Log in



Categories » ‘Democracy’

The New Wave Of Violent Protests Is Exactly What The Elite – Want Here’s Why

February 23rd, 2017 by

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3131-the-new-wave-of-violent-protests-is-exactly-what-the-elite-want-heres-why

WARThis article was written by Chase Rachels and originally published at The Free Thought Project

Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left.  Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists,  anarcho-communists, radical 3rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs).  They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating.  Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums.  To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.

However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:

“Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”

To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.

Berkeley Students Racist Barricade

In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing.   The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”.  Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied.  The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.”  Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.

Berkeley Anti-Milo Riot

Riots erupted on February 1st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.

Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.

Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.

Presidential Inauguration Riots

On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump.  To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism.  Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested.  One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots

While most Black Lives Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses.  There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.

In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.

Women’s March

On January 21st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights.  Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.

Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.

It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina.  Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.

Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion.  It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations.  Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer.  It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.

Conclusion

If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause.  The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.

When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.

Comments 2

Irony
written by Zap , February 22, 2017

Leftist, progressives, feminist’s, LGBT, anarchist’s, Marxist’s etc all protesting in support of Islam with funding for the protest’s coming from Wall Street CFR Blue Team bag men and their NGO’s.
Endless layers of irony in this.
Absurdity beyond any parody.

Stupid self centered fools looking for attention
written by Olddog , February 22, 2017

At 76 years of age I conclude that it is way past time for the breakup of the nation that was never supposed to exist. Americans have been hoodwinked from the get go as the global powers that be have from before the beginning colluded to gain total control of natural resources and our money. They have empowered themselves to claim ownership of all Americans just like the days of slavery. All that has changed is Americans do not know that they were supposed to be sovereign State Nations. The good life that good jobs created was thought to be eternal and no preparations were made to guarantee a life of plenty. All this resulted in a massive intellectual decline as the good life led us into complacency. Now the Banking Cartels have us by the short hairs through promoting divisive civil theology and will soon create another civil war to further bankrupt everyone. It takes big money to give birth to a new form of governance and a universal comprehension of the only way to remain freemen. Let the scumbags riot all they want because the bankers will not reward them. They are just stupid self centered fools looking for attention. While digging they’re own graves.

WAR

ONLY FOOLS TRUST GOVERNMENT ACADEMIA AND THE MEDIA

February 22nd, 2017 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron289.htm

GOVERNMENTBy Ron Ewart
February 22, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

The crack of FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi’s sniper rifle echoed across the forest as it tore through Kevin Harris and then passed through Vicki Weaver’s head, as Kevin dove through the door of the Idaho cabin in August of 1992. The FBI sniper had already wounded Randy Weaver. Vicki was cradling her infant daughter in one hand and holding the door in the other. Her older daughter was standing next to Vicki and as the bullet ripped through Vicki’s brain, pieces of her hair, scalp, skull, skin and blood splattered the older daughter standing next to her.

Because of an earlier event where a U. S. Marshal was killed by Randy Weaver’s 14-year old son, and the son was killed by the other U. S. Marshals, an FBI “kill order” went out to all FBI agents that had descended on the scene. The Weavers were to be killed on sight. The wholly preventable tragic episode lasted 11 days. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bo Gritz was successful in negotiating an end to the standoff. The event stemmed from Randy Weaver trying to sell two sawed off shotguns to an ATF informant and then not showing up for his court hearing, leading to U. S. Marshals showing up at the cabin.

Rumors that the FBI had engaged in a cover-up regarding the Ruby Ridge operation were verified when E. Michael Kahoe, former chief of the FBI’s violent crimes section, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1996. Kahoe, who had destroyed an official bureau critique of the standoff, was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Weaver and Harris won a $3.1 Million dollar settlement from the government.

The well-known government siege that occurred at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas between February 28th and April 19th in 1993 was a similar event of out-of-control government power. It resulted in the death of 76 people, including young children living in the compound, burned to death by the ensuing fire. The memory of that event is burned into the minds of conservatives all over America.

Also burned into the memory of millions of Americans, especially Japanese Americans, was FDR’s February 19, 1942 Executive Order 9066, which interned (jailed) upwards of 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry in military camps on the West Coast. The government used the military to round up these Americans and don’t think for one minute the government wouldn’t do it again. Now do you still trust government?

Never forget that government is force and it is power. Thomas Jefferson warned us that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Has the U. S. Government become tyrannical? You decide.

But this government over-reach and abuse of power doesn’t stop there. In a much more recent case, FBI agents and Oregon County Sheriffs and State Patrol Troopers staged an ambush on a desolate, snowy stretch of Oregon highway to apprehend Ammon Bundy and the others that occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest the incarceration of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. The ambush led to the assassination by the officers of Lavoy Finicum, one of the occupiers of the wildlife refuge. A jury would later acquit the surviving occupiers, to the dismay and disappointment of the government prosecutors.

We wrote about the event in a recent article: “Over the last several decades, small, local skirmishes, sometimes violent, started erupting in different parts of the West, in response to the government and environmental land grab, which led to the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970’s. The skirmishes started to grow in size, which culminated in the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 at Bunkerville, NV between 200 heavily armed BLM agents and several hundred private citizens carrying guns. A shooting war where private citizens would start dying in the desert for all to see at the hands of federal agents, wouldn’t play well with public opinion. The event was widely covered by the news media and the government wisely stood down.”

As Americans push back against rising government abuse, harassment, interference and growing regulations, government responds with overwhelming force, totally out of proportion to the event, in an overt act of tyranny, as they did in Ruby Ridge, Idaho; Waco, Texas; Bunkerville, Nevada and Burns, Oregon.

But it’s not just government that Americans can’t trust. The lack of trust also extends to the news media and even academia. Both lie extensively, distort events to fit their agenda and infuse events and even science with a rabid Progressive mindset, man-caused global warming being a glaring example.

A few days ago the Associated Press reported a bogus story that the President was going to use the National Guard to round up illegal aliens and deport them, whether criminals or not. The story was an outright fabrication, in other words, fake news.

In a recent article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, he wrote: “Ladies and gentlemen, we were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. That most recent attack didn’t involve a horrible loss of lives, but it was devastating in its own way.”

Devastating Mr. Friedman? How? Devastating to Progressives maybe. Friedman purposely fails to recognize and attacks the 63,000,000 Americans in the 30 states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. They voted for a candidate that was going to shake up the status quo and rattle the timbers of the establishment elite. They voted for Trump because they had grown tired and angry over decades of failed Progressive policies. Trump, as flawed as he may be, was and is the flag bearer of that shake up and Friedman, the New York Times, academia and the rest of the national Progressive crowd are crying like a hungry baby with a dirty diaper because they didn’t get their way.

How can you trust columnists, reporters and news outlets that purposely distort the news, make up the news ….. or lie?

But let’s not forget those liberal colleges that pretend to teach your college-age children. These liberal professors are so brainwashed into thinking that liberalism and Progressivism are sacrosanct, they do everything in their power to silence any other avenue of thought. No, not every college professor is a rabid liberal carrier of the Progressive disease, but unfortunately, most of them are. We’ve selected a few quotes from college professors that illustrate the institutionalized liberal and often radical bias that exists in almost every college in America.

“Simply put: Thanksgiving is the day when the dominant white culture (and, sadly, most of the rest of the non-white but non-indigenous population) celebrates the beginning of a genocide that was, in fact, blessed by the men we hold up as our heroic founding fathers. …How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?” — Robert Jensen, University of Texas at Austin

“On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die — and to kill — for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity.” — Shahid Alam, Northeastern University

“I live to harass white folks.” — Derrick Bell, Harvard

“The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God d*mn you.” — David Guth, University of Kansas

“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.” — John Daly, Warren County Community College

“The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military…I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” — Nicholas De Genova, Columbia University

“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.” — Bill Ayers, University of Illinois at Chicago

“As to those in the World Trade Center…Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” — Ward Churchill, University of Colorado at Boulder

The foregoing is just a sample of what liberal professors actually think. We found many more comments just as egregious.

But our educational institutions don’t begin and end with liberal indoctrination in America’s colleges. It goes all the way back to Kindergarten and through 12th grade public education that has now been infected with Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We described CCSS in our August 7, 2013 article entitled: Common Core Standards – Suspicions Confirmed.” Common Core State Standards are riddled with United Nations internationally defined social justice and radical environmentalism. One of the standards includes this all-illuminating phrase: “CCSS must respond to equity as a meaningful process to address the social justice issues of race, language, gender and class bias.” This statement was in a math class directive. A math class!?

The other words and phrases that caught our eye in CCSS were “social interactionist theories”, “social and cultural theories”, “social contexts” and “equity.” The words “social” and “equity” are recurrent themes in everything we read about Common Core State Standards. These words come right out of United Nations socialist policies, parroted by liberals and you won’t find them in the U. S. Constitution.

Social justice and social equity have now become more important and have greater priority in the public school curriculum than Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic.

The point of all this discussion is, how can you trust the utterances of academia, or even teachers in K-12, when a huge majority of the professors and teachers are steeped in only one ideological, philosophical and political point of view that vehemently rejects any other point of view?

How can you trust government when it abuses its power so readily, so often and with deadly force against its own citizens? How can you trust the news media when it creates false news and outright lies to their viewing, reading and listening audiences?

If the people cannot trust their government, or the news media, or academia, or public education, then these entities have become the enemy of the people and must be resisted by any and all means.

Finally, there is a president who will bring that resistance to the front doors of these entities in open and notorious defiance. If he succeeds, that could be the turning point that conservatives have been waiting and praying for, ever since the days of President Woodrow Wilson and the 16th Amendment.

Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, after over 100 years, Progressivism is so embedded in our institutions and the mindset of the people, it may be that only a revolution will break the strangle hold it has on our culture, our economics and our freedom. At this time, there simply is no organized and well-financed resistance to unravel Progressivism and like all Republics before us, the people will wait until it is too late to mount an effective challenge. All the words and utterances in all the conservative venues won’t change anything. In contrast, The Other Side is well organized and well funded. Hopefully, some day, the people will come to realize that Progressivism is as much a danger to freedom as the atomic bomb is a danger to the entire human race.

Let us know if you LIKED this article.

© 2017 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America“. Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. Affiliated NARLO websites are “SAVE THE USA” and “Getting Even With Government” . Ron can be reached for comment HERE.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

GOVERNMENT

What Are Unalienable Rights?

February 21st, 2017 by

https://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/what-are-unalienable-rights/

by Russell D. Longcore
Owner and Editor, DumpDC.com

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an expansive article about unalienable rights. We all seem to just refer to the Declaration of Independence and what Jefferson wrote, and then defer to it. But natural law and unalienable rights are where it all starts.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights… Self-Evident. Obvious. Perhaps it was self-evident to the 18th Century common man, but I submit to you that the common 21st Century mind is not equally equipped. Much of the wisdom of the ages has been withheld from the modern man by the government schools. And why not? If you were a government, both tasked by The People to educate them and controlled by the same People, why teach generation after generation how to control you? Why not teach those generations how to be controlled? Self-evident truths bow to governmental self-preservation when The People aren’t watching vigilantly.

Building a tower requires building a firm foundation FIRST…or your tower goes over when the winds blow hard. Gentle readers, we’re in a CAT 5 hurricane right now that’s going to take down our American tower. If you do not have a working understanding of unalienable rights, you’ll likely fall for the next iteration of oppressive, tyrannical government foisted upon an uneducated populace who move their lips when they read. And if you don’t truly understand this philosophy, you cannot possibly teach it to your young.

Unalienable rights are also known as Natural Law or Absolute Rights. In this article these terms will be interchangeable. Also, the use of a male pronoun or the word “man” means all humans.

We begin with a definition of “Unalienable:”

“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523. One cannot sell, transfer or surrender unalienable rights. The Creator bestowed them on every individual. All human beings possess unalienable rights. Unalienable rights cannot be taken nor surrendered but they can be simply ignored. This is a little like the story Jesus told about the prodigal son. A recalcitrant son learns through tough lessons that he cannot escape his father’s love nor his rights as his father’s son.

But can we find natural human rights without a recognition of a Creator? Yes, without a doubt. What you’ll learn here about Natural Law dwells in the heart of every human being simply because he exists. The concept of Unalienable Rights is life-affirming whether or not you believe in a Higher Power, since the concept showcases the uniqueness of the human being in this world. Unalienable Rights are the highest form of humanness while at the same time the most elementary of man’s characteristics.

Unalienable or Inalienable?

There is a very serious error made throughout America as related to Unalienable Rights. That is, that many people use the term “Inalienable Rights” and think that the terms are interchangeable. But they are as different as night and day.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Inalienable rights can be transferred, sold or surrendered if you give your consent. Inalienable rights are not bestowed by the Creator or inherent in humans. ”Persons” have inalienable rights, and the word “Person” is a legal term¹. Inalienable rights can be bestowed to persons by government, and can be likewise removed from persons by government. At times, government itself can be considered a “Person” in a legal sense. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

Therefore, because we possess Unalienable Rights, endowed by our Creator, to secure these rights(not grant or create them), “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”² And the rights we bestow upon government are the Inalienable Rights that we all possess that can be transferred to other persons.

We’re going to build this like a pyramid, much like the Hierarchy of Needs developed by Professor Abraham Maslow, Ph.D. He placed the bedrock human needs as the base of the pyramid, these being the most fundamental needs upon which all others are built. Physiological needs are first, simple survival of the human body. Next up comes Safety, then Love, Esteem, then Self-actualization as the headstone.

FREEDOM

Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs

I don’t have a cool graphic for Unalienable Rights, so you’ll just have to look at Maslow’s pyramid and use your imagination. It won’t be all that hard.

The Right of Life

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of “certain Unalienable Rights,” he placed them in the proper order, with Life being the first and most basic of all. This is the right to simply exist as a sentient being…one able to perceive sensations, a consciousness. Unalienable rights come into being at the moment that a human becomes a human. I do not mean when the individual becomes a viable human, capable of life outside the womb. Both sides of the abortion issue agree that a zygote…a human female egg fertilized by a male sperm…is human, and that every day after it becomes an embryo for about 270 days it is human. Our right to life means our right to express our humanness and to simply be alive. The opposite is the death of a human being. The right to life gets very complicated, since none of us were able to leave the womb and live without assistance, sustenance and support. An argument about embryonic viability here entirely misses the point, since even post-birth humans need daily care until at least age 5 (or 10) or they will likely die. So along with our own innate right to life, we acknowledge our responsibility to assist other human life to exist and express itself. Maslow pointed to the need of breathing, food, water, sleep, sex, homeostasis and excretion…all part of maintaining life, and without any one of those needs, life would eventually stop. Note here that the right of life is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the lives of others.

Right of Personal Security

The next step up the Unalienable Rights pyramid is the right to protect one’s very life and bodily existence. And by acknowledging the duties we have to others to whom we give life…our progeny…we extend the right to protect their lives also. Personal security first means that our bodies are safe from harm. That security encompasses both protection by others while we are unable to secure our own safety and protecting ourselves and our loved ones after we become capable of assuring our own safety. Note here that the right of personal security is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the safety of others. The Second Amendment has its foundation in this unalienable human right, relying upon it to secure a free state through the use of a militia. The Second Amendment is not the “right” to keep and bear arms. It is the restriction on Congress to violate the Unalienable Right of Personal Security. Both the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments were supposed to secure this Right.

The Right of Labor

The first manifestation of the greater Right of Property is found in the Right of Labor. Every human being owns the work of his own mind and hands, and any hindrance to his employing his mental and physical ability in whatever method he thinks proper, without causing injury to another individual, would be a violation of the Right of Labor. This right will be found in Maslow’s Safety block.

Right to Acquire and Enjoy Property

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.” Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

This Right touches all of the other Unalienable Rights. First, a human fully possesses his own body, and may do with it what he pleases, as long as his choices do not violate the property rights of another human. Next, man owns his labor and may use his labor for his own subsistence. He may use his labor as an expression of value or a medium of exchange, and may freely exchange that value to acquire property. Then he may have quiet enjoyment of his property according to any manner that best reflects his happiness. Property may take the form of physical assets, but may also be less tangible assets like intellectual property. Property rights mean ownership and control, which includes the right to use an asset as well as the right to prohibit others from using the asset. Property rights also allow the owner to determine the value of an asset, and to even destroy an asset if he so chooses. The only restriction on the Unalienable Right of Property is that it does not infringe upon the Unalienable Rights of others.

As John Locke stated in The Second Treatise on Government (1690) “The great and chief end therefore of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property.” What man would willingly join a society that did not protect his enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor?

In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith states that “private property created a role for government in defending property (rights), and the existence of government created the security to stimulate the creation of new property.” Many today wonder why the economies of the nations are in such dreadful shape. But most governments around the world are undermining property rights, the very reason for their existence. When there is no predictability in the marketplace, and individuals are preyed upon by governments, the incentive for creating new property is diminished or altogether extinguished. Those still seeking to create new property will migrate to the governments that best protect property rights. That’s why capital is leaving America for foreign locations and will continue to do so.

Right to Contract

This Unalienable Right gives all individuals the liberty to voluntarily enter into contract with any other individual or group of individuals, so long as there is agreement as to the terms of the contract by all parties involved, and so long as the contractual agreement does not violate another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Therefore, in light of property rights, individuals may sell their labor to an employer at mutually agreeable terms. Individuals may profit from the disposition of other property by mutual agreement.

All Unalienable Rights preceded the establishment of governments. However, governments chafe mightily under this Right. In America, the years 1897 to 1937 were a 40-year period in which the US Supreme Court vigorously protected the Right to Contract. This period of time is called the “Lochner years,” referring to Lochner v. New York (1905). In Lochner, the High Court struck down a New York statute that set maximum working hours. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, stated that the Due Process Clauses found in the 5th and 14th Amendments were stout enough to protect the Unalienable Right to Contract, and that the State of New York had no business restricting the hours that an employee and employer may agree to. After 1937, the Court has relentlessly attacked the Right to Contract, supporting laws like the minimum wage and child labor statutes. Most of the burdensome Federal regulations are attacks on the Right to Contract, since they require parties to contracts to perform acts that they would likely not agree to if given a choice.

