Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America" by Chef JeM Blog Entry

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America" by Chef JeM Blog entry
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Blog: Son of Truth of Self

by Chef JeM
Back to blog!
Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America"
Add Blog To Favorites!
Without a vision the people parish.
Add This Entry To

Favorites!
Date: 8/16/2016 10:53:02 PM ( 52 d ) ... viewed 254 times
Comments (25 of 53):
If you can lay your hands on volume one of "United States Code" you should find a page after the
"Table of Titles and Chapters" that says: "The Organic Laws of The United States of America". In my
2006 edition that page is XLIII. The four Organic Laws follow in this order:
"The Declaration of Independence-1776",
the "Articles of Confederation-1777",
the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government",
the "Constitution of The United States" of America-1787"
(Also published online.[5])
The publishing of all four Organic Laws at the beginning of the "United States Code" is the perfect
place indicating that the foundation for all federal "law" comes from the entire set of these four
Organic Laws. Lawful federal "law" can not come about any other way.
I'm inspired to start this post after responding to a request from a colleague who wants to
understand the Organic Laws "and how they pertain". These last three words are what motivates me
to sharing this information and especially my understanding. My email response was sent at "20:20"!
"20/20" is considered perfect vision. There are many situations in life were perfect vision is required.
Entrance into the United Staes Air Force used to require perfect vision. It is my belief that every
American individual who lives in any of the several states in The United States of America deserves
to have "perfect vision" in regards to their Rights as a "free inhabitant". I count is as most
unfortunate that a number of conditioning factors (including government schools) have made it
virtually impossible for the American people to have the particular "perfect vision" that I am referring
here. I wish to support American individuals in rebuilding their vision of America.
I sent my first lesson: "Organic Laws: Lesson One" to an activist within the "right to choose"
movement concerning the apparent mandatory vaccination (or should that read vacci-nation?) that
seems to have gone "viral" (at least cross-country) and well beyond any kind of "pandemic"
proportions! (I imagine that the vaccine manufacturers got inspired by the multiplication capacity of
certain viruses and applied that to their marketing strategy.)
***
Nest Day - the 17th Also started teaching about "income" based on the true limitations of the Organic Laws (that is the
focus of the advanced course under Professor Rivera). Just sent off a follow-up correspondence as
follows:
Hi _____!
Just found this (attached PDF) brochure via a link at my blog:
http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1976100
Scroll down to the second section starting at:
"September 9, 2012 - One of the most misunderstood things about government is the true power of
taxation that was delegated to it in the Constitution."
and that I reverified the link there at:
Re: True Communion

r1defo 5 mon
Re: "JFK Assassina
Chef 13 mon
Re: Got Private Pr
trapp 18 mon
Re: The Organic La
pseud 19 mon
Re: Your Emotions
chark 22 mon
Re: JFK Assassinat
#8638 22 mon
Re: What is Healin
missj 25 mon
Re: Got "Common La
kermi 30 mon
Re: Is It Possible
Mixol 3 y
Re: Up The Creek?
Mixol 3 y
Re: The Truth of S
Mixol 3 y
Re: Some Alternati
karlo 3 y
Re: Proper Names W
Mixol 3 y
Re: School Shootin
kermi 3 y
Re: Sheriffs Prote
kermi 3 y
Re: Proper Names W
Sylve 4 y
Re: Conception Day
mu-sh 4 y
Re: God Is The "I
vicha 4 y
Re: Mandatory Blac
ritch 5 y
Re: Calendars and
YOURE 6 y
Re: The Need For A
pookz 6 y
Share Market
calloptionpu 6 y
Re: "Why (JFK) Die
Inner 7 y
Re: Identifying My
YOURE 7 y
Re: Identifying My
#2853 7 y
All Comments (53)
Blog Entries (12 of

632):
Teaching "The Organic
Laws o 52 d
August Full Moon + A
Symbol 52 d
How Can We Close The
Door To 55 d
A Mind of Your Own 56
d
The States of America,

