Date:   5/31/2007 12:09:25 AM ( 18 y ago)
Hits:   1,935
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=883664

just a bit of good-natured quibbling. In America, many people have been taught to think of themselves as being re presented by their elected officials. In one sense, I suspect that the further back in time one goes towards 1776, the more validity and legitimacy there was in this practice... as long as we remember that, the Native Americans of that era were generally as mis-re presented then as modern day Americans are now increasingly coming to experience. From early on the general idea seemed to be, even if D.C. was a big enough place, with enough hotels and hitching posts to host some 6 to 7 million (and growing by leaps and bound) newly immigrated American people, plus or minus the already existing nation of natives, can you imagine all the noise and squabbling and merry making and fist fights generated from such a gathered mass of humanity? By necessity it was decided early on to have a limited number of special people re present the many people.... probably not all that bad of a concept so long as the special people maintained truth, honor and integrity as the principles guiding their behavior and activity on behalf of the people.

In another way, especially in the present where we are so far removed from that founding era, it almost seems like people are silently throwing their hands up in the air, exasperated in admitting that they are not capable or worthy of presenting themselves, therefore they do the next best thing; they vote & pay taxes so that somebody else can go to D. C. and re present them to their heart's content. It's likely that that much has been lost from the original in the intervening 230-plus years of it's translation. Some people, especially the older, may have lost sight of the original concept, others, especialy the younger, may have never been taught the original fundamentals in the first place. Anyway you slice it, it seems people no longer appreciate that re presentatives are signing their name (the people's name) on all kinds of acts.... behavior....activity... contracting.... treaties... legislation...domestically, abroad and even globally. (like the U.N. Charter).

Don't hold me to this, but I've gained the distinct impression that from the perspective of the kinds of personalities that have increasingly come to comprise the people's re presentatives down through the years, these re presentatives have had it so easy and so good for so long that they have actually come to believe their own press, such as, they believe that when they sign their name to something, anything, that such behavior on their part is one and the same with the people, as though the people were consenting themselve's first hand... a rather slippery slope, but I believe this is the jist of how this system of fraud has come to operate in the present.

Also, a somewhat recent trend.... innovation of politics, is the idea of tacit consent that is often coupled with the notion of implied contracts. Basically, the way this works is, 1) systematically withhold vital information from the general populous then 2) if / when the people remain silent on any issue for which they don't know any better because vital information has been kept from them, the politicians/judges/bankers and their friends can then proceed to accepting this as a person's (or the people's) consent, albeit tacitly given. The UCC - Uniform Commercial Code, also plays a big part in this in that over the recent decades, the UCC has come to supplant what once was Common Law. Go into most courtrooms today where civil cases are being tried and you will discover that virtually every conceivable civil case has been boiled down to a matter of Commercial Contracts and Tortes IE> somebody (one person) alleges to have been damaged by somebody else (a second person) and the only purpose the courts serves is to help referee during the haggling over price / settlement / $$$ . Back to the implied consent thing, there is actually a fairly well known legal precedent based upon the same basic idea, it has a very impressive Latin translation that law folks just love to throw around, that basically means, one who is silent on an issue, even if/when they are silent because they otherwise don't know any better, silences is an admission of agreement to whatever it is the other side (lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers and their friends, et al, claim. I refer back to the U.N. Charter from 1945... wherein a whole buncha implied consenting was said to have occured. It may be worth noting that the Holy See chose to remain " a permanent observer state and therefore not a full signatory to the Charter". What I'd like to know is, by who's consent does one suppose a Holy See in the first place (supposedly a church, or moreso THE church) is even in a position to assume itself a relevant state party eligible to be signatory, or not, to such a Charter?
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=883664