Right of Free Speech

This is the freedom to speak freely, provided that your speech does not violate the free speech of other individuals. The Right of Free Speech is an absolute right, subject to no other restrictions than another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Naturally, your liberty to speak does not allow for libel, slander, fraud or falsehood. This is another Unalienable Right which governments despise, and most governments do not allow untrammeled free speech. And free speech may take many forms, such as spoken, written, printed and performed.

Right of Beliefs or Conscience

Individuals have an Unalienable Right to believe what they wish, to worship as their conscience dictates, or as a negative right, to not believe or not worship as their conscience dictates.

Right of Personal Liberty

The classical liberal (the good kind) concept of personal liberty is as a moral principle in which an individual is free to govern himself, his life and his property without outside compulsion, force or fraud, provided that his personal governance does not intrude upon or violate the liberty of another individual.

Right to the Pursuit of Happiness

“Striving to find meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” ~ Dr. Viktor Frankl, 1992

The Pursuit of Happiness provides the vehicle through which man can find life’s meaning.

The Pursuit of Happiness would be found on Maslow’s pyramid at the very top as a Self-Actualization need. But this Right encapsulates all the other Rights and cannot be accomplished until the other Unalienable Rights are in place and utilized. Your pursuit of happiness would be short-circuited if you do not enjoy the Rights to Life, Labor, Property, Contract, Belief and Liberty.

To understand how this phrase “the pursuit of happiness” found its way into the Declaration of Independence, you must know some background about Thomas Jefferson. He was strongly influenced by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, even referring to himself as an Epicurean. The teacher’s philosophy was simple: if you cultivated close personal relationships, limited your desires to the necessities of life, and found joy in the moment, you would find happiness. Everything in moderation.

Conclusion

Think about a Being that creates humans, then endows them with Unalienable Rights simply because they are human, and the pinnacle of their Rights being the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness! Not its attainment, but the pursuit. The Creator is no cosmic Joker, playing a cynical game by creating a desire in the breast of each human being for happiness, but having no available tools to meet the desire. We are endowed with the desire, the ability and the Unalienable Rights necessary to live a life of purpose and meaning, and to pass on those purposes and those meanings to subsequent generations, all seeking the same outcomes.

Share this article with those you love. Then discuss it. Teach your children these lessons so they understand how the Creator meant for them to live. Understanding your Unalienable Rights will give you a reason to live, a gratefulness to your Creator, and true self-esteem based in reality.

* * * * * * * * * *

¹The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

²PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2011, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Olddogs Comments!

If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American’s,  suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed.                                “From the Redemption Manual”

Which is exactly what I am doing!

FREEDOM

What Will Trump Do About the Central Banking Cartel?

February 16th, 2017 by

https://mises.org/blog/what-will-trump-do-about-central-bank-cartel

by Thorsten Polleit

The US is by far the biggest economy in the world. Its financial markets — be it equity, bonds or derivatives markets — are the largest and most liquid. The Greenback is the most important transaction currency. Many currencies in the world — be it the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the British pound or the Swiss franc — have actually been built upon the US dollar.

The world is effectively on a US-dollar-standard, and the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has risen to the unofficial status of the world’s central bank. The rise of the Greenback has to a large extent been propelled by international banking, which has basically “dollarized” in terms of its lending and issuing activities.

The Fed Sets Global Policy

The Fed’s policy not only determines credit and liquidity conditions in the US, but does so in many financial markets around the world as well. For instance, movements of long-term US interest rates regularly have effects on credit and equity markets in, say, Europe and Asia. The Fed’s actions are the blueprint for monetary policymaking in many countries around the world.

The graph shows the Fed’s supply of newly created US dollar liquidity sent to other central banks around the world. It also shows the so-called “euro cross currency basis swap,” which can be interpreted as a “stress indicator”: If it drops into negative territory, it means that euro banks find it increasingly difficult to obtain US dollar credit in the free market place. The Fed’s injection of new US dollar balances into the financial system has helped to reduce the euro currency basis swap. Since late 2016, however, it has started to venture again into negative territory — potentially signaling that euro banks are again heading for trouble.

CENTRAL BANKING

The financial and economic crisis 2008/2009 has increased further the dependency of the world’s financial system on the US dollar. As early as December 2008, the Fed provided so called “liquidity swap agreements.” Under the latter the Fed is prepared to lend newly created US dollars to other central banks around the globe.

For instance, the European Central Bank (ECB) can obtain US dollars from the Fed and lend the funds on to shaky domestic banks in need for US dollar funding. In other words: Liquidity swap agreements can easily replace foreign currency funding in the market place by foreign currency credit provided by central banks.

Meanwhile, all major central banks around the world — the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Chinese central bank, the Bank of England, and the Swiss National Bank — have joined the liquidity swap agreement club. They also have agreed to provide their own currencies to all other central banks — in actually unlimited amounts if needed.

It is no wonder, therefore, that credit default concerns in financial markets have declined substantially. Investors feel assured that big banks won’t default on their foreign currency liabilities — as such a credit event is considered politically undesirable, and central banks can simply avoid it by printing up new money.

Moving Toward a Worldwide Central Bank

The close cooperation and coordination among central banks under the Fed’s tutelage amounts to an international cartelization of central banking — paving the way toward a single world monetary policy run by a yet to be determined single world central bank. Such a development is, or course, in the very interest of those in favor of establishing a single world government.

How will President Donald J. Trump and his administration deal with the cartelization in central banking? Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to be an “internationalist,” seeking to build a new world order by political and military means. If that is so, he will sooner or later have to come to grips with the Fed’s policies — most notably with its liquidity swap agreements.

The Fed’s policy has made the world’s financial system addicted to ever greater amounts of US dollars, easily accessible and provided at fairly low interest rates. From this the US banks benefit greatly, while average Americans bear the brunt: they pay the price in terms of, for instance, boom and bust and an erosion of the purchasing power of the US dollar.

What Trump Should Do 

If the Trump administration really wishes to live up to its campaign promise “Make America great again,” there is no way of getting around addressing Fed policy. A first step in that direction is the idea to subject the US central bank to public scrutiny (“Audit the Fed”), bringing to public attention the scope of the Fed’s interventions into the world’s banking system.

Of course, the liquidity swap agreements in particular can be expected to be heavily defended by central bankers, bank representatives, big business lobbyists, and mainstream economists as being indispensable for financial system stability. And for sure, a sudden withdrawal from this practice would almost certainly deal a heavy blow to financial markets.

If push comes to shove, it could even make the worldwide credit pyramid, built on fiat money, come crashing down. However, the really important argument in this context is that the continuation of the practice of central bank cartelization will eventually result in a despotic regime: and that is a single world fiat currency regime.

Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle”:

The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.[1]

Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.

Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.

If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.

Dr. Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa, Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth, and Partner of Polleit & Riechert Investment Management.


And banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital…

CENTRAL BANKING

By Simon Black

In a scathing editorial published in the Wall Street Journal today, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, blasted US banks, saying that they still lacked sufficient capital to withstand a major crisis.

Kashkari makes a great analogy.

When you’re applying for a mortgage or business loan, sensible banks are supposed to demand a 20% down payment from their borrowers.

If you want to buy a $500,000 home, a conservative bank will loan creditworthy borrowers $400,000. The borrower must be able to scratch together a $100,000 down payment.

But when banks make investments and buy assets, they aren’t required to do the same thing.

Remember that when you deposit money at a bank, you’re essentially loaning them your savings.

As a bank depositor, you’re the lender. The bank is the borrower.

Banks pool together their deposits and make various loans and investments.

They buy government bonds, financial commercial trade, and fund real estate purchases.

Some of their investment decisions make sense. Others are completely idiotic, as we saw in the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the larger point is that banks don’t use their own money to make these investments. They use other people’s money. Your money.

A bank’s investment portfolio is almost entirely funded with its customers’ savings. Very little of the bank’s own money is at risk.

You can see the stark contrast here.

If you as an individual want to borrow money to invest in something, you’re obliged to put down 20%, perhaps even much more depending on the asset.

Your down payment provides a substantial cushion for the bank; if you stop paying the loan, the value of the property could decline 20% before the bank loses any money.

But if a bank wants to make an investment, they typically don’t have to put down a single penny.

The bank’s lenders, i.e. its depositors, put up all the money for the investment.

If the investment does well, the bank keeps all the profits.

But if the investment does poorly, the bank hasn’t risked any of its own money.

The bank’s lenders (i.e. the depositors) are taking on all the risk.

This seems pretty one-sided, especially considering that in exchange for assuming all the risk of a bank’s investment decisions, you are rewarded with a miniscule interest rate that fails to keep up with inflation.

(After which the government taxes you on the interest that you receive.)

It hardly seems worth it.

Back in 2008-2009, the entire financial system was on the brink of collapse because banks had been making wild bets without having sufficient capital.

In other words, the banks hadn’t made a sufficient “down payment” on the toxic investments they had purchased.

All those assets and idiotic loans were made almost exclusively with their customers’ savings.

Lehman Brothers, a now-defunct investment bank, infamously had about 3% capital at the time of its collapse, meaning that Lehman used just 3% of its own money to buy toxic assets.

Eventually the values of those toxic assets collapsed.

And not only was the bank wiped out, but investors who had loaned the bank money took a giant loss.

This happened across the entire financial system because banks had made idiotic investment decisions and failed to maintain sufficient capital to absorb the losses.

Nearly a decade later, Kashkari says that banks still aren’t sufficiently capitalized.

(He also points out that banks today are obsessed with pointless documentation and  seem “unable to exercise judgment or use common sense.”)

The banks themselves obviously don’t agree.

As Kashkari states, banks feel that they currently have TOO MUCH capital.

Bizarre. They’re basically saying that they want to be LESS safe, like a stunt pilot complaining that his helmet is too sturdy.

I’ve written about this many times– the decision for where to hold your savings matters. It’s important.

In addition to solvency and liquidity concerns, there are a multitude of other issues, like routine violations of the public trust, collusion to fix interest and exchange rates, manipulation of asset prices, and all-out fraud.

(I personally got so fed up with our deceitful financial system that I started my own bank in 2015 to handle my companies’ financial transactions. More on that another time…)

Yet despite these obvious risks, most people simply assume away the safety of their bank.

They’ll spend more time thinking about what to watch on Netflix than which bank is the most responsible custodian of their life’s savings.

There are countless ways to figure this out, but here’s a short-cut: much much “capital” or “equity” does the bank have as a percentage of its total assets?

These are easy numbers to find. Just Google “XYZ bank balance sheet”.

Look at the bottom where it says “capital” or “equity”. That’s your numerator.

Then look above that number to find total assets. That’s your denominator.

Divide the two. The higher the percentage, the safer the bank.

Kashkari thinks the answer should be at least 20%, especially among mega-banks in the US.  

Until tomorrow, 

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Blacksmith Global Ltd.

Publisher of Sovereign Man

30 Cecil Street #19-08

Singapore, Singapore – No State 049712

Singapore 

CENTRAL BANKING

 

 

 

Which is the greatest sin murder of the body or murder of the mind?

February 14th, 2017 by

www.arkansasfreedom.com

 

By Barbara McCutchen

Regarding the proper role of education, the following Ayn Rand quote explains:

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past—and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.”

That means the child must start from the building blocks of logic which dictate the learning of any subject must require starting from the essential basic conceptual building blocks, then connecting them in logical order to build the pyramid of understanding that subject matter, e.g. mathematics, science, history, geography, reading, etc.

The “education” of today is anything but that, it is designed specifically to destroy the student’s ability to live his life rationally. The Cultural Marxists (Communists) of the 1920s-30s devised an imminently successful plan to destroy Western Civilization when they realized it couldn’t be done by bloody revolution (the Russian Revolution in particular) they attacked the mind/philosophy. It was to be achieved by their “march through the institutions”…infiltrating every important influential aspect of Western cultures. Names, dates, places are easily researched.  (They were precluded by John Dewey at the turn of the century with his emphasis on emotion rather than rationality, which made their goals easier to achieve.)

Elements of their philosophy included “Critical Theory”, i.e. criticize, relentlessly attack all aspects of western values…the family unit, the father figure, the use of reason, civility, etiquette, manners, knowledge of true history, merit, earned pride/self-esteem, high expectations, achievement, rugged individualism. Also, one was to be discriminating in their choice of friends, activities, values—meaning divesting oneself of any negative influences. Today we are taught the opposite, that discrimination is deplorable & to be vilified.

The principal tool used to accomplish their success is “Political Correctness”, i.e. feminism, sexism, racism, affirmative action, quotas, homophobia, group reliance, “takes a village to raise a child”, diversity, ad infinitum. Collectivism good, individualism bad.

Some of the first subjects to be banished were logic, ancient history, Latin, philosophy, epistemology, literary classics, poetry, challenging/higher mathematics & sciences…anything requiring excellence, effort, merit was deemed bad, whereas the emphasis more & more became the group, ease in subject matter, approximations instead of hard true facts(2+2 can = 5), feelings became more important than subject matter, history (& other subjects) were revised to suit the collectivist controllers.  Children were no longer to be challenged because their “feelings” might be hurt, expectations were lowered, false self-esteem instilled (everyone gets a trophy), their subject matter education was delayed and watered down. Discipline became a no no, it too might hurt “feelings”, therefore standards were badly diminished.

Rugged individualism, upon which this country was founded and grew to preeminence, was now verboten because that was the principal enemy of Collectivism where “each was given according to his need”, forced redistribution was not only expected but enforced.  The ruling elites were just more equal than all the others (Animal Farm).  Rugged individuals not only don’t fit in, they fight back.

Outcome: “Snowflakes” who wither in the light of day, slithering cowards seeking “safe places”, dysfunctional families, citizens who not only do not understand the proper role of government but do not seek that knowledge (willing slaves), children who’ve been conditioned not only to be arrogantly ignorant but even to doubt their own gender or that of others. Sheer insanity from which only the strongest of minds can escape.

But, as always, the blame falls on the taxpayers for not giving up more of their earnings to malevolent education/propaganda/conditioning institutions.  There are mega-bucks attached to failure, so the beat goes on & on. Funding follows failure. Today the parents & teachers are victims of the same mind-bending and have no idea what is wrong—but many know SOMETHING is wrong, but unequipped to think, use logic to discover what.

Outcome: Ignorant, propagandized students march in protest of things they do not comprehend, thugs & savages are in the streets, rioting, destroying, even killing without accountability because being held accountable was erased in our major institutions……education, justice system, politics, media, etc.  Eternal wars are waged against phantom enemies invented by the industrial/military/media complex for untold riches, while the patriotically conditioned youth (watch the military worship preceding public events) is used as mere cannon fodder.

The Collectivists knew the key to Western & Caucasian destruction was the elimination of true education and they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  Chaos, tribalism, & loss of individual freedoms are their results, along with ultimate power and $Trillions of unearned, bloody money. The “Camp of the Saints” is in full bloom, along with the end of civilization. Only the fabulously wealthy globalists will not pay the terrible price—they hope.

~Barbara McCutchen

www.arkansasfreedom.com

Abolish the Dept. of Education

End the ED, Support H.R. 899 to Abolish the Dept. of Education

On February 7, 2017, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education (also known as the ED), which was originally organized by President Jimmy Carter when he signed the Department of Education Organization Act on October 17, 1979. Rep. Massie’s bill, which is only one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

MURDEROn the same day as President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was confirmed by the Senate in a rare tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence, Massie accurately pointed out, “Neither Congress nor the President, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn.” Massie further stated:

Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school, or private school.

Among the bill’s original cosponsors, Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said of the bill, “For years, I have advocated returning education policy to where it belongs – the state and local level.” Jones added, “D.C. bureaucrats cannot begin to understand the needs of schools and its students on an individual basis. It is time that we get the feds out of the classroom, and terminate the Department of Education.”

In addition to Jones, the other original cosponsors of Massie’s bill include Congressmen Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho).

Also in support of the bill, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated on Facebook, “I’ve long supported getting rid of the unconstitutional Department of Education. Republicans going back to Ronald Reagan have talked about abolishing it, but it never amounted to anything more than talk.”

Both as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Reagan advocated for abolishing the Department of Education. On September 24, 1981 in his Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery, President Reagan proposed getting rid of the Department of Education. “By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children,” Reagan said.

However, by the time he left office after two-full presidential terms on January 20, 1989, the Department of Education had grown even larger and continued to expand under subsequent purportedly “conservative” Republican presidents, most notably President George W. Bush and his disastrous “No Child Left Behind” program.

Of Massie’s bill, Paul further stated on Facebook, “We desperately need to release the creative energy of teachers at the local level.”

Although Massie’s bill does not specifically address what would happen to the many unconstitutional federal laws related to education, federal student loans, and other various federal aid programs to public schools that have been passed either prior to or since the Department of Education was created, the bill is certainly an encouraging first step in the right direction toward removing the federal government from education.

If passed and signed by President Trump, Massie’s bill would accomplish what President Reagan originally promised, and more importantly it would begin returning control of education back to parents and local communities.

Please send a prewritten, editable message to your representative and senators and ask your representative to cosponsor H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education, in the House and ask your senators to introduce and cosponsor a companion bill in the Senate. Let them know that you want to remove the federal government from education and return control of education back to parents and local communities by abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education.

Phone calls can also be very effective, and of course the most effective way to educate your state legislators is by making personal visits to their offices. Click here for contact information.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

 

MURDER

STATE COURT AND COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

February 13th, 2017 by

Both articles posted today are designed to stimulate your attention to reality.

There is no way to return to lawful governance with an ignorant society.

 State court and county law libraries

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/law-libraries

WHO OWNS WHO

Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles But They Need Our Help

February 10th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3124-globalists-want-to-destroy-conservative-principles-but-they-need-our-help

CIVIL WAR

By Brandon Smith

For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:

“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.

When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”

I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on.  As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.

Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2TkEqnp-2w

Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwA_0FKR9f4

The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”

I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.

This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.

It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.

That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?

I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.

But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.

As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.

There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.

Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.

Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.

What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”

I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.

As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:

“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”

“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”

“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”

“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”

And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.

I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.

Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.

As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”.  The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.

The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.

This is the globalist’s long game.

While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”

The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.

It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. The worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day.

The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same enemy.  No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders.  The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.

Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.

This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.

It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.

Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.

 If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

 You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

WANTED:

One hundred million AMERICAN’S

capable of understanding the principals AMERICA was founded on and willing to join hands in a national resistance to CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Men and women who love their freedom more than their bondage who will circulate copies of the Constitution with the stipulation of a promise to read it and demand a Constitutional Government not under the control of the International Investment banking cartel. A second civil war will be the total end of freedom in this country. And that’s where this country is headed!

Contact olddog@anationbeguiled.com

FOR INSTRUCTIONS!

CIVIL WAR

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG ! PART ONE

February 7th, 2017 by

 

— The “United States” is NOT the “united States of America”

https://johnhenryhill.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/everything-you-know-about-the-united-states-and-

its-laws-is-wrong-the-united-states-is-not-the-united-states-of-america/

PART ONE

 by JohnHenryHill

Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG !

 The “United States” is NOT the “United States of America”

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

April 26, 2013; Revised August 24, 2014

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine

If you wish to open and/or download this 106 page essay as a Microsoft WORD document, please click here:     The_US_Is_Not_the_USA__8-24-2014

 

Preface

Almost everything you think you know about the government of the United States of America (the Union) and its laws is WRONG. Not just a few things– but rather almost everything!

When the Union of the various states was formed, the American people were NOT illiterate peasants. They understood very well the meanings of the words and terms used in the Constitution; and they knew the difference between the Common Law, Equity (Contract) law and Admiralty law – which are the ONLY types of law allowed by the  Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and the people in general understood in such great detail the concepts on which the Union was to be founded that they put us to shame by our ignorance

The Importance of Definitions

In order to communicate more effectively many professions have developed specific vocabularies containing very precise definitions. The vocabulary in every-day English as used by the public changes greatly over relatively short periods of time. Conversely, in order to maintain precise meanings of words, the vocabulary of certain professions is very stable – words tend to retain their meanings over long periods of time. For example, in medicine the phrase “heart attack” is often used by the public. However, for a medical doctor the term “heart attack” means little – instead he would refer to a very specific cardiac event, such as a “myocardial infarction” (death of heart tissue due to insufficient blood and oxygen), an “arrythmia” (irregular heart beat caused by abnormal electrical conduction within the heart), a “ventricular fibrillation” (a specific type of arrythmia – called a “can-of-worms” electrical conduction phenomenon – in the lower-left pumping chamber of the heart which renders the pumping action completely ineffective), or some other specific term. Similarly, a very precise and stable vocabulary has developed for law and the legal profession – what some have called “legalese”. Indeed, in law many definitions have remained fairly static over centuries – and when a new term is used or a new meaning is given to an existing term or word, that term is usually explicitly defined within that new statute. The problems arise when the definitions of specialized terms used by a profession depart from the definitions used by the general public, so that the terms become misleading or totally inaccurate.

For example, the term “client” in ordinary English refers to a customer. However, in law a “client” is a man who is mentally incompetent to act on his own behalf in court. In ordinary English a “person” refers to a man, woman or child. In law, a “person” is defined as a legal fiction and a corporation. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. by John Bouvier. Published 1856.) Likewise in law a “human being” is defined as a “monster”; a “citizen” is defined as an “officer or employee”; the word “must” means “may”; the word “including” is inclusive – meaning it means only the items following the word “include”; and even the term the “United States” has at least very different THREE legal definitions within the U.S. Code and Supreme Court decisions.

Examples:

1.) SHALL – The following court decisions leave no doubt about the legal meaning of “Shall”. “Shall” means MAY – thus, when a statute states that you SHALL do something, it is in truth stating that you MAY or MAY NOT do that something. You are NOT obligated to do it: the choice is yours!

As against the government the word “shall” when used in statutes, is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court

“Shall” in a statute may be construed to mean “may” in order to avoid constitutional doubt. George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, “shall” will be deemed equivalent to “may” …. Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136

2.) AUTOMOBILE and MOTOR VEHICLE – There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle.

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word automobile.’”; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

“Driver” is defined as a person operating a vehicle in commerce. (that is, being paid for doing so)

Transportation” is defined as the movement of goods or people in a vehicle engaged in commerce. (A “carrier” is defined as a business engaged in the movement of goods or people in commerce – that is, being paid to do so.)

“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or for hire. State and the federal governments have the authority to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions because any business (corporation) is a “creature of the state”.  Since a corporation is a “legal fiction” created by the state, that corporation’s use of public roads for financial gain may be regulated by the state via legislated statutes. (The legal concept of financial “gain”– often called simply “gain” – is important to understand, as it means profits derived from investments and/or from the labor of other people; it does NOT mean money earned by a man’s own labor) However, under the Common Law (still the primary law in America, superseding all statutes) and numerous Supreme Court rulings, a man traveling upon a public road in a private automobile who is NOT being paid for doing so is exercising his Common Law right to travel; and is NOT subject to any legislated acts (statutes) or any regulations derived therefrom – and therefore is NOT subject to speed limits, car registration, or any of the other regulations derived from legislated statutes (acts). In Common Law, legislated statutes (acts) are NOT Law; these statutes only gain the “force of law” upon the CONSENT of each  individual man. Under the Common Law a man  commits a crime ONLY if he injures another man or that man’s property (technically, in law a man’s rights and his body are considered his own property); or causes a “disturbance of the peace”. Under the Common Law a man has the unlimited right to enter into a contract or, conversely, to NOT enter into a contract..No contract forced upon a man is considered valid, but instead is considered null and void ab initio (from its beginning). The key factor is that a man may WAIVE some of his  rights under the Common Law by entering into a CONTRACT with another party for “consideration” – the mutual exchange of things of approximately equal value. A man’s rights under the Common Law are waived to the extent specified in that particular contract; and the ancient maxim under Commercial Law then applies: “The contract makes the law.” In short, this maxim means that the terms within the contract upon which two parties voluntary agreed become the Law on which disputes regarding that contract will be settled. Applying for and receiving a state-issued “Driver’s License” is such a contract – in which you voluntarily admit that you are a “driver” operating a “motor vehicle” engaged in commerce. Therefore, by obtaining a state-issued driver’s license, you voluntarily confirmed that you are a driver engaged in commerce and thereby submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the state’s statutes and regulations. Of course, even though you may possess a driver’s license (perhaps you are a taxi driver) you may not have been getting paid for transporting people when the police stopped you for “speeding”. However, because you have a “driver’s license”, the PRESUMPTION exists that you are engaged in commerce and therefore subject to statutes and their jurisdiction. And since you probably do NOT rebut this presumption to the court (in a written, sworn affidavit prior to going to court), this unrebutted presumption is accepted as a fact in law by the court. Two maxims of law apply here: “A presumption not rebutted becomes a fact in law.” And “He, who does not object, agrees.” But let us not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The United States v the United States of America

The Constitution was a commercial compact (a CONTRACT in the form of a TRUST) between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”   — Thomas Jefferson

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution: common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

Jurisdiction has many facets dealing with the various aspects and modalities of law and justice, i.e., Tort (Civil) law, Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law, Real Property law, Statute law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional law, to name a few of the fields of jurisprudence. The court must be sitting in the proper jurisdiction to render Justice. No court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Most local courts today sit in the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Law Merchant Contract law utilizing the

Uniform Commercial Code as the authority for their moving.

1865 – 13th Amendmentpeople could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.

1868 – a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the “United States” was created and incorporated in Delaware.

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both  subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: 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..”

It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States  AND  2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of  D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the “United States” incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term “United States” meant ONLY the “District of Columbia”; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.

1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, “U.S. citizens” as defined in the 14th Amendment

1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply “discharged”

March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.   (YIKES! Read that again.)

1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.

1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.

1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.

1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first section of  STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. The word “person” is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a “person”.

NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN — THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!

Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

  1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …
  2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …
  3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …
  4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …
  5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”)
Section 1. 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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of great importance is that BOTH conditions must be met in order for a man to be a “citizen of the United States”: (1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States]. If you were born in Vermont but never agreed by contract to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then you can assert that you are a citizen of Vermont, but NOT a citizen of the United States. By doing so, you are NOT subject to any statutes (acts) passed by Congress or any Federal regulations. The “catch” is that when you walk into any court, that court makes the presumption that you are a “citizen of the United States” and therefore subject to that court’s jurisdiction. And under the Common Law, “a presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law.” – meaning that you must OBJECT in writing (and verbally, often many times) to their presumption and make them prove it, since any presumption challenged (objected to) by a man in a court must be proven by that court, as the “burden of proof” always falls upon the one making the claim. Further, you could assert that you are neither a citizen of any state nor a citizen of the United States – and both that state and the United States would have to prove otherwise.

You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office of a “person” — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person.”

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.” The “person” or “persona” is NOT the real man or woman; rather it is an artificial representation;  a false image of the man or woman.

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

 Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courtsmay hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Executive Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction also denotes the area over which the executive or legislative powers or laws of a government extend. Similarly, the term also denotes the territory over which a state exerts or claims sovereignty or power (sometimes known as territorial jurisdiction).

In private international law, a supranational organization (e.g. the European Union), a nation-state, or a province (i.e. a subnational “state”) in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States), may all exercise jurisdiction although the problem of forum shopping is growing.

The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

 “To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.

“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

 When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual.

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

“He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land [the Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 (1905)

We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another U.S. Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

“..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier [corporation] in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

and…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and…

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of

 1938 – Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years, Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which was a very similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Swift v Tyson was that in any case of this type, the Court would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Further, since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court.

You must realise that the Court you are standing in is an Admiralty/Law Merchant Court under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which recognizes only two classes of entities, “Creditors” and “Debtors.”, dealing only in the terms and conditions of “Contractual Obligations.” It is NOT a Constitutional Court of proper jurisdiction to secure the Rights of Sovereign Citizens.

YOU MUST ESTABLISH THE PROPER JURISDICTION!

Common law

Distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are typically codified in a national constitution. In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the personae of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits of equity where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. [NOTE: ONLY a Common Law court can be a “court of record“ and thus a court of general jurisdiction.] In the United States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of special or limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. These controversies between states or between people from different states are called “jurisdictional diversity” cases and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

“The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.” (Note – of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

“Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy.” – 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

“Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

“Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides………..use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power.”

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that its use indicates that our Constitutional Republic no longer exists. Our system of law was changed without the public’s knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God’s Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. Formerly, you were able to own property (allodial title) and to do whatever you wished on that property, with no need for any licenses or to pay property taxes. Since 1933 people do NOT own their property, but rather possess “equitable title” which grants them the “right of use” of that property, but NOT true ownership. Thus, they are no longer the true owners, but are legally considered tenants on the land. If you still think you own your property, stop paying taxes – and soon thereafter, your home and property will be seized by the government under the “prize law” under Admiralty jurisdiction.

“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership’ is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” – Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts payable in Gold” written in 1933.

By our allowing these military flags to fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you’ll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law: the Common Law (the “law of the land”), Equity Law (legislated acts; as statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws, etc.) and Admiralty Law (the “law of the sea”; “Law Merchant”; “Maritime-Admiralty Law”; the “Law of Commerce”; or “commercial law”). The familiar “Stars and Stripes” flag is NOT the official U.S. flag. Indeed, before World War 2, most public and private buildings within a state flew ONLY their state flag. Each state considered itself a “sovereign nation” with respect to the other states and with respect to the United States – and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this as a fact in law. Therefore, for a state-owned building to fly a U.S. flag would mean that it had surrendered its sovereignty and was now under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Only Federal buildings under civilian control, such as the Post Office, flew the “U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime”, most notable for its vertical stripes and its blue stars on a white field (background) This U.S. Civil Flag of Peacetime (pictured immediately below) is the true official flag of the United States of America.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONMost Americans are unaware of this fact; and those who are aware believe it to be meaningless. However, under U.S. and international Maritime law, the “Law of the Flag” (which is a legal concept first developed under Maritime-Admiralty Law) is still of major legal importance, since the flag you display signals the nation under whose legal jurisdiction you are governed, on land and, most importantly, on a ship at sea. Operating a ship at sea using an unauthorized flag (not registered with a particular nation) was a most serious offense; it was called a “false flag” or “false colors” or not showing your “true colors”. If a ship was caught flying a “false flag”, the ship and its cargo were subject to confiscation and its captain (and possibly even its crew) subject to the death penalty by an Admiralty court hearing issuing a “summary judgment” – no trial by jury. Only two issues were considered: the fact that the ship flew a “false flag” and whether the captain possessed the proper Certificate of Registration from that nation authorizing him to fly that flag. That ship and its captain (and often its crew) were thereby considered “outlaws”, meaning that they were “outside the law” and therefore had forfeited all their rights and legal protections under the law. So-called “pirates” were an example of such “outlaws”.

CURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONCURRUPTIONThe following is a legal definition of the term Law of the Flag.

“…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it [that is, if he consents], there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Don’t be misled by the fact they are talking about the sea, and presume that the “law of the flag” does not apply on land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come onto land. Next a court case:

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” – Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

When you walk into a court and see this flag (with yellow fringe) you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign. You’re probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here’s how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that’s what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” – Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)   U.S. Supreme Court

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.— Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” — Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…” “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” — Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” — Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you get a seat belt ticket. What law did you violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though here, the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

All district courts are admiralty courts,   see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” — Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American’s aren’t aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the Constitution does NOT apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, he will probably state that it is statutory law and he has “statutory jurisdiction”. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don’t exist. If statuary law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing its procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder, etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It’s up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the saving to suitor clause and action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king’s government (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don’t it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag. Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again, where is the injured party or parties? – There are NO injured parties and thus this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

“Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?…. Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.” — Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

As mentioned above, on April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning the “Common Law” in the federal government. (ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938))

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS.” (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188; (1938) In short, in Erie RR v Tompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that henceforth within the United States, ALL crimes would be considered COMMERCIAL crimes – that is, subject to Contract Law (Commercial Law; Maritime-Admiralty); and NOT to the Common Law, thereby voiding the Constitution and all legal precedence since Colonial times. Further, under Commercial Law, rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution were OPTIONAL upon the courts (“privileges” that the court may or may not see fit to grant) – so a 12-person “trial by jury” under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution was no longer required. A judge could decide on his own whether to issue a “summary judgment” upon a defendant with no trial by jury; or he could decide to offer a defendant a “jury trial” (composed of as few jurors as the judge wished; thus NOT a true “trial by jury” of 12 people; or the judge could offer the defendant a “jury trial”, but any “verdict” of this jury was no longer lawfully binding on the judge, but instead was considered only an “advisory opinion” to the judge, which the judge could accept or reject as he wished. Thus, if a man was found “not guilty” by the jury in a “jury trial” under Commercial Law, the judge legally could ignore the jury’s verdict and declare that man “guilty”. To repeat, since the 1938 Erie RR v Tompkins case, ALL crimes and offences in the United States are considered to be “commercial crimes” in relation to the 1933 Bankruptcy Act of the United States and under which ALL U.S. citizens are considered “debtors” as surety for the debt owed by the U.S. government to foreign banks.

On May 18, 1951 during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C., the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC’s signature product. One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured transactions). By 1968, the U.S. government, 49 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands had enacted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) — the only exception being Louisiana. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, judges will often refer to it as “Statutory Jurisdiction”.

I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen [of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION]..

Please read carefully the following definition regarding Social Security to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

Contribution: Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of “contribution,” a tort-feasor [wrong doer] against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor [wrong doer] whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (Note – tort feasor means wrong doer; what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer’s share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. — (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy: In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did NOT affect citizens of the United States:

“Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.” [thus: the PEOPLE of America became the “alien enemy”]

Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

“My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness. . . As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Dies, March 15, 1933

Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, and we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11 [bankruptcy]. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.” — Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, 1933

The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nation’s 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven. I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Remember Jesus said “money is the root of all evil” The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Patman, March 13, 1933

“That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” — Congressional Record, Congressman Long, March 11, 1933

What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our children’s fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People. Remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act? He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work)

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

“In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

“Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”

Here is the legal phrase ”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

“As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES (emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” – United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

“I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death….But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers.” – Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this, so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency….Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years [since 1917], freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency….from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” – Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following: In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you’ll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed.” – (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions: The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as:

One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. – 1 Kent 73.

He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; -1 B. & P.163.

Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during time of war; – 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we’ve been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

“The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as “alien enemy” within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship.” – Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

“Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an “alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder.” – Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

“By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy’ as if he were born there.” – Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not, it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress’ actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

Letter of Marque: A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914.

Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

“The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” — Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I’m not even talking about the obvious, which we have already covered, read the following:

“The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.” — Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

How about Clinton’s new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

“The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)”

How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how, under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

“…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…” — (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

While former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen was simultaneously the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States:

Submitted January 28

Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” — Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.

At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee, I don’t know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust and interest to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money.

How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Mexico, without Congress’ approval. Secretary of Treasury Rubin previously had been president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico. Later, when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, he had the Treasury Mexico’s interest on its debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of interest (entrust) to me.

“Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final.” — Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. I didn’t make up this information; it is the government’s own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

In Which Court Do You Practice Law?

It is very important to appreciate the fact that District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are NOT the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional judicial courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are territorial tribunals that originate in

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Territory Clause); OR legislative (administrative) courts, that originate in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

 Paul Mitchell’s opening brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Gilbertson in

USA v. Gilbertson in District Courts of the United States, DCUS – Minneapolis #4-96-65” cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. Mitchell’s opening brief in

Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269 (especially in section 7d -7f) was even more extensive in scope.

Mitchell cites, for example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories only; not in the states. Thus the USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.

foreign municipal corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C. called the “United States”

“… the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. … It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. … The United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a State.” in re Merriam’s Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.

The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional

Article III DCUS inside those States.

 FROM: Opening Brief by Plaintiff Paul Mitchell in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 02-15269

7(d)      The abrogation clause at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) cannot retroactively amend federal statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”):

 This honorable Court of Appeals will please take formal judicial Notice of Appellant’s proper and timely challenge now filed in this appeal against 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), for violating the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the ex post facto prohibition.

See legislative history of 1988 amendments, Rep. Kastenmeier: “unwise and potentially unconstitutional”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “separation of powers” as follows:

… [A] power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency.

[Williams v. United States]

[289 U.S. 553, 580 (1933)]

However, the high Court in that case erred by defining “Party” in Article III to mean Plaintiff only. This definition contradicts the definition of “Party” as found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) (“Party” embraces both plaintiffs and defendants).

Accordingly, an FRCP amendment effective October 20, 1949, was strictly limited to those rules and could never have altered any existing federal statutes, whether retroactively or otherwise. See further discussion at 7(e) infra.

