Sunday, August 17, 2008

Who's Minding the Store?

Well Brothers...I'm angry.

I'm angry because too many people, Brothers included, rationalize their actions. Everyone is 'doing the right thing' if you listen to them. We all have our justifications it seems. We all have our golf 'mulligan' our love 'mulligan' and our life handicap.

BS. You heard me. Hogwash. Whatever happened to 'personal responsibility?'

I'm really actually angry about it. I met a guy recently who told me that he earned $300,000 as a bookie. Apparently, he got his start kicking people's teeth in and beating people senseless with baseball bats. Now he's bragging about his earnings (he's probably about 25 years old) and he considers his previous actions 'justified.'

What an ass.

Wait. Let me say that again. 'What an ass.' 'What an ass.' 'What an ass.'

I guess I'm just tired of weakness. Because, in my opinion, people don't really have an excuse to 'do the wrong thing.' It's weakness...pure and simple. And if you're a Brother and you think it's okay to wrong people, or screw people over or steal from people then you need to really rethink being a Mason.

The Masonic Oath certainly bonds Brothers. We agree to look out for each other etc. Still, the Masonic Idealogy Bonds our faith in a higher regard. How can we strive for the Light if we revel in the Darkness? Truly, I ask you?

I know that people make mistakes. I have an inglorious past myself up until the age of 27. Still, I am in no way proud of those actions against the Light. Rather, I live every day making up for them in some fashion. I could have been a better person. I can be a better person!

We have too many damned excuses today Brothers! 'No one will care. It's not a big deal. He or she deserved it. They owe me.' What the hell!?

If any of us really intend to approach the Light then we need to get our crap together. And if someone we know is doing the wrong thing then the right thing is to let them know! Cowardice or inaction is a kind of action and acceptance all by itself.

Yes, I'm angry Brothers. We can all do better. And, as Masons, we must reach to the Light and do our best to be beacons of Light for all onlookers.

The world is ours to change...for the better.

3 comments:

2 BOWL CAIN said...

You may have noticed that the national flag of the United States always has a gold fringe when displayed in court or federal buildings, and you see this also in federally-funded schools and on the uniforms of US troops. Under the International Law of the Flags, a gold fringe indicates the jurisdiction of commercial law, also known as British Maritime Law, and, in the US, as the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. The gold fringe is not part of the American flag known as the Stars and Stripes, but it is a legal symbol indicating that the court, government building, school or soldier is operating under British Maritime Law and the Uniform Commercial Code; military and merchant law.

For example, if you appear in a court with a gold-fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended, and you are being tried under British Maritime (military/merchant) Law. If it seems strange that a court or building on dry land could be administered under Maritime or Admiralty Law, look at US Code, Title 18 B 7. It says that Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable in the following locations:

1) the high seas
2) any American ship
3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state. In other words, mainland America.

All this is founded on Roman law, which goes back to Babylon and Sumerian law, because the Illuminati have been playing this same game throughout the centuries wherever they have gone. The major politicians know that this is how things are and so do the top government administrators, judges, lawyers and insider 'journalists'.

Americans think that their government and legal system is pegged in some way to the Constitution, but it is not. The United States, like Britain and elsewhere, is ruled by commercial law to overcome the checks and balances of common law. It's another monumental fraud. The US court system does not operate under the American Constitution, but under corporate law. It is the law of contracts and you have to make a contract with the Corporation for that law to legally apply to you.

The scam has been set up so that when you register with the 'Federal Government' in any way, by accepting a Social Security Number, driver's license, or any of the other official federal documents, you are, unknowingly, contracting to become an asset-employee of the United States Corporation...Every word, or use of lower/upper case, is making a legal statement. Have you noticed that when you receive correspondence relating to government, law and anything to do with finance, including taxation, your name is always spelt in all upper case, as in BILL JONES?

But your upper case name is not you. It is a corporation/trust set up by the 'government' Corporation through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born a corporation/trust is created using his or her name in all upper case. So BILL JONES is what they call a 'straw man', a corporate, not human, entity. They do it this way because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not to living, breathing, flesh and blood, sovereign, free men and women spelt in upper and lower case, or all lower case, as with Bill Jones, or bill jones. The living, breathing sovereign man and woman is subject to common law, not eh commercial law introduced by governments through legislation.

Using commercial law makes it much easier to install an 'elected' dictatorship. Unlike common law, you are not subject to precedents built up over centuries. You simply have to get a majority to vote for a bill in Parliament of Congress, or have the US President sign a document, and the law is imposed. What you also have to do - clearly not difficult - is to keep from the people the knowledge that their name in all upper case is not them. They will then pay you taxes and be subject to your jurisdiction and control in all areas of their lives, by unknowingly standing surety for the corporation - 'BILL JONES' - that they don't even know exists.

All court documents have the person's name in all upper case because under the law of contracts the living, breathing being cannot be tried under corporate law, only a corporate entity can. It is so crazy that Americans pay personal income tax to the government (corporation) via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when the law to introduce personal income tax was never passed. Ask anyone from the US government or IRS to produce the law that says Americans must pay income tax on their wages and they will not be able to do it. Many have tried and the law has never been revealed because it doesn't exist...A $50,000 reward was offered by the We The People organization to anyone who could produce the law and IRS agent, Sherry Jackson, thought it would be easy money. She then found out that there was no law and resigned to become a campaigner against this fantastic hoax...

...Yet, when people don't pay taxes, which they do not legally have to pay, the IRS takes their property, puts them in jail, and ever more often sends in the armed goons in the black masks. It's fascism, nothing less...If anyone thinks that without personal income tax there would be no education and other public services - it's not true. They are paid for by state and property taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, fuel tax, booze tax and all the other endless taxation that we pay besides income tax. In fact, personal income tax in the US is roughly the same as the money paid by government to the banks in interest on loans.

I do not know who even owns the store anymore?

2 BOWL CAIN said...

the 13th amendment used to mean something to the store owners, that is why it was removed..

In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed.

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this Thirteenth Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:

"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:

Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812; New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812;

Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.)

Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the Thirteenth Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this Thirteenth Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.

Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the Thirteenth Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the Thirteenth Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this Thirteenth Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something.

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this Thirteenth Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments from their... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an awful lot of evidence to be explained.

THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS

In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:
"In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73(or 74).

It's not yet clear whether the Thirteenth Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the Thirteenth Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.

However, because the notes authors reported no further references to the Thirteenth Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day. In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the Thirteenth Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this Thirteenth Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the requisite thirteen, had ratified.)

However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860)

Once again the Thirteenth Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. On March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.

Prior to Lincoln's inauguration, on March 2, 1861, the next to the last day of Buchanan's administration, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Buchanan. That resolve to amend read:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.

In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was presented to the States on February 1, 1865 for ratification. On April 9, 1865 the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated, dying on April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited "titles of nobility" and "honors".

SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the Thirteenth "titles of nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this Thirteenth Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the Thirteenth Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only they can hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit, having placed the lawyers of the bar in control of all three branches of government.

The significance of this missing Thirteenth Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

At the very least, this missing Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.

THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY .... Heed warnings of Founding Fathers

In his farewell address, George Washington warned of "... change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia's. Three of his suggestions were "freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases" and "no suspensions of the habeas corpus."

No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed our legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in our courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to "political crimes" where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800's. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People "un-Constitutional", waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations.

The Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states ("... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query 17, p. 161, 1784:

"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

Freestyle said...

That's some excellent food for thought there 2 Bowl. I'm familiar with much of the conspiratorial speculation as it were.

Most recently, in the popular eye, the internet sensation Zeitgeist stirred up considerable controversy (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). Aimed at both Church and State, Zeitgeist at least got a lot of people thinking.

There is one clear danger, however, when looking into possible conspiracies. The most certain of these is that of confusing human nature with deliberate intent.

While I am not denying that there might be some actual substance to some cabals and conspiracies within the history of the American government (doesn't Nixon's administration count?), I think that, more often than not, human weaknesses such as greed slowly and inexorably erode the morals of the country and the mores of the Constitution. These effects may be brought about by singular men eager for personal power.

I argue that we must stand together as Brothers with all our eyes focused on the Light of a Greater and Majestic Ideal that transcends our individual needs for the betterment of all.

The Founding Fathers worked to achieve this. It can be argued that much has changed since that time. Still, times have change.

The one constant in all of it is human nature. If it was the nature of man to lift up his brother before himself then we wouldnt even need a Constitution. But our nature is wild, often cruel and still far more savage than we would like to admit.

The battle is fought always in the hearts and the minds. This is the power the Church has that vexes the auspices of the State so.

Certainly we need good men. But even moreso, we need a Good Idea...something that we can put faith in.


Freemason &#151 Freemason Information
© WebRing Inc.
Freemason — Freemason Information
Prev | Ring Hub | Join | Rate| Next

Who Comes Here?
HOME - ABOUT - STORE - SUBSCRIBE - CONTACT
Copyright Ancient And Illustrious Order of the Three Ruffians - 3Ruffians.com. All Rights Reserved.