You know from our work at Ken-Welch.com, that corporate cartels own and run our so-called federal government.  Still, even though we understand this, it's often hard to remember that when we say, "we" attacked Iraq, or that 9/11 was an inside job, that it was actually Exxon, Shell, BP and the others that brought down the World Trade Center, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and are about to nuke Iran.  By any standard, there simply is no US government.  There are only corporate employees and agents masquerading as public servants.  On television and the Internet we have fantasy football for those who don't care, and fantasy government for those who do.

Over the last year there has been an increasing interest in the U.S. Constitution, judging by its coverage in various media.  Much of this is focused around the concept of States' rights.  On the one hand, there are people who believe that if we could just get the sta tes to exercise their rights under the Constitution, we could somehow bring the central government back under control -- if you could first dig out the same massive corruption at the state level.  On the other hand, those who are actually planning our future, and our new government, are intent on using the states to dissolve the central government as part of the changes they want to bring about.  Obviously, these so-called “illuminati” would like you to know ahead of time that such a thing is "legal".  Then you will not be quite so surprised when it actually happens.

From our point of view much of this is unnecessary.  Americans have not had a legal central government for a very long time.  Still, no one will really understand this without first grasping certain aspects of the Constitution that are almost totally forgotten.

We start with the most basic question of all: what is it exactly that makes a small group of people the “lawful go vernment” over a much larger group of people and their territory?

There are many governments that we "recognize" simply because they seem to control some or most of the land they claim as theirs.  But this only means they have more guns and paid soldiers than anyone else in the area.  In fact, the State Department has special terms for these governments depending on their degree of legal legitimacy.  “De facto Government” is probably the worst, which means “we couldn’t find anyone else to deal with.” Far up the scale from this are so-called “legitimate” governments, and finally the gold standard, which is described as a “lawful government.”

A lawful government actually has the authority, under law, to perform basic government functions for a specific group of people, and the territory they own.

The others do not.  They simply have a lot of guns, along with impressive propaganda, slogans, costumes and uniforms to match.

History tells us that most nations on this planet were simply imposed on local populations by whatever gang of killers and thieves was able to successfully defend their claim to "royalty" at sword point.  The whole history of England is simply an endless succession of gang wars, up to the point that there was only one gang left.  Is there anything "legal" about that?  No, of course not.

There is only one thing that creates a lawful or legal government, and that one thing is a contract.  Under Natural Law (some would say Divine Law) all men are born with certain basic and essential human rights.  Logically, the world would make no sense if this were not so.  The right to own private property, something that is yours free and clear, is one of those rights.  Another right, essential to building human societies, is the right to enter into a contract with other people that is legally binding (enforceable) on all the parties.  It is this “nat ural” law, which you might call the universal law of basic human rights, which makes government-by-contract lawful, and not in any sense a law that some particular government has created on its own.

Without a contract so-called public servants or government officials have no more authority than you or I.  The contract is between the people who want to govern, and the people who agree to be governed.  In America that contract is the Constitution and, as a contract, it has some very unusual features.

The most important part of any contract is that all persons having any duty to perform under the contract must sign it.

In the case of our Constitution, since millions of government officials and employees cannot physically sign the document itself, each and every one of them is required to swear an oath to abide by the contract, and a permanent record of this must be kept.  That’s one side of the contract; ie., all persons wishing to pla y at being government officials or employees.

But what about the other side?  The Constitution clearly states that We The People are both the creators of the contract and the other party to the agreement that it formulates.  As part of the states’ rights push, mentioned above, Federal Judges have recently abandoned this.  They are now dismissing citizens’ lawsuits brought against the government for constitutional violations because, they say, it is the individual states who are parties to the contract, and not the people themselves.  Apparently they (and the news networks) feel that if Americans can’t read plain English any more, or simply don’t know the Constitution, they deserve whatever they get.  That includes, of course, a government that is no longer under the control of the people it claims to govern.

This confusion is caused by one of the unusual features of the Constitution that I mentioned above.  You will recall that the mos t important part of a contract is that everyone having any duty to perform (or who must give up something) must actually sign the contract.  Otherwise, they are not bound by it.

On the other hand, people who do not give up anything and have no duty to perform under the terms of the agreement, have no requirement at all to add their signature.  This is why, if a man gives you an IOU, he is the one who must sign it, not you.  As a contract, the U.S. Constitution is entirely one-sided.  And that is the genius of both the document and the unique American political beliefs that created it.

Under the terms of the Constitution, a citizen has no obligation to perform any duty, pay any tax, or give up any rights or property to the central government.  That, as they say, is the Law of the Land.  That’s why you don’t have to sign it, or swear to it, or whatever.  The only reason the founding fathers signed it was simply to certify that t his was the document they had been sent to Philadelphia to create.

The Constitution is a fabulous document, and its creation is obviously one of the brightest moments in all human history.  However, most people do not realize that the Constitution, as a contract, has another critical and supremely important feature.  It’s almost too simple to see.

When someone breaks part of a contract, they break the whole thing.  It’s done.  Over with.  It's time to sue for damages and evaluate your alternatives.

The very first time that the central government clearly violated a constitutional restriction and neither the executive, legislative or judicial branch corrected the error, the contract was broken forever.  It really can’t be any other way.

What does that mean for America today?  Simply this.  The United States does not have a lawful government in place, and the people in Washington, DC, have no authority whatsoev er to go around pretending that they are government officials or claiming to represent the rest of us.

