Friday, November 21, 2014

The Extensive Powers of the President

What don't the American people get about the fact that the President has the powers of a king?! In the 18th century, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, once said that the Constitution for the People of the United States extended great powers to the president; the powers of a king. Indeed, most recently a democratic majority in Congress has shifted to a Republican majority and the President has already began promising to use Executive Orders to further along an agenda for the United States ultimately bypassing the bicameral legislature for lack of cooperation.

I am not for certain how much clearer the Presidential powers can be made. Hollywood is perhaps one of the best systems of education there is in the world, if not the best. The messages are clear, yet they are commonly viewed as "purely entertainment." That is nonsense, but that is what most of us take them for. For example, in the 2014 film, Robocop, Samuel Jackson plays television host, Pat Novak, where, at the end of the film, he speaks about the President UPHOLDING the fictional Dreyfus Act when a majority of Congress already voted in favor of repealing it in order to allow machines to enforce the law in the United States. Notice how Novak doesn't say anything about the President abusing his powers when Novak fundamentally disagrees with the action. Why is that? Might that be because the common understanding should be that the President has "more than dictatorial powers" (John Adams, 1839)?

(Forward to 3 minutes)

So, what is the point of voting then if the President has the underlying power to sway policy on a whim you ask? Ask yourself how President George W. Bush was welcomed into the White House after losing in popular votes, but winning in electoral votes. If voting for new representatives at every election made a damn bit of difference, there might be the "change" citizens are looking for, but this is simply not the case because the common populace assumes and wields no real governing or ruling powers.

In Netflix's second season of its series House of Cards, Kevin Spacey can be seen swearing in to his newly appointed office as Vice President of the United States "without so much as a vote cast in his name…[because] democracy is so overrated." How true is this??? This sounds quaintly familiar to the late President Gerald Ford. Ford was appointed to both the office of Vice President and President of the United States without any electoral votes.



The point here is this - the President has the powers of a king. If we don't like what he does or how he does it, then our job is simple. Change or suffer. What I mean by change is to vary allegiances because citizens have no claim of right to change the way the United States operates, period. That does, in no way, mean war against "the machine" known as the United States because the United States is its own vessel and to be a citizen means we are obligated to support it until we decide to exercise self-determination (self-government).

This means we are required to learn how to govern ourselves by way of the Right to Self-Determination and to stop depending on "leadership" to make decisions for us. Who made the decisions for us as children? Mommy and daddy. Do mommy and daddy still need to make decisions for us? If not, then we need to find it in ourselves to grow up, accept the reality of the situation, take some responsibility for ourselves and our decisions, stop complaining, and start pursuing self-government.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

World War 3

It has been said before and it will be said again; World War 3 will be fought between religious factions. It is obvious today that this is true. Formerly, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has declared a jihad against infidels whom have offended the nations of Islam in both Iraq and Syria. Newly consolidated leadership formed this year 2014 and remember how we were warned early on that new leadership could be even worse? - here we are. Many around the world have already blamed one another for "creating" this fundamentally radical and violent group of militants, however; one should note that this is no different than the Christian Crusades, which also left an ugly scar on the history of the human race during the "Dark Ages."

It does not matter if we believe ISIS or ISIL was constructed directly or indirectly at the hands of representatives of the United States. Although there might certainly be evidence to support such claims, the point is that this is going to get much worse before it gets better. Believe it or not, the elites of the world are using this group to initiate a terrible global war in which to disenfranchise the human race from religious affiliations. Religion has single-handedly been the greatest tool to "win hearts and minds" towards what we considered to be messages of peace and service to others. Philosophically, this has done the exact opposite. Religions, in reality, wage war with one another in order to increase their manpower and thus their enterprise. Consider religious opposites to be "thesis vs anti-thesis" and we might all better understand the end result - destruction.

In order for the human race to end this inevitable self-destruction, it will be vital for us to dissociate ourselves from religious paradigms and look to advance ourselves instead in other areas where development is necessary. As "service to others" is considered the foundation of that which is the "act of love," the obligation we have to ourselves is self-realization. Once we get to know ourselves and like ourselves, others can only then like us. Our obligation to one another, as a humanity, is to service and stretch each other's understandings of the world around us - a universal awareness if you will. We are very good at seeking comfort and engaging in an endeavor of self-aggrandizing behaviors. This can only stop when we begin to service others before tending to our own benefit. The true advancement of our human race commences only then.


