Posted on 07/30/2005 8:59:55 AM PDT by Borax Queen
This is the most serious issue facing our country. It is really sad to see right minded people blindly supporting Bush. Vote constitution party before it is to late.
Are the new BK laws, and the recent iminent domain decision, coincidental?
(sigh)
If you really want to know, I'll tell you...but it involves disregarding a LOT of what you think you know about government in general and the law in particular.
First, you need to know the legal definition of
-------------
legal
adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law.
-------------
That seems to be pretty straightforward- now look at the legal definition of the opposed word, ‘illegal’-
illegal
1) adj. in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, which may be criminal or merely not in conformity. Thus, an armed robbery is illegal, and so is an access road which is narrower than the county allows, but the violation is not criminal.
-------------
Well of course armed robbery is illegal; it’s a violation of the 8th Commandment. But if a narrow access road is illegal, how can it NOT be criminal?
Because any statute, regulation, ordinance or act that does anything OTHER than describe punishment for violations of Commandments 6 through 10 are not laws that affect the people! They are merely governmental policies, and only governmental entities must ‘conform’ to them!
Our 'legal system" uses a great many of what they call ~words of art~. These are words with double meanings, or meanings very different to the common definitions.
One of these words is 'Person'. Person has 2 very different legal meanings:
-------------
Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999)
person
1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.
-------------
The common definition and the first legal definition are the same. The second legal definition however, is used only if a person intentionally, with knowledge and consent, uses the law of contracts to create an artificial entity in order to start a business and/or protect his assets. Any artificial entity purposely created never has the exact same name as a living person
Because true law says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says, ‘person’ is defined even further.
-------------
Black's Law Dictionary ;
"natural person" : A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
"artificial person" : An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.
-------------
No big deal, right? UNTIL, you discover this tiny little fact:
Using the INTENT of the Founders in establishing our Republic, you will discover there is NO SUCH THING as a ~United States citizen~. All the writings of the Founders that I've read say 'citizen of the United States', or STATE citizen.......NEVER United States citizen.
A 'United States citizen' is an artificial creation, (a.k.a. *legal entity*, *artificial person*) of an artificial construct known as 'government'. We VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the statutory jurisdiction of the federal government by claiming to be United States citizens.
The United States government was originally constructed to deal STRICTLY with the governments of the respective STATES....not the physical land mass of the 'state' OR the People.
Illegals have no *legal entity*, so they are still considered 'natural persons'. BY LAW. Natural persons are under the jurisdiction of natural, or common/civil law.
Here is nolo's definition of:
natural person
A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.
That's why THEY get preferential treatment over Americans....they have no legal entity BECAUSE THEY ARE *illegal*.
It's also why United States citizens and their unseen 'artificial persons' are LEGALLY required to obey the unconstitutional whims of government, from Congress to the tiniest podunk city council.... no matter HOW much we know it's not right.
As Bush's latino attorney general, "these minutemen are vigilantes" and "this border issue is a complicated one that needs to be studied". Need we say more. The ground swell of voter revolt starts here. Wake up people.
It doesn't matter which party is in power when it comes to the illegal immigration issue. Sure the democrats are worse than the republicans but are you willing to accept either negative? Vote principle.
LOL... Good one!
I can't help thinking about Bush Daddy's "New World Order".
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
But it is doing so as we speak.
.
We need a plan to dismantle the present government cabal. Clean house!
Break up the two party monopoly!!!
It's really not as complex as it sounds, and I didn't create the system of natural law.
The function of a passport:
pass·port (pspôrt, -prt) n.
1. An official government document that certifies one's identity and citizenship and permits a citizen to travel abroad.
Even under natural law, the Constitution plays a part.
The people GAVE the federal government control over 'Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings' (US Constitution Article 1, section 8 p.17) when we ordained and established the Constitution.
The federal government exercises a legitimate authority by requiring a passport to pass through their 'turf'
Is that what you meant, or did I misunderstand the question?
Bump for later
My August essay at the Website, posted today, is on much the same subject:
William Flax
Bush spoke before Congress on Sept. 11, 1990, delivering a speech which he entitled "Toward a New World Order". Addressing the subject of his Gulf War, he made his first public utterance of his, and his rich cronies" plans for a world imperialism in stating that the war in Iraq was "...a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of coopera- tion. Out of these troubled times...a new world order can emerge."
"Nobody wants to believe that their president, senators and other elected officials might be traitors to The United States of America and its Constitution. But, by definition"
I do and it becomes clearer every day!
Good post, Don't_Tread. The hardline is the rightline in this case.
The article made sense until I got to this, which I would appreciate if someone here could explain:
"The selling of our national sovereignty and the implementation of a two-class, welfare-warfare socialist police state also needs... an effective PR campaign."
For cheap labor for corporate donors: Big business has enjoyed several years of unabated watering-down of wages and benefits due, mostly, to illegals coming into the United States to "pick fruit." The illegals are also "doing the jobs Americans won't do." These are the jobs that Americans can't do because corporations enjoy hiring the illegal aliens illegally over American citizens in order to pay less wages and benefits.
For additional votes: Obviously illegals, once registered to vote, can vote for the party that helps get more illegals into the United States (both parties in this case), so that they can go to work for the corporations for less wages and benefits.
This is really the bottom line of the whole enterprise: Money.
I've been saying this for years...in the public school classroom. I have been having to move to a new job every 2-3 years until I finally quit talking about it. This guy is right on target. And, no one will help those of us who have known...no one. I've tried to get a job where I can use my fluent bilingual skills -- nope. No deal, just teaching school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.