The positive to neutralize the negative

A friend just sent this to me by email this evening.  I read the article in question yesterday and just shrugged and went to another article to read..... as I said today, I'm not dwelling on the negative any more and do not plan to spend more time addressing the negative, but the response that was posted was so simply well put that I had to share it.

OPPT or Co-opted? Look Before You Leap

by Zen Gardner

March 7th, 2013

 

http://www.zengardner.com/oppt-or-co-oped-look-before-you-leap/

 

Arend Lammertink on 03/08/2013 at 9:04 AM said:

 

Thanks for sharing your views. I must say that, at first, I didn’t like the idea of some trustees apparently making bold claims and decisions for me in something called a trust. However, I changed my mind.

 

I have done quite some research on the legal system, and wrote an article about the essential difference between Common Law and Roman-type civil law, which is the authority under which the legal system operates. The civil law system is organised top-down and thus you have by definition a ruler. The common law system is organised bottom-up and it derives its authority directly from We, The People:

 

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TheFascinatingHistoryOfCivilLawVersusDivineCommonLaw

 

Now, my research shows that under current international Roman type Civil Law, virtually ALL Kings or Kingdoms – governments or states in modern language – are operated under the authority c.q. sovereignty of the Pope as the mediator between We, The People and God. So, in order to claim the freedom of all people on the planet, you, most of all, have to circumvent the (ultimate) authority of the Pope, which is a mere mediator between us and God. And, ultimately, the supposed authority of the Pope is a self-appointed authority, which is based on a falsification, the Donation of Constantine.

 

The way I see it, the OPPT, at its very core, invalidated the authority of the Pope and, thus, by extension, of the whole Roman type Civil law system. It claims that we, as a people, have no one to answer to but ourselves and the creator, and are essentially bound to common law, which is exactly the jurisdiction under which, not only the United States, but also the (former) Dutch Batavian and French Republics have been founded, even though the latter two have been overthrown by the defeat of Napoleon. Interestingly, the legal entity “Batavian Republic” still exists. It has essentially been occupied by a foreign entity, the Kingdom of The Netherlands, which derives its authority from the “holy and undivided trinity”, a.k.a. “the Vatican” and/or “The Pope”.

 

So, IMHO, the OPPT is essentially a global declaration of independence and a bill of rights. And since the declarations by the above-mentioned republics were legally valid, I see no reason why this one would not be legally valid. Yes, these republics filed their declarations in a different way, basically by publishing it and/or noticing their previous ruler which would be some king, but that does not mean that the way the OPPT published their declaration is invalid.

 

Now, of course, no one asked for your permission when founding any of the above-mentioned republics. However, none of these take away anything from you, especially regarding your rights. All they do is declare you to be free and answerable only to the creator. What you do with those rights is totally up to you.

 

In other words, the whole thing is most of all an idea. And the idea is that all people are created equal and free.

 

And I believe this is going to work, if only because of what Vicor Hugo said, “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

 

Arend Lammertink on 03/08/2013 at 2:05 PM said:

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

 

“human rights should be protected by the rule of law”

 

Civil, Roman type law, that is.

 

“no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

 

to which a person belongs….

 

So, I BELONG to to a “country or territory”??

 

“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

 

rights GRANTED him by the constitution or by law??

 

Compare this with the Dutch declaration of human rights of 1795, as quoted in my article:

 

1. All Humans are born with equal Rights and these Natural Rights cannot be taken away from them [i.e., are inalienable].

 

We are BORN with equal, natural rights. These are not GRANTED by any kind of ruler, be it a constitution, a government or an international body.

 

THAT is what this (OPPT) is all about. The principle of BEing free instead of having been “granted” our freedom by someone/something that is by definition a ruler; a ruler, which has NO RIGHT to grant us anything which is already ours to begin with. Our BIRTHRIGHTS have been granted to us by our Creator, which indeed is one and the same idea on which the United States has been founded.

 

And, thus, it is indeed nothing new. All that happened is that this idea has been re-worded and re-claimed within a new document and under a new legal entity  which did not exist in the 1700′s.

Predatory Government

Lets begin at the end of the article, because for me, this is EXACTLY what I have been talking about.  But not just Americans.  Canadians, Australians, British, Germans, Israelis... every person living on this planet needs to stand up and take back their lives and their country.

What have we got to lose that we won’t lose anyway if we continue silent? The only way to change anything in America, is to once again be who we were born to be – Americans!

Predatory Government

Soldierhugs has recently invited new article writers into the fold here. The below article is from a very knowledgeable patriot and Veteran of our Military who comes from a long line of Military service Veterans in his family. I am proud the introduce one our new authors Ian MacLeod, and his first article post on Soldierhugs.

 Hugs, Aaron




When the Founding Fathers were wrestling with their ideals, their conscience´s and their own fears, cudgeling their imaginations and drawing on a wide, well-educated experience, they could not have imagined the world we live in now. They could, however, imagine fanatics and others who would want, and try, to take power for themselves, and therefore away from the people. They were none of them naïve idealists who did not understand the world, business, war, diplomacy, philosophy and politics, as well as other cultures. They brought all of this to the Continental Congress with them in the document they finally created, and it shows. They were clearly men of courage: having signed their names to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they signed their own death warrants if they lost, and they were taking on one of the most powerful empires on Earth. Nonetheless, while they could easily have made the Constitution ten times as long as it is and attempted to regulate a great deal more of business as well as personal behavior, they did not.


It was their belief that people should and could regulate themselves in their personal behavior as they chose so long as they did no harm by it to others. The group included Christians, but it had a preponderance of what was called “free thinkers.” They interpreted the Bible for themselves if they chose to live by it, and regardless, they lived their lives as they chose, including with reasonable consideration for those around them. They wrote the Constitution so that, first, others could do the same, and second, so that it remained a living document, notwithstanding the ossified opinions of Antonin Scalia and his ilk: it can evolve. They knew that times would change, and while good and evil do not change, how they are dealt with does, as do a great many things. Looking at what they did not do is as instructive as what they did do.


To them, the government was nothing sacred – it was a creation of human beings for the benefit of human beings, to be changed as necessary when it no longer adequately served the needs of the people. What was, and is, sacred are the concepts of equality, freedom, liberty – of human rights – that are enshrined within the Constitution. They were not so foolish as to believe that everyone had the same potential and abilities, and that is not what the words say, though some would have it so. They merely believed that everyone had the right to attempt to fulfill whatever potential they had without being stepped on by those who had achieved wealth or had gotten together in a cabal that held all the power, and had done it first. They were also creatures of their times, and did not include women, people of color or some others – however, they also did not specifically exclude them. Times have changed, as they knew would happen, and we – most of us, that is – now recognize that, within the limits set by body size, a woman can do anything a man can do save sire a child, just as a man can do anything a woman can save bear and nurse one. Down all the long ages we have been discounting a huge portion of our own potential with misogynistic ideas of male superiority, and finally, most of us have grown up enough to grow past such prejudices, which are now held by a group of intellectually anachronistic knuckle-draggers who want to drag us all back to a comfortable past where white skin and a penis – and all the wealth they can steal – confer mastery over everyone else, and again relegate most of the human race to servitude. The rest of us much prefer equal partners, or even our betters.


Read the entire article on Soldier Hugs HERE