Thursday, October 23, 2014

Modern-Day Business and Self-Determination

Last week yours truly read Richdad's The Business of the 21st Century by Robert Kiyosaki and in that book a recurring theme popped out. Kiyosaki repeatedly cites "self-determination" all throughout the text. Now, if there is one thing detailed in previous articles here at Upfront and Unfiltered, it is about the Right of Self-Determination in the sense of self-government and political freedom via internationally-adopted protocol. The same principles apply to our financial status.

For some reason, we find it easy to point the blame of our political and economic standing on "our leaders" in Washington, D.C. What we fail to realize is that we have our own plates to step up to. That is right. We do NOT "mind our own business" and, instead, we look to suits on Capitol Hill to determine both our political and economic futures. There is a better way, but it requires taking inventory of our lives, taking responsibility, self-development, discipline, and self-control.

Kiyosaki explains in his book that owning a business will be vital for survival in the future as the greatest economic calamity to ever hit this planet is arriving within a couple of years. He goes onto explain that network marketing is perhaps the most misunderstood business industry in the United States today. Only in network marketing do we have the lowest barriers to entry, the lowest overhead costs, and the best systems for leadership development in the business world where those who stick to a network marketing plan for 5 years are known to become very, very rich. Where we fall short, as Americans, is in performing simple due diligence when an opportunity comes along. We are quick to dismiss opportunity because we fail to understand what makes an opportunity good and others, negative. We are more concerned about what our friends think of us, the lives of celebrities and the evening news than actually taking charge of our financial destinies.

(The Network, 1976)

Friday, September 19, 2014

Disabled Mother's Home Seized Over Unpaid $2,000 Property Tax Bill

People may never really "get it" and it is okay because many of us get a rush out of learning things the hard way rather than the "smart" way. American citizens do not "own" anything even if they maintain possession of it. This is stated in House Joint Resolution (HJR 192), Senate Document #43, Senate Resolution # 62, dated 17 April 1933.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

A disabled Kalamazoo County, Michigan mother, who believed to have paid for her home in cash in 2010, missed a single property tax bill amounting to less than $2,000. This resulted in a swift government seizure in which the county assessor's office sent the note to the auction block for sale and it was sold for over $80,000 in profit for the county. Deborah and her children have now been forced to relocate. She was not notified of the actions to be taken by the county before they occurred. The county is now saying there is nothing they can do from a legal standpoint to reverse the process, so that Deborah can get her life back on track.

In 2010, Deborah purchased her home in Michigan "free and clear" meaning she has had no more mortgage to pay, however; we are still obligated to pay property taxes as a part of our debt to the British Crown since the days of the French-Indian Conflict. On the bright side, at least a bunch of redcoats didn't burn her house down with her, her family, and her possessions still inside as they did to tenants in the 18th century.



Thursday, September 18, 2014

U.S. Attorney General: "International Law Trumps Constitution"

To know that there is a higher form of law beyond that of the U.S. constitution might beg some half-cocked eyebrows and it ought to. We tend to glorify ignorance and even stupidity at times. Patriots are driven by the prospect that they have a constitution and that constitution is something to protect with every fiber of their being. Now, when someone comes along and says "International Law supersedes the constitution," it just might throw a wrench into their gears upstairs.

Sure enough, our education system is not the most fine-tuned this side of the Milky Way, yet we seem to have this established notion that, albeit we do not have the best education system in place, we have the most advanced nation on the face of this planet when we are most advanced in defense spending and most incarcerated per-capita. Most of us are not well-versed enough in history or law to understand what Eric Holder is saying when it is in the U.S. constitution itself.

International Law, in its public interface, is partly comprised in black and white print via the Law of Nations. This book was used by the Founding Fathers themselves when they constructed founding documents for the United States in the 18th century. So, if they used the Law of Nations and the Law of Nations is mentioned in the U.S. constitution as a part of the "law of the land," why doesn't anybody know about it? That is because hardly anyone reads the constitution comprehensively anymore.

Holder is now going to argue at the Supreme Court level that International Law trumps the U.S. constitution. According to Article VI, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contract notwithstanding." This means that of what consists of the law of the land, treaties will be honored in spite of the Constitution or laws of any State, thus national and state "sovereignty" are waived at the behest of international law - treaties.

Below, we see Judge Andrew Napolitano making a couple of arguments on FOX News. The first is that although Secretary of State John Kerry might have signed onto an international treaty, it is only "symbolic," yet Napolitano admits that it might effect importers. As he appears to speak out of both corners of his mouth here, if the treaty effects importers it is considered a live document. Not exactly purely symbolic now, is it? The other argument made is that "treaties supersede federal law" and then he goes onto state that "treaties do not supersede the constitution, itself." Obviously, nobody there is educated enough to point out that the constitution IS federal law and is included in the "law of the land" of Article VI. Please note that this not an article bashing the conservative right. This is simply to demonstrate where ignorance is at play regardless of political affiliation on this topic alone.

(Judge Napolitano on Int'l Treaties & Constitution)

Constitution Day: Not Our Constitution


There is a HUGE misconception these days. This misconception is that somehow or other, the Constitution for the People of the United States belongs to the public-at-large when it does not. The compact we know as the U.S. Constitution is a debt instrument signed by 39 men to pioneer what we know today to be the United States. If we know anything about contract law, we know that only those who sign a document are those whom are a party to the compact…and nobody else.

The U.S. constitution ought to be understood as a demonstration of what can be. Most of us do not understand contracts, thus we do not understand law. This is a pity. We would be much better served as a society if we better understood the fundamentals of a contract as this would lay to rest many grievances before claims are filed and alleviate back log in the Courts.

There is a constitution for every Statehood and there are signatory members for every State as every constitution must have signature parties to form and empower it. The goal for everyone with an interest in political freedom and independence is to become a signature member of a State because, without it, we remain chattel on the pastures we tread on.

So, to recap, "We the People" refers to those who signed the document and their posterity being that all nouns are capitalized into pronouns. Everyone else, a citizen, merely play a role as a utility for "the system" as they neglect to self-govern. In order to advance one's political status, we are required to form or expand a State and this is what the Right of Self-Determination is all about. Think of it as a co-operative, like a credit union, where all members are shareholders, some are managing partners, and all members are obligated to participate.

Business Model of a Cooperative

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Statism, Anarchism & Self-Government


It is that time of year when tempers are flaring like fireworks on the 4th of July. The combination of high temperatures, lower tempers, and an increase in social interaction has folks embroiled in some very intimately-held topics, namely politics. As of recent, topics dividing folks include, and are not limited to; Ferguson, Israel, and the threat of ISIS on a global scale. This is on top of the resurfacing of positions as they relate to the upcoming anniversary of 9/11. What will be addressed at this time is the seemingly strange war "anarchists" have been waging against "statists."

Now, what is an anarchist and what is a statist? An anarchist believes firmly in the ability to self-govern without a higher authority above themselves whereas a statist believes that both social and economic climates necessitate centralized control. By face value, these are two seemingly opposite political ideologies. That, however; is not the case. Although these two seem theoretically opposite, there are more similarities than differences.

(Symbol for Anarchy)
Anarchism advocates the ability to "self-govern" while statism advocates the control of both economic and social structures. Anarchism, at its core, just as statism, are both "misdirected" and these ideologies would be best served if they, quite frankly, listened to and adopted significant elements from the other. Take the priority of self-government, for example. If self-government is combined with self-control over economic and social determinations, the combination of these, as a collective effort, is that of the Right of Self-Determination - a universal Right all persons on this planet are entitled to, but few will ever achieve. Why will few ever achieve self-government? Few will ever achieve self-government because most are either simply "not interest in politics" when it absolutely affects everyone, "law is complicated," or that even the most astute of scholars are discouraged from pursuing such a quest as they do not understand the substantive nature of perfect freedom and independence. Most everybody only understands a semblance of liberty, which must be granted to be enjoyed. This is far different from perfect freedom and independence.

"Men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others." -- Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, 1907, Jamestown Exposition

In essence, the core of anarchism, by itself, collapses. The same is true for statism. One ideology needs elements of the other in order to pursue a universal right entitled to all persons on this planet. If we take one ingredient out of the mix, the effort is destined to fail. To reinforce this point of the power of unity, the Native American tribes have had tribal council's for as long as they have been around and they work in multi-tribal efforts to achieve larger objectives than a single Native or even an entire tribe can achieve by themselves.

(Satire against Statism)
By universal principle, one man cannot live unto himself. He is required, by nature, to intercourse with others of like mind just as trees cannot live unto themselves. They need carbon dioxide (CO2) to survive. Similarly, a contract requires more than one party of competency to enforce universal obligation and cooperation. When one party fails to satisfy their obligations, the other is fully within their rights to pursue claims. This is why reading contracts is so important even if it appears trivial at the time. Understand the half-dozen or so fundamentals of contracts and the world of business and self-government is yours.