Page 1 of 12
Also:
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/NutshellLargePamphlet.pdf
The brochure is actually two pages that are layed out horizontally with a fold so that these can be
printed double-sided on a single sheet of paper and folded in half. This is the "nutshell"!
Hope you can "look it up" before the end of the year.
Cheers!
***
20th Following is an expanded version of the "nutshell" (after seeing it's duplication here:
https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/title-26-is-not-the-internal-revenue-code/)
Plain Facts About The Income Tax That The Government, Your Tax Attorney, Your Favorite Pundit
And Many Others Don't Want You To Know
Please read the following material carefully, including the notes at the end, and then share it widely.
Links to documentation of every assertion and quote can be found in the more complete
presentation at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm. All emphases are added.
HERE ARE SOME PLAIN FACTS about the nature of the income tax. Anything you've ever heard or
had suggested to you about the tax which does not conform to each and every one of these facts is
simply not true, no matter how or by whom it was said or suggested to you.
What you're going to see proven in the compilation below is that:
1. The income tax is an excise;
2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege;
3. The preceding facts about the income tax cannot change, because a tax on UN-privileged
activities (or the gains therefrom) is a capitation or other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits
capitations and other direct taxes (other than by apportionment); and
4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct taxes has never changed, even by
action of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Then we'll follow with some discussion of what these facts mean and why this is all very important to
you and your kids. Here we go:
1. The tax is an excise:
"[The] tax upon gains, profits, and income [is] an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the
meaning of the constitution, and [] its imposition [is] not, therefore, unconstitutional."
United States Supreme Court, Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (as summarized in Pollock v.
Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601, (1895))
"[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise..."
A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement of the gains, profits, or income of
_____ _____, of the _____ of _____, in the county of _____, and State of _____, whether derived
from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade,
employment, or vocation, or from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to the 31st
day of December, 1862, both days inclusive, and subject to an income tax under the excise laws of
the United States."
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
"The 57 d
Into the Collective Cup of
H 58 d
Herd Immunity True &
False 59 d
Air Pollution, West Nile
Vir 61 d
Ruling - Govt. Agencies
& Of 63 d
Monsanto Text-book
Case of I 66 d
Re-writting History 70 d
The Woodstock Festival
71 d
All Entries (632)
Blogs by Chef JeM

(10):
Chef Jemichel 51 h (346)
Raw Milk: The Whole
Truth 6 mon (292)
Cheeta: Culturally
Healing Ec 49 d (42)
The Whey, The Truth and
The L 3 y (27)
The Enchanted Garden
Onion 33 d (26)
Psyche & Health 3 mon
(25)
The U-n-I-Verse 8 mon
(24)
Original Truth of Self 7 y
(19)
Evolving Nutritional
Awarenes 6 mon (16)
The Creme de la Creme
by Ch 5 d (15)
Similar Blogs (10 of

