George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, cohersion of the American People.

[netwrkranger]

Jeagas...

... no need to buy anything (yet). You can hear his broadcast by mp3:

George Gordon's School of Law Show Archives

I don't agree with everything he says, but he is spot on concerning MANY issues. I like him a lot. He exposed me to much information that I hadn't considered or known about. I intend to purchase his law kits in the future.

Here is some interesting information I pulled from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard

Charles Austin Beard

As a leader of the "Progressive School" of historiography, he introduced themes of economic self-interest and economic conflict regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the transformations caused by the Civil War. Thus he emphasized the long-term conflict among industrialists in the Northeast, farmers in the Midwest, and planters in the South that he saw as the cause of the Civil War. His study of the financial interests of the drafters of the United States Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution) seemed radical in 1913, since he proposed that the U.S. Constitution was a product of economically determinist, land-holding founding fathers. He saw ideology as a product of economic interests.

Good stuff...
netwrkranger

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

If you do not believe in universal sufferage, who would you include? Who would you exclude? What criteria would be used for evaluation?

I haven't thought about it.

The property qualification isn't bad.

I'd rather like to start enforcing again, if only b/c it would disqualify about 99.999% of the American electorate from participating in elections, owing to the fact that they don't "own" their property: they are merely renting from the King; either in the form of a mortgage, or at best in the form of ad valorem taxes due semi-annually on their piece of the King's estate (i.e., real estate, from the French/Spanish "royal" estate).

If 99.999% of the American electorate were suddenly barred from what they've been conditioned to believe is their Holy Grail of freedom: voting once every four years for the lesser of two evils, then they might suddenly catch a cluebrick as to what's wrong w/ the nation and do something about it.

But the gremlins in Washington are more clever than that.

Better to trick the slaves into thinking and believing that they're "free"..

I feel if you exclude anyone, you are setting up the framework for tyranny.

Again, like I said in my quote above, I don't necessarily equate democracy or voting w/ freedom.

I equate freedom w/ an understanding of and obedience to God's Divine Law. The "royal law" (James 2:8) or the "law of liberty" (James 2:12) so to speak. Out of this flows the capacity to reign over and control the termites (otherwise known as government bureau-rats) that would otherwise be the proximate cause of any curtailment to your liberty that you might experience.

Christians reign upon this Earth as Kings (1 Peter 2:4-9), and the only Sovereign or Power to which we must answer is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Democracy slowly starts to seem like it's off point and out of context, when you start to look at the world more in that light.

The Communist nations during the Cold War were extremely, extremely keen on forcing their populations to "vote" at every election. It was required by law. If you failed to vote, you'd wind up in prison. It happened to members of my family; the prison part, that is.. (some branches of my family descend from Eastern Europe).

Did that mean anything?

Did they have freedom?

Democracy is indispensible to Communism, remember, so said Lenin.

You've been raised in a Communist nation (the United States), and so have I, and we've been indoctrinated to believe that "democracy" is indispensibe to "freedom". Indeed, nothing can be further from the truth, and even people like James Madison understood this as can be gleaned from Federalist #10 and #14.

Are there "democracies" to be found in Scripture?

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Jeagas...
... no need to buy anything (yet). You can hear his broadcast by mp3:
George Gordon's School of Law Show Archives
I don't agree with everything he says, but he is spot on concerning MANY issues. I like him a lot. He exposed me to much information that I hadn't considered or known about. I intend to purchase his law kits in the future.

Here is some interesting information I pulled from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard

Charles Austin Beard

As a leader of the "Progressive School" of historiography, he introduced themes of economic self-interest and economic conflict regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the transformations caused by the Civil War. Thus he emphasized the long-term conflict among industrialists in the Northeast, farmers in the Midwest, and planters in the South that he saw as the cause of the Civil War. His study of the financial interests of the drafters of the United States Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution) seemed radical in 1913, since he proposed that the U.S. Constitution was a product of economically determinist, land-holding founding fathers. He saw ideology as a product of economic interests.
Good stuff...
netwrkranger

Thanks a bunch netwrkranger, this will help.

P.S. You must have jet engines for fingers to come up with this so quickly.

SD

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I equate freedom w/ an understanding of and obedience to God's Divine Law. The "royal law" (James 2:8) or the "law of liberty" (James 2:12) so to speak. Out of this flows the capacity to reign over and control the termites (otherwise known as government bureau-rats) that would otherwise be the proximate cause of any curtailment to your liberty that you might experience.