Good luck to us all,

Ken Welch

Houston

www.Ken-Welch.com

#1  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----

From: TCK

To: Bellringer

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:58 AM

Subject: Ken Welch Sign the Constitution

 

Patrick,

Ken Welch's recent Constitutional comments were very relevant but inconclusive other than stating that we have NO LEGAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But the problem then becomes one of how to sue the ningcompoops parading as government servants. These "public servants" do not recognize the authority of the World Court and claim legitimacy because other countries recognize their legitimacy (even though "WE THE PEOPLE" DO NOT).

I agree that by construct that the Constitution does not necessitate that We The People be signatories, but in fact that if as an individual you DO SIGN (and notarize) the Constitution you would then have clearly established your legal position with respect to the system of government that you adhere to and are subject to under Contract.

My argument is that being just "We The People" is no longer sufficient as even the Federal (Corporation) Courts have abrogated and circumvented "We The People" by their own fallacious definitions and disregard for the generic meaning of the Constitution.

Simply by signing a copy of the Constitution a US Citizen formally declares his/her legal commitment to a "legal form of government" and NOT the corporate bastardization that is currently in place in Corporate DC. This then forms a basis for "legal action" for fraud, misrepresentation, treason and other legal infringements, plus allows the individual back his personal "Constitutional Rights" like not having to pay income taxes and only accepting gold backed Treasury Notes as Legal Tender (bye-bye Fed).

So my conclusion for real action is to get the bandwagon rolling across the nation and get a big campaign to get ALL US Citizens to sign a copy of the Constitution and in unison declare OUR Rights and claim back OUR Government and country.

What say you, Ken, SS, Casper.....Patrick?

TCK

#2  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----

From: EW

To: bellringer@fourwinds10.com

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 1:54 PM

Subject: KEN WELCH: SECRETS OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

Patrick,

Re: Your comments on this post:

1. The corporate body known as the UNITED STATES is the administrative corporation of the City of Columbia (District of Columbia) an independent city/state within the State of Marylandand wholly owned by the corporate Holy Roman Empire of the Pontiff of Rome (Vatican City).That city/state of the Vatican gained authority over the States and Territories of America by 'prize of war' and by the others being 'debtors'. America has belonged to the Holy Roman Empire since it was claimed in such Papal Bulls as the PB of 1793. The American Revolution did not changethat status of North America.  The American Civil War resulted in the HRE's full recovery of controlof  the land that ceased to be ruled by the HRE's agent, the corporate Crown of Great Britain as a result of the Revolutionary War.

 

The corporate UNITED STATES has the technology, money, military and media control to thwart any take-over of Government by the American people, regardless what strategy they may attempt to use.

2.  By use of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the corporate UNITED STATES, all Americans have been reduced to the status of 'plantation slave' belonging to the corporate UNITED STATES.This status change from 'free will adult man' to that of 'plantation slave'  has been done by a 'criminal conviction'allowing the imposition of 'involuntary servitude' upon all the American people. The crime is 'unauthorizeduse of United States owned intellectual property' . The United States is a corporate body, a 'make-believeship at sea' . Anything that has to do with the interference of a ship at sea is under 'maritime law', and inmaritime law, an accused crew-member is guilty unless proven innocent. The unauthorized use is of the 'legal name' as one finds on a birth certificate. 

This corporate /fascist system is purely 'Roman Empire', and all Roman Law, including English Common Law (not Anglo-Saxon common law, which ceased to exist when Englandwent under corporate administrationin 1297), is based totally on 'maritime law'.  A 'citizen' or 'freeman' is just a subject/slave granted someof the rights and freedoms that were existent under A-S common law providing they obey the corporate rules (statutes, acts and laws)  and pay over whatever the slave owner demands (taxes).

So, based upon the above, you can see that ending the corporate administration of America cannot bestopped by a 'slaves' revolt', regardless what technique may be employed. If too many slaves rebel, then, they will just be slaughtered, and obedient slaves moved in to replace them. Is that what thewaves of uninvited immigrants now coming into North America is all about?

I go back to statements of wisdom found in the URANTIA Book in which a writer describes the predicament in which the American people now find themselves. The writer says that theonly remedy to 'make the change' is for a benevolent dictator to make that change.

I realize that it would be very difficult to see Mao Tse Tung as a 'benevolent dictator', but hedid bring the people of China out of a very deep rut of dispair that had no end in sight, and that took some 65 years, and they are still working on the ancient inertia problems that impoverishedthe Chinese people. The change in China was certainly a painful process, and the change needed in America could very well be equally painful to the American people. There is a lot of staticinertia in people who have spent hundreds of generations as slaves of evil tyrants, even thoughtheir minds didn't perceive the existence of their slave status.

How many Americans or Canadians think that 'citizen' means a 'free will adult man' with unalienable rights?

EW

 #3  (Reply)

From:      R.M.

To:          Bellringer

Sent:      FRIDAY, January 22, 2010 

Subject: Ken Welch 'Sign the Constitution' & TCK's Reply

 

Jan. 22, 2010

 

Ken Welch and TCK [#2 Reply] make very valid points and perhaps their recommendations would help the cause they speak of.  It occurs to me, however, that America would not be in the mess it is in if its Citizenry were well educated in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and understood the freedoms that these great documents safe-guard, and how they affect their lives.  It appears that the majority of Americans have chosen to be both ignorant and apathetic toward the contents of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Before, or along with, a mass-signing of the Constitution is efforted, I would call for a mass-education of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I think that the internet approach to a mass-educational program, such as Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class (below), is a good place to start in this process.