Thoughts on the Legislative History of the United States for the 4th of July, 2010
Raw Food & Liberty
Opinion by Robert Ross, July 4, 2010
battle for control of what you eat -- and think!
Tomorrow we will be celebrating the birth of our country. The thing at this special time is to realize is that we are celebrating a time when our founding fathers sacrificed their wealth and sometimes their lives to fight for something called our natural rights. Our natural rights only came into existence, for the first time in human history until this very day, when our forefathers were willing to fight to the death to claim them. First they “exhausted all other remedies” by going through years of legal and philosophical arguments and pleadings to the King who refused to acknowledge any of them. As far as the King was concerned Americans had no natural rights - they were merely at that time a philosophical discussion among intellectuals. Only after we made all the appropriate legal arguments under international law, did our Founders actually go to war to claim and defend these rights even if it cost them their lives. At that great cost they won both a philosophical and legal argument. They had hoped that this victory would be handed down to their posterity, but what they said was basically -- here are your rights...keep them if you can. Thomas Jefferson famously said, "the tree of Liberty needs to be replenished occasionally with the blood of tyrrants and patriots." It isn't so much that tyrants need to bleed, it's that we must be willing to fight to keep our natural rights!
If you are into health and nutrition or, like me, raw food, this is very, very important. Under "color of law," which means it looks like law but really isn't, we are in all likelihood going to lose our access to healthy food. The FDA will be regulating natural remedies like herbs and vitamins. Organic food may be gone forever. Without clean, non-GMO organic food you can not be healthy! And that is their goal, since you cannot control a healthy, awake and aware population that takes responsibility for itself!!!
Lately, with the Federal government grabbing more unwarranted, unconstitutional power than ever before, and these once sacred natural, God-given rights are all but gone! There is a critical layer of the onion in the story of America that explains a lot of how we got here -- the Legislative History of the United States! In this context, the "United States" is a different legal entity than what most people call America. It is here where you can, with a bit of work, unravel and expose the legal manipulations that got us into this mess. The fact is that it was all done under the "color of law," which means it looks like law but isn't really law.: "mere semblance of legal right; something done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law..." (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn).
In a law-based society you are deemed to have no rights unless you can agressively claim and defend them. If they are taken away by some law and you do nothing about it you are deemed to have waived you rights. You do not have rights simply by being born with them since you can voluntarily surrender them under law, which most ... See Morepeople in the US have done inadvertently. For example, it is like signing a nondisclosure agreement - you have surrendered your right to free speech by signing a contract. You also surrender your right to free speech if someone infringes on it and you do nothing - what has been happening for 100 years, so it is long gone except to the extend the powers that be wish to preserve its illusion to keep people mollified.
All great philosophical ideals about freedom are wonderful but have lost their real meaning. You have already surrendered your natural rights. How do I know - look in your wallet. Is there a social security number in there? Ooops - only Federal persons can have one of those.
To receive the unconstitutional entitlement called social security your once-free grandparents silently, for the most part, sold out their liberty as a Citizen in a State in order to become a U.S. citizen and receive the financial benefits thereof. This acceptance constituted legal agreement to a new social contract. The fact that most people reading this think it is gibberish, without bothering to spend even a minute in a law library (I spent years), is proof enough of their ignorance of law and the actual relationship between that and your rights or lack thereof.
Basically, the way the law works is that if you do not care enough about your rights to actually study them, legally speaking, and aggressively defend them then you do not deserve them. There is no country other than America in which (legal terminology coming) "natural rights" ever came from the top down. What you have in the US today are only Civil rights, those granted to you by a civil authority. Sometime they look the same but legally they are very different. Natural rights cannot be taken away, but you can surrender them through ignorance, not caring or irresponsibility. You only get to keep them if you care enough to study them and can protect them. Civil rights, on the other hand, can be given or taken by the civil authority, whether Congress or a presidential order. You can have civil rights whether or not you did anything at all to deserve them.
Free speech as a natural right means you can say and think anything at all. Free speech given as a civil right means you can say or write anything as long as it is not determined under the Patriot Act, by whatever unnamed authorities, to contain terrorist speech or anything that "they" say looks like terrorist speech in which case you won;t get anything that looks like your rights, you won't even get a trial, you'll get a go straight to jail card.
The way laws can be manipulated is critical to understand. Hitler even used it to justify the holocaust! As you may recall from the HBO movie, The Conspiracy, about The Wannsee Conference, held on January, 20, 1942, part of the discussion by Nazi attorneys (what a concept) revolved around how to make the "final solution" legal. It is clear that making something legal doesn't make it right. It is a perversion of the law. Yet we have allowed the same thing to happen in America in a variety of ways that got us into this mess.
This is not a subjective opinion - it is a legal subject and is quite explicit if you actually study legislative construction and legislative history. Here's the thing most people are missing -- only truly responsible American citizens that have educated themselves about their legal rights sufficiently to claim and defend them can legally have the LEGAL standing to claim Constitutional rights of any kind, including free speech. Most people in the U.S. have inadvertently surrendered their Constitutional rights under color of law and are now "citizens" or "U.S. Persons" under the jurisdiction of the Federal "United States," which is a different legal entity than the various American states you think of as our country. The Constitution protections for the states and we the people do NOT apply to persons under Federal jurisdiction - that is actually in the Constitution. So the way around the Constitution for the power brokers is to pull you into their federal jurisdiction so the Constitution is no longer even an issue.
To understand legislative history you first have to have a basic understanding of legislative construction. I can give you a few of the key basic principles, simplified, right now to get you started on your own research if you'll bear with me a bit longer. It is important to recognize that arguments about the commerce clause and other parts of the Constitution are meant to distract you from the real means used to manipulate you! Those arguments are intended to perpetuate the myth that the Constitution is still in effect so the system still works while masking the real truth - that the the system is no longer limited by the Constitution at all since most Americans have through manipulation and ignorance volunteered into Federal jurisdiction. You may recall that Constitution only applies inside the Federal lands and jurisdictions, so laws are unconstitutional only if they try to apply them within the various American states. They are intended to protect the states and people from the Federal government. But in DC, they can do anything they want and effectively everyone in America is under that kind of Federal jurisdiction, so you cannot win a constitutional argument since in that jurisdiction you have no standing to claim constitutional protection.
For example, it is important to know that headlines and sub headlines of statutes do NOT have any legal effect whatsoever. That is why they can label a law, or even a paragraph, one thing and yet it has the opposite effect. For example, in Title 26 (Internal Revenue) they have several sections with subheads talking about who is "liable" for income taxes. However, a careful reading of the entire section reveals that nobody is actually made liable by the text sections. In fact, nobody is America is made liable for income taxes, period, as far as I can tell after reading and researching the entire code. But if you read the law without knowing that subheads have no legal effect, you would think that people are actually made liable in there someplace or they couldn't say it. Of course, if you ask about this the IRS and tax attorneys will say I am crazy, but learn a bit about legislative construction then read the code for yourself! Like you recently said - you have to read it in their own words yourself to truly comprehend! But remember, their words have been redefined - it looks like the same English we speak but it's NOT -- it's a code or a foreign language carefully disguised to look like conversational English!
You see, there is a HUGE difference between legal definitions of words and their conversational meaning. An understanding of the power of legal definitions finally explains how brilliant Bill Clinton was when he said, "it depends on what the definition of is “is.” You see, he slipped up and exposed one of the deepest secrets of the people behind stuff like this, that legal definitions and conversational meanings can be 180 degrees removed, but of course it was just laughed off as a ludicrous statement.
The folks that write these laws intentionally uses words like "state" to mean something other than New York or Florida knowing full well that people living in one of the American states like New York or Florida will think the law applies to them when in fact it does not. All of the unconstitutional laws you and I are concerned about these days does NOT apply within the various American states. It also explains how the Supreme Court manages to let unconstitutional laws stand - since they actually only apply in Federal jurisdictions where the Constitution doesn't apply! If you look closely you will see that they have redefined the legal meaning, for the purposes of that law only, of the word "state." In such laws, the term state has been defined to include ONLY federal government lands, forts, parks, and territories like Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
There are three definitions of "United States," only one of which applies to the what most people think of as States. When they say "United States" they often do not "include" the several independent states in the sense we think of. However they intentionally redefined the word "include" in law so that it is EXCLUSIVE! In other words, when you and I say a list of vegetables includes broccoli, we haven't excluded spinach...we've just added to the list. If you carefully research how the legal system has redefined "include" you will discover that when a law says that the United States "includes" Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, that law is not saying it is adding those jurisdictions to the rest of the American states - in fact, it is an exclusive list and means that the law applies ONLY in those areas. Most objectionable laws of the last 100 years are like that as far as I can tell.
Another good one is the definition of "person." We think a "person" is a human being and is synonymous with people. However that is unfortunately not true. It is another case where the legal definition is different from the conversational meaning in a way intended to confuse the people. You are not a person! If you are you may well be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, even if you don't live in a federal territory. Legally, "person" refers to a legal identity assigned to you (such as a social security number), not who you are as a human being. That is why a corporation or a car can legally be a person these days. It is also a term often redefined in statutes to make it look like it "includes" you when it doesn't.
In some cases the laws we are concerned about today that seem to be taking away more and more of our rights are not even "positive" or codified law, which means it is not really a law yet. and is referred to as "non positive" law. Positive law is defined as ""law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government. So if a law isn't yet codified or made positive, such as Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, then what is it? The answer is "prima facie" (on its face) evidence of the law, i.e, it treated as law unless proved that it is not law. According to the the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, certain titles of the [United States] Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+law)
Another issue is the relationship of Federal Regulations and statutes. These con men that have usurped our government often pass laws that are essentially not even enforceable and they deal with that by never creating the implementing regulations that make a law legally enforceable -- yet they use these laws to manipulate us. A statue without implementing regulations has no legal effect! Routinely the talking heads on TV will debate statutes all day long and never even mention the Regulations required for the statutes to have any effect.
Finally, for now, as my last 2 examples (I could go on for days) there is (1) the legal concept that silence is an admission of acceptance and (2) the related legal principle that if you do not aggressively defend your rights they are "deemed to have been waived" under law. In other words, if you let them get away with it you have agreed to it, even if through ignorance (legally if we are ignorant it is not an excuse since it is our responsibility to educate ourselves about our rights if we actually want them). You must WANT to be free in order to be actually free! You do NOT get your human, God-given natural rights merely because you exist, even though you are born with them, because if you don't learn about them and defend them you have essentially volunteered to give them up! THAT is why education was so important that the first thing Socialists & Progressives did in the early 20th century is to begin co-opting schools and universities. The next thing they did, or close to it, was take control over some essential definitions.
Remember, he who controls the definitions wins. That's why Orwell tried to warn us about "double-speak" in his prophetic novel, 1984. In fact it already exists, particularly throughout the U.S. Statutes. A statute can, and often does, redefine a word so that the legal meaning for the purposes of that statute is the exact opposite of what you and I think its conversational meaning is! And control of definitions starts in the schools. That’s where they redefined socialism, a word that Americans never warmed up to, and called it democracy., something the masses could get behind. Then, of course, they redefined our country from a Republic to a democracy and so on.
In the medical community they routinely define imbalances caused by poor nutrition as "diseases," actually giving them proprietary names and creating highly profitable new drugs to treat the relatively minor symptoms of their new diseases with side effects generally worse than the symptoms they are repressing. Death has now been redefined, too! Some drugs routinely list death as a possible side effects! Personally, death is a little more than a side effect if you ask me!
In that way over time most Americans have actually volunteered to be citizens of that Federal United States and have waived all their natural rights, choosing to become wards of the state with no legal claim to their God Given, constitutional rights and now only getting the rights granted to them by the civil authority they have surrendered to, called by their new authority, the Federal Government, "civil rights." We have volunteered into Federal jurisdiction, where the Constitution even says it doesn't apply, We are now Federal citizens (small c) instead of State Citizens (large C), United States Persons (statutory definition), instead of We the People. We were willing to let someone else, anyone else, take responsibility for our lives so we wouldn't have to - since apparently the only right we have cared about for decades is the right to shop ‘til we drop in the mall of our choice.
Twenty years ago I tried teaching people what was going on for several years but it was like banging my head against the wall. I gave that up and decided it was more powerful to teach people to be healthier and more awake. When people eat healthier food, especially raw food, they wake up they can see what is going on for themselves more clearly, which is a more powerful attack on the corrupt system.
Today, things have gotten much worse, but fortunately the progressives have overestimated their position and moved prematurely. They have gotten so arrogant they thought they could get away with almost anything, but they just may have made their biggest moves too soon. Most people were almost completely hypnotized but not quite, so now their insidious plan is starting to become obvious to anyone who cares enough to get out of their self-imposed darkness, turn on some lights and see. Thanks for throwing the light switch -- and for caring.
here to learn more about HR 2749 & the
here to do something
Remember, this is just one example, though a new and very dangerous one! There are many more!
The LIFE 7600
Water Ionizer is the one I use myself every single day. I
also believe it is the best bang for the buck for raw foodists - without
the premium you pay for MLM products! FREE GIFT & FREE SHIP.
List $2497 NOW $1997
HP3A Home Blender Open a juice bar
right in your kitchen! The most powerful computer controlled blender
under $400! NEW copolyester container _ FREE gift + FREE shipping!
My price, $399.95
Juicer - for serious juicing. With Magnetic and
Bio-Ceramic Technology. The best of the Green
Power/Star & Green Life variations. Free gift + Free ship!
My price, $399.95.
Save $20.00 more with
GB-9001 Juicer is my personal favorite, the one I use
myself, and the best bang for the buck for raw foodists! FREE GIFT&
FREE SHIPPING. List $299.95
Learn How I lost 75 lbs. FAST
with Raw Food
By Robert Ross
eventually helped me lose 75 lbs almost as an after-thought! Over 170
delicious recipes show you how & make going raw easier than ever
without sacrificing taste. Special sections: Recipes for the Holidays
& Raw Food for Pets.FREE with any purchase over $100.00. 104 pp.
. (E-Book) More...