but taken out of context.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
but taken out of context.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign, then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to the Sovereign, which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
but taken out of context.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers." That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened. That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign, then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to the Sovereign, which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
but taken out of context.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers." That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened. That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign, then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to the Sovereign, which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to that Government. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.