned a few things.

I like your intro - you're essentially saying: Take the red pill by reading this hub, and the next, and go from there taking in truth; or take the blue pill by watching the kitten video and go on "believing - whatever you want to believe".

Your hub well points out that 'government exists only by the consent of the governed' (that's a quote from some notable, but I don't know who).

Satori (author) from California on November 21, 2010:

Chef Jeff,

Thanks for your well-thought comment! You know, what you mentioned about uneducated slaves being denied the vote, to prevent the ignorant from ruining society, almost makes me wish that we had something like that today. I once heard a comedian say, "If you're stupid, you should never be allowed to vote! Just worry about large fries, small fries. Keep your trainee hat on, Gomer, I'm votin' here!"

Then I tried to reconcile that to myself in terms of fairness. If only some people were allowed to vote, pretty soon we'd have it structured so that only the top 1% of the wealthy could vote. Voting would become a bygone process, like yanking corporate charters the moment they stop acting for the public good has.

It occurred to me that people don't vote just once every four years. No matter how many citizens like to think that healthy government comes about magickally from going to a voting booth every four years, people actually vote far more frequently than that. Every year they subsidize the government with nearly half of their income (once you add in federal, state and local taxes, sales taxes, property ta and so forth). They're literally paying the paychecks of the politicians they gripe about.

And they vote even more frequently than that, too. When they let corporations slide, when they don't oust politicians endorsing treasonous legislation, citizens become passive enablers of abuse. And treason. All by their inaction!

Every moment, a person is making some kind of Choice, and they're acting on it. That action is an expression of what they value over what they don't. It's [meta]physically impossible to spend a moment not investing yourself in one sort of Choice or another. And in that sense, we're each of us voting every moment. Problem is, most of us are voting for things we don't want. Result? A deteriorating society and government.

Applying this to the ignorant slaves who were denied the vote, and their modern Fox News-watching, Cheeto munching, sofa-dwelling counterparts, we find that it's not possible to take their ability to vote, or to Choose, away from them. What's needed then is to make them aware of the law, and the facts out there in the world. This way, their Choices and their official votes can be meaningful. They'll be determined to vote for what they actually want. Creating situations that give them true strength to do so, like websites allowing them to act collectively, has got to be an upcoming internet trend... precisely because its the passive enabling of abuse that has allowed things to deteriorate to the point they have, and it's the correction on the part of the citizenry that will sort things out again. Government isn't going to do it, and we can't all swoon over each new frontman that makes it into the White House and rely on them to fix everything for us.

I'd like to think that the missing information that I put out in my Hubs does something to improve matters. I'm also trying to put together websites that will allow people to act collectively to apply the law again, and even make money doing it. (Anyone reading this who knows PHP and wants to start something huge with it should definitely message me about it via the Contact link, by the way.) It's not going to fix everything, but every little bit helps.

Thanks again for your well-researched Comment, and your readership. Be well,

- Satori

Chef Jeff from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago. on November 20, 2010:

We often seem to be confused by definitions these days. It was also so long ago. In the beginning of this nation only White men with property were normally allowed to vote. There were some exceptions, as in a few places women and also White non-property owners were allowed to vote. The Constitution even allowed for people held as slaves to count as 3/5ths of a human being, while also denying them the right to vote a 3/5ths vote.

There is a small group of people today who believe that this idea was meant to follow the fears at the time that if a Democracy were ever to replace the Republic, then ignorant, ill-informed people could gain the vote and fritter away our legal standing as citizens for beer and gin. Indeed, at times, people would sell their votes in elections and politicians, ever aware of the power of the vote, used that system to perpetuate some of the "good-old boy" networks we read about in history class. Tamminy Hall and so forth.

But today we allow our votes to be bought by fear-mongers who tell us repeatedly lies and inuendoes about this or that candidate, this or that party, until we become convinced that unless we vote for the "right" candidate, Satan himself will take the throne in the halls of our government.

Our "Democracy" has always been a representative version, unlike ancient Athens, which allowed a direct vote by some citizens, casting ballots on the spot whenever a question came up concerning their rights. We vote for representatives, in the House since the beginning of the nation, and for the Senate only in the past 100 years or so. Not all that long ago Senators were created by the state legislatures, which were deemed to be expressions of the "popular will". Thus the House was the People's House and the Senate was not.

Excellent hub, my friend!


Chef Jeff

Spirit Hugger from San Francisco Bay Area, California on June 29, 2010:

Wow. Thank you for that. I look forward to reading more.

Related Articles