Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
11-11-13  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Nov 12th, 2013 06:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cut and pasted:


Part I
 
Positive:
 
Growing understanding of the vital necessity of establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
Negative:
 
Growing skepticism concerning the insistence upon relying upon human argument.
 
I can elaborate upon my offer of comments and in point of fact the progress I will make will be along the lines of establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument since the other direction amounts to action driven by ignorance.
 
My intent going into the 11-11-13 Meetup was to offer words intending to establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument, however the lack of access to the voice communication prevented discussion along those lines.
 
California specific:
 
I have made 2 phone calls as State Coordinator. I have received 2 phone calls as State Coordinator. One person who called me this past Saturday attended the Monday National Meetup.
 
What was not accomplished proceeding along in this process as we progress in a progressive way was to establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
Can that be accomplished in the future?
 
How about a to do list for anyone having any interest in Coordinating California common law grand juries through me, along the path from California, through me, and connecting to the National Central Coordination Standard of proceeding along on a path that is worthy of reproducing, improving, perfecting, as if a franchise is invented, or reinvented, and from the first example of what works many copies of what works emerge from the first one like roots spreading out from a seed, and defense of Liberty grows like an Oak Tree despite all the destruction around in the soil, and in the air, preventing such growth of such an idea, and such actions that reach outward from the idea causing the idea to become something real in fact.
 
So far as I see myself, in that light, I am merely a small section of a small root, or branch, growing out of one of many possible seeds whereby the seeds are of the same construction, the same idea, planted and growing in different places, growing in the same, or similar, or better, or worse, ways, reaching for the same chance to earn life, reproductive life, in a dangerous, deadly, and difficult world.
 
An example of the illustration of this idea, parts combining together to make something that is much more powerful than each individual part that is connected to the whole, like me being a small root or branch of a growing tree, is the following illustration that was offered, and now I repeat the offer, to see the idea in a visual manner for your considered judgment:
 
Offer an idea whose time has returned?
 
The connection between each individual human being who shares an idea is the idea: first.
 
The actions acted out by each individual human being, inspired by the same idea, will be either more effective or less effective compared to each other if the idea is to reach for a goal, or to move along a specific path which may be the goal: the goal is to move along a specific path.
 
I wish to focus on one step taken by any one individual human being before taking any more steps while keeping in mind that the idea itself must be a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
Failure is not an option in my opinion. The idea driving the first action by anyone must be a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
I can offer words (this is my individual choice of action according to my own power of will whereby I think I have the idea in view, and from that idea I ACT accordingly); I can offer words that intend to establish a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
1.
No human being alive ever (with possible exceptions of gods in human form) can be the source of authority him or herself (dictatorship).
 
2.
If 1 is true then any one human being alive claiming to be the source of authority him or herself confesses their madness, insanity, or their willful choice to act deceptively, and therefore their claim of knowing the source of authority to be them-self (essentially they claim to be a God in command of humanity) is false by their actions whereby they contradict their own words.
 
3.
Belief in a specific God, such as an image of a man with a beard, is not necessary in understanding the Nature of mankind whereby many individual human beings WILL choose to willfully resort to deception as a means of perpetrating crimes upon the innocent, and therefore individual human beings cannot be the source of authority, which leaves either no authority at all or some other, as yet to be precisely identified, source of authority. So long as it is established as a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument; whereby no man IS the rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
The question of what is God can be secondary (or ancillary) to the establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument, since the fact that it is no single human being BEING that authority him or her own SELF establishes that fact itself. Knowing that a proven liar is not the source of authority over mankind is a rock solid foundation itself.
 
4.
The logical, reasonable, next offer is offered for your consideration, your judgement, as a possible addition to the above offers of my individual effort to establish a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument. The next offer is to offer the IDEA that it is agreement among human beings, those actions that seek, and find, agreement among human beings, which work consistently in reaching closer to the goal of establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.  However there is an obvious qualification concerning the IDEA that it is agreement itself that constitutes the accurate establishment of a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
5.
The agreements agreed upon by individual human beings seeking to establish a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument cannot be an agreement to injure innocent human beings because that nullifies both the intended goal and the actual goal realized in time. If the goal is to find agreement then actions willfully taken to create disagreement confess the existence of accurately measurable false authority; since the stated goal of finding agreement is false as proven by the results whereby disagreement is sought after and realized in time. Agreement to agree to be fellow criminals is not an agreement to find victims who agree to be victims, that is an obvious lie. 
 
End Part I
 
Part II
 
All that above may easily be claimed by anyone, anywhere, as nonsense fabricated by either a liar who is aiming to injure innocent people, or a madman who is possessed with insane ideas that will inspire the madman to act destructively against innocent people.
 
Whenever anyone asks anyone else a question that challenges authority, by which authority do you proceed from this point onward, for example, there will be competitive answers offered in each case.
 
Where does the buck stop?
 
In California, as far as I am concerned, the buck stops at me, since I volunteered, since I am currently the ONE and Only California State Coordinator for common law grand juries being established according to the examples being set by John Darash and company, and if I am ever challenged as to my pretensions of authority the answer will be consistently the same answer.
 
No man has authority over me or you, and if anyone claims otherwise, my offer back to you, submitted to you for your potential agreement, is that said claimant is either ignorant, destructively misdirected, insane, or a willful criminal (mens rea or guilty of mind) perpetrating the crime of fraud by his words and by his actions as he or she claims to be the authority over you or over me.
 
Clearly, and demonstrably, time and again, this concept of establishing a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument proves to be true in human experience; the same authority proves to be true each time without fail. Please show me where there is an exception (that is not a false agreement)?
 
Example:
 
Group A consisting of many individual human beings acting according to the establishment of a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument meet one person after another person and in each case each member of Group A encounter a challenge to their establishment a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
A member of group A says:
 
"Do you agree?"
 
The person challenging the claim of the establishment a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument is then contending with, disagreeing with, that claim of the establishment a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument.
 
A member of group A then responds to that disagreement:
 
"By what authority do you contend with our unified claim of the establishment a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument offered to you for your agreement; to which you claim authority in disagreement?"
 
In other words: "Where can both parties agree as to what is, or is not, that which establishes a rock solid foundation of authority that is irrefutable by force of human argument?"
 
Group A says, in writing, witnessed, notarized, by oath, affirmation, and affidavit, sealed, with references, here, here, here, here, and here, from lesser to greater authority, the whole chain of command, is our unified claim of authority offered to you, in peace, for your consideration, to be agreed upon, or objected against, and if objected against, then by what authority is the objection claimed by the individual standing in disagreement by their willful actions on their own authority?
 
Just following orders?
 
Orders from who, from what, from where, and by what authority?
 
Consent of the governed is, in a word, agreement.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 02:04 pm  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > 11-11-13 Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems