Humn.. Two Trees
>< Life or Death
Knowledge of "Good & evil"
- -or-
Through Knowledge shall the Just be delivered


http://www.authorityresearch.com/File%20Index%20page%20Speakers/praxis.htm

"...Hegel said that truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emerging synthesis which rconciles the two"


http://www.authorityresearch.com/ARTICLES_Other/Dialectic%20process.htm

"...dialectical negation does not entirely annihilate the thing negated, but rather retains it within the negation, qualitative changes do not produce anything from nothing, merely transforming the already existing things, but never annihilating them"

----------------^Dear Saints:
It has been a long time concern of mine for the Body to Arize to Her place of sovereignty -- yet unless She understands what that means '''''''' She will continually grope in Her journey -

The above site/s/ reveal How Language Uses "truth" to lead the Eye into an awkward twist for the Benifit of a Larger purpose
----It will be The Fear of YHWH [His Treasure] to keep US from evil


This Example:[considers the wording important]

Curious:
-Is the "only" referred to here -- regarding -the Only MENTION ie. [that is] "drugs"?
FDA = Food and Drug
'Federal Diet...'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--FYI: Preschoolers must use dairy- As PROVIDED [government sponsored]
--The twist-- http://www.authorityresearch.com/ARTICLES_Other/Diaprax%20is.htm
-- Well used corralling Method -- http://faculty.goucher.edu/eng105sanders/thesis_antithesis_synthesis.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op2uFd-NhA0
19a. Thesis-Antithesis example
- BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY
- New Slave owners- corporate America

Sunday, June 19, 2011
It appears the US CORPORATION VEIL has been breeched.
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

[freedomfight] Ppls Standing to the 10th Amend vs 18 USC
Posted By: watcher51445
Date: Sunday, 19-Jun-2011 10:41:01
VKD: It appears the US CORPORATION VEIL has been breeched.============================================================== The unanimous opinion in Bond v. United Stateshttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf handed down by the United States Supreme Court June 16, 2011, may open federal courts to individuals to challenge federal statutes, such those against drugs, as unconstitutional infringements on individuals' rights and usurpations of Federal Power in realms reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment tothe Constitution. This case is a turning point on Tenth Amendment and standing jurisprudence, and offers one of the first glimmers of hope sincethe Lopez case. Note however, that it is only a reversal on the single issue of standing tochallenge the statute, and thus a partial reversal of the precedent onstanding in Frothingham v. Mellon, not on the merits of whether that statuteis indeed unconstitutional. That finding remains to be made. Spread the word on this precedent. It needs to be cited often in other cases and in lawreview articles. DonateNow!

=
Here is the SHORT answer: You can declare your independence ANY time you want.
You can cite the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 as law for your reliance.
However, expect a fight IF you are upon the proprietary territory of another and expect a far lesser fight
IF you can show that your adversary has no claim upon your territory—
the latter today will take education as your adversary has been taught that his authority is everywhere. The dilemma you discuss from Translation 3 is exactly the dilemma faced in the 3rd law,
the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. As usual no one discussed the fundamental logical concepts back then either for the SAME reason as
to keep people in bondage—so I will do so now. Let’s go back to around 1776 and you’ll see….. Here you have a people declared independent of government in the 1st law,
the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 . Focus later on the fact it’s now law, and not history
and the difference is law can be relied-upon to keep some party “in check”. In essence the document provides that
individual consent is an element of just government and
the only law mentioned is an unwritten law of nature and nature’s God. [One can show in history all of this points
to the English common law—an unwritten law]. Now here is the important concept in 1776 which I come back to later: Declaring independence and achieving same are not
the same. Having a right to independence with all the unalienable rights and achieving same in a society
bent on your usurpation are not the same. Imagine how difficult all this becomes
IF you are on the territory claimed to be owned by another where a proprietary-power to make law for territory
is a well-understood concept? In 1776, the proprietary owner was the King of England.
Just post 1776 it took a war.
Fortunately NOW we have one important difference: Now the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is LAW and
it’s the first WRITTEN law. That wasn’t the case in 1776, so things were a lot harder. Now let’s fast forward to the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. Now
the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is written law. On the other hand you have the well-understood concept of
proprietary power over territory of ownership. Ownership of territory begets an opportunity to
make law for that territory. And of course the Northwest Territory was awarded in the collective sense to
the confederacy, the United States of America,>< of the 2nd organic law,><
the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, in the Treaty of Paris. But the 2nd law ALSO acknowledges the first law
in that the free inhabitants are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the FREE citizens of the states. [In other words
all the privileges and immunities but none of the obligations-
-AGAIN it reiterates in essence what the 1st law mentioned.] It’s just a few years post 1776. The Treaty of Paris just occurred.
The King just gave up rights to territory and awarded same territory to the confederacy called the United States of America.
Given the choice of: (1) NOT making written law for the territory and (2) Selling the territory off
(3) Giving it away without charge……
what would you EXPECT any government to do? Especially one that had all the war debt? Answer: They used the PROPREITARY POWER understood to those who have OWNERSHIP of property
to make LAW for the territory. [That was the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787—
written under authority of the confederacy, the United States of America ]
Thus, they made the inhabitants of the district liable for the war debt via taxation
[Hint: Taxation today traceable…so are the districts…etc.]
[Later they sold off the territory hence loosing what proprietary power they had….
what they didn’t bother telling people was their proprietary-power vanished didn’t it?]
Of course they understood all this when they drafted the ordinance for some smart people in the lot
would “pick-up-on” the concepts of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and say “Hey,
you can’t make law for us if we fought too!” and so
they offered in the document all the appearances of state-hood—
in actually two methods for states—which they took full advantage-of in the con just a short time later. In my 3rd translation I wanted to point out that when upon territory owned by another
for which a proprietary power holder exercises his power and writes law for same,
it’s very hard to declare independence. That would be the State of Kansas.
The proprietary power holder is the United States of America.
Chances are very good though that within Kansas
Dorothy didn’t reside in the State of Kansas—
however IF Dorothy visited a local State of Kansas government judge,
he would be the wizard who would exercise a proprietary power
and convince her NOT to peel back the curtain of knowledge.
> "Translation 3" to mean we have no rights and that because they
> switched it to "State of Kansas" rights that come from the Creator
> have been abrogated? I think not. To my way of thinking, if rights
> come from the Creator, they can change things around without our
> permission as much as they want, our rights remain the same.

I'm not sure "they switched" Kansas to "State of Kansas".