Welcome to my first post at this newly created WordPress site! The ongoing theme here is most largely devoted to “These Truths”.
The following is entirely based on a reprint of my CureZone.com blog post that represents one of my current research projects. This independent research issues from my studies with The Organic Laws Institute and the professorship of Dr. Ed Rivera whom I have been a student of for several years. The research initially focused upon a reference that Dr. Rivera made to a statement by Hermann Göring (while he was under examination at the Nuremberg Trial) concerning the combined offices of “head of state” with “head of government” that Hitler had obtained.
Inspired during my hearing of a report from a professor friend regarding political debates in America that included a general reference made to “The Constitution”. I replied saying the idea that government is based solely on this Constitution doesn’t follow historical fact as it is only one fourth of the Organic Laws and as such is required to be read in light of the other three Organic Laws. The professor agreed! American History has been re-written!
1984 is possibly the leading narrative on the necessity for re-writing history whenever government deems it in its best interest.
We in the u.s. of A. have been long past “1984” as a (de facto) reality. The history here that has long been re-written (as early as September 17, 1787) when the fourth “Organic Law” in the form of the writing of “the Constitution” was completed. Probably, the most important particular “history” that was re-written at that time was in regards to the validity of the second Organic Law: The Articles of Confederation (1777).
The new Federalist claimed that their new Constitution replaced the second Organic Law however replacement would have required a lawful repealing of the later and that Lawful requirement simply never ever occurred! The difference between the historical truth and rewritten history in this instance is the difference between true liberty and “doublethink” that says war is freedom.
August 2nd, 2016 –
I’m posting the following here rather than start a new blog-post as I begin to research about The California Republic’s original constitution that I believe “guaranteed” free higher education to it’s Citizens.
In the process of my research I found this to be of interest:
“… Although tradition speaks of the unfurling of the Stars and Stripes immediately after the Declaration of Independence, there is no definite evidence of the use of the flag of thirteen stars and thirteen stripes prior to its adoption by the American Congress. George Henry Preble, Rear Admiral, U. S. N., in his “History of the Flag of the United States of America,” has
this to say :
‘Beyond a doubt, the thirteen stars and stripes were unfurled at the battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, eight days after the official promulgation of them at Philadelphia, …'”
The following is from the “archive” and may be my main reference and basis for a letter to the UC regents:
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, § 1]
The superior “Declaration of Rights” should be based on the phrase “unalienable Rights” exactly as it is written in the first Organic Law: The Declaration of Independence.
The two terms: “unalienable” and “inalienable” have distinctively different meanings.
[Now (11:06 AM on Tuesday, August 2nd) I’m convinced that this particular post: “Re-writting History” is the perfect place for this additional posting as I read at the adask.wordpress.com:
“… the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the ‘Declaration of Independence’ attributed to Jefferson that referred to our ‘inalienable Rights’. But the text of the ‘Declaration of Independence’ expressly refers to our ‘unalienable Rights’. Thus, the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone.”
Purpose of government.
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good mav require it. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, §2]
[Comment] Do UC Regents declare any kind of “oath of office” that includes supporting this constitution? I’ve not seen one. If the Regents do declare their allegiance to the “spirit of the (American and then California) Law” then the people need to hold the Regents accountable to their declarations and to supporting “the protection … of the people” who in this instance are students – firstly by protecting their unalienable Rights to “enjoying and defending (their) life and liberty; … pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness” without risk of injury (as is known to have occurred with vaccinations).
[9/13/16 Received a reply from UC Regents Administration offices indicating that the Regents do declare an oath. I responded with a request to view these oaths.]
The 6th of August –
The Regents apparently co-wrote the University of California’s new requirement, that they passed last year, for all students to have their MMR, TdaP, Varicella and Meningococcal conjugate shots before the first day of school. There are several areas of issues regarding this including legal issues however I present an additional perspective that some may automatically think is “legal” whereas the foundation I am pointing is actually one of fundamental Law namely the Organic Laws of the United States of America. It is somewhat a “knee-jerk reaction” to think in legal terms as is so often the case in a litigious society and in doing so too often loose sight of what comes before the legal system. In such a “culture” I feel the necessity to return to the foundation in Law, not only for the Regents to refer to but especially for the students to be empowered by “these Truths” (possibly “enlightened” by them).
I count it a real misfortune that American history as it is taught in the school system is compromised. If we are to continue on course as a people who embody the true spirit of America then we must recover our history from the perspective of our Organic Laws. You could say that I’m on a mission for that purpose – The Recovery of American History According to The Organic Laws of the United States of America (RahAtOLusA).
The Declaration of Independence is the first of four Organic Laws the cornerstone of American Law. Without it we do not have American Law or an American Nation. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the fourth Organic Law and it naturally comes after the first. Referring to this Constitution as if it were the only foundation for America is truly problematic because it’s true standing (if any) can only be within the context of the first Organic Law. If the “Constitution” is “divorced” from the Declaration of Independence then we are without our “North Star” as our guiding light. We must “hold these truths to be self evident” or we are subject to whatever the prevailing political winds of the day may be. We must know that “Life” includes our individual health and total well-being that is our natural unalienable Right meaning that it can not be given away or compromised by anything including an institution’s “requirement” under color of institutional law and/or in the name of public health. Aside from “law” – there is no public health without healthy individuals – the only place where health begins. (Health issues are an additional arena of issues regarding vaccinations.)
The second Organic Law is The Articles of Confederation wherein every State is bond to honor the freedom of its “free inhabitants”. Any American who is not in “voluntary servitude” to the “United States” is free from external government in complete congruence with the first Organic Law that finally rejected external government.
10th of August, 2016 –
Continuing on the above theme regarding “vaccinations” even though I have sent off my letter to the UC Regents as I now have some additional “leads” regarding deep issues with the law.
In the process I discovered the following book: “Restore The Republic”. Serendipitously the forward by Ron Paul speaks to a “redefinition” that is expressed in a Congressional Research Service report that I took note of regarding the Commerce Clause (the redefining of which I do not agree with).
“… the commerce clause originally was intended as a limited grant of federal power to allow the federal government to ensure free-trade between the states. ‘Progressive’ lawyers, judges, politicians, and academics attacked this accepted understanding, however, and redefined the commerce clause as a general grant of power to regulate all areas of our economic and personal lives. …” Ron Paul in the Forward to Jonathan Emord’s book “Restore the Republic” (2012).
Jonathan begins his Introduction (after a quote from Madison) with: “The United States has lost its constitutional identity.”
I don’t think there is more precise wording that can be assembled to express the mammoth truth of this statement. The more I contemplate it the more profound it becomes in my awareness! To know the depth and breadth of the truth in this statement (IMO) requires a “graduate” level understanding of the four Organic Laws of The United States of America. That is because the three preceding Organic Laws are required as a collective context for a true understanding of the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787. This last Organic law didn’t suddenly appear out of no where! The facts at Law indicate that it is a direct extension of the second Organic Law: The “Articles of Confederation”, a Law that is recognized by the United States Government Printing Office in the publication of “United States Code” where on the title page of Volume One it reads: “Organic Laws” followed by “Title 1”.
Understanding the four Organic Laws will give you a true historical perspective of the “United States” whereby you will see that that the “United States” is distinctly preceded by “The United States of America” in both the first and second Organic Laws; that the “United States” pertains to property owned by “The United States of America” as set forth in the Northwest Territory as represented in the third Organic Law: “Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government”. What amounts to as a “myopic” focus on the “Constitution” typically does not include the greater and very essential context/the complete foundation for “the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787”.
Also – More on “Unalienable”:
“…1778, John Jay … in an essay entitled. ‘A Freeholder, A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York’ …The undoubted right and unalienable privilege of a freeman …”:
The 11th of August, 2016 –
From Black’s Law Dictionary –
“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”
“Not subject to alienation …”
Although both of these legal terms share the core term of “lien these are actually two different terms with separate and distinct meanings. The difference is between “incapable” and “not subject to”.
The 12th –
Alfred Adask explains the difference:
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. It is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.
But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.
I highly encourage your clear understanding of the above distinction. Let there be no doubt in your thoughts or in your heart about all your Rights both your natural unalienable Rights as well as your inalienable rights.
Alfred Adask continues to articulate the difference:
If we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:
“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. …”
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, … The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. That which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. As you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or right would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.
Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).
I would encourage you to underscore: “You can see the power potential in ‘unalienable'” in every way that you can. What is unalienable is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of Congress! What is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress is not subject to governmental regulations. Let your unalienable Rights be your reality! Let all things to the country be the illusionary fiction that they truly are.
August 13, 2016 –
The importance of human history lies in its meaning. Answering this question (one of eight) is a requirement that helps characterize one’s world view: “What is the meaning of human history?”
the 24th –
Although we have a virtually undisputed history in the court room referred to below you won’t find the inspiration for the making of the German dictator included in the United States history books.
In a suggested letter by Ed Rivera to presidential candidates Ed quotes from a DVD version of the Nuremberg Trial. I had to verify that quote before posting it here. I just found it at Amazon:
“Stahmer cued Goring to explain where the idea had come from to combine the ceremonial head of state and the head of government in one person, Adolf Hitler. That was simple, Goring explained. They had taken their example from the similar dual roles of the president of the United States.” –
Nuremberg : Infamy on Trial Reprint Edition
by Joseph E. Persico
I find this a rather electrifying verification. Now I’d like to see how close I can get to the court transcripts!
In the meanwhile here’s another reference to the above:
“Goring even claimed that when Hitler subverted Germany’s republican constitution by amalgamating the offices of chancellor and president, he was merely emulating the powers of the office of President of the United States, which merged the roles of head of government and head of state.”
Author of the above quoted article provided me with two links. One to: “The International Military Tribunal for Germany – Contents of The Nuremberg Trials Collection” at the Lillian Goldman Law Library 127 Wall Street, New Haven, Conn.. I need to contact their librarian.
August 26th, ’16 –
There are two different offices of President referred to in the American Constitution of September 17, 1787.
Also found an impressive old newspaper with article on the combined offices that were given to Hitler.
“Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. … in private Hitler had expressed hope that ‘the old reactionary’ would die soon so that he could merge the two offices of president and Chancellor together. …”
Plus: A “… course was adopted for curtailing the (separate) powers of the president. One prerogative after another was taken from Hindenburg, as in the second Reichstag Fire Decree the right to appoint national commissioners …, and in the Enabling Act the right to issue decree laws. As for the balance, Hindenburg’s death was awaited. When he did die in August 1934, Hitler could have had himself or some puppet elected president. But he preferred combining the two offices of president and chancellor by decree, subsequently sanctioned by plebiscite.”
August 28th, ’16 –
Cont. research Re: the Nuremberg Trials:
“… Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Allied Control Council (ACC) Law No. 10, October 1946-April 1949.
Originally, a second international trial at Nuremberg was to have focused primarily on the activities of German finance and industry during the Third Reich. The so-called ‘industrialists trial,’ was widely regard(ed) as of equal importance to the prosecution of the Nazi and SS high command. The United States vetoed this plan, declaring in the autumn of 1945 that it would refuse to participate in any further international trials and would hold separate prosecutions on its own.”
Sent email message to author Joseph Persico asking for his assistance in accessing an online source of the Nuremberg trial transcripts.
Got a reply from a family member of Joseph Persico informing me that he had crossed the threshold.
Further research regarding Hitler’s rise to power gave me (what I call) the lion’s share of an overview of inter-connecting “surface” dots except for the financial backing. Now I have both surface and backing in one article.
September 13th –
Got the transcripts in a PDF from the Library of Congress and read a considerable amount of the prosecution’s examination of Hermann Göring.
“… it should be remembered that Göring was a bona fide war hero who received the coveted Orden Pour le Merite during World War I and was a figure of high importance in the Nazi hierarchy. His place at the center of great events makes Göring worthy of careful study and close scrutiny even today.”
I find the above quote validating to this continuing research project even though it appears that i have the quote that I was originally inspired to search for as of some weeks ago.
11:22 PM Just commented after an article interview with the great niece of Hermann Goring:
I appreciate your “opinion” re: DNA as well as virtually everything else you had to say in your subsequent comment.
I offer the following perspective in regards to how people can “come to terms” with the past. This perspective is based on “New Medicine” (as per the Biological Laws discovered by Dr. Geerd Hamer) where the perception of certain events create a “shock conflict” within the individual’s psyche. I believe the same phenomena occurs in the collective psyche as well as within the individual. Resolution of the conflict can be supported with a certain kind of “confrontation” regarding what the conflict means to the individual. I see the confrontation process on the magnitude of war crimes and the like as requiring considerable support for the individual. Without that support variations of “denial” or avoidance is a natural response!
Thinking in terms of “bad genes” does not allow for this kind of confrontation.
 “Nineteen Eighty-four (published in 1949), a novel (George Orwell) wrote as a warning after years of brooding on the twin menaces of Nazism and Stalinism. The novel is set in an imaginary future in which the world is dominated by three perpetually warring totalitarian police states. The book’s hero, the Englishman Winston Smith, is a minor party functionary in one of those states. His longing for truth and decency leads him to secretly rebel against the government, which perpetuates its rule by systematically distorting the truth and continuously rewriting history to suit its own purposes.”:
 Lien –
“A qualified right of property which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or charge or for performance of some act. …”:
 TAUNTON DAILY GAZETTE, Massachusetts, August 2, 1934 –
* Germany President Paul Von Hindenburg death
* Adolph Hitler becomes president
* Nazis begin climb to full power of Germany:
 “Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic By Donald G. Left:
<ahref=”https: books.google.com=”” books?”=””>https://books.google.com/books?%5B15%5D
 “Political Education of Arnold Brecht: An Autobiography, 1884-1970” by Arnold Brecht:
“Arnold Brecht witnessed and participated in the course of German history from the late 19th century to the present. Serving under seven Reich chancellors, he became acting Secretary of State, and was finally removed from office by Hitler in 1933.”:
The Title for this post: “Civilization in Transition” comes from “The Collected Works of C. G. Jung,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_in_Transition after I first read a reference to it in: http://www.unifiedlifesciences.com/ftp/education_papers/MHDS_Intro.pdf
“Jung theorized that the European conflict was essentially a psychological crisis originating in the collective unconscious of individuals.” I’ve contacted the association to read further on Jung’s theory.
 “Abstracts : Vol 10 : Civilization in Transition”. International Association for Analytic Psychology. Retrieved 2014-01-20.
 Hermann Göring under examination at the Nuremberg Trial:
]”The Fuher told me then thlat the simplest thing to do would be to take as example the United States of America, where the head of the state is at the same time also the head of the government. Thus, following the example of the United States, we combined the position of the head of the State with the head of the government, and he called himself ‘Fuher of the German People. and Reich Chancellor of the German Reich.'”
 Online at:
I appreciate your “opinion” re: DNA as well as virtually everything else you had to say in your subsequent comment.
I offer the following perspective in regards to how people can “come to terms” with the past. This perspective is based on “New Medicine” (as per the Biological Laws discovered by Dr. Geerd Hamer) where the perception of certain events create a “shock conflict” within the individual’s psyche. I believe the same phenomena occurs in the collective psyche as well as within the individual. Resolution of the conflict can be supported with a certain kind of “confrontation” regarding the conflict means to the individual. I see the confrontation process on the magnitude of war crimes and the like as requiring considerable support for the individual. Without that support variations of “denial” or avoidance is a natural response!
Thinking in terms of “bad genes” does not allow for this kind of confrontation.
Sept. 18th –
It appears that Hitler (with the essential help he needed from others) had accomplished certain essentials in a relatively short period of just a few years[i] what it took the government of the “United States” about 214 years to accomplish. The combining of the offices of “head of state” with “head of government” may be one exception for it took George Washington only a few months to accomplice that!
The 19th –
“… unalienable rights are God’s laws and written laws must, as supported by the Declaration of Independence, apply only to a government whose purpose it is to secure those unalienable rights for the people. Complex and intricate bureaucratic government institutions are meant to ensnare those looking for the simple application of God’s unwritten law. Government laws must conform with God’s laws, so as with all written laws loopholes abound in government laws. …”[ii]
September 22nd –
“Having mental clarity and emotional calm makes all the difference in defending your unalienable Rights.”[iii]
“… civilization puts evolution in reverse, favoring corruption and its supporters, while killing the good and principled.”[iv]
September 25th –
“…The undisclosed purpose of the Constitution was to get the American people to accept as law legislation written by persons who will claim to represent their interests in a Congress of the United States.”[v]
I found link for the above quote at the top of my Google search for: “undisclosed purpose””the constitution”.
[i] Possibly 13 years.:
[iii] See Comment by: Joel Boyce on December 14, 2012 at:
[iv] See Comment by: “Chad in AK” on July 23, 2014
[v] Ed Rivera: https://organiclaws.org/edsblog/