185):
Dreaming a New Real
by lfire 15 h
Plant Your Dream! by
YourEnchantedGardener
20 h
ABCs of Conscious E
by luckman 23 d
Uncovering The Star
by Ren 59 d
Brain Boot Camp or
by kerminator 85 d
Ya think?? by
kerminator 85 d
just this - one wit by
beherenow 4 mon
Water Fast 30+ Days by
secret-anamoly 5 mon
Fasting for Health by
Free2015 14 mon
11 Day Water Fast by
Daisylover 16 mon
All Blogs (1,019)
Back to blog!
The affirmation on the first income tax return form.
Page 2 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939... ...has its ultimate origin in
164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest,
June 16, 1938."
Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code
"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is
measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax;
it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress
in 1943
2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege:
"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,, 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
The terms excise tax and 'privilege tax are synonymous and the two are often used
interchangeably.
American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937)
"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the
common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A
particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not
generally possessed by others.
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
The 'Government' is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual
possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself
the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a
contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial
personal use of the property may be taxed...
United States Supreme Court, United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)
3. These facts about the tax cannot change, because a tax on UN-privileged activities (or the gains
therefrom) is a capitation or other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits capitations and other
direct taxes (other than by apportionment):
"[A tax laid] according to what is supposed to be [an unprivileged payer's] fortune, by an assessment
which varies from year to year [is a capitation]."
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. II, Art. IV
(1776)
"Art. I. Sect. 9. "no capitation tax shall be laid, unless &c"
Mr Read moved to insert after "capitation" the words. "or other direct tax" He was afraid that some
liberty might otherwise be taken to saddle the States with a readjustment by this rule, of past
Requisitions of Congs - and that his amendment by giving another cast to the meaning would take
away the pretext. Mr Williamson 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to, On motion of Col: Mason
"or enumeration" inserted after, as explanatory of "Census" (Con. & S. C. only. no.)"
James Madison, Notes of the Constitutional Convention
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration
herein before directed to be taken."
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
"CAPITATION, A poll tax; an imposition which is yearly laid on each person according to his estate
Page 3 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
and ability."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1856). (The official law dictionary of Congress when the income
tax was enacted.)
"'[B]y direct taxes in the constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of
the people;...' [T]he framers of the [Constitution] had [Adam Smith's definition of 'capitation'] in view
at the time, and ... by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from the falling immediately on the
revenue;...'"
United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
"Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights;
United States Supreme Court, Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right It has been well
said that the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all
other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the
strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in
what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred
property. Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, c. 10.
United States Supreme Court, Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)
"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of
each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is
that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other
forms of property
United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot
be taxed as privilege.
Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)
4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct taxes has never changed, even by
action of the Sixteenth Amendment:
"[The Sixteenth] amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the
general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise
or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which
produces income."
Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress
in 1943
"The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does
not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being
considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again
to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."
Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)
(The Pollock court had reasoned that even though otherwise proper subjects of an excise tax, a tax
on privilege-based dividends and rent was functionally a tax on the personal property from which the
gains were derived-- the stock and real estate-- and therefore was really a direct tax. The Sixteenth
Amendment says that the "source" can no longer be considered in this way. If something is "income"
in the sense meant in the income tax-- that is, a gain from a privilege-based, and thus excisable
activity-- it can be taxed as such without regard to the source from which it is derived.)
"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by
the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect,"
rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."
Page 4 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth
Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of
Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the
Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment"
Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in
his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income
Tax Laws'
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put
out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or
excepted subjects..."
U.S. Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define
and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly
regarded as [unapportioned-excise taxable] income."
U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)
"[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for
whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1240 U. S. 17-18 (1916)"
U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, , 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
5. So, it really doesn't matter at all what the tax is called (whether "excise" or not). Nor does it matter
what the State wants you to believe about it. The tax CAN only be Constitutionally-applied as an
excise-- meaning to privileged activities, measured by the gains they produce. Were it to be applied
to UN-privileged activities it would be a capitation or other direct tax and require apportionment.
In happy fact, the tax IS confined to privileged activities, as written-- scrupulously so. It's just that it is
written by geniuses of legal deception, and defended by scoundrels who take full advantage of its
deceptive design.
YOU'VE BEEN FOOLED, PEOPLE (and man, has it cost you in wealth and liberty and security)!
The income tax is what it always has been, both before and after the Sixteenth Amendment: a tax
on federally-granted privilege. It is not a tax on money, or making or receiving money, or anything
but profitably exercising a federally-granted privilege.
That the tax has been effectively applied to non-privileged things (like your earnings) is a
consequence of a clever statutory design by which common, actually-untaxable gains can be made
to appear to be of the privileged, taxable variety (and the willingness of an always-revenue-hungry
state to exploit your ignorance of that design and how it works).
You have even been made to legally (if unknowingly and unintentionally) agree that your actually
unprivileged, untaxable gains are of the taxable sort.
Do you remember in 'The Incredibles' how the insurance company where Mr. Incredible was working
had things carefully set up so everyone who dealt with the company was thoroughly exploited by its
convoluted procedures and fine print? That's how the tax laws are set up.
But when you learn what the exploiters hope you won't, everything changes.
Tens of thousands of your neighbors have learned. They've been getting all their money back for
many years now.
The government hates this and strives mightily with all manner of corrupt practices from the bowels
of its deep and dark armory to keep you from learning the liberating truth and cutting through the bs,
too. Part of this effort has involved a lot of shooting, smearing, demonizing, and marginalizing the
Page 5 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
messenger and message, including by way of a handful of judicial proceedings deploying evasions
calculated to give the appearance of opposition while actually constituting admissions, such as
those discussed here and here.
There are others who would rather you didn't know the truth, also. Pundits who make a living
complaining about the size of the government; tax attorneys; CPAs; "tax reform" advocates; and
even many folks who present themselves as "tax honesty crusaders" don't want you to know.
Knowing the truth about the tax, you will no longer buy what they're selling, just as you will no longer
lose up to half your hard-earned wealth to a dangerously over-fed State.
Go to http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm now and get the whole story. Or turn out your
pockets and go back into your coma... copper-top. You and your kids will end up eaten alive by
Leviathan (or, more accurately, spoon-fed in ever-more pathetic and contemptible bits and pieces to
its clients), and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
NOTES: Any construction of any aspect of the tax which would produce a result inconsistent with
the above facts is a manifest misconstruction. For instance, any construction of the nature of what is
taxed, or the meaning or effect of "includes", or of "privileged", which brings all economic activity or
its products into the class of taxable events or taxed objects is self-evidently incorrect.
This is so, however cleverly the misconstruction may be defended. Any construction with the effect
of imposing or justifying an unapportioned capitation or other direct tax is manifestly unconstitutional,
even if teasing or arguing out just where the mistakes are being made gives you a headache or is
beyond your abilities altogether. You don't need to be able to argue, understand or defend the
relevant physics or the geometry to be able to confidently say that the Earth is not flat.
***
The same principle discussed above applies to "tax honesty" arguments that the tax only falls on
corporations, or foreigners, or citizens, or residents, or the use or receipt of Federal Reserve notes,
or is interlinked with the UCC, or (to put it succinctly) any construction or argument that the tax is
anything other than what it is revealed to be in 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About
Taxation In America'. Such notions are just as incompatible with one or more of the facts shown
above as is the myth that the tax falls on all economic activity, and thus just as self-evidently
incorrect.
***
Some unscrupulous beneficiaries/defenders of the misapplication of the tax have argued that certain
of the Supreme Court rulings cited and excerpted above, such as Butcher's Union v. Crescent City
are not actually tax-specific cases. This is pure evasion masquerading as criticism.
Butcher's Union is not cited as evidence that the Supreme Court has specifically said that common
occupations are not taxable other than by apportionment. The case doesn't say this, directly.
Indeed, it is often difficult or impossible to find court rulings which declare the obvious or
uncontroversial directly. This is no surprise; after all, what would be the occasion for such a
declaration? Has any court ever found itself needing to hold that the Sun rises in the East (so to
speak)?
But Butcher's Union DOES acknowledge that common occupations are a matter of right. That fact
(which we don't really need any court to tell us, but why not use it when it is there?) conjoins with
Knowlton v. Moore's observation that a tax on the enjoyment of a right is a direct tax, thus requiring
apportionment as specified in Article 1, Sec. 9, and with all the Supreme Court rulings declaring that
apportionment requirement to continue, even after the Sixteenth Amendment. Taken all together,
these are a body of judicial acknowledgement that under the US Constitution a federal tax on
common economic activities engaged in by right (or the product thereof) can only be laid per the
apportionment rule.
P. S. Do you think taking care of the misapplication of the tax doesn't matter? Why It Matters.
P. P. S. By the way, the systematic exploitation of the income tax's confusing design to apply it to
unprivileged activities only began in the 1940s. Do you want to see what happened when it did?
Click here.
Page 6 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
P. P. P. S. This is a very important article with powerful truth-spreading potential. PLEASE share it
widely, especially with folks outside the CtC community and especially with those in the media and
the legal profession. Copy the whole thing, from the title through these words, and paste it into your
emails to others. If you are only able to share a link, it is
http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1.
***
August 23, 2016 This "Teaching" needs to extend to the presidential candidates.[1]
***
Also - Continuing with the vigilance (in the following comment) regarding our original "Organic"
status: "free inhabitant" regarding the single term "habitants" as it was used in : "The Second
Summit British Government Gratitude Explained" by Judge Anna von Reitz and that was posted
on August 22, 2016 by David Robinson[3]
My comment posted on August 23, 2016:
Thanks for the link![4]
This is a most excellent presentation - except for one thing:
"... - there were two populations left on this continent at the end of the Revolutionary War: 'free,
sovereign, and independent people' and 'inhabitants' --- British subjects left here to provide
governmental services."
I'd like to feel free to quote the entire presentation however I'm concerned that the use of the term
"inhabitants" at least partly clouds a most essential understanding of the phrase: "free inhabitants"
as per Articles of Confederation at Article IV. I invite any light that could possibly shed no this.[2]
In Gratitude,
Chef Jemichel
***
August 26th The teaching also needs to extend to the candidates for the office of Representative to the United
States House of Representatives.[6]
***
31st I've made a number of comments over the years about the problem with government schools and
especially in regards to fully disclosing the foundation of the people's sovereignty, both collectively
and as individuals, over all government. The following article explains this problem as it is now
codified in the United States legal system.
How Did We Get A Federal School Curriculum?
By Phyllis Schlafly
2-14-2002
Behind frequent protestations by public officials about local control of the schools, a federal
curriculum has been quietly imposed by law. All the pieces are now in place for this major goal of the
Clinton administration.
Elementary and secondary school education used to be organized around subjects such as reading,
math, history, geography, language and science. While smatterings of those subjects are still taught,
the focus has been shifted from academic subject matter to teaching attitudes, beliefs, values,
themes, behaviors and job skills.
This is indoctrination, not education. Left-wing professors write the textbooks and the teachers
unions control the public schools, so the ideology is what those groups deem politically correct.
And it's all hiding behind that good conservative word "standards." Who could possibly be against
standards?
Page 7 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Two of the three 1994 Bill Clinton laws, Goals 2000, which defines the goals, and School-to-Work,
which prescribes the shift from academics to job skills, were touted as "voluntary." The third 1994
law, the appropriations reauthorization (known to many as H.R. 6), tied the knot, warning that
schools would not get any federal money unless they conform to the other two laws.
In a remarkable inclusion of special-interest legislation, the third law named and funded a private
organization, the Center for Civic Education (CCE), to develop the national standards for teaching
civics and government. This cozy relationship was reconfirmed in the 2002 education law called
Leave No Child Behind and means that CCE is empowered, with the force of federal law and a
stream of taxpayers' money, to decide what is taught in our nation's schools about civics and
government.
CCE produced a 180-page volume called "National Standards for Civics and Government,"[8] plus
textbooks, teacher's guides and other materials for elementary, middle and high school levels. This
great quantity of words is short on facts but long on inculcating attitudes.
CCE's textbook called "We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution" admits a peculiar aversion
to facts: "The primary purpose of this text is not to fill your head with a lot of facts about American
history and geography. Knowledge of the facts is important but only insofar as it deepens your
understanding of the American Constitutional system and its development."
"Deepens your understanding," that is, of a prescribed worldview without cluttering your mind with
hard facts about American history and what's actually in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the fact
that the U.S. Constitution contains a Second Amendment doesn't exist in the book called
"Standards."
This is curious because, while the federal law was vague about the content of the standards CCE
was empowered to write, the law was very specific in demanding instruction on the Bill of Rights.
Many pages of "Standards" are devoted to the Bill of Rights but, funny thing, the Second
Amendment is completely censored out.
The 180 pages of "Standards," of course, contain much that is informative, but the information is
peripheral to the selling of a political agenda designed to change the student rather than educate
him. The book admits that "Standards" is trying to teach "certain dispositions or traits of character."
One major theme is a put-down of allegiance to national sovereignty. Professor Allen Quist of
Bethany Lutheran College made a word count and discovered that the book contains only eight
references to national sovereignty, but 17 references to the environment, 42 references to diversity,
and 42 to multiculturalism.
When "Standards" listed the seven "fundamental values" of the United States, national sovereignty
didn't make the cut, but diversity did.
Six of the eight mentions of national sovereignty use the same curious wording: "The world is
divided into nation-states that claim sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over
everyone within it."
Do we only "claim" national sovereignty, or is it a historical fact that we won our national sovereignty
in a War of Independence and we jolly well need it to protect ourselves against foreign aggressors.
The words "divided into" imply that maybe it would be better if we were not "divided" into countries,
phrasing that is a favorite of those who advocate global government.
CCE's "Standards" puts two government purposes on equivalent levels: "the protection of the rights
of individuals and the promotion of the common good." The words "common good" are repeated
over and over again in this book, but they are not in our Constitution.
"The common good" can mean whatever a totalitarian government wants it to mean. Our Founders
never would have ranked "common good" as an equal value with our individual rights.
The last page of "Standards" gives its final advice to the students: Citizens have "the ability to
reaffirm or change fundamental constitutional values." Is that what a federal curriculum is all about -changing our constitutional values?
2002 Copley News Service townhall.com[7]
Page 8 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
"Due Diligence" (as indicated in Footnote 8) - Re: the "Standards":

Quoting the PDF of 9-12 Standards[9]
"The constitutional values and principles held by Americans provide the foundation for their attitudes
regarding the proper ends and means of political life. They have shaped American political
institutions and practices.
In addition to experience, several intellectual traditions have influenced the development of
American constitutional democracy. Among the most important of these were the ideas of classical
liberalism with its emphasis on individual rights and classical republicanism. Throughout most of our
history, the ideas associated with liberalism have been dominant. These ideas emerged in the
seventeenth century and were further developed during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The
view that the individual, possessing certain inalienable rights, is the basic unit of society is the
fundamental element of classical liberal thought. Classical liberalism includes the ideas that
governments are created by the people to protect their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property
and derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The Declaration of Independence is a
succinct statement of the central ideas of classical liberalism."
If I were teaching American Civics and Government I would be asking a lot of questions of my
students. Just in the above quoted paragraphs I'd start with questions re: "American constitutional
democracy". I.e. Where in the four Organic Laws can you find the term "democracy"?
Re: "inalienable rights" Interesting to me that I've recently posted on this phrase how it is a compromise of the phrase
"unalienable Rights" as it is written in the Declaration of Independence". The two phrases have
different meanings. The later one is the superior one. The distinction of terms is pronounced when
reading "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property" when in the Declaration of Independence we
read:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that 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."
What's really curious to me is that Civic Ed.org includes "unalienable rights" as a term in their
"Terms to Know"[10] yet claims that inalienable is the superior term. I'm sticking with what the
Declaration of Independence actually says!
Also Continuing with the above focus - I sent the following (to an email address listed at the website in
Footnote 7 however it bounced):
Greetings!
Thank you for "The People's Voice"!
Just discovered your site via an article search from a forward I received from Paycheck Piracy.
I appreciate your links under:
"DO YOU KNOW
United States Constitution
Declaration of Independence
The Bill of Rights
Constitution Basics"
Good to see the "Declaration of Independence" along with the "United States Constitution", etc. I am
a student of the Organic Laws Institute with the senior instructor Dr. Ed Rivera. Are you familiar with
Ed Rivera? As far as I know he is the only professor in America who teaches a basic course in
government wholly based upon the four Organic Laws. In light of this teaching - we need to have the
perspective of the four Organic Laws in order to understand several essential matters presented in
the "Constitution of September 17, 1787". I am happy to share more about this if you like.
Page 9 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Looking forward to the possibility of hearing from you!

Toward Greater Freedom!
~Chef Jemichel
***
September 12, 2016 Letter in regards to a new California law (concerning medical weed) to a friend who says: "I do not
consent".
I certainly appreciate your educational outreach in regards to "Notices" and especially concerning
the free-will nature of each individual's "Consent". I think we agree that none of us ever got informed
about this legal reality during any of our government-controlled school days (can read: "daze" ; ~ )
I wish to add another essential point: the proprietary-based limitations of government jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of California government is Lawfully limited by its Constitution. "The California
Constitution ... is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of
the land."[1] The Constitution of the United States(sic)[2] is limited to lands, territories, possessions,
buildings and the like that it owns. In other words all government jurisdiction is strictly proprietarybased. Without this understanding individuals are not standing most securely on the foundation of
Organic Law!
The Constitution of September 17, 1787 defines what Lawful jurisdiction is. That jurisdiction is
limited to what the States have given to that Constitution's government. It is a proprietary-based
jurisdiction just as it is stated in terms of its exclusive Legislative jurisdiction. See: Article I, Section
8, (par.17) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ...".
Therefore California laws include the proprietary-based jurisdiction limitations of "the United States
Constitution".[4]
Therefore "The price for freedom from external government is: speaking the truth about the
government's proprietary-based jurisdiction."[3]
For those who understand that all government jurisdiction is and must be proprietary based (that
includes every "Act" passed by the California State legislature) they can consider adding "for cause"
and/or "lack of authority" to their non-consent reply.
Toward greater freedom!
~Chef
@ San Diego
***
September 19th More re: the Organic Laws:
"... The government is operating deceptively by using a governing document, the Articles of
Confederation, alleged by government, educators and the media to be repealed. The government is
using the Constitution to confuse government territory (that can be identified as the "United States")
with the United States of America. Once the governments deceptive techniques are learned, future
governmental attempts at deception will be less successful until they will become obsolete."[11]
***
The 22nd "... though the Congress of the United states would like it to be forgotten, it is the work of liberty
loving people to study and revive the memory and usage of all the Organic Laws, to discredit the
whoredoms of Congress and bring it to heel by the limits to territorial jurisdiction admitted by Art 1
Sec 8 Cl 1 &17."[12]
Page 10 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Also: "... It is we, who are sovereign, who inherited the land, by birthright, and it was not the United
States of America, precisely because it was our forefathers blood, sacrifice and honor in defending
the Declaration of Independence that won the land from King George III. We who are sovereigns
must hold very clearly our spiritual and lawful relationship to land which we inherited by birthright as
a free people in consequence of our winning the War of Independence. "
***********^***********
Notes:
[1] http://eepurl.com/ccGJ6r
[2] https://pamsamazingjourney.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-second-summit-british-government.html?
showComment=1472016473625#c2952764322790385215
[3] 172a3-judge2banna
[4] ttps://mainerepublicemailalert.com/2016/08/22/the-second-summit-british-government-gratitudeexplained/
[5] http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim
[6] http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?
u=f8e38d415be497134eee68415&id=74d26fb96e&e=a0fab7067b
The assertions of "the two different and separate offices of the Article I legislative President of the
United States with the Article II executive President of the United States of America" as presented
by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera to his "Students and Subscribers" deserves to be examined first hand by
the reader of this blogpost as well as the assertion for "The express separate restrictions and
conditions on the impeachment of an Article I President of the United States from that of an Article II
President". The Impeachment restrictions of the former "President" can be found in the last clause
before Section 4 of Article I and that of the later at Section 4 of Article II.
[7] American News - Wednesday, August 31, 2016
"Your Source For Keeping An Eye On Big Brother"
http://www.angelfire.com/retro/voices/page2.html#1902
[8] I intend to search for this online in order to do my due diligence on the issue.
[9]
http://www.civiced.org/images/stories/PDFs/Publications/National_Standards/National_Standards_912.pdf
[10] http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-toknow#unalienablerights
[11] http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2
[12] https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/
***********^***********
Keywords:
The United States of America, organic laws, free inhabitant, united states code, National Standards
for Civics and Government, Center for Civic Education, Leave No Child Behind, Goals 2000, We the
People, Citizen, Constitution, united states
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!
Alert Webmaster
Post Your Comment Here

Page 11 of 12
10/7/16, 4:01 AM
Share:
Edit
Hide
FAQ
Contact Us - About - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2016 www.curezone.org
1.484 sec, (2)
Page 12 of 12

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America" by Chef JeM Blog Entry

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America" by Chef JeM Blog Entry

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America" by Chef JeM Blog entry

Blog: Son of Truth of Self

Teaching "The Organic Laws of The United States of America"

Add Blog To Favorites!

Without a vision the people parish.

Add This Entry To

Date: 8/16/2016 10:53:02 PM ( 52 d ) ... viewed 254 times

Comments (25 of 53):

Re: True Communion

Blog Entries (12 of

The States of America,

All Entries (632)

Blogs by Chef JeM

Similar Blogs (10 of

The affirmation on the first income tax return form.

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

"Due Diligence" (as indicated in Footnote 8) - Re: the "Standards":

Looking forward to the possibility of hearing from you!

Post Your Comment Here

Contact Us - About - Advertise - Stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche