MICROSOFT TRANSLATOR

Disclaimers

Please be advised that this written work of mine is only THEORY. It's theorizing, pondering and amateur research. I have no belief in anything posted here because if I did I would have had legal action taken by now-until that occurs this blog can only be considered theorizing.

Also it's obviously not clear enough to readers that I've put up a disclaimer for years that says I'm often sleep deprived when posting due to my lifestyle as a houseless Traveler (and my age as well as health issues). This should be taken into consideration when viewing my posts.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

authors of the Bill Of Rights were heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon legal theorists such as Sir William Blackstone, who declared that there were "three absolute rights ... the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and the right of personal property

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm

"Blackstone's ideas became embodied in the Federalist papers, and in the writings of James Madison on property interests, which he defined in quite broad terms:

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to every one else the like advantage ... [A] man has a property in his opinions, and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them."

"The protection of these faculties" Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10, "is the first object of government.""

The free use of his faculties. Seems like the use of technologies that alter and influence the human mind would make that impossible.

The combonation of technologies, chemical and psychological means of influence and coercion impedes these rights.

I wonder if by executive orders or some magical legal mumbo jumbo bullsh*t since 9-11 or late Clinton or the Reagan era or Obama's administration...that the Bill Of Rights And Consttution have changed.

GW Bush is yes horrible...but not as much as his father. There's some truth telling in him. He's right when he says its "just a piece of paper". It could be reduced to theory with changing times. Just as the theories of psychiatry have been raised to that of law or hard science. Its what people believe in, what power or majority decides is the rule.

The only problem is that the majority are going along with and supporting power's decisions, without really being aware of what they are supporting. Those that do have superior knowledge and everyone should be informed of these conditions so that the public are aware of what they are subjecting themselves to.

Believe me I support control of the animals. The elitist in my nature completely agrees. Yet its gone too far, there's far too many idiots and unworthy involved privy to secret knowledge. Also the arrogance is loathesome and careless so is the bragging. Man was meant to be ruled over not completely crushed allowed no freedoms or Will at all.

The arrogance is just disgusting and a sure sign that the wrong people are in charge. Those who are not fit to rule.

Plus...Im a vengeful woman. I care little for the consequences of unraveling the hole civilized world. Becuz they shouldn't have crossed me to begin with.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have a feeling Jeb Bush is going to get in. Probably won't be nearly as bad as Obama. Obama seems very controlled by his people and not very good at making "independent" decisions. At least Bush, as bad as he was, was capable of making overriding decisions.

Anonymous said...

Actually, very few people take targets seriously. They don't have to worry about anything, because they aren't targets. And they find the targets' plight and reactions to the constant provocations amusing. They have info handed to them by someone involved, like certain comments we make about the harassment, and they'll bring them up when we're around. They joke about them as though it were a character in a movie doing a great comic acting job. That's the level they see us on. They don't take us seriously, as though we're mere characters in a sitcom or movie that entertains them or makes them laugh. And when you have a character in a movie, it's OK to mock them and laugh at them and bring up stuff they say out of duress. But they're at that "safe distance", see, because they're behind a fence at a zoo or something, and of course, they don't have to worry about being hurt or harassed or tortured. And the people involved in this at deeper levels makes sure it stays that way, and they, too, of course, see us in the same way as the spectators: someone to be laughed at, like watching an animal being tortured by its trainers at a zoo. They just don't care.

They probably aren't worried about being targets or tormented, because they would never understand what it takes to be a target. That it takes courage and mettle. They just see us as the other followers do, as victims to be made an example of and mocked and ridiculed. So they feel it's OK to torment us further, even. They don't realize that they too could one day be targets, and then their whole perspective would be completely different. Then we'd see what they're made of, i.e., would they melt down and become destitute and fall apart, or would they toughen up like targets, and become warriors and heroes?

They are not heroes, they are followers and spectators of torture for entertainment. That's what our targeting is to them and everyone else: torture for their entertainment. They don't take us seriously, because THEY aren't fighting the fight against huge numbers; they are part of the huge numbers. They are weak little cowards who would fall apart under similar circumstances as ours. That's why I distance myself from them.