Subject: [anti-govt] screw the Declaration of Independence also Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:31:02 -0500 From: Gene Karl Reply-To: anti-govt@egroups.com Subject: [theseries] Re: [anti-govt] Hate to say this Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:28:56 -0500 From: Big Al You want another fraud by deceit using words? It is the Declaration of Independence. That's right, it to is a fraud with artifice of words. I realized what Spooner was talking about after reading it over and over. the words they used has not been caught even after all these years. The words are used like Momtgomery was talking about in all the old Bill of Rights of the Crown in the 1600 and in the North Carolina Bill of Rights. Read the Declaration over and over and try to find the deceit. So you can put all three in the dung heap. They, lawyers all, knew exactly how to write so the King's interests would be protected. Yea, screw the Declaration of Independence also. Big Al Subject: Artifice--Food for thought-true or false Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:23:03 -0500 From: Big Al The artifice of words. Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare. That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." This last part of the Declaration is the key to the whole paper. First notice that People is capitalized meaning only certain People out of the general class of people. The same as in the Preamble. No, the cap P is not a misprint, for they knew exactly what they were doing. It does not start a sentence but is well within the sentence thereby to set off common people from a distinct class the capped it. Ask any English major professor if I am right. Now for the other fraud the words are bolded. Now the word OUGHT is a mere word of no meaningful command. You ought to go to the store does not compel you to go to the store. He ought not do that means that he can and you have not commanded him to not do so. The jailer says you ought to be free does not free you. So in the Declaration the phrase "OUGHT to be free and independent" is not a command to be so. The same as OUGHT to be totally dissolved means that it is not, merely ought to be. This is the key to keeping the people under subjection of the crown by the lawyers that wrote this paper. The fact that a semicolon separates the first phrase "ought to be Free and Independent States; does not mean they are free, therefore, if not free why does it state following it, "that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown."? It makes it appear they are free when they are not and the semicolon separate two independent thoughts The same in the second part, " and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; This is not a command or carry any force to be dissolved only that they OUGHT to be, therefore the next part is a fraud because if not dissolved or free and independent how can they be, " and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, * * *". They are only as free and independent as the crown wanted them to be, just like chevy division of GM is free to build, advertise and free to sell in competition with the other divisions of GM and also sell against Ford (France) or Chrysler (Germany), but GM headquarters (The Crown) still controls in the background. Then to top it off the 1787 constitution was drafted so as to allow all these states to be bound to contribute to the debts past, that was owed the Crown and any future debts. Now I know why Spooner said the Declaration of Independence was a fraud also. ======================================================= Subject: [theseries] Re: Artifice--Food for thought-true or false Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:51:54 -0800 From: "David Quinn" Good catch Al on People and ought, especially People. Ought occurs twice in the phrase "is and ought to be" which is not weaker than "is", note the conjunction "and" rather than say "or". big al wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/theseries/?start=9251 > The artifice of words. > Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence > > "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in > General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world > for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the > authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and > declare. > > That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and > Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the > British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the > State of Great Britain is and > ought to be totally dissolved; Looks to me like the United Colonies: are "Free and Independent States", and States is capitalized so that looks like sovereign to me. The comma can be ignored, or in modern usage a matching comma would follow "ought to be". are Absolved from Allegiance to the Crown (City of London) sever all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain. Note the phrase "are and ought to be" and "is and ought to be". Included is the word "is" (are) and we don't need to get Clintonian about the meaning of it. It means IS. The "ought to be" just says that this is how things should be; the action is not arbitrary. But there's no doubt that the People, not the common folk, are taking this action. After all, they want to run the United States nee Colonies now that they are Free and Independent. That's my reading of it anyway. David Q. ====================================================== Subject: [theseries] Re: Artifice--Food for thought-true or false Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 02:57:51 -0500 From: Big Al Yes and here is what my paralegal friend had to say. What strikes me is the "reversed order" of the all important phrase " ......is and of right ought to be"... that,,,,my friend is pure doublespeak. To me.....the second part" ......ought to be " cancels the first. The proper and meaningful way this should have been stated is as follows >>>>>> " all political connection between them and Great Brttain ought to be and {therefore} "is"........totally disolved"! Now.....those good ol boys { all Lawyers } who drafted this document were real sharp critters and NO WAY, did they REVERSE this verbage by ACCIDENT. They put it right out in front of the sheeple,, knowing full well, we would never catch on ! paul ============================================================== Subject: [theseries] Re: Artifice--Food for thought-true or false Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:43:38 -0800 From: ***** Gentlemen, Perhaps what you are discussing has some validity to it, and perhaps not. I'm certainly no English expert, nor law expert, but to me this reads rather simple. "Such and such 'is' AND 'by right' ought to be.... meaning, that 'by right' or 'to be right' or 'to make right' that that is the way it should be... me thinks. Cliff =============================================================== Subject: [theseries] Re: Artifice--Food for thought-true or false Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 03:44:09 -0500 From: Gene Karl That may all be true, but I'm not giving up my guns on the phrase that came from Richard Henry Lee originally either, that phrase "Free and Independent States". I believe that Richard Henry Lee sold us out with that phrase too. I've established in my mind that a state government is a government of the Crown. Does anyone know of any other states in the whole world other than those in the united States of America? http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/republic.txt So while I agree with alot what you gentlemen are saying, I'm still not falling for the "Free and Independent States" trap either. Sometimes we have to let things like this sink in awhile. sincerely, gene karl