In particular, see Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938) (term “District Courts of the United States” in its historic and proper sense); Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, § 2(b) (“continuations of existing law”) and § 9 (“the jurisdiction of district courts of the United States”).

7(e)      The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., is vague and deceptive in several of its key provisions and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

By way of introduction, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the instant case, nor do any of the courts situated in any of the federal Territories or Possessions.

California is neither a United States Territory acquired under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (“4:3:2”), nor is it an enclave acquired under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (“1:8:17”) in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (“U.S. Constitution”).

It is clear from the original Statute at Large quoted above (60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39) that the DCUS is the only federal court with original jurisdiction competent to hear claims arising under the Lanham Act, when the venue is a judicial district of California (or any other State of the Union, for that matter). See 28 U.S.C. 84(b).

The DCUS and the USDC are decidedly not one and the same.

Appellant now supplies further conclusive proof.

The Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 869 et seq., contains provisions deliberately written and implemented to foster the false and misleading conclusion that ‑‑ in all matters arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States ‑‑ these two courts are synonymous and identical in all respects whatsoever. See Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (“3:2:1”) and the Supremacy Clause in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Appellant honestly trembles at the mere thought of challenging a comprehensive revision, codification, and enactment of all laws that have governed the conduct of the federal courts in this great nation for 54 years.

However, a careful review of the relevant evidence, as found in various sections of Title 28, U.S.C., has rendered that challenge necessary and inevitable.

That careful review now follows:

It is now abundantly evident to Appellant, and Appellant hereby offers to prove, that:

(1)        the Article III DCUS inside the several States were never expressly abolished by Congress;

(2)        Congress knows how to abolish federal courts when it intends to do so; and,

(3)        the Act of June 25, 1948, attempted fraudulently to conceal the DCUS, and to create the false impressions that they had been re‑defined as, replaced by, and/or rendered synonymous with, the USDC.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 132, 451, 610.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are decidedly not favored. See U.S. v. United Continental Tuna, 425 U.S. 164, 168 (1976), for example.

As of this writing, Appellant has assembled an exhaustive list of all statutes in Title 28 that expressly mention either the USDC, the DCUS, or both. For the convenience and edification of all, Appellant now advises this honorable Court, and all interested parties, that the results of this research have been published at Internet URL’s:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/dcus.in.28usc.bold.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/usdc.in.28usc.bold.htm

In any Act of Congress, words importing the plural include the singular, and words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things. See 1 U.S.C. 1.

Therefore, the rules of statutory construction strictly bar intermingling of “United States District Courts” with “District Courts of the United States”. Confer also at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

On the other hand, the term “district courts” [sic] does embrace both the DCUS and the USDC, since there appears to be a hierarchical relationship between this term and the courts constituted by Chapter 5 of Title 28. See 28 U.S.C. 451.

This Court is respectfully requested to recognize, and to take formal judicial notice, that the ex post facto restriction in the U.S. Constitution (“1:9:3”) emphatically bars Congress from retroactively re-defining the meaning of “district courts of the United States” as that term was used in all federal legislation prior to June 25, 1948 A.D. See, in particular, the Lanham Act at

60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; other examples abound.

Appellant’s Immunity from ex post facto legislation is a fundamental Right. See the Privileges and Immunities Clause

(“4:2:1”). Federal copyright and trademark laws protect Appellant’s Rights uniformly in every State of the Union.

7(f)       The Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”) was never expressly abolished inside the several States by any Act(s) of Congress, or by any rule changes:

 The Act of June 25, 1948, expressly changed the name of the “District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” to “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”, but only in the District of Columbia [underlines and bold added]. See § 32(b) in said Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 985 to 991.

However, no such comprehensive amendments were ever enacted for statutes conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS located within the several States of the Union.

  • 39 of the Act of June 25, 1948, contained an explicit “Schedule of Laws Repealed,” and the legislative history of this Act is equally explicit:

This method of specific repeal will relieve the courts of the burdensome task of ferreting out implied repeals.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 709]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

In this bill we have set up a new section of the billlisting chronologically all of the laws which we repeal.

[“Revision of Title 28, United States Code”]

[House Report No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Session]

[28 USCA 2461 to End, page 731]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 132 likewise did not abolish the Article III DCUS inside the several States. See 62 Stat. 895. For example, compare the Lanham Act at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39; the Sherman Act; and the Securities and Exchange Acts.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise never repealed by

28 U.S.C. 132 or otherwise. Compare 15 U.S.C. 1121 (still uncodified).

In effect, 28 U.S.C. 132 appears to have broadcasted an extra legislative tribunal from the federal Territories into the several States of the Union, but without expressly abolishing the constitutional Article III DCUS inside those States.

For example, see all predecessor statutes of 28 U.S.C. 132 for its territorial origins, i.e. § 641 of Title 48, U.S.C, 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions.

Think of it as a clear plastic overlay.

Also, see further discussion on this crucial point in

AUTHOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTESTING DECLARATION OF WESLEY C.J. EHLERS, Page 6 of 10, lines 3‑27 inclusive (Docket #164), concluding:

Plaintiff has carefully reviewed the history of amendments to this latter statute [60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39], and believes He is legally correct to conclude that the federal court with original jurisdiction of Lanham Act claims has remained unchanged in California and is still the constitutional Article III District Court of the United States (“DCUS”), and not the legislative

Article IV United States District Court (“USDC”).

A rules amendment effective December 29, 1948, amended the title “Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States” to read “Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts” [underlines and bold added].

And, a rules amendment effective October 20, 1949, substituted the words “United States district courts” for the words “district courts of the United States” throughout the FRCP.

However, the exact scope of these substitutions was limited to the FRCP and could not have affected any federal statutes. See Notes to FRCP Rule 1.

The Lanham Act statute at 60 Stat. 440, Sec. 39, conferring original jurisdiction on the DCUS, was likewise unaffected by these rule changes, and could not have been affected by these rule changes, notwithstanding the abrogation clause supra.

Moreover, repeals by implication are decidedly not favored by the courts. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987); 74 Am.Jur.2d 21-22 citing Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (1907) and U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213

(1902); Jackson v. Stinnett supra, 102 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 1996); also “Separation of Powers and Delegation of Authority to Cancel Statutes in the Line Item Veto Act and the Rules Enabling Act,” by Leslie M. Kelleher, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, Feb. 2000.

7(g)      In the opinions of recognized constitutional scholars, such as Justice Story, the Congress has affirmative obligations to create and to maintain constitutional district courts, proceeding in judicial mode.

The reasons for this proposition are simple, if not immediately obvious:

The original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is quite limited under Article III, as compared to its appellate jurisdiction unde

r Article III.

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article III embraces matters that arise under the

Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States). See also the Arising Under Clause at

3:2:1 in pari materia with 28 U.S.C. 1331 supra.

Cases that arise under the Supremacy Clause, as mirrored by 3:2:1 and by 28 U.S.C. 1331, would need to originate first in an inferior constitutional court, before those cases could ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

The exact same argument can be extended to this Court’s appellate jurisdiction: specifically, civil litigation under the Lanham Act must first originate in an inferior constitutional court, before such a case could ever reach the Ninth Circuit on appeal! In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit must proceed in constitutional mode.

The conclusion is inescapable, therefore, that Congress must first create constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode, and then it must also perpetuate them, in order to satisfy Article III and the

Fifth Amendment.

To do otherwise would constitute a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, which mandates due process of law (among other things). This mandate is also embodied in numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a United States treaty rendered supreme Law by the Supremacy Clause. See Article 14 in that Covenant, for example.

The entire thrust of that Covenant is to guarantee independent, impartial and qualified judicial officers presiding upon courts of competent jurisdiction (and not Star Chambers, or other tribunals where summary proceedings are the norm, and where due process is not a fundamental Right (read “shall”) but a privilege granted at the discretion of those tribunals (read “may”)).

In pari materia, compare the language in Rules 201(c) and 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FREv”): the former is discretionary (“may”); the latter is mandatory (“shall”). Confer at “Fundamental right” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (analogous to “shall”).

(Incidentally, Appellant is protesting the Seventh Edition of Black’s, because it has conspicuously omitted any definition of the term “United States” ‑‑ a term which figures prominently throughout federal laws and throughout the U.S. Constitution!)

7(h)      Appellant therefore asserts a fundamental Right to due process of law, which necessarily mandates courts of competent jurisdiction in the first instance. Within the 50 States of the Union, these are the DCUS and only the DCUS.

The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional courts vested by law with competent jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to the federal district courts must be strictly construed [cites 5(c) supra].

Appellant argues that statutes granting appellate jurisdiction must be strictly construed as well.

See 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) in the context of interlocutory orders.

Inside the several States of the Union, the United States District Courts (“USDC”) are not constitutional courts vested by law with original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act. Confer at “Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Sixth.

Inside the several States of the Union, the courts vested by law with competent, original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies that arise under the Lanham Act are the DCUS.

Statutes granting original jurisdiction to these courts have used language and terminology that enjoy a well established historic meaning. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 205 (1938) (the term DCUS in its historic and proper sense). Confer at “Noscitur a sociis” in Black’s Sixth.

Within California State, therefore, the DCUS is the only federal court with competent jurisdiction to originate the instant case.

7(i)       Federal municipal law cannot be usurped to switch the instant proceedings from constitutional mode to legislative mode.

The 50 States of the Union are not “United States Districts” [sic]; they are judicial districts! Federal municipal law does not operate, of its own force, inside those judicial districts. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 (the federal zone).

Even though the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are likewise judicial districts, federal municipal law can operate there because neither is a Union State. 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 119.

Nevertheless, federal municipal law is likewise bound by all pertinent restrictions in the U.S. Constitution, because the U.S. Constitution was expressly extended into D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively (hereinafter “extension statutes”).

In this context, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

 “It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and even predates it.”  Walz v. Tax Commission of New York City, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970)

“A practice condemned by the Constitution cannot be saved by historical acceptance and present convenience.” U.S. v. Woodley, 726 F.2d 1328, 1338] [(9th Cir. 1984)

Appellant alleges that the nomenclature “United States District” [sic], as found on the caption pages of all federal court orders today, is now being used to trigger legislative mode without adequate notice to litigants, in violation of the

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments (read “fraud”).

This dubious mechanism is called “silent judicial notice” [sic] ‑‑ surely a misnomer, if ever there was one. It would be entirely more accurate to call it “silent legislative notice”, since this practice is a deceptive device now rampant within legislative courts, and the DCUS are currently vacant.

But, has Congress been silent, or merely vague?

7(j)       The extension statutes are monumentally important, in light of highly successful efforts by the federal government, since the year 1866 A.D., to create an absolute legislative democracy within the several States of the Union.

The Guarantee Clause does not require the United States to guarantee a Republic Form of government to itself, but only to the 50 States.

Strictly speaking, Congress was free to create such a democracy, but only within the federal zone, and not within the State zone. See 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. The territorial reach of such a democracy is necessarily limited to the federal zone, and not beyond. See also the 1866 Civil Rights Act (an early example of federal municipal law) and IRC 3121(e).

Legally speaking, the population of federal citizens now “residing” within the several States of the Union is an absolute legislative democracy, by Congressional intent. Confer at “Federal citizenship” in Black’s Sixth.

Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45

(1885). In this context, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is correctly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acquiesced to this questionable legislative intent. Under the Downes Doctrine, the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States that are united by, and under, it. See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. This Doctrine is demonstrably specious, because it is contrary to Law.

Another deceptive device, perhaps?

The Downes Doctrine was later extended in the case of Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court ruled that the guaranties [sic] of the U.S. Constitution extend into the federal zone only as Congress makes those guaranties applicable ‑‑ by enacting federal statutes. Under this Doctrine, the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution would not extend into the federal zone without specific legislative action.

This latter presumption is conclusively rebutted by the extension statutes, however. Clearly, all guarantees in the U.S. Constitution have already been expressly extended into D.C. and into all federal Territories, without exception, effectively destroying the Downes Doctrine 30 years before the fact.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law.

It would only compound the ubiquitous errors that have already been made under the Downes Doctrine to treat the States of the Union as federal Territories in any manner whatsoever, least of all by convening territorial courts inside those States.

In this context, therefore, legislative tribunals like the USDC are entirely out of place, and wholly lacking jurisdiction, to entertain any cases that arise under the Lanham Act when States of the Union are the “judicial districts” where the violations are alleged to have occurred.

For now, California is a judicial district, not a legislative district, and original jurisdiction over such cases is clearly vested in courts specifically created to exercise the judicial Power of the United States.

This latter phrase is controlling, because it introduces Article III and forms the basis for all Clauses that Article contains.

Accordingly, for all of the substantive reasons stated above, the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) still remain the only federal courts with original jurisdiction legally competent to hear cases arising under the Lanham Act, when violations of that Act are alleged to have occurred inside States of the Union and across State lines.

7(k)      Vagueness, once fully documented wherever it occurs, will be shown to conflict directly with the stated legislative intent of the Act of June 25, 1948.

The stated legislative intent of that Act is clear enough: “The provisions of title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, of the United States Code, set out in section 1 of this Act, … shall be construed as continuations of existing law …” [bold emphasis added].

Moreover, “No loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any of such courts on the effective date of this Act shall result from its enactment.” [bold emphasis added]

See Miscellaneous Provisions, Act of June 25, 1948, C. 646, §§ 2 to 39, 62 Stat. 985 to 991, as amended.

In good faith, Appellant constructs these Miscellaneous Provisions to read: “No loss of Rights and no interruption of jurisdiction shall result from its enactment.”

What, then, is meant by the term “existing law”?

If Congress had intended to abolish the DCUS, they would (and they should) have said so. The period between 1789 A.D. and 1948 A.D. spans 159 years of judicial history! Hiding a herd of elephants under a rug would be easier than hiding the DCUS under a pretense.

To reiterate these all important points: Statutes granting original jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Repeals by implication (or magic carpets) are decidedly not favored. The law of jurisdiction is fundamental law. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law; without it, courts cannot proceed at all in any cause. Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., __ U.S. __ (1999), No. 98‑470, May 17, 1999 A.D.

In 1946 A.D., two years before the Act of June 25, 1948, the Lanham Act conferred original jurisdiction on the several DCUS. These courts are Article III constitutional courts proceeding in judicial mode. Inside the several States of the Union, the DCUS are the only federal courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Lanham Act.

This is the existing law!

The USDC are legislative courts typically proceeding in legislative mode. See American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (C.J. Marshall’s seminal ruling); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922) (the USDC is not a true United States court established under Article III!); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 88, 91, 132, 152, 171, 251, 458, 461, 1367.

Legislative courts are not required to exercise the Article III guarantees required of constitutional courts. See Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 274 U.S. 145 (1927); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (1928); Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438 (1929); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464

(1930); Claiborne-Annapolis Ferry Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 382 (1932); O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516

(1933); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50

(1982).

To the extent that the Act of June 25, 1948, was written and enacted to justify or otherwise foster the notion that all violations of Congressional acts predating that year can now be prosecuted in the USDC ‑‑ a legislative court that was broadcasted from the federal Territories into the several (48) States on that date ‑‑ then that Act is demonstrably unconstitutional for at least four reasons:

(1)        it exhibits vagueness on this obviously important point;

 (2)        it violates the ex post facto prohibition;

 (3)        it violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine at 28 U.S.C. 2072(b) and elsewhere; and,

 (4)           it violates the well established principle that statutes granting original jurisdiction to federal courts must be strictly construed.

Prof. Emeritus Kenneth L. Karst, on the faculty of the UCLA Law School, summed it up nicely as follows:

In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name. While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable to constitutional attack.

[Discussion of “Legislative Court”]

[in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution]

[New York, MacMillan Publishing Company (1986)]

[underlines and bold emphasis added]

7(l)       There are essential facts in this case which were either too subtle, or too voluminous, for the Magistrate and Judge Shubb to appreciate fully; neither has read and understood the whole docket file. Appellant now highlights these essential facts, to ensure that they are not also overlooked by this honorable Court:

(1)        On August 2, 1998 A.D., certain Defendants defaulted in response to Appellant’s DEMANDS FOR AUTHORIZATION (Exhibit “K”), thus satisfying the 3-year statute of limitations in the Copyright Act. Others defaulted after that date.

(2)        The acts of removing Appellant’s README file, containing His SHAREWARE POLICY, were acts of fraudulent concealment (“active misconduct”) and false designation of origin that resulted in tolling all pertinent statutes of limitation.

(3)        Withholding the identities of subscribers suspected of infringing Appellant’s exclusive copyrights was also an act of fraudulent concealment, making it impossible for the district court to assess actual damages. See Exhibit “J”.

(4)        Withholding the computer activity logs of ISP’s, in response to valid SUBPOENA’s issued under

17 U.S.C. 512(h), was tantamount to further fraudulent concealment and probable cause for contempt of court, and sanctions.

(5)        Counterfeits of the subject book remain on the Internet to this day, e.g. at Internet domain 9X.TC, proving conclusively that the threat of continuing wrong is substantial, premeditated and malicious. See Taylor supra.

(6)           Further retaliations against Appellant, e.g. denial of service attacks on Appellant’s website, physical assault and breach of the contract to serve SUMMONSES, justify immediate relief in the form of preliminary injunctions during pendency of this action

(see RELIEF REQUESTED in the Initial COMPLAINT).

(7)        Appellant’s primary emphasis in preparing the Initial COMPLAINT was to organize the electronic evidence, to preserve it intact, and to make it readily accessible via the Internet and its most popular search engines, e.g. the View | Source option in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

(8)        Printing hard copies of electronic evidence, particularly files coded in HTML, results in hiding the underlying markup codes where crucial evidence of hyperlinks and associated domains is to be found.

(9)        Appellant’s hard copy files contain many additional documents which Appellant has not had time to enter and which should be entered into evidence in the district court, e.g. the written amnesty offers that were mailed to certain suspects in the summer of 1999 A.D.

(10)      The Lanham Act was enacted expressly to enforce treaties like the Declaration and the

Covenant: “The intent of this chapter is … to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.”

See 15 U.S.C. 1127, last paragraph (uncodified).

(11)      Appellant’s Common Law Rights are expressly reserved by the Seventh and Tenth Amendments, the terms of which Congress is barred from re-defining. Thus, to suggest that Congress has abolished common law copyrights necessarily results in infringing Rights guaranteed by those Amendments, in this case. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

(12)      To refer to any of the issues discussed above as “frivolous” is an obnoxious insult to Appellant. Matters that arise under the Supremacy Clause are never frivolous. Why would State and federal laws impose solemn oaths of office on all public officials, if the State and Federal Constitutions were frivolous? Reductio ad absurdum.

Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so, give the name and docket number of each case.

Answer: No

For prisoners, did you exhaust all administrative remedies for each claim prior to filing your complaint in the district court?

Answer: (not applicable in this civil case)

The 4 United States: Which One Are We Talking About?

 Are you a Citizen, a National, a Resident Alien, or Non-Resident Alien

“United States” as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

(1)     United States* or U.S.* (first meaning)

  The name of the sovereign Nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

 (2)     United States** or U.S.** (second meaning)

  The federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority.

 (3)United States-Corp or US-Corp as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp

 

(4)     United States*** or U.S.***

The collective name for the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.

28 U.S.C. 1603(a)(3) states as follows:

(3)        which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332(c) and (d) of this title ….

Section 1332(d). The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

 Examples of Two Definitions

of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C.

 First Definition

 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9):

(9)        United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Second Definition

 26 U.S.C. 4612(a)(4)(A):

In general. — The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

[emphasis added]

The Supreme Court stated in Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellsey, 6 U.S. 445, 2 Cranch 445, 2 L.Ed 332, that the District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, it is apparent that the meaning of the term “States” in the first definition above can only mean the territories and possessions belonging to the “United States”, because of the specific mention of the District of Columbia and the specific absence of the 50 States (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). The District of Columbia is not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution (see Hepburn supra). Therefore, the 50 States are specifically excluded from this first definition of the term “United States”.

Congress has no problem naming the “50 States” when it is legislating for them, so, in the second definition of the term “United States” above, Congress expressly mentions them, and there is no misunderstanding. If a statute in 26 U.S.C. does not have a special “word of art” definition for the term “United States”, then the First Definition of the term “United States” is always used (see above) because of the general nature of that term as defined by Congress.

When citizens or residents of the first “United States” are without the geographical area of this first “United States”, their “compensation for personal services actually rendered” is defined as “foreign earned income” in 26 U.S.C., Section 911(b) and 911(d)(2), as follows:

911(b) Foreign Earned Income. — …

(d)(2) Earned Income. —

(A)       In general. — The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, or professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.

A citizen or resident of the first “United States” does not pay a tax on his “compensation for personal services actually rendered” while residing outside of the first “United States”, because Congress has exempted all such compensation from taxation under 26 U.S.C., Section 911(a)(1), which reads as follows:

911(a) Exclusion from Gross Income. — … [T]here shall be excluded from the gross income of such individual, and exempt from taxation … (1) the foreign earned income of such individual ….

When residing without (outside) this “United States”, the citizen or resident of this “United States” pays no tax on “foreign earned income”, but is required to file a return, claiming the exemption (see IRS Form 2555).

26 C.F.R., Section 871-13(c) allows this citizen to abandon his citizenship or residence in the “United States” by residing elsewhere.

26 C.F.R., Section 1.911-2(g) defines the term “United States” as follows:

United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states4, [Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc.] the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States, the territorial waters of the United States, the air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law ….

None of the 50 united States comes under the sovereignty of the “United States”, and subsection (h) defines the 50 States united by the Constitution as “foreign countries”:

Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.

[26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h)]

All of the 50 States are foreign with respect to each other and are under the sovereignty of their respective Legislatures, except where a power has been expressly delegated to Congress. The Citizens of each Union State are foreigners and aliens with respect to another Union State, unless they establish a residence therein under the laws of that Union State. Otherwise, they are nonresident aliens with respect to all the other Union States.

The regulations at 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1(a) state, in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

26 U.S.C., Section 1 imposes a tax on “taxable income” as follows, in pertinent part:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of … every married individual … who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 ….

The regulations promulgated to explain 26 U.S.C., Section 1 are found in 26 C.F.R., Section 1.1-1, and state in pertinent part:

General Rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by Section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

And, for declarations made under the penalties of perjury, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 separately defines declarations made WITHIN and WITHOUT the “United States” as follows:

If executed WITHOUT the United States: I declare … under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare … that the foregoing is true and correct.”

A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right. A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques, November 1990 edition, page 146

[emphasis added]

In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas: the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a jury verdict of “guilty”, for example, no law can be enforced and no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written U.S. Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.

Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, “No fiction can make a natural born subject.” Milvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:

As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest intimation in the Constitution which created the “United States” as a political entity that the “United States” is sovereign over its creators.

A Ticket to Liberty by Lori Jacques, Nov. 1990, p. 32]

Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you will find a very large body of legal literature which cites another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:

Section 1. 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.

[United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]

[emphasis added]

A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The citizens it defines are second class citizens because the “c” is lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines. Note how the amendment defines “citizens of the United States**” and “citizens of the State wherein they reside”! It is just uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) which promulgates Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Can it be that this amendment had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other means? Yes, it most certainly did. IRC section 1 is the section which imposes income taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a “citizen” as follows:

Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added]

Notice the use of the term “its jurisdiction”. This leaves no doubt that the “United States**” is a singular entity in this context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof“? Is this another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.

Not only did this so-called “amendment” fail to specify which meaning of the term “United States” was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15,641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. “I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment’s “adoption” in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968).

A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled into computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not “CA”). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail (use the foreign address format found in USPS Publication 221 instead).

Richard McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** . A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is a subject of Congress.

The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed, because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever.

The case of U.S. v. Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and federal citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the “void for vagueness” doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:

We have in our political system a government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States** and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases

 [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

[emphasis added]

The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 16 Wall. 36]

[21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

[emphasis added]

 

A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro v. Jordan, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:

That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.

[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]

[affirmed 278 U.S. 123 (1928)]

[emphasis added]

The Slaughter House Cases are quite important to the issue of citizenship, but the pivotal case on the subject is the famous Dred Scott decision, decided in 1856, prior to the Civil War. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote one of the longest decisions in the entire history of American jurisprudence. In arriving at their understanding of the precise meaning of Citizenship, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, the high Court left no stone unturned in their search for relevant law:

We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself: we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word “citizen” and the word “people.”

 [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

In the fundamental law, the notion of a “citizen of the United States” simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.

 [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

[emphasis added]

This decision has never been overturned!

What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term “Citizen of the United States” as used in the original U.S. Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the federal offices of Senator, Representative and President.

No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5).

If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible to be a Senator for nine years after its adoption.

Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald’s electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”), explains away the problem very simply as follows:

The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of “one of the United States***,” and this is doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else.

 [Studies in Constitutional Law:]

[A Treatise on American Citizenship]

[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]

[emphasis added]

This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for “representatives” to serve in the general assembly for the Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance reads as follows:

… Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; ….

[Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]

[The Confederate Congress]

[emphasis added]

Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S. Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for the Respondent filed in the case of People v. De La Guerra, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional qualifications for the federal offices of President and Representative:

As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Indeed, this was the same exact understanding that was reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott. There, the high Court clearly reinforced the sovereign status of Citizens of the several States. The sovereigns are the Union State Citizens, i.e. the Citizens of the States United:

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

Thus, the phrase “Citizen of the United States” as found in the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase “Citizen of one of the United States***”, i.e., a Union State Citizen. This simple explanation will help to cut through the mountain of propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. Federal citizens were not even contemplated as such when the organic U.S. Constitution was first drafted. For authority, see the case of Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), as quoted in the Preface.

With this understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case “c” in the clauses which describe the qualifications for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th Amendment. This is another crucial facet of the federal tax fraud.

There is a very big difference between the two statuses, not the least of which is the big difference in their respective liabilities for the income tax.

 Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a “citizen of the United States”, whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the highest exercise of a State’s sovereignty is the right to declare who are its own Citizens:

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

[emphasis added]

This right is reserved to each of the 50 States by the Tenth Amendment.

In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully recites some of the other relevant court authorities, all of which ultimately trace back to the Slaughter House Cases and the Dred Scott decision:

Indeed, just as one may be a “citizen of the United States” and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July 21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote in which tells us: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state ….” At page 434, Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the court said this: “Under our complex system of government, there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term

[Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139]

[emphasis added]

Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is not a Citizen of any one of the 50 States. In People v. De La Guerra quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the alleged ratification of the so‑called 14th Amendment:

[Please see next page.]

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

Using language that was much more succinct, author Luella Gettys, Ph.D. and “Sometime Carnegie Fellow in International Law” at the University of Chicago, explained it quite nicely this way:

… [A]s long as the territories are not admitted to statehood no state citizenship therein could exist.

[The Law of Citizenship in the United States]

[Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1934, p. 7]

This clear distinction between the Union States and the territories is endorsed officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. Using language very similar to that of the California Supreme Court in the De La Guerra case, the high Court explained the distinction this way in the year 1885, seventeen years after the adoption of the so-called 14th amendment:

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. … The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.  

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

The political rights of the federal zone’s citizens are “franchises” which they hold as “privileges” at the discretion of the Congress of the United States**. Indeed, the doctrine declared earlier in the National Bank case leaves no doubt that Congress is the municipal authority for the territories:

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**. They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

This knowledge can be extremely valuable. In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment and related constitutional law when he made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation, of all things, in Los Angeles county municipal court:

The Accused Common-Law Citizen [Defendant] hereby places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a “citizen of the United States**” under the so-called 14th Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

You might be wondering why someone would go to so much trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not just pay the fine and get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the fundamental and supreme Law of our Land, the Constitution for the United States of America. Sovereign State Citizens have learned to assert their fundamental rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law:

There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]

[emphasis added]

Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to travel. “Driving”, on the other hand, is defined in State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers for hire. “Passengers” are those who pay a “driver” to be chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**, you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways, even though the highways belong to the People. The land on which they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the People. Provided that you are not engaged in any “privileged” or regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish within the 50 States. Those States are real parties to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.

Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. (“Unalienable” rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your automobile outright, without any lawful requirement that you “register” it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal “interest” which they obtained in your car, by making it appear as if you were required to register the car when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don’t believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer’s statement of origin (“MSO”) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for traveling without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.

If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (“BBS”) and Internet website. There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to “download” text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text “compression” program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which “decompresses” the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file “14AMREC.ZIP” contains the documentation which proves that the so‑called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his work (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882). His website is at Internet domain

http://www.state-citizen.org .

As you peruse through McDonald’s numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:

Under the Constitutions, “… we the People” did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or Federal Government. Powers “delegated” do not equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority because the “LAW” is already set forth. Any individual can do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti comes from to prove a “crime” or a civil damage.

[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald’s electronic BBS]

[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y, emphasis added]

Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America is to be one of the Sovereign People, “a constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people” [see 19 How. 404]. According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the People are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely revealing that there is no definition of “United States” as such in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of the “United States of America”, where the delegation of sovereignty clearly originates in the People and nowhere else:

The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the states and the United States**, and they have a natural right to determine what was given to one party and what to the other. … It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own conscience.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]

defining “United States of America”

People as Sovereigns

The Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America does not specifically define the word “People.” Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

END OF PART ONE

FOR PART TWO GO HERE: http://wp.me/p1jN4X-1Oi

CURRUPTION

One Freemans War In the Second American Revolution – Mark Emery

February 6th, 2017 by

https://www.amazon.com/One-Freemans-War-American-Revolution/dp/0692360980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486396279&sr=1-1&keywords=One+freeman%27s+War+Mark+Emery

OLDDOGS MUST READ LIST

By Olddog

I have heard it said “A man is what he reads”, so what is he if he does not read? Well like so many Americans these days, I would say he is NOT MUCH. He is probably an air-head TV junkie at best and intellectually defiant, only taking what he can, and uninterested in anything requiring though or labor.

Hopefully that is not you; the reader of this rant.

My opinion of this book is that every human being in this woebegone land should be forced to read it, so his/her brain could be exposed to some oxygen that is produced by cognitive activity in the tissue occupying the frontal cortex.

Amazing true story about American heroes who dared to challenge tyranny at every level. (Adventure, Philosophy, Intelligence)

Ordinary citizens had the government running scared!

With a background in International Business, Rex Freeman was recruited heavily by the C.I.A. to do work overseas under ‘private cover’. He endured a gruelling screening process which spanned nearly 8 months. When he was finally invited to the Langley headquarters to make the final step, he declined the offer. Being a man of strong principles he knew he wouldn’t fit in any situation in which he’d have to sell his soul for nefarious black ops.

It wasn’t long before he had a run in with the I.R.S. which didn’t suit him much. He uncovered fraud in the process and this led him to start studying the law. The more he studied, the more fraud, deception and misapplication of the law he uncovered and it wasn’t long before he became a citizen advocate for natural rights and lawful government. Instead of working ‘for’ the government as he nearly did, he was now attacking it head on and trying to put overzealous tyrants back in their proper place as servants to their masters, the people.

Rex became very public with weekly seminars and public training exposing the corruption and then offering solutions on what people can do about it to protect themselves and hold tyrants accountable. This led to a radio show and that ‘did it’. He became a threat to ‘business as usual’ by the ‘status quo’. The game was on and he became a target for persecution. The more government tried to silence him, the more he discovered and he became even more effective in countering the their attacks and suppression tactics.

They threw him in jail, and he broadcast his radio show from the phone in his cell pod interviewing the inmates about abuses they had suffered. They couldn’t shut him up. He wouldn’t back down. The more they threatened him, the more he pushed back and he exposed their iniquity for all to see.

Rex and others like him took on;

Overzealous Police

Corrupt Courts

Errant Public Officials

The I.R.S.

and even The Fed and the U.S. Treasury.

They proved that the Government Goliath could be humbled by their Citizen Masters!

We all know that ‘Knowledge is Power’. Rex and others like him had acquired the knowledge and the power to defend themselves and challenge ‘the machine’ which so many of us feel so helpless to stand up against. This is a story of hope. It is a gripping adventure. It’s entertaining and funny! Yet it is as serious as a heart attack. You will be enlightened when you learn some of the amazing discoveries that were made and you will see the key issues that have bound you over to servitude in our current system of law.

Lessons and Discoveries for all Americans & Freedom Lovers Worldwide.

The issues raised in this book are critical to understand as it comes down to pure operation of law and how your rights are converted into privileges and regulated by the government. Which do you prefer; the status quo where temporary government granted privileges can be suspended on a whim? Or immutable Natural, God Given rights, which nobody can infringe upon? The choice is yours.

Reclaim those natural rights. Understand the issues.

Read this book to advance your knowledge (while being entertained at the same time)

 

$19.95 at Amazon Books

Top Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 starsA Revelation of Compassionate Service

ByPouvre Toveson May 28, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition

This book is unmistakably, an autobiography, set in the most recent time-frame and applicable to all Americans who love liberty and long for the freedoms we have lost.
It unveils a chronology of historical details few could know by direct experience.
It exposes a cesspool of corruption and reflects upon the evil at the core of our cultural demise. This IS a record of the global cabal masquerading behind a veil of darkness even when illuminated by the light of truth. And it is intimate with our sorrow as a Fallen Nation – not unlike how the Native Americans were beaten into submission not so long ago.
Our Founding Fathers admonished us to keep vigilant to defend our GREAT REPUBLIC against the forces they knew all too well would work to undermine, corrupt and usurp our freedoms. We did not listen.
This book shows how we have become slaves – how the terms of our capture are dictated and how we are granted permission to live and work for ‘them.’
One Freeman’s War is our war – though few choose to stand up and fight or have the guts to take a stand for what is ethical, compassionate and liberating. How often we choose to fight against each other than join together to reclaim what is ours – granted only by God.
In this book you will read about the way some freedom fighters broke through the walls of this great deception and walked into the illusion and stood for a time in that other world of sheer greed and power. They saw the puppeteers behind that shroud and engaged them. They were emboldened by what they learned and entered their castle keep to reclaim what had been stolen – from us all.
Using their discoveries we now have a map we can all study to follow – a map that leads to a new land of liberty for all as Freemen.

Read more

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsA MUST READ

ByDGon July 10, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase

This is a must read for those who still have their heads buried in the sand as to how crooked our judicial system is and how they will lie, cheat and steal to take away anybody’s freedom if they aren’t one of the sheeple and marching to the beat of the drum. I only wish I were as versed on the law of the land as well as the author. He gives very good information regarding the legal processes he used to defend himself against the system, which could be useful in helping anyone who chooses to live life as a free man, as God intended. I admire the author for writing this book in hopes that it will become a best seller, whereas awakening the masses to the fact that even though freedom is a God given right, if we don’t fight for it, it will be lost forever. Good work, Mark!!!

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsA story of a modern Don Quixote

Bysquireon June 9, 2015

Format: Paperback

This is the story of a modern Don Quixote with all of the adventure and humor, but with a great deal of sadness since it is not based upon the imagination of a writer, but mostly upon the real life drama that Americans suffer through every day. Yes, suffer through, even if most Americans are too blind and indifferent to see the reality of their own situation. The story of Rex Freeman is a story of the desire to live free. Not everyone will agree with his methods, or even his direction, but who cannot desire to be free? There are many paths for many people, and the adventure is figuring out which one is for you. Or you can just sit at home on your couch watching Reality TV while Reality quietly slips past you, and you are bound by the soft cords of modern tyranny.

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

4.0 out of 5 starsA BRILLIANT LESSON TO PROTECT FROM TYRANNY.

ByPierre Herberton May 29, 2015

Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase

Within less than 350 pages, you learn, if you did not know it before, that honest people need to protect themselves against tyranny:
If people do not know how they can be manipulated, they will be controlled. our God given rights are “legislated away” and speculators, money powers, other potential and powerful tyrants will govern you, already own you thru the bank system and the public servants modus operandi.
Nowadays, God’s law has been hijacked by man’s law and, if ignorant, we boast about it like we boast about man’s technological progress which is about to destroy our planet and ourselves.
Would we be able to teach every one what it is all about, oppression would have to vanish and honest people would have another chance to live free.
Mark Emery is trying here to give us the first lesson to adapt and find solutions. The book is brilliantly written and evident power games are well documented. I find it very entertaining.

Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

5.0 out of 5 starsI will participate in the revelution! I have re-read the book and find it even more compelling ! I take it as acall to action

ByEarl Thompsonon April 20, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase

The book is well written and very informative.
You have fought a variant fight and aI am proud to be associated
With you.ven
I plan to recommend this book to everyone I know.

In recent days I have learned that homeland security has become
We’ll trained and heavily armed force and Is surely preparing to
Implement marshal law.
I do not see any way “we the people” can win this battle.
We are all hooked on feeding at the government trough!
I hope to visit Pamama in the near future!

American Revolution

Irreversible Damage – The U. S. Economy Cannot Be Repaired

February 4th, 2017 by

http://alt-market.com/articles/3121-irreversible-damage-the-us-economy-cannot-be-repaired

By Brandon Smith

As I outlined in my article ‘The False Economic Narrative Will Die In 2017’, the mainstream media has been carefully crafting the propaganda meme that the Trump administration is inheriting a global economy in “ascension,” when in fact, the opposite is true. Trump enters office at a time of longstanding decline and will likely witness severe and accelerated decline over the course of the next year. The signs are already present, and this fits exactly with the basis for my prediction of the Trump election win — conservative movements are indeed being set up as scapegoats for a global economic crisis that international financiers actually created.

Plus, it doesn’t help that Trump keeps boasting about the farcical Dow hitting record highs after his entry into the White House. Talk about the perfect setup…

With the speed at which Trump is issuing executive orders, my concern is that people’s heads will be spinning so fast they will start to assume an appearance of economic progress. Here is the issue — some problems simply cannot be fixed, at least not in a top down fashion. Some disasters cannot be prevented. Sometimes, a crisis has to run its course before a nation or society or economy can return to stability. This is invariably true of the underlying crisis within the U.S. economy.

It is imperative that liberty activists and conservatives avoid false hope in fiscal recovery and remain vigilant and prepared for a breakdown within the system. Despite the sudden political sea change with Trump and the Republican party in majority control of the D.C. apparatus, there is nothing that can be done through government to ease fiscal tensions at this time. Here are some of the primary reasons why:

Government Does Not Create Wealth

Government is a wealth-devouring machine. The bigger the government, the more adept it is at snatching capital and misallocating it. Such a system is inherently unequipped to repair an economy in a stagflationary spiral.

I’m hearing a whole lot of talk lately on all the jobs that will be created through Trump’s infrastructure spending plans, which reminds me of the desperation at the onset of the Great Depression and the efforts by Herbert Hoover to reignite the U.S. economy through a series of public works programs. Reality does not support a successful outcome for this endeavor.

First off, Trump’s ideas for infrastructure spending to kick start a U.S. recovery are not new. The Obama administration and Congress passed the largest transportation spending bill in more than a decade in 2015 and pushed for a similar strategy to what is now being suggested by Trump. I should point out though that like Herbert Hoover, Obama’s efforts in this area were essentially fruitless. Obama was the first president since Hoover to see “official” annual U.S. GDP growth drop below 3 percent for the entirety of his presidency, with GDP in 2016 dropping to a dismal 1.6 percent.

Though projects like the Hoover Dam were epic in scope and electrifying to the public imagination during the Depression, they did little to fuel the overall long-term prospects of the American economy. This is because government is incapable of creating wealth; it can only steal wealth from the citizenry through taxation to pay debts conjured out of thin air, or, it can strike a devil’s bargain with central banks to print its way to fake prosperity.

Some might argue that Trump is more likely to redirect funds from poorly conceived Obama-era programs instead of increasing taxes or printing, but this does not change the bigger picture. Redirected funds are still taxpayer funds, and those funds would be far better spent if they were returned to taxpayers rather than wasted in a vain effort to increase GDP by a percentage point. Beyond this, the number of jobs generated through the process will be a drop in the bucket compared to the 100 million plus people no longer employed within the U.S. at this time.

Bottom line? Though new roads and a wall on the southern border are winners for many conservatives, infrastructure spending is a non-solution in preventing a long-term fiscal disaster.

Interdependency Is Hard To Break

Another prospect for raising funds to pay for job generating public works projects is the use of tariffs on foreign imports. Specifically, imports of goods from countries which have maintained unfair trade advantages through global agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA or the China Trade Bill. This is obviously a practical concept and it was always the intention of the founding father post-revolution for government to generate most of its funding through taxation of foreign imports and interstate commerce, rather than taxation of the hard earned incomes of the citizenry. However, the idea is not without consequences.

Unfortunately, globalists have spent the better part of a half-century ensuring that individual nations are completely financially dependent on one another. The U.S. is at the very CENTER of this interdependency with our currency as the world reserve standard. In order to change the nature of the inderdependent system, we have to change the nature of our participation within that system. This means, in order to assert large tariffs on countries like China (which Trump has suggested), America would have to be willing to sacrifice the main advantage it enjoys within the interdependent model — we would have to sacrifice the dollar’s world reserve status.

Keep in mind, this is likely to be done for us in an aggressive manner by nations like China. China’s considerable dollar and treasury bond holds can be liquidated, and despite claims by mainstream shills, this WILL in fact have destructive effects on the U.S. economy.

Also keep in mind that with higher tariffs come higher prices on the shelf. The majority of goods consumed by Americans come from outside the country. Higher tariffs only work to our advantage when we have a manufacturing base capable of producing the goods we need at prices we can afford. The American manufacturing base within our own nation is essentially nonexistent compared to the Great Depression. In order to levy tariffs we would need a level of production support we simply do not have.

The point is, an unprecedented change in America’s production dynamic would have to happen so that we do not face heavy fiscal consequences for the use of tariffs as an economic weapon.

Manufacturing Takes Time To Rebuild

Much excitement has been garnered by reports that certain U.S. corporations will be bringing some manufacturing back within our borders over the course of Trump’s first term as president. And certainly this is something that needs to happen. We should have never outsourced our manufacturing capability in the first place. But, is this too little too late? I believe so.

I remember back in 2008/2009 mainstream economists were applauding the Federal Reserve’s bailout efforts and the call for quantitative easing, because, they argued, this would diminish the dollar’s value on the global market, which would make American goods less expensive, and by extension inspire a manufacturing renaissance. Of course, this never happened, which only adds to the mountain of evidence proving that most mainstream economists are intellectual idiots.

It is important that we do not fall into the same false-hope trap in 2017. While Trump may or may not handle matters more aggressively, there is only so much that can be accomplished through politics. Rebuilding a manufacturing base after decades of outsourcing takes time. Many years, in fact. Factories have to be commissioned, money has to change many hands, wages have to be scouted for the best possible labor per-dollar spent and people have to be trained from the very ground up in how to produce goods again. In many cases, the skill sets required to maintain functioning factories in the U.S. (from engineers to machinists to assembly line labor to the people who know how to manage it all) just don’t exist anymore.  All we have left are millions of retail and food service workers forming mobs to demand $15 an hour, which is simply not going to encourage a return to manufacturing.

Beyond this, at least in the short term, America will have a much stronger dollar on the global market, rather than a weaker dollar, due to the fact that the Federal Reserve has initiated a renewed series of interest rate increases just as Trump entered office.  While the mainstream theorizes that the Fed will turn “dovish” and back away from rate hikes, I think this is a rather naive notion.  It serves the elites far better to create a battle between Trump and the Fed – therefore, I see no reason for the Fed to back away from its rate hike process.  Trump will demand a weaker dollar, the Fed won’t give it to him, and ultimately, the global economy will start to see the dollar as a risky venture and dump it as the world reserve; which is what the globalist have wanted all along so that they can introduce the SDR as a bridge to a new world currency.

With a “strong” dollar (relative to other indexes) there is even LESS incentive for foreign nations to buy our goods now than there was after the credit crisis in 2008. If the dollar loses world reserve status (as I believe it will during Trump’s first term), then at that point we will have a swiftly falling currency — but too swift to fuel a manufacturing reboot.

Is there even enough internal wealth to support the rise of manufacturing within the U.S. for a period of time necessary for our economy to rebalance?  If there is I’m not seeing it.  We are a nation mired in debt.  So much so that even selling off our natural resources would not erase the problem.

Ultimately, the shift away from being tied to a globalized system towards a self-contained producer nation with a citizenry wealthy enough to sustain that production in light of limited exports to foreign buyers is a shift that requires incredible foresight, precision and ample time. It is not something that can be ramrodded into existence through force or by government decree. In fact, the act of trying to force the change haphazardly will only agitate an economy already on the verge of calamity.

Solutions Start With The Citizenry, Not Washington

I understand that conservatives in particular want to “make America great again,” and I fully agree with that goal. But, someone has to point out the inconsistencies in the current strategy and recognize that the situation is beyond repair. To make America great again would require decentralized efforts to maximize production and self reliance at a local level, not centralized federal tinkering with the economy. The globalists have been far too thorough in their programs of interdependency. The only way out now is for the system to crash and for the right people to be in place to rebuild.

Sadly, not only will a crash result in great tragedy for many Americans, but it is also an outcome the globalists prefer. They believe that THEY will be the men in the right place at the right time to rebuild the system in an even more centralized fashion. They hope to sacrifice the old world order to inspire the social desperation needed to convince the masses of the need for a “new world order.” Again, this crash cannot be avoided, it can only be mitigated. We can prepare and become self sufficient. We can fight to ensure that the globalists are not in a position to rebuild the system in their image once the dust settles. But, we should not place too much expectation that the Trump administration will be able to solve any of our economic problems, if that is even their intent.  The solution remains in our hands, not in the hands of the White House.

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:

brandon@alt-market.com

Irreversible Damage

Thank You, and No, I Can’t Keep Up…. And Did You Know You Are in The Service?

February 3rd, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/02/thank-you-and-no-i-cant-keep-upand-did.html

JUSTICEBy Anna Von Reitz

This morning I looked in my email inbox and saw 50,410 unanswered emails blinking at me.  There is no way on Earth that I can answer all or even a small fraction of these. It just isn’t possible.  If I had a full-time staff devoted to answering emails for me, they might keep up.  As it is, it would take 50 people working over 1,000 emails each today.

Realizing— and finally admitting—- that I am never, ever going to be able to get through all those emails, I just had to hit the “delete” button and hope that the ultimate answers to the mysteries of government and life were not part of the overload.

I also had a heartbreaking question forwarded to me by my Webmaster — a friend who has been sending $10 a month since September and never got a thank you from me.  Did it arrive?  Did it make a difference?  I burst into tears.

We could never come so far, so fast, without the good wishes and help and prayers and $10 donations.  This has been a very, very hard winter for everyone on my team, including me.  There have been deaths, accidents, illnesses, injuries— you name it, we’ve had it.  It’s as if Satan himself took an interest in making our lives miserable the past four months, and with all those setbacks, we wouldn’t have survived it without all of you coming forward and sending us money for gas and copy service and stamps.

I had to sit back and shake my head. I can’t even keep up with thanking all the people all over this country who are and who have been loyally supporting the research and the efforts of our Living Law Firm team.  Again, it just isn’t possible.  I would have to spend all day every day on nothing but correspondence —- and then I wouldn’t get the actual work done that you want me to do.

So, yes, your PayPal donations to avannavon@gmail.com do matter, and so do all the checks and money orders and other gifts sent to me in care of Post Office Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska 99652.   You have all helped lift the burden and make it bearable and though I admit to many sins, ingratitude is not one of them!  I do get the mail eventually and I bless you all and thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Here is today’s strange but true tidbit that we all need to know:  your SURNAME is that of a Warrant Officer in the Merchant Marines known as a Withholding Agent; HE is under a services contract which makes HIM responsible for paying the DEBTS of the government. 

Isn’t that cute?  All these years they had you convinced that you were paying debts that you owed, but in fact, you are merely a faceless military services subcontractor tasked with paying off the debts of the UNITED STATES and its franchises. As long as you retain a SURNAME, you are presumed to be operating in their foreign system and to be obligated in this way.

So one of the key points to make and prove is that you are no longer in any form of military, quasi-military, or civil service employment.  And if they think you are, then they need to produce the contract and the dates and the amounts you have been paid and the name of your supervisor and your job description and all the rest of it.

Once again we find that this entire system is built on nothing more than deceit and self-interested lies.  Pure bunko. 

So the work excavating the manure pile goes on, and this is what occupies my time and the time of many others every day.  We are now at a point where we can begin pulling together the actual pleadings to bring suit against the rats in international courts.  Stay tuned for more to come. 

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

We can delight in the fact that we have an all mighty God who will use some of us to put in place justice and recompense, and then woe to the Banking Cartels and their puppets, who will burn in hell forever.

THANK YOU ANNA, AND ALL YOUR HELPERS AND DONORS.

JUSTICE

Guess How Many Nations In The World Do Not Have A Central Bank?

February 2nd, 2017 by

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/guess-how-many-nations-in-the-world-do-not-have-a-central-bankank?

CENTRAL BANKS

By Michael Snyder

Central banking has truly taken over the entire planet.  At this point, the only major nation on the globe that does not have a central bank is North Korea.  Yes, there are some small island countries such as the Federated States of Micronesia that do not have a central bank, but even if you count them, more than 99.9% of the population of the world still lives in a country that has a central bank.  So how has this happened?  How have we gotten the entire planet to agree that central banking is the best system?  Did the people of the world willingly choose this?  Of course not.  To my knowledge, there has never been a single vote where the people of a nation have willingly chosen to establish a central bank.  Instead, what has happened is that central banks have been imposed on all of us.  All over the world, people have been told that monetary issues are “too important” to be subject to politics, and that the only solution is to have a group of unelected, unaccountable bankers control those things for us.

So precisely what does a central bank do?

You would be surprised at how few people can actually answer that question accurately.  The following is how Wikipedia describes what a central bank does…

A central bank, reserve bank, or monetary authority is an institution that manages a state’s currency, money supply, and interest rates. Central banks also usually oversee the commercial banking system of their respective countries. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in the state, and usually also prints the national currency, which usually serves as the state’s legal tender. Examples include the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve of the United States and the People’s Bank of China.

In the United States, we are told that we have a free market system.  But in a true free market system, market forces would determine what interest rates are.  We wouldn’t need anyone to “set interest rates” for us.

And why have we given a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) the authority to create and manage our money supply?  The U.S. Constitution specifically delegates that authority to Congress.

It is not as if we actually need the Federal Reserve.  In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history happened during the decades before the Federal Reserve was created.

Unfortunately, a little over 100 years ago our leaders decided that it would be best to turn over our financial future to a newly created private banking cartel that was designed by very powerful Wall Street interests.  Since that time, the value of our currency has diminished by more than 96 percent and our national debt has gotten more than 5000 times larger.

But despite all of the problems, the vast majority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans are not even willing to consider slightly curtailing the immense power of the Federal Reserve.  And the idea of getting rid of the Fed altogether is tantamount to blasphemy to most of our politicians.

Of course the same thing is true all over the planet.  Central banks are truly “the untouchables” of the modern world.  Even though everybody can see what they are doing, there has not been a single successful political movement anywhere on the globe (that I know about) to shut a central bank down.

Instead, in recent years we have just seen the reach of central banking just continue to expand.

For example, just look at what has happened to some of the countries that were not considered to be “integrated” into the “global community”…

-In 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan.  In 2003, Da Afghanistan Bank (who picked that name?) was established by presidential decree.  You can find the official website of the bank right here.  Now Afghanistan has a modern central bank just like the rest of us.

-In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq.  In early 2004, the Central Bank of Iraq was established to manage the Iraqi currency and integrate Iraq into the global financial system.  The following comes from the official website of the Central Bank of Iraq

Following the deposition of Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance began printing more Saddam dinar notes as a stopgap measure to maintain the money supply until new currency could be introduced.

The Banking Law was issued September 19, 2003. The law brings Iraq’s legal framework for banking in line with international standards, and seeks to promote confidence in the banking system by establishing a safe, sound, competitive and accessible banking system.

Between October 15, 2003 and January 15, 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued new Iraqi dinar coins and notes, with the notes printed using modern anti-forgery techniques, to “create a single unified currency that is used throughout all of Iraq and will also make money more convenient to use in people’s everyday lives. Old banknotes were exchanged for new at a one-to-one rate, except for the Swiss dinars, which were exchanged at a rate of 150 new dinars for one Swiss dinar.

The Central Bank of Iraq (Arabic: البنك المركزي العراقي) was established as Iraq’s independent central bank by the Central Bank of Iraq Law of March 6, 2004

-In 2011, the United States bombed the living daylights out of Libya.  Before Muammar Gaddafi was even overthrown, the U.S. helped the rebels establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company.

Central banks are specifically designed to trap nations in debt spirals from which they can never possibly escape.  Today, the debt to GDP ratio for the entire planet is up to an all-time high record of 286 percent.  Humanity is being enslaved by a perpetual debt machine, but most people are not even aware that it is happening.

It is time for an awakening.  We need to educate as many people as possible about why we need to get rid of the central banks.  For those living in the United States, my previous article entitled “On The 100th Anniversary Of The Federal Reserve Here Are 100 Reasons To Shut It Down Forever” is a good place to start.  In other countries, we need people to write similar articles about their own central banks in their own languages.

The global elite dominate us because we allow them to dominate us.  Their debt-based system greatly enriches them while it enslaves the remainder of the planet.  We need to expose their evil system and the dark agenda behind it while we still have time.

Tags: Bankers, Central Bank, Central Banking, Central Banks, Debt, Debts, Michael T. Snyder, Monetary, Monetary Issues, North Korea, The Federated States Of Micronesia | Category: Banksters, Commentary, Federal Reserve

CENTRAL BANKS

The Government That Isn’t – Part 29

February 1st, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/01/the-government-that-isnt-or-stop-being.html

TYRANNYBy Anna Von Reitz

What we call “the federal government” isn’t a government.  It is not and it never has been. It is a governmental services corporation, which is a different matter entirely. 

Please take this outrageous but true statement into your mind and let it rattle around a bit. Savor the fact.  Consider the consequences.

The so-called “United States Government” is not a sovereign government of any kind. It is at best an association of sovereign states entered into a mutual services contract with the United States (Trading Company) and its Successors by default.

From the very beginning, the states have been the sovereign units of government. Any power of the “federal government” has been delegated to it by the states, not the other way around.

