Know the Tyranny to Resist It

I want to share two posts today that many may think are unrelated but if you dive deep with your noggin, you’ll hopefully realize the relationship is battling tyranny from corrupt governments trying to silence individuals from truth telling - in one case – and the other case is about governments being corrupted by the Elitist tyrannical few:

o Why Prof Bhakdi's Court Ruling Will Empower The Great Freeset

o The Sinister Symphony Behind a Dystopian Agenda

--BOTH CAN BE READ HERE: https://bit.ly/42dqdy1
#KnowTheTyranny

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/

Executive Order—Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious freedom of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution, applicable statutes, and other legal authorities, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Policy. The United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental natural right to religious liberty. This Constitutional protection ensures that Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their consciences, and will remain free to express their viewpoints without suffering adverse treatment from the Federal Government. It shall be the policy of this Administration to protect religious freedom.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Person” shall have the same definition as “person” in 1 U.S.C. 1.
(b) “Religious exercise” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, and includes any act or any refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
(c) “Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.
Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:
(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.
(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.
(c) As required by religious freedom laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”) and the religious provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 20003 et seq., agencies shall faithfully discharge their duty to accommodate the religion of federal employees and shall not promulgate regulations, take actions, or enact policies that substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise unless the imposition represents the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Regulations, actions, or policies shall not be deemed “compelling” simply by virtue of their having been applied neutrally, broadly, or across the Federal Government.
Sec. 4. Specific agency Responsibilities to Avoid Potential Violation of Religious Freedom
(a) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury shall immediately issue an interim final rule that exempts from the preventative-care mandate set forth in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4) all persons and religious organizations that object to complying with the mandate for religious or moral reasons.
(b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate actions, through mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing statutory and other protections, if necessary, to ensure that any individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market (whether through a federally facilitated exchange, a state-sponsored health insurance exchange, or otherwise) has the ability to purchase health insurance that does not provide coverage for abortion and does not subsidize plans that do provide such coverage.
(c) The Secretary of Health and human Services shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Government shall not discriminate or take any adverse action against a religious organization that provides federally-funded child-welfare services, including promoting or providing adoption, foster, or family support services for children, or similar services, on the basis that the organization declines to provide , facilitate, or refer such services due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs. The Secretary of Health and human Services shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.
(d) All agencies shall, with respect to any person, house of worship, or religious organization that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exceptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 20003-I(a) and 2000e-2(e)) and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(d)). The Secretary of Labor shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.
(e) The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that the Department of the Treasury shall not impose any tax or tax penalty, delay or deny tax-exempt status, or disallow tax deductions for contributions made under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), or otherwise make unavailable or deny any tax benefits to any person, church, synagogue, house of worship or other religious organization.
(1) on the basis of such person or organization speaking on moral or political issues from a religious perspective where religious speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as an intervention in a political campaign by the Department of the Treasury, or
(2) on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.
(b) No agency shall, to the extent allowed by law, not recognize any decisions or findings made by any federally-recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to, or otherwise disadvantages, a religious organization on the basis that such organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with a belief described in section 4(e)(2) of this order.
(g) No agency shall exclude or otherwise make unavailable or deny any person or religious organization admission or access to charitable fundraising campaigns on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the beliefs described in Section 4(e)(2) of this order.
(k) No agency shall take adverse action against any person or religious organization that is a Federal employee, contractor, or grantee on the basis of their speaking or acting in accordance with the beliefs described in section 4(e)(2) of this order while outside the scope of their employment, contract, or grant, and shall reasonably accommodate such speech and action when made within the course of their employment, contract, or grant. This provision shall not be construed to diminish or otherwise limit any other protection provided by this order.
(l) The Attorney General shall establish with the Department of Justice a Section or working group that will ensure that the religious freedom of persons and religious organizations is protected throughout the United States, and shall investigate and, if necessary, take or coordinate appropriate action under applicable religious freedom laws.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) All agencies shall promptly withdraw or rescind any rulings, directives, regulations, guidance, positions, or interpretations that are inconsistent with this order to the extent of their inconsistency.
(b) The provisions of this order shall prevail in cases of conflict with any existing executive order and with any future executive order unless such future order explicitly refers to, and limited or excludes, the application of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof, or ii) the functions of the OMB Director relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(d) This order shall be carried out subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.
(e) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies or instrumentalities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

....ASK YOURSELF: ...HOW MANY PEOPLE, WORLDWIDE, WERE "MASS-MURDERED", OR INJURED, BY THE "COVID-19, PLANNEDEMIC" PUSHERS, IN GOVERNMENTS, BIG pHARMa, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, ETC.?!...
https://s3.us-west-002.backblazeb2.com/MastodonK8s-Prod/media_attachments/files/110/393/366/283/909/604/original/0c34df4d9390bb85.jpg

THINK about that for a minute! A "passport."

NO MAN has any more rights than another man.... So how is that MEN can delegate "authority" they DON'T HAVE to other men?

There's nobody who legitimately has the right to tell me I can / cannot cross a #Border! And that's the problem with our CORPORATE Government!

They ACT as if their existence and actions are "authorized by the people." But "The People" never had the authority to to do the things that governments do! So how can those people give away authority they don't have?

NO MAN was born with the authority to prohibit someone from crossing an imaginary line on God's Earth!

So how is it that "government" was supposedly granted this right???

You CANNOT delegate rights that you DON'T HAVE to other people or govt.!

Our "government" is NOT a government anyway! It's a CORPORATION!
But this is a pretty fundamental question!

I mean certainly you have the right to protect YOUR PROPERTY!

But you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to prohibit anyone from passing through it!
Either through or around that is

The concept of a #Passport way exceeds anything government was ever authorized to do! Arguably they have the duty to DEFEND the Border!

But to TELL ME THAT I CANNOT LEAVE THIS CAGE???
I don't think so!

I'm not in Prison, I can go wherever the f*ck I wanna go!
As long as I harm no other people financially or physically!

This is YHWH's Earth, not the government's!
Who are they to tell me that I'm confined to this land mass???

That I need PERMISSION to leave!!!
GTFOOH!

Exit The WHO
In order to protect our personal freedoms and our national sovereignty, the time has come for "We the People" to #ExitTheWHO

I agree with James on almost everything!
As far as all of this goes... It's time for "We The People" to EXIT THE #Corporation which has deceptively named itself our #Government!

It's just like how everyone THOUGHT "The Fed" was the Federal Government, when it's actually a group of PRIVATE #Banks that counterfeit money in order to STEAL REAL WORLD ASSETS!

In the case of the governments of #Australia AND the #UnitedStates they've done the SAME EXACT THING! You have a foreign owned CORPORATION which is located OFFSHORE and has labeled itself "The United States of America."

They have no more authority over you and I than does McDonald's!

THAT does NOT mean that it's your government! It's still just a corporation!

And all of the BS "Statutes and Codes" that they write apply ONLY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES and people who "Consent" to CONTRACT with the Corporation!

These scumbags don't "Rule" anything!
They have DECEIVED you into believing that they do, but they DON'T!

Our entire system, #Police, State Governments, and ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES are nothing more than a #Criminal filled group of foreign owned Corporate Scum!

That's why your Cities, Towns, States, and Police Departments are ALL "Incorporated." You see.... You MUST BE A CORPORATION to deal with other Corporations!

FREE MEN & WOMEN CANNOT CONTRACT WITH CORPORATIONS!

And this is why your parents were duped into signing your Birth Certificate!

The document which turned YOU from a FREE MAN into a "Strawman" Corporation! FREE MEN have Inalienable human rights!

Corporations (Your Strawman or "Legal Fiction") DOES NOT!
YOU need to learn the actual #Law!

I'm NOT talking about statutes and codes!
That BS is "Admiralty Law" or "Law of the Sea" / CONTRACT LAW! It's the LOWEST FORM OF LAW!

FREE MEN operate under "The Law of the Land" God's Law, Cannon Law.

Known as "Superior Law" which trumps EVERYTHING these corporate Criminals write on a piece of paper and claim to be law!

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest that you LEARN!

Check out "The Justinian Deception" on YouTube
And the series "David Straight Live from Texas"
And "A Warrior Calls"

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-who

Tired of supporting a run wild Government Pull head from ass
A PMA Synopsis
Updated: Jun 10, 2021

A detailed overview of the PMA Structure and the background at law securing the protections of the Private Domain. Association is your right so start learning to exercise it.


You can legally practice your profession in a properly formed First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment Private Membership Association.

This means that your association business, and its members remain in the private domain and remain outside the jurisdiction of public law and authority of all state and federal agencies and law enforcement authorities. This right is not absolute, but your association would have to be operating in the realm of a clear and present danger of substantive evil in order to trigger even an investigation.

In other words, there should be no concern of being subject to an injunction or criminal charges of practicing medicine, or law, or any other field without a license by law enforcement when practicing your profession within a Private Health, Private Membership, or any other Private Association with only private members, not public patients or clients. Your relationship with your members is a private contractual relationship and according to long settled case law, the State CANNOT impair your right to contract. Your right to contract is unlimited.

In order to understand why a Private Association should work for you, a couple of legal principles need to be understood.

First, an understanding of the difference between a mala in se crime and a mala prohibita crime is important. A mala in se crime is a “crime or evil in itself,” e.g. murder, rape, bank robbery, etc. even under common-law. A mala prohibita crime is not a “crime in itself” but is only a crime because a state legislature or federal congress makes it a crime for the public welfare.

For example, the federal government or a state may decide to license a certain profession that was legal to do before licensing. After the licensing statute, a person who conducts that profession without a license could be charged with a felony criminal offense for practicing without a license.

In the public domain, a person who advises another that his legal rights have been infringed and refers him to a particular attorney has committed a mala prohibita felony crime in the State of Virginia.

But in the private domain of a First Amendment legal membership association, the state, “…in the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of… association, the decisions of this Court recognize that abridgment of such rights (occurred).” N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 at 421. The “modes of … association protected by the First and Fourteenth (are modes) which Virginia may not prohibit. N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, at 415.

In other words, a private mode or domain is protected and is a different domain than a public domain. What was a mala prohibita felony criminal act in the public domain became a legally protected act in the private domain or private association. A mala in se crime is not legally protected in the private domain or private association.

This means that you can practice almost anything without a license within your properly formed Private Membership Association of private members!!!

The only exception is if your association practices, proposes or promotes a clear and present danger of substantive evil.

Also, the private domain is referred to as a “sanctuary from unjustified interference by the State” in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 at 534-535. And as a “constitutional shelter” in Roberts v. United States, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 at 472. And again as a “shield” in Roberts v. United States, supra at 474.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 at 531, specifically refers to the “Domains set apart…for free assembly.” The First Amendment right to association creates a “preserve” Baird v. Arizona, 401 U.S. 1.

The private domain of an association is a sanctuary, constitutional shelter, shield, and domain set apart and a preserve according to a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Again, your properly formed Private Membership Association of private members is in the private domain with the protection of numerous favorable U.S. Supreme Court decisions with no decisions to the contrary to date, excepting limitations imposed upon statutory compliant PMAs and PMA’s created for the purpose of regulation by the state eg, a State Athletic Assn. or Union membership.

1ST, 4TH, 5TH, 9TH, 10TH, and 14TH Amendment Private Membership Associations

Background

While not explicitly defined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that certain implicit rights, such as association, privacy, and presumed innocence, share constitutional protection in common with explicit guarantees such as free speech. Specifically, the Supreme Court has described the right to associate as inseparable from the right to free speech.

The right of association under the Constitution was heavily litigated in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and members’ rights were consistently upheld by the Court. In fact, the right of association became a cornerstone of the civil rights movement.

In general, members of a private membership association do not fall under the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal governments and corresponding laws and regulations. The exception to this general rule is when the activities of the private membership association presents a clear and present danger of substantive evil.

Of interest, a private association was even used for purposes of discrimination as evidenced by a recent case involving the Boy Scouts of America.

A simple example of the use of the right to associate to avoid local laws is drinking clubs. Since prohibition was repealed in 1933, regulation of the alcoholic beverage industry was delegated to individual states. Some states, such as Texas, allow individual counties and cities to govern the sale of alcohol. As a result, 46 of Texas’ 254 counties are dry, meaning that the sale of alcohol is forbidden. However, by joining a private drinking club, members are able to sell alcohol to other members even though local law prohibits this activity. (Consumption of alcohol is neither illegal nor has it been deemed counter to society’s general interest, particularly in the realm of a 1st and 14th Amendment Association.)

It is important to note that the right to associate is not limited to social or political activities. This right can be utilized for business activities (e.g. sale of alcohol). Members of a private membership association have the right to private contract under the due process liberty clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and states may not pass laws that impair the obligation of a contract. In conclusion, under the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments we are granted due process.

Yet we must also look at the 14th Amendment; which guarantees that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We must look also at the 9th Amendment which guarantees certain inalienable rights to every man, woman and child. Those inalienable rights include not only the freedom of life, liberty, property, speech, assembly and due process, but any right or freedom which is not specifically given by the Constitution to the government. If the Constitution does not assign a specific right or freedom to the government, then we all have that particular right or freedom.

Those freedoms include the right of self-determination, home schooling, choice of suppliers of products and/or services, choice of lifestyle, food, drink and any right or freedom that does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others or is a threat. In a private membership association, the members have all the rights and privileges not specifically banned by the association unless they present a clear and present danger of substantive evil.

LEGAL FOUNDATION

To understand the legal foundation for this approach, it is helpful to examine the ways in which this approach might be challenged. This approach is typically challenged in two ways:

The first objection is a substance over form argument that states that this approach utilizes association rights for the purpose of avoiding federal or state laws and regulations. While this is a true statement, the ability of an association to do this is well established. The Supreme Court has stated that “a state cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels”. In other words, the label of “just avoiding state regulation” is not permissible.

Furthermore, the members of a private association have the right to contract with each other and conduct business activities, provided that those activities are not “of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils.”

Again, the general rule is that when a private membership association does not raise to the threshold level of a clear and present danger of substantive evil, federal and state governmental authorities and agencies may not interfere with the activities of the association.

The second objection is the assertion that association rights are limited to free speech and advocacy rather than actions (specifically, business activity).

The objection that some persons have for utilizing the 1st and 14th Amendment Private Association for a private association was that association rights were limited to association free speech advocacy, not association actions.

First, let us analyze this objection from reasoned and practical perspective. Free speech advocacy can exist outside of the private association. Considering the context of the association, if free speech is all that can be exercised within the private association, what need would there be to have a private association? The answer is that there would be no need because again, free speech needs no private association to operate.

The U. S. Supreme Court decisions quoted below clearly teach that private association rights are not limited to free speech advocacy, but to private association actions and activities beyond free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “In the political realm, as in the academic, thought (speech) and action (beyond speech) are presumptively immune (protected) from inquisition (illegal attack) by political authority (government).” [Explanations added]

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that, “....abstract discussion (free speech) is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion.” The “vigorous advocacy” here is the action or activity of actual litigation or the actual filing and follow-up of lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court further stated that, “In the context of NAACP objectives, litigation is not a technique of resolving private differences; it is a means for achieving equality of treatment…” Note that the Court referred to “litigation” as a “technique”, not free speech. Again, the Court stated that, “We need not…subsume such activity (litigation) under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech...”

Freedom of Association Involves Freedom of Speech and Activities

The U.S. Supreme Court has again stated, “We have deemed privileged (protected), under certain circumstances (Private Association), the efforts of a union official to organize workers (action). [Explanations added]

Again note that the action of “litigation controlled by laymen” and “a person organizing workers” outside the First and Fourteenth Amendment private association would be illegal with criminal or quasi-criminal penalties and/or sanctions.

Apparently, a person would be mistaken in his objection that private association rights are limited to free speech advocacy and do not include private association actions. The only question remaining is whether “litigation” and “organizing workers” are analogous to performing association services. The answer to that question is another question: Outside of the licensing and regulation jurisdictional context, are association services a lawful activity? The answer is, “Yes, of course!”

The state and federal government in its sovereign capacity is vested with police power which includes the power to protect the public. Note that a “private member” was not included. The exercise of the police power is available only for the purpose of promoting the interests of the public as distinguished from those of individuals or private persons (Emphasis added)

The 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect the individual the right to free speech, free expression and free assembly (freedom of association) against state police power except for special circumstances. “…those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against state invasion…and therefore made immune from state invasion…are First Amendment’s freedoms of speech…assembly, association…” Also, “…the rights to freedom in speech…were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble.”

In addition, the court held that the “membership lists of the very type here in question to be beyond the state’s power of discovery…” . “…the First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political…And the rights of free speech (and free association) are not confined to any field of human interest.”

“The idea is not sound therefore that the First Amendment’s safeguards are wholly inapplicable to business or economic activity. In other words, the freedom of association is applied to business and other economic activities (such as advertising and marketing associations).

In a properly formed Private Membership Association, members of that association, both professional and non-professional, are protected from state and federal government interference by the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They are also protected by the entire Constitution and the common law supporting the same. Furthermore, members are protected in Canada under Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian common law protecting members of Peaceful Assembly Associations, and members also enjoy the protections under international law contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

PROBABLE BENEFITS

*Operate an advertising and marketing association, or any private association, outside the jurisdiction and authority of federal and state government and agencies Maintain greater privacy of financial and business affairs of your advertising and marketing association activities.

*Greater security of being able to continue operation in a world of changing laws and politics.

*Increased profits due to unrestricted and beneficial structuring and strategies not available to regulated industries.

*Statutes and codes enacted by state legislature requiring the expense of licensing, regulation compliance, and insurance requirements to conduct your business activities do not apply within the private domain.

*Instead of conducting business under a legal loophole, operate under a legal exemption decided by the supreme law of the land, i.e., the Supreme Court decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Members of a private membership association have more rights to accomplish their personal goals and objectives within that association than they do in public life.

Professional members of a properly formed private membership association formed for any legal purpose, have more rights and freedom to pursue their personal goals and objectives for helping their clients within the association than they typically would have under most government controlled regulatory schemes.

If you need more freedom to do what you want to do with your life, or any part of your life, a private membership association may help you accomplish your goal. At least, a private membership association deserves your consideration.

VAX CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT: Australians Demand Justice For Govt’s Medical Tyranny https://www.infowars.com/posts/vax-class-action-lawsuit-australians-demand-justice-for-the-governments-medical-tyranny/

‘Water is Not a Human Right’
WEF Orders Governments to Begin Rationing Water into Homes. If the NWO gets you into 15 min. cities they will control "EVERYTHING" you do. You will own nothing and like it...