Christians reign upon this Earth as Kings (1 Peter 2:4-9), and the only Sovereign or Power to which we must answer is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Democracy slowly starts to seem like it's off point and out of context, when you start to look at the world more in that light.

fyi..
I hear the above quoted on the following site quite a bit, have been listening into their broadcast the last couple Saturdays: http://www.hisholychurch.net/

[netwrkranger]

Thank-you, jeagas. I've been called a hyper typer =D. Being an IT guy doesn't hurt either =D.

I haven't thought about it.

The property qualification isn't bad.

I'd rather like to start enforcing again, if only b/c it would disqualify about 99.999% of the American electorate from participating in elections, owing to the fact that they don't "own" their property: they are merely renting from the King; either in the form of a mortgage, or at best in the form of ad valorem taxes due semi-annually on their piece of the King's estate (i.e., real estate, from the French/Spanish "royal" estate).

If 99.999% of the American electorate were suddenly barred from what they've been conditioned to believe is their Holy Grail of freedom: voting once every four years for the lesser of two evils, then they might suddenly catch a cluebrick as to what's wrong w/ the nation and do something about it.

But the gremlins in Washington are more clever than that.

Better to trick the slaves into thinking and believing that they're "free"..

Again, like I said in my quote above, I don't necessarily equate democracy or voting w/ freedom.

I equate freedom w/ an understanding of and obedience to God's Divine Law. The "royal law" (James 2:8) or the "law of liberty" (James 2:12) so to speak. Out of this flows the capacity to reign over and control the termites (otherwise known as government bureau-rats) that would otherwise be the proximate cause of any curtailment to your liberty that you might experience.

Christians reign upon this Earth as Kings (1 Peter 2:4-9), and the only Sovereign or Power to which we must answer is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Democracy slowly starts to seem like it's off point and out of context, when you start to look at the world more in that light.

The Communist nations during the Cold War were extremely, extremely keen on forcing their populations to "vote" at every election. It was required by law. If you failed to vote, you'd wind up in prison. It happened to members of my family; the prison part, that is.. (some branches of my family descend from Eastern Europe).

Did that mean anything?

Did they have freedom?

Democracy is indispensible to Communism, remember, so said Lenin.

You've been raised in a Communist nation (the United States), and so have I, and we've been indoctrinated to believe that "democracy" is indispensibe to "freedom". Indeed, nothing can be further from the truth, and even people like James Madison understood this as can be gleaned from Federalist #10 and #14.

Are there "democracies" to be found in Scripture?

All very valid points, psholtz. Generally speaking, human nature creeps into any process (unavoidable). The ideal gives way to self or group interest to the exclusion (and detriment) of others regardless of justice, morality, or ethics.

Justice, morality, and ethics are, in many cases, minor obstacles to tap dance around in order to construct justification for whatever position one cares to advance.

- netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

You do not need a higher authority to define your rights. You have all the rights you decide you have. It is your perogative.

The founding fathers created two governments, an absolute tyranny and a republic. It is within your power to decide what it will be for you. We are guaranteed access to the common law and once we start learning what that is and see that it is not so difficult to regain your sovereignty, we will have justice.

Remember, these things take time so be patient.

Start here.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...nty/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...rms/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...ons/index.html
http://www.1215.org/seminar/denniswhipple.htm

[netwrkranger]

Thanks for the links, Rottweiler.

That is pretty incredible that one can convene their own court as a sovereign. There are definitely keepers.

1215.org is a pretty amazing site. Great info.

- netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

You are the lawmaker in your own kingdom.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Thanks for the links, Rottweiler.

That is pretty incredible that one can convene their own court as a sovereign. There are definitely keepers.

1215.org is a pretty amazing site. Great info.

- netwrkranger

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

How history ties in to what we know now. Read this and see if your discernment changes about these two supposedly great founding fathers:

What I have found may surprise a couple of you an some may not believe it until they see it for themselves, I sent this information out to the masses and have had absolutely no response about it, people must be sleeping out there. If you can please comment on it I would appreciate it. just to let you know from this prospective communicating with these entities I have had nothing but positive results:

All the Bill of Rights and the Constitution did was create a Charter for the Corporation. We already had a government in place under the Articles of Confederation with a Congress, but they allowed the corporation to be created and we let them do it for we the sovereign independent nations in the confederation did not know any better since it was mostly done behind closed doors.
The Civil war in the 1800s had nothing to do with slavery as proven later by continued enslavement by mandated segregation of whites and blacks, that Civil war had everything to do with control of the land and the people in it, It was a "Hostile Corporate Takeover" or " Corporate Reorginization " whatever you want to call it that the south was fighting with the north over.
What started this research is learning that there was a few founding fathers that absolutely refused to sign the Constitution, I wanted to know why and their reasoning for it.
What we did not know and what they knew is that these plans for an incorporation had been planned out all along in which they gave us many warnings to avoid carefully. it was secretly known they could be shot or hung for speaking against it,
such people were also called terrorists. So be careful what you give your allegiance to.

Pay close attention to how it relates in the corresponding information below it.

Executive Offices of the United States Government
"The Committee of Nine Appointees/authorized agents calling the shots"

THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 1778
Article X. The committee of the States, or any nine of them , shall be authorized to execute in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite.

The following are results from Manta.com :

Executive Office Of The United States Government
1600 Pennsylvania Ave Nw, Washington, DC 20501-0001, United States
Phone: (202) 456-1414
SIC: Executive Offices
Line of Business: Executive Office/Development
Detailed Executive Office Of The United States Government Company Profile
This company profile is for the private company Executive Office Of The United States Government, headquarters located in Washington, DC. Executive Office Of The United States Government's line of business is executive office/development.
Company Profile: Executive Office Of The United States Government
Year Started:1787 ( Before the Reconstruction acts took place, how many times have we heard of corporations reorginizing? ) ** George Washington, elected that same year.
State of Incorporation: N/A
URL: www.udall.gov
Location Type: Headquarters
Parent Company: Government Of The United States
Contact Name: George W Bush ( Responsible Party )
Contact Title: President
Data above provided by D&B.

Morris K. Udall foundation
Who We Are
The Udall Foundation is an agency within the executive branch of the United States government. The President appoints nine members of its board of trustees, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate; the other four members serve by virtue of their positions within government.

[[ Corporation of London ]] The London Virginia Company became incorporated as a joint stock company by a royal charter drawn up on April 10, 1606. It swiftly financed the first permanent English settlement in the New World which was at Jamestown in the Virginia Colony in 1607. Its Second Charter was officially ratified on May 23, 1609 .
[[ All done behind closed doors ]]

United States Code
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
.........................

Sixteen responses and yet nobody's brought up the point: what direct involvement does Washington or Jefferson have to do with any of this? Most of the above post has absolutely nothing to do with either of them.

[[ Corporation of London ]] The London Virginia Company became incorporated as a joint stock company by a royal charter drawn up on April 10, 1606. It swiftly financed the first permanent English settlement in the New World which was at Jamestown in the Virginia Colony in 1607. Its Second Charter was officially ratified on May 23, 1609 .
[[ All done behind closed doors ]]

How does the above have any bearing on the title of this thread? Neither Washington or Jefferson was alive at the time.

The Civil war in the 1800s had nothing to do with slavery as proven later by continued enslavement by mandated segregation of whites and blacks, that Civil war had everything to do with control of the land and the people in it, It was a "Hostile Corporate Takeover" or " Corporate Reorginization " whatever you want to call it that the south was fighting with the north over.

As before, who gives a rip? Neither Washington or Jefferson was alive at the time.

We already had a government in place under the Articles of Confederation with a Congress, but they allowed the corporation to be created and we let them do it for we the sovereign independent nations in the confederation did not know any better since it was mostly done behind closed doors.

Yes, but the same representatives of that "government" decided to hold a convention in order to address the issues relating to the individual States not supporting the National government. True, the intent, as stated at Annapolis prior to calling the convention in Philly, was to only modify the existing document, the outcome was to rewrite the entire document. If you have an issue with that (and believe me, I have issues with it), then why not present it in such a in a manner which illustrates what was done was defective as according to the process, procedure and powers as granted in the Articles of Confederation, which the new document replaced?

Oh BTW, Jefferson was a diplomat and in France at the time the Constitutional Convention was being convened. He was appoint to replace Franklin in 1785:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/his...timeline.shtml

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collecti...mtjtime3a.html

And concerning the Shay's rebellion, Jefferson replied to Abigail Adams, who corresponded regularly with Jefferson, about the insurgency (again, reference the above link);

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

Does that sound like someone who was a participant of the "cohersion" (I presume you meant coercion and not cohesion) of the American People?

His opinion on the matter of the Convention in Philly was to "characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philade...ite_note-TAH-0

If you want to bash the founding fathers, fine, but at least make the content relevant. I personally feel that Hamilton would be one of the founding fathers who would fit right in with today's political environment and be somewhat satisfied with the level of socialism which has been accomplished, but the title of the thread doesn't mention Hamilton.

Most of the material provided just doesn't belong in your post and most certainly doesn't support the title of the thread.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Most of the material provided just doesn't belong in your post and most certainly doesn't support the title of the thread.

Somehow I missed the mandatory policy of membership in this group that the form of discussion must be consistent with the topic. If this is a fact of policy maybe you can tell me what brand of computer we must be using or if we can be fined for sitting in our underwear while typing.

Seems one of us is not really interested in sovereignty and is using the wrong website, Hek they may even have the wrong username and should probably change it.