Nineteen very important powers including production of our money, control of our commerce and trade policies, control of our armed forces (except the militia) and control of our foreign policy were delegated to the British Monarch and the United States (Trading Company) in a quid pro quo in which the British Monarch agreed to act as our Trustee and protector on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways in exchange for these concessions.

That agreement was initially brokered and conceptualized as The Definitive Treaty of Peace, Paris, 1783, and particularized as The Constitution for the united States of America several years later.

So from the start, there was the “united States of America”— an association of states subscribing to the service to be provided by the United States (Trading Company) and there was the British Servicer doing business as the United States. This has been the cause of a great deal of mostly deliberate confusion.

When the states “assembled” in “Congress” it meant that they elected fiduciary deputies accountable to the states —- people known as “Senators” and “Congressmen” — and sent them to a meeting called a “Congress” of the states to discuss and decide matters of mutual interest and establish a body of law applicable in all states known as the “United States Statutes at Large”.

Things went along well enough for several decades, but the British Monarch and the Pope conspired in secret Breach of Trust to undermine the American Government via the Treaty of Verona (1822). 

What then commenced can only be called a gigantic fraud scheme.

The Constitution agreed to by the states has always prohibited anyone holding a foreign title of nobility from holding public elected office in the government at any level.  In 1819, this provision was strengthened and ratified by the states as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. As a result no member of the Bar Association bearing the title “Esquire” could serve in the American government in any public elected office.

When Abraham Lincoln, a Bar Member, was elected President of the United States in 1860, he was not eligible to serve as President of the United States of America — the association of sovereign states participating in the Congress.  

Do you see the trick now?

It was then and is now permitted for members of the Bar to hold any private corporate office, even elected corporate offices, of the United States (Trading Company) or any other such governmental services corporation that followed.

They were only prohibited from holding public elected office in our government.

Lincoln used his private corporate office, President of the United States, to overthrow the public elected government of the United States of America, and he did it by fraud and similar names deceits.

The so-called “federal government” has operated under conditions of Breach of Trust, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure, and inland piracy ever since, shamelessly substituting its private corporate offices for the public offices we are owed.

Each President since Lincoln has functioned as “President of the United States” and the vast majority of them have been Bar Members ineligible to function as “President of the United States of America” even if they had been properly elected and empowered.

As a result of this egregious and carefully concealed fraud upon the American people, there has been no lawfully elected government since 1860—- merely what appears to be one.  Even the great conflict giving rise to this circumstance has been misrepresented as “The American Civil War” when in fact no such “war” can be shown to exist: there was never a valid declaration of war and never a peace treaty ending it.  It is simply an illegal mercenary conflict that the perpetrators of all this rot have kept simmering on our shores for 150 years.

Lincoln, like Barack Obama, was a British Crown agent and an attorney who did not meet the requirements to be President of the united States of America, nor even President of the United States of America—-but who was eligible to serve as President of the United States, and in that foreign, private, corporate office— they have wrecked havoc and misery upon the innocent American people.

It is well past the hour in which we must wake up and realize that our supposed friends and allies have been closer to fiends and allegories.  The so-called “federal government” is merely a storefront for competing international banking cartels. 

The so-called FEDERAL RESERVE cartel claims to have purchased the name and copyrights and trademarks to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the IMF cartel claims the same about THE UNITED STATES.  They are both commercial crime syndicates that deserve nothing but a prompt liquidation of assets and claims and the return of all property to their Priority Creditors, the American states and people.

It’s time that we all rose up with one voice and accused the Roman Pontiff and the British Monarch of the crimes of their predecessors and addressed the Gross Breach of Trust that their predecessors have been guilty of and the equally Gross Fraud that has been practiced against us, together with the crimes of identity theft, press-ganging, inland piracy, unlawful conversion of assets, enslavement and kidnapping that have been the daily fare of their regimes for the past 150 years.

The good names of the States of America and United States of America belong to us as the lawful heirs and Holders in Due Course without respect to any claims made by the banks of the FEDERAL RESERVE.   THE UNITED STATES deserves nothing but a swift kick to the curb. 

All these fraudulent claims and operations must be exposed and these conditions must be completely reformed.  We must work hard to fully restore our lawful government on the land, call together our jural assemblies to operate our actual counties and states, and regain our senses. 

For a hundred and fifty years Americans have been asleep at the wheel, being deliberately misled to believe that a governmental services corporation is the same thing as their own lawful government.  That gullibility has cost us millions of lives, trillions of dollars, and sullied our name throughout the world as we have been blamed for the lawlessness, treachery, bigotry, and immorality of the pirates that have claimed to represent us and done terrible and oppressive things in our names.

The Bad News is that we have been clueless and trusting enough to allow this.  The Good News is that we don’t have to allow it anymore. 

If you love your country and value your lives, it is time to sit —hard— on the Archbishops and Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide.  Make them all fully aware of the absolutely immoral and duplicitous actions of generations of Popes with regard to this country—-Popes who have waved olive branches and preached love out of one side of their mouths and then, as the Roman Pontiffs, have secretly pursued war and profit and committed all manner of crimes under cover of the Church’s skirts.

If  FRANCISCUS thinks he is going to continue these practices unobserved, let’s give him a good salvo and inform him that no, he is not.  Let him know that the entire world is watching and that the Church is not going to be able to play duplicitous games in Breach of Trust without paying the full and awful price for its hypocrisy and criminality and double-mindedness.  It is, indeed, time for confession and the making of amends, and if not, it is time for the Roman Cult to be recognized as a Satanic festering cancerous sore in the Body of the Church— a disease that needs to be eradicated both from within and without, or it will most certainly kill its host.

The same basic message needs to be carried to the Lords of the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor of London, and the British Monarch.  They have not escaped detection.  Their hideous mismanagement of their American concession in Washington, DC, has been duly noted by the Americans as well as the rest of the world—which places them squarely between a rock and a very hard place.  All these years that they have been wheedling and cheating and dealing in fraud and pretending to “represent” us —they have misused and abused American Servicemen and women who now know the truth of the matter—-that they have been slaughtered and become unwitting murderers in wars for profit, lied to, and then left abandoned as human flotsam, without jobs, without health care, without educations, without a future. 

Our veterans have little to lose and good reason to hate everything that the Admiralty, the Lord Mayor, the Queen, and the Bar Associations have stood for.

The rest of the world that has suffered — seemingly at the hands of the Americans —now knows who the actual culprits are. 

And it is high time that we told the Federales where to get off our soil and our backs.

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Well there you have it folks! How much clearer do you need it?

Now, maybe you will get off your “you know what” and buy her book for more details. You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback)

by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1491279184/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

If you are so stupid you still have those feelings of patriotism to this rotten corporation, and or a hundred excuses to sit on your ass, then you deserve what you are getting!!! A good screwing! Consider for a minute what this country could be like if we demanded the elimination of this tyranny. Consider the millions of American lives’ lost in all the wars for profit, but most of all consider what globalism is going to do to your future. At the very least, send this article to every person you can. Write about it in your local newspaper letters to the editor. Or, do you love liars for leaders?

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

Intel via email – Republic 1/31/17 (REAL NEWS) Not FAKE NEWS as found on MSM

Posted By: Mr.Ed
Date: Tuesday, 31-Jan-2017 15:52:35

 

A bunch of ” conspiracy Theories”  right?
On 911, 2001, the entire U.S. financial system was going to be replaced with the National Economic and Reformation Act which would kill the corrupt cabal money system. Look up N.E.S.A.R.A. It was the Khazarian Mafia Zionists and their Mossad agents stationed in Fort Lee New Jersey who pulled off this attack to steal gold under the buildings and keep their phony dollar system going.

Trump, who now runs the restored republic, has banned 7 countries from immigrating to America because the cabal has given them Dinar and Zim to exchange for higher prices here.

Trump appointed certain individuals to positions of power to test their loyalty. Those who faltered were exposed and fired.

Special operations troops are in the last phase of arrests which number in the thousands of corrupted officials.

Further arrests by the FBI, and the setting up of trials in March continues for all in the world to see.

It is security that has prevented the roll out of the revaluation and exchanges of currencies as test after test is conducted to deny the old regimes any access to wealth.

Our nation has been a cash cow for these thieves whose illegal IRS sends payments to the Queen and Federal Reserve members and does nothing for the nation.

Everything is changing folks and what you were “mind controlled” to perceive as good was actually rotten to the core. The free stuff was designed to make you compliant and dependent as the secret operation to exterminate minorities would reduce the population to only those individuals who contribute something to the system will be left.

Fema Camps, Rail Cars with handcuffs and guillotines, large coffins, chemtrails, Gwen Towers, GMO’s, Non cancer cures, Mercury in fillings and fluoride in drinking water were contributors to their plan.

The information that you have been denied will be forthcoming soon. Some won’t believe it and some will end their lives rather that face this transition from the dark to the light.

TYRANNY

FEDERAL CHILDREN: “ARE WE 0WNED BY THE GOVERNMENT?”

January 31st, 2017 by

FROM THE REDEMPTION MANUAL

In 1921, the federal Sheppart-Towner Maternity Act created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “Birth Certificate”. It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes”. One of those other purposes provided for state agencies in overseeing of it’s operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal “birth registry’ which exists today, creating “FEDERAL CHILDREN” . This government of “Parents Patriae”, now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into those things necessary to carry our activities that exist in what is call a “free country”.

Before 1921, the records of births and names of children were entered into the family bibles, as were the  records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as official records”. Since 1921, the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child’s birth through the birth certificate serves proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth. The social security number is one of those other purposes. It serves as a means of lifelong tracking of the one whose name is on the birth certificate.

In 1933, the united States of America (Corporate Government) was declared bankrupt by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of each of their States, including the

CITIZENRY AS COLLATERAL, for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System.

To wit; FULL FAITH AND CREDITthe clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the united States. It requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment of record shall have the same FAITH, CREDIT CONCLUSIVE EFFECT, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, and Sixth Edition (page 672), cites omitted.

After receiving the information of live birth and other particulars for the birth certificate accompanied by the assigned social security number, the state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset which, if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by it’s labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that

the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate  

and the social security number is the numbering registration of the trust, allowing for the trust’s assets to be tracked. If this information is true (and we believe it is), our children are owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of “bankrupt” united States Corporation. We are now designated by this government as

HUMAN RESOURCES” born in a DELIVERY room, delivered to the state of birth by way of the

BIRTH CERTIFICATE for which our INFORMER (our Mother) provides the requested information including the

NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY (or tracking) NUMBER wherewith this bankrupt government is supplied with new

crop of COLLATERAL born each year.

 

The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void.

Harrison vs. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral vs. Burke

Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government (a Corporation) and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States. In re: Rabrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. vs. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;

Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The MATERNITY ACT was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this

ACT attempted to do was to set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re- delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional.

What was once declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution has not changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as HUMAN RESOURCES, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D., which is unconstitutional. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to

elected public servants will not save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power (servitude).

Perhaps the 10th Amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes that they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority.

If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were

the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom

is only an illusion under which the American People                                                            

 suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed.

In 1923, a suit was brought against “federal officials” (corporation) charged with the administration of the Maternity Act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution’s 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States held that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything and no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls not on the State but on it’s inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Melton, Secretary of the

 Treasury, et.al; Frothingham vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al.). Mr. Alexander Lincoln,  

 Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth Massachusetts. To wit;

The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government (a Corporation) powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purpose of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which

maybe imposed under the act; THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENT                                                                                        

 PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS OF THE RIGHT OF

A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN      

SELECTION, all are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected.

There is nothing, which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of Federal appropriations.

INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH      

CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAYBE           

REQUIRED by Section 4 of the act, the Children’s Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate

with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power of assist in the

plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the

Board. The FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM

INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS

CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH

WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY T.HE ACT

The act is invalid because it assumes powers not Granted to Congress and Usurps the local police power.

McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States vs. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542,    

549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulations of matter wholly within the Police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power, Hammer vs. Dagenhart, 247,259 U.S … 44. The act is not made valid by the circumstances that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution.

 A message of President Monroe, May 4 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee vs.

Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. vs. Chicago,

107 U.S. 678; Coyle vs. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati vs. Lousiville & Nashville

R. R. Co, 223

U.S. 390.

TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT

The Pope and the Pontiff Part 28 MUST READ !!!!

January 30th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/01/the-pope-and-pontiff-or-stop-being.html

POPE PONTIFF

 By Anna Von Retiz

How many times have you heard references to “the Pope”?  All your life there has been a Pope, right?   And right along beside that, how many times have you heard references to the Pope as “the Roman Pontiff”—-?  

I think I was five when I crawled up on my long-suffering Father’s lap and asked, “What are they talking about when they say the Pope is the Pontiff?”

He rolled his eyes heavenward with an aggrieved expression on his face.  I am not sure if it was the result of his reflections about the Pope and the Pontiff or the ongoing ordeal of having to answer my questions every day.

“The Pope,” he explained, “is the leader of the Catholic Church.  He tells people what to believe about God and Jesus and the meaning of the Bible.  But he has another job, too.  As the Pontiff, he decides who owns what and how people do business.”

Good old Dad. That’s what the Pope does, that’s what the Pontiff does. Make what you like of it.

Nothing much has changed in 1200 years.

For those who bother to poke into such things, it is no news that the entire concept of corporations was invented by the Roman Curia, the juridical body serving the Roman Pontiff. 

The Curia invented all the different kinds of corporations you are familiar with: trusts, C-corps, S-corps, non-profit corporations, cooperatives, foundations, LLPs and LLC’s and every other permutation of “business structure” you can think of except partnerships and sole proprietorships.

None of these corporations we take for granted actually exist.  They are all figments of the imagination and always have been, no matter how solid Exxon and the USA, Inc. and GE may appear.

Just like Bridge and Pinochle and Hearts and Poker are all card games, trusts and C-Corps and cooperatives and foundations are all corporations.  Just as the card games are defined by their cards and playing pieces and the “rules of play”, so corporations are similarly defined by their structures (like Boards of Directors and Chief Executive Officers) and their rules of play.  

The Roman Curia, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff, creates and defines and sets up the rules of play for all corporations worldwide.  That’s why the Pontiff retains the right to amend or repeal the “laws” of any corporation. It’s his game, under his copyright, and he can do what he likes with it.

Governments in the modern world are all corporations, too.  So guess what?

That’s right.  The Roman Pontiff gets to repeal or amend any law made by any incorporated government or business. 

This has nothing to do with the Pope’s role as the head of the Catholic Church. It’s a separate office and a separate roster of functions and it always has been.

Of course we all expect this one single man to be fair and do what is right by everyone, but past history has shown that expectation to be unfounded.  Many Roman Pontiffs have been greedy and self-interested and venal and many corporate government CEO’s have ignored the direction of the Pontiff even though he literally owns the game they are playing.

This results in constant wars and economic hardships and vicious market manipulations and the Pontiff stands there, as Francis is doing now, looking very stiff and stern and tight-lipped. 

It’s his game, after all.  If we want to play his game and use his corporate structures to define our governments, then we should live by his rules, right? And if not by his rules, then whose? 

Americans like to think of ourselves as special and Independent and so on, but our government from its infancy was dependent on the “greater government” of the world beyond our shores.  There were certain things — nineteen of them to be exact— that we were ill-prepared to do for ourselves. So our states contracted with the Roman Pontiff and the British King to provide those services for us.

That is how we wound up with a Constitution that allows the foreign federal government corporation the delegated authority to control our money, our trade policies, our relations with the rest of the world, our commercial operations, and our military. 

We might as well have included the key to our bathrooms. 

And that is the way it is and the way it has been from the time the ink dried on the actual Constitution.  It was a flagrant give-away of much of the power and responsibility that is naturally ours in exchange for peace and “good faith” service from the Game Masters.

I leave it to you to figure out to what extent their responsibilities have been honored and disregarded, and also to discern the motives behind the great veneration given to the Constitution.  So long as we mindlessly cling to it without insisting on the terms of it being honored by the Federales and their Handlers in Britain and Rome, we enslave ourselves very neatly. 

As long as we allow ourselves to be mischaracterized as “citizens” of any stripe and allow our states to be “represented” by incorporated “States of States” like the “State of California”, they have free reign over us without the need to honor the actual Constitution at all.

Remember that the Roman Pontiff and his vassal Monarchs control everything that is incorporated.  To be free of them and free of their system of things requires operating your own government as an unincorporated Body Politic–and that is precisely what we are meant to do in this country.   

Given this dose of reality, it should not be any mystery why I and other Americans dissatisfied with the “service” we have received, would go to Rome to visit the Roman Pontiff.  Upon being presented with the evidence of multiple betrayals, gross Breaches of Trust, and overall mis-administration of the “federal government” it is no wonder that Pope Benedict XVI was overwhelmed and little wonder that Pope Francis is dissatisfied.

What remains to us, as Americans, is to wise up and bring forward our claims against the Federales in no uncertain terms and before the entire world—while restoring our rightful unincorporated government at the county and state levels. 

The world that the Roman Pontiff and the British Monarch create and control is a world of lies and half-truths that only Satan could inspire, but it is also a world that depends utterly upon rules and contracts for its existence. 

The Roman Pontiff(s) and the British Monarch(s) have, over time, been caught red-handed, pants down around their ankles, operating in gross Breach of Trust, neglect, and dishonesty with regard to the only contract they have with us.  Their duplicity, deceit, profit-mongering, and dishonor has turned the entire world into a slave market and been the cause of two World Wars.  It’s time for it to stop.

All Americans are called upon to demand that the Roman Pontiff and the British Monarch and their Successors at the UN and in FRANCE, honor our agreement known as The Constitution for the united States of America and withdraw their interference against us and our lawful government –permanently– and cease and desist false claims against our people and our assets.

All people worldwide, most especially the Catholics, are called upon to stand with us and exert the necessary pressure to bring about an end to the sale of bonds based on the assets and labor of living people. This secretive form of enslavement being practiced by the Roman Pontiff and the incorporated governments that serve at his pleasure is a gross affront to decency and Law.

The worldwide prohibition against slavery stands and adding to one’s sins by practicing personage against the innocent and pretending that enslavement of PERSONS is allowable when it results in the enslavement of living men and women, is nothing more than the sophistry with which Satan’s kingdom abounds.

These and similar matters are the content of my communications with Benedict XVI and with Pope Francis alike.  To the extent that they accept the necessity of reform and do in good faith, in spirit and in truth, honor their obligations to America and the rest of the world from now on, I shall be their willing servant; to the extent that they continue to avoid the moral and contractual obligations that go with their authority, I shall not lift voice or finger in their support. 

Those of you who think that you can avoid dealing with the Roman Pontiff in his role as the ruler of the incorporated world, or persist in the childish idea that the Pope has authority only in the Catholic Church, need to wake up and smell the java.  Pope Francis holds two offices which together serve to define the circumstances of our lives—whether we are at peace or at war, live in plenty or in poverty, are enslaved or set free.  That being so, it behooves all of us to pay strict attention to everything the Pope/Pontiff says and does—and yes, to hold him accountable.

It also behooves us to hold our incorporated governments’ feet first to the fire and to — in the case of America — operate our own unincorporated government in a responsible fashion. 

Here’s another quote from Dad— “Rights go with responsibilities.  You can’t have one without the other.”  

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

POPE PONTIFF

The Redemption Manual

January 27th, 2017 by

         

Author Unknown PDF conversion to MS Word By Olddog

A step-By-Step Guide to Reclaiming your Personal… FREEDOM!

 For Years, they have attempted to Hide    from us our Nation’s Godly Law…

EDUCATIONLesson 1: Understanding Contracts / Corporations

My new motto is just say, “KNOW MORE!” (Catch the double meaning?) It’s time to understand what is really going on, open our eyes and take back our country. The best way to do this is to hit “them” where it hurts. Their financial statements! What is the most effective way to make others change? Change your behavior toward them. If you want a child to stop being mean, you simply tell that child that until he plays nicely, you won’t play with him anymore. If that child needs you – he will quickly change his ways. So, we tell the police departments, county sheriff offices, states and the feds that they aren’t playing by the rules of full disclosure and tell them we won’t play with them any more! Now, when they change toward us, we still won’t play with them because they are not cute, little children. They are giant corporations that have nothing to do with lawful government. Read that again: They are GIANT CORPORATIONS that have NOTHING to do with LAWFUL government. And that is the point.

America hasn’t been a sovereign nation with lawful government in more than a century. Some even argue that there never have been lawful governments as “every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by, his fellowman without his consent.” [CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.] And the key phrase there is WITHOUT HIS CONSENT. You must voluntarily give your consent to enter into contracts with these corporations.

Remember what Nietzsche wrote, “Everything the state says is a lie.” The “state” declares they are a “state” and this is true, but what is a “state?” The STATE OF TEXAS is a sub-corporation of the UNITED STATES which is a corporation operating in commerce for a profit. Now some may ask, “What’s the difference if they operate as a corporation?” Well, if they operated as a not for profit corporation and the stockholders were we the people, then that might be okay. But the fact is that every municipality, school district, public works, state, federal agency and the UNITED STATES operate in commerce for a profit and you and I are NOT the stockholders. These corporations are privately held companies! Think about that for a minute. The entity we call government is actually a corporation: a corporation that is not owned by the American people. Who makes the corporations responsible to the people? Do they watch themselves and never harm anyone? No, we have to go sue XYZ Company because they knew their tires were causing hundreds of deaths, but XYZ Company didn’t want to take responsibility because the “bottom line” was more important to them than human life. Once the system went into corporate status, it ceased to be government.

Before becoming a corporation, no one ever had to register to vote. Now they say that everyone must be registered. This is not true. Try it sometime. Go down to vote in a local election in which you are an inhabitant of that area, but are not registered to vote. Tell them that it is your right to vote and that you don’t have to be registered. Most likely you will be allowed to vote, but they won’t be very fond of you. You may be asking: “Doesn’t ‘registered’ simply mean, ‘signed up’?” Not quite.

When you “register” yourself, you “record formally and exactly … in a list or the like.” Sounds innocent enough. Now, whom do you register with? The registrar. A “registrar” is “an officer who has the custody and charge of keeping of a registry or register.” Some examples of registries are registries of copyrights, deeds, wills, motor vehicles and patents. These all have to do with property, not people. Other registries such as registries of births, deaths, marriages, voter registrations, college registrations and the like all have to do with registering natural people. Now we are going to take a leap. What really is a “registry?” “Generally, a ‘registry’ applies to vessels in foreign commerce, whereas ‘enrollment’ refers to coastwise navigation.” When we register ourselves, we are saying that we are vessels in foreign commerce! Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But that is why our names magically become capitalized on all of the various registrations: military, voting, birth certificates, death certificates, credit cards, etc. (This essay presumes that you have an understanding of the all capitalized, fictional name vs. proper names that only have the first letter capitalized.) All vessels/ships have capitalized names.

After registering, we are no longer dealt with as natural living souls, but as vessels operating in foreign commerce. What is the “foreign commerce” in which we are operating?” Corporate commerce. Corporations cannot do business with natural beings, so we enter their jurisdiction to do business with corporations when we become a vessel because a vessel is not a natural being. A vessel is a fiction just as a corporation is a fiction and now the two fictions are capable of transacting business. This all ties in with the flag law we’ve been studying. Many people for years now have said that we are under maritime law and had us study maritime/admiralty law for court. After all, the flag flown in all of the courts is a military flag and therefore the law they are advertising by that flag is admiralty. So we are viewed as vessels because we registered as such. We are all vessels in a sea of commerce and all courts are commercial courts for commercial fictions, not lawful Common Law courts for real people.

 

Okay, now we are a vessel. A vessel enters contracts with other vessels under law of the flag. If we don’t like the laws their flag represents, then we do not contract with that other vessel. The flag is your warning, of what laws will have control of the contract. When you submit a contract (which is itself a vessel) where is your flag? If your contract does not display a flag, then you are tacitly submitting to the laws of their flag. But you say there is no flag displayed on their contract. Right, and wrong. There is no flag on the face of the contract, but there is a flag somewhere in their building or in front of their building. Every bank displays a UNITED STATES flag (not an American flag), most large corporations have the corporate UNITED STATES flag, the corporate STATE flag and their companies own corporate flag flying in front of their buildings. Haven’t you ever wondered why big corporations have their own flags? These represent the codes, rules and regulations that govern their contracts. My kid’s college is a good example – all three flags fly right in front of the Bible building for goodness sake! It is astounding how they disclose their intentions and we haven’t a clue as to what is really going on.

Again, some one will most likely ask, “What is wrong with these flags?” Good question, BIG answer. These flags are for corporations that abide by rules, codes and regulations – NOT LAWS. Allow me an analogy. What corporate name pops into your head when I tell you to think of a L A R G E corporation? Okay, keep that big 500-club name in mind during the following analogy.

ANALOGY: After four grueling interviews with multiple tests, you finally land that job at the BIG Company. The boss sends you down to Human Resources to fill out paper work. One of the forms you must sign is an acknowledgement form for an Employee Handbook that states you have received, understand and will abide by the rules, codes and regulations of the corporation. Some of those rules will deal with dress code, tobacco usage, protocols, harassment, sick time, vacation pay and even disciplinary actions. Excitedly, you sign the acknowledgement (contract) and start work bright and early Monday morning. You are in your finest suit with shoes polished and it’s a real good hair day. I, your best friend, show up to take you out for a celebration lunch. I work for myself though doing landscaping and I’m in my usual attire: overalls, t-shirt and work boots. This outfit doesn’t meet the standards of the company’s dress code and your coworkers look at me kind of funny, but I do NOT work for this company, nor did I agree to abide by its dress code, so they can not tell me how to dress because they have no jurisdiction – no contract with me.

Now, what you must understand is that the “government” is no more than a private corporation. They have corporate codes, rules and regulations for their corporate employees just as that big 500 Company did in our analogy. Since these codes are not laws, why does everyone follow them as if they were law? Why does the corporate “government” think you must follow their codes, rules and regulations? The reason is because you say you are an employee. You state that you are an employee of the UNITED STATES every time you file a Form 1040 with the IRS as that form is only for employees. The IRS takes you at your word and treats you as an employee. The same is true for STATE taxation forms. You also assert that you are a UNITED STATES corporate employee every time you answer yes to the question, “Are you a United States citizen?” How many times have we done that, maybe 20 or more? Think of all of the forms you have signed that ask that very question: W-4s, I-9s, passports, drivers licenses, job applications, school registrations, credit card applications, Brady Bill forms … the list is endless. United States (corporate) citizens are subject to all of the codes, rules and regulations of the company. If you claim national citizenship, please remember that America or your state is the nation to claim-NOT the UNITED STATES corporation!

Personally, I am an inhabitant of Texas and my citizenship is in Heaven.

The bottom line is that when we are dealing with corporations, we are dealing with contracts [Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins]. Just as I did not have a contract with the big 500 Company and did not have to adhere to its dress code, I don’t have a contract with the UNITED STATES corporation so I don’t have to adhere to their employee codes. Everything is by contract. Even the courts are corporations and operate by contract. Everything offered to you either verbally or in writing is a new offer of contract. Think, about these examples and start noticing how many times each day you get offers of contracts: a traffic ticket, a parking ticket, a code enforcement violation for your yard not being mowed, a building permit, a jury duty notice, a notice or bill for property taxes, a bill to re-register you car, a notice or bill for state or federal taxes, a notice from your bank or credit card company that there will be higher charges for late payments, etc., the list is eternal because everything between you and a corporation is an offer of contract.

The good news is that all contracts can be accepted or REJECTED. Within a 72-hour period under the Truth in Lending Act, you can reject an offer of contract. This includes rescinding contracts that you accepted and for whatever reason have changed your mind about accepting. What happens when a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket? Do you have a choice as to whether or not you are going to sign that ticket? Of course not! Do you even have the choice as to how you are going to sign the ticket? Not anymore. My brother Steve was stopped last week and he called me to ask how he should sign the ticket. Steve was ready when the police officer returned and handed him the ticket, but the officer told Steve to sign his name and only his name. Wow! Forced contracts under threat, duress and coercion. Is this the land of the free?

It’s decision time. If we start rejecting all offers of contract that demand “money” out of our pockets, we will hit them were it hurts. Eventually they will have no choice but to shut their doors as would any business whose sales have dropped off. The only difference between the corporate “government” and your local five and dime is that you actually get something in return for your “money” at the local five and dime.

For those of you that still believe we have to support our “government” through taxation, I simply point you to Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission Report of 1984:

100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt and by Federal transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.

This country operates today on the same sources of revenue as it did prior to the income tax -“duties” or “imposts” on imported goods and “excise” taxes on domestic goods that are nonessential items. This is all the revenue required to run the “government.”

The next standard objection is a book in itself and requires a good deal of research to understand, but I want to try to briefly answer one more objection that most people of good moral character will raise in regard to the Federal debt. That objection/question is: “Don’t we have to pay our debts?” If this were an honest debt, that you or I incurred and agreed to pay, then by all means the answer would be an overwhelming YES. However, that is not the case with the Federal debt. The Federal is the UNITED STATES corporation, again, a privately held company that artificially created this outrageous debt and then made you and I believe we were responsible to pay their debts for them. The debt is what the corporate owners created and lent back to their sub-corporations. It’s not even a real debt

– it’s FRAUD (which coincidentally stands for Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Denominations). If that big 500 corporation from our analogy came to you and said, “Hey, we need your help in getting rid of our debt,” you may feel a modicum of sympathy for the corporation, but would you pay their debts for them? NO WAY. Then why are you paying this private company’s artificial and fraudulent debt simply because they titled their corporation “UNITED STATES?”

The corporate “government” is nothing more than a pyramid scam leaching off of the hard working productive sector. Back to my new motto – just say “KNOW MORE!”

All definitions are from [BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY Sixth Edition].

The following accounts should help you understand the point of this essay – everything is about contracts!

Contract Story #1: In February of 2000, 1 was on my way to visit my mom in New Mexico. She just had emergency surgery and needed someone to look after her. The doctors explained that there were heart complications, so I rushed to her side. I, unfortunately, am the queen of tickets, so now “rushing” to me equates to 5 miles over the posted limit. The last thing I wanted was to prolong the trip by having a police officer pull me over. But a lesson was in the making and sure enough a Texas Highway Patrol had nothing better to do than harass me. He badgered me into telling him why I was in a hurry, he proceeded to verify my story by calling my mother AT THE HOSPITAL (as if she didn’t have enough to worry about – she almost lost her life the day before) and then he still writes me a ticket and not for five miles over, but ten!

So I write the judge a letter explaining why we don’t have joinder and I ask him to answer a few questions. Without knowing it, I had rejected his offer of contract. I don’t show up by the date allowed, so the nice judge writes me a letter of extension and gives me two more weeks to appear. I call him and ask him what law he is using to prosecute the case. He doesn’t even understand the question, so I say, “Is it Admiralty, Maritime, Common, Statutory, UCC, what?” To which he replies, “it’s anything I want it to be.” Well that narrows things down, doesn’t it? I then ask him if this is a civil or criminal matter and he says it’s both. So now I don’t have a clue what law to study in order to fight this, nor do I really understand what I’m being charged under. During this phone conversation the judge tells me he isn’t going to have time to go over all of this in person when I come down. I tell him that I am coming down to fight this and that he may want to have the county attorney help him look over the questions in my letter. He didn’t take too kindly to that suggestion. He also said that he didn’t even have a flag in his chambers, so not to worry about jurisdiction.

 

The day comes to appear in the judge’s chambers to “talk” about the ticket. Wouldn’t you know it; there is a tiny flag in the penholder on the judge’s desk. Well I’ll be, no flag, huh?” There is also a county attorney that has to be  present before the judge will allow my husband and I into his chambers. I begin by holding my flag, handing the judge a 4-page letter and telling, him that this is a “Special, not General, Appearance.” The letter explains why the Court and I don’t have joinder. The next twenty minutes is a jurisdictional tug-o-war in which the judge and county attorney, try in earnest to let me to plea including, the judge telling me that he is going to enter a plea for me, to which I responded with, “Judge, you can’t practice law from the bench.” The county attorney finally knows I’m not going to give in, so he asks, “Young lady, do you have a drivers license?” I said, “Yes sir, unfortunately I do.” He then turns to the judge and says, “Judge, she has appeared before you today and she has a drivers license, so she has waived her rights.” I waived my rights????

You know that light bulb that goes off over the heads of the cartoon characters when they get a great idea? At that very moment, that same light bulb appeared over my head. I realized that it was ALL ABOUT CONTRACTS! Thinking quickly, I turned to the judge and asked him to remind the county attorney that I had reserved my rights on the face of the ticket and that I had made a “special appearance” under threat of imprisonment which in no way waives my rights.

The county attorney then asked the judge to grant a continuance so that he could review my 4-page letter. The judge did so and told me to return a month later. I got home and recounted the story for a friend of mine. The friend said, oh Ann, you just gave them jurisdiction, sit down right now and write that judge and tell him you didn’t agree to that continuance. I did just that and told the judge that I wasn’t coming back on that date or any other date. This letter was a bit different. Instead of asking him to dismiss the ticket, which sounds as if I am granting jurisdiction, I demanded him to immediately cease and desist the proceedings under the color-of-law against the Sovereign.

Well, it has been two years and no warrants were ever issued for my arrest. Not only did I have two “insider” friends check to see if warrants were put out on me, but I was arrested (most of the best people are!!!) in December of 2001 on a contempt charge and no outstanding, warrants were on my record. The contempt charge is what I got for trying to help a friend in court. Don’t go into their court if you can help it! I know that sometimes it’s unavoidable and even necessary. You are granting jurisdiction just by being there if you don’t know exactly how to challenge it. Please don’t play their game on their field. They have the home court advantage and the guns to back it up when they feel like it.

Contract Story #2: In 1999, 1 was attempting to help the same friend in story #1. The city animal control division informed him that he couldn’t have all of the animals he was feeding and housing. We, being the good, law abiding people we are, wrote a letter to the judge inquiring as to how the city’s codes could violate the Constitution. There was no response to the letter, so after about a month, we began to inquire as to when a response would be forthcoming. As it turned out, the judge had given the letter to the city attorney and we wound up in her office discussing the matter.

My friend asked questions, while I tape-recorded the conversation and one of his witnesses testified to the city attorney that animal control had actually gone into my friend’s yard and taken some of the animals. The conversation eventually came to the Constitution and flag law. My friend asked what laws the city went by since we believed their codes were in direct violation of the Constitution, at which point the city attorney became visibly upset and practically yelled at my friend. She said, “Mr. Darlak, we go by the CITY OF ABILENE laws, the STATE OF TEXAS laws and the UNITED STATES laws.”

As you would assume, we left that meeting in a very confused state. It took more than a year for us to understand what the city attorney had meant by her statement. She said that the city abides by CORPORATE codes. Since corporate codes are all about contract and we all have the right to contract, the city codes do not abrogate the Constitution, but she couldn’t/wouldn’t disclose that to us.

That is their game, they get you to contract and then you’re stuck, unless you know how to reject their offers of contract. Please retrain your thought processes!!! What you and I were taught was government is nothing more than a privately held corporation! And what you and I were taught were laws are nothing more than corporate codes, rules and regulations that have nothing to do with living souls unless you work as an employee for that company.

EDUCATION

 

 

 

FBI Violent Extremist Groups Website Short and One-Sided on Domestic Examples

January 26th, 2017 by

https://www.oathkeepers.org/fbi-violent-extremist-groups-website-short-one-sided-domestic-examples/

 

by David Codrea ,

It’s fair to ask who’s pulling the strings here, and if President Trump will cut them.

“Don’t Be a Puppet: Pull Back the Curtain on Violent Extremism,” the

Federal Bureau of Investigation advises visitors to its website designed to counter radicalization and recruitment of young people by enemies foreign and domestic.

“It’s the FBI’s primary responsibility—working with its many partners—to protect the nation from attacks by violent extremists,” the website overview explains. “One important way to do that is to keep young people—the future of our country—from embracing violent extremist ideologies in the first place. This website is designed to help do just that. Built by the FBI in consultation with community leaders and other partners, it uses a series of interactive materials to educate teens on the destructive nature of violent extremism and to encourage them to think critically about its messages and goals.”

The home page links to six different categories. One is germane to the purpose of this report, “What are Known Violent Extremist Groups?” subdivided into two categories: International and Domestic.

That last one is what I want to focus on. That’s because it’s of special interest to Constitution advocates who have seen their efforