RSS

Judge Napolitano is Right…and Wrong!

18 Dec

3f6f7318b0d5734e8e9425305eabd6d5This article just written by Judge Napolitano exposes the outright fraud of the federal government, but fails to properly identify the underlying “authority” for their outrageous, unconstitutional conduct. See our comments following his text.

What the corporate “government” does is actually “legal” within their private, foreign venue, and applies ONLY to those who volunteer to be under their jurisdiction. Remember that as you read this.

If you are a new reader to this blog, start reading our articles from the bottom-up, as our constitutional-education program begins with the basics and adds a little each time.

Our deeply-held beliefs and values do not comprehend or accept misrepresentations and deceptions which are designed (by the corporate government) to separate us from our unalienable rights and draw us into a web of servitude and subservience  to our “public servants” who are supposed to protect our rights. What is WRONG is WRONG, and just because a group of immoral and brainwashed people (Congress) vote for something that we all KNOW to be WRONG, we do not have to accept it. Their rules apply ONLY to their corporate employees (US citizens!).

This is the Judge’s text:

“When the government is waving at us with its right hand, so to speak, it is the government’s left hand that we should be watching. Just as a magician draws your attention to what he wants you to see so you will not observe how his trick is performed, last week presented a textbook example of public disputes masking hidden deceptions. Here is what happened.

 Last week was dominated by two huge news stories. One was the revelation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of torture committed by CIA agents and contractors on 119 detainees in the post-9/11 era — 26 of whom were tortured for months by mistake. In that revelation of anguish and error were the conclusions by CIA agents themselves that their torture had not produced helpful information. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the CIA had tortured, yet he directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute those who tortured and those who authorized it.

 The other substantial news story was the compromise achieved by Congress and the White House to fund the government through the end of September 2015. That legislation, which is 2,000 pages in length, was not read by anyone who voted for it. It spends a few hundred billion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenue. The compromise was achieved through bribery; members of Congress bought and sold votes by adding goodies (in the form of local expenditures of money borrowed by the federal government) to the bill that were never debated or independently voted upon and were added solely to achieve the votes needed for passage. This is how the federal government operates today. Both parties participate in it. They have turned the public treasury into a public trough.

 Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments.

 “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, textmessages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America — including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials and law enforcement officials. I say “innocent” because the language of this legislation — which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about — makes clear that those who spy upon us needn’t have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying.

 The need for articulable suspicion and probable cause has its origins in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the brutish British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant.

 Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue. And fishing expeditions turn the presumption of liberty on its head. The presumption of liberty is based on the belief that our rights are natural to us and that we may exercise them without a permission slip from the government and without its surveillance.

 Until last week, that is. Last week, Congress, by authorizing the massive NSA spying to continue and by authorizing the spies to share what they have seized with law enforcement, basically permitted the fishing expeditions that the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.

 How can the president and Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn’t every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution create the presidency and the Congress? How can politicians purport to change it?

 The answers to these questions are obvious, as is the belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want, so long as they can get away with it.”

So do you see what is “wrong” with his concluding paragraph? Have you been paying attention to the truths we expose on this blog?

The answer to these questions, Judge Napolitano, is indeed obvious. But it is not because “they” think that they can ignore the constitution! The constitution to which they took their Oath was the private, foreign, corporate Constitution of the United States, and the private corporate “United States” does not create any DUTY for them to protect your Rights! They will continue to “get away with it” until We the People stop believing that we are “US citizens” and subject to their EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION!

“Get out of her, my people!”

 

 

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 18, 2014 in Constitution Education, General

 

2 responses to “Judge Napolitano is Right…and Wrong!

  1. Jake

    December 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    Great post, and I see your point…but…what about the apparent disregard that public officials have toward their oath to support and defend the “corporate” constitution? Aren’t they in conflict when they violate the de facto agreement that they have sworn to uphold? I get that Obama is no more the president of our organic country anymore than the CEO of Walmart is, BUT, even in the corporate constitution that he swears allegiance to, that constitution is crystal clear about him needing to be born within the boundaries of the fictional territories. I still don’t see any wiggle room that would allow for his Kenyan birth to qualify him for the US Inc presidency.

     
  2. bakercountysolutions

    December 20, 2014 at 6:29 am

    This answer may shock some of you. It will answer some of your confusions, as I am sure the questions posed by Jake are common to all of you readers.

    Again, the basis of the deceit is whether the President is of the “United States” or the “United States of America“. By now, you readers KNOW these are not the same entities, and have different creations and different legal relations!

    The following explanation is written by one of my mentors, Dr. Eduardo Rivera. I have been a student of his work for many years, and his website is here: http://organiclaws.org/welcome-organic-laws-institute/

    The following is quoted from a part of his article called “Three Presidents and one unadopted constitution”:

    I will show how George Washington combined the two offices of President of the United States and President of the United States of America to create what is now known worldwide as the common democratic dictator. Like George Washington Barack Hussein Obama is both head of the government as, President of the United States and head of State, as President of the United States of America this makes him a dictator though he denies being a dictator and admits holding only one office as a President. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/01/obama-i-am-not-a-dictator-im-the-president/

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 describes how George Washington was elected President of the United States of America on April 6, 1789, when Congress counted the Electoral Votes and a majority of the votes cast for President were cast for George Washington. That Constitution is very clear all Washington had to do to become President of the United States of America was get a majority of the Electoral votes.

    The Constitution is silent as to what qualifications the persons shall have who are to occupy the offices of President of the United States, and President of the United States of America this means there are no qualifications for the offices of President of the United States of America and President of the United States. The furor that arose over President Obama’s birthplace and his birth certificate could have been easily settled by keeping separate the two offices each of the past forty-four presidents have occupied since George Washington took his oath: “I, George Washington, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”

    The misdirection away from the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Office of President caused by George Washington taking the oral oath of office of President of the United States has caused the greatest obstacle to a true and complete understanding of the Constitution of September 17, 1787. Although it is commonly believed that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 sets the qualifications for those two offices of President of the United States and President of the United States of America, that clause has had nothing to do with those two offices

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The person who fills the Office of President must meet the qualifications set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. As President of the May 25, 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Washington had to be fully aware of the requirement that the first person to occupy the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Office of President be “fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” would delay the adoption of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 until after July 4,1790, he acted on that knowledge and with the apparent consent of the Senate he took the oral oath of office of the President of the United States. When Washington took that oral oath, he came close to an adoption of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, but an oral oath or affirmation never rises to the certainty and authority of a subscribed oath or affirmation and as a member of the Constitutional Convention he knew the office of President of the United States was an office of employment and not an office having the capacity of ministerial discretion in the exercise of a governmental power. George Washington took the oral oath of the office of President of the United States at the inauguration of his second term to avoid disclosure of what he had done at the initiation of his first term. Taking the Article VI oath “to support this Constitution” would have exposed the constitutional conspiracy and would have adopted “this Constitution” instead of the Constitution of the United States.

    Unlike the office of President of the United States of America, the Constitution of September 17, 1787 does not prescribe a specific process by which a President of the United States is to be selected. However, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 makes provision for the filling of such offices:

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The office of President of the United States clearly falls into the category of “all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” Vacant Article II Office of Presidentwho the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” shall appoint, however, the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the Constitution of Misdirection, is written so that either the President of the United States of America who is vested with the executive power or the person who occupies the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Office of President may nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate appoint the President of the United States. When George Washington chose himself to be President of the United States, he effectively rendered the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Office of President forever vacant and a nullity.

    By its silence, the Senate consented to George Washington’s appointment of himself to the office of President of the United States. Had his combination of the two offices been noticed and his apparent government takeover become the subject of debate at the time, Washington had an urgent reason for his self appointment—his failure to become both President of the United States of America and President of the United States would delay the implementation of the Constitution of the United States for more than a year which he had taken an oral oath to “preserve, protect and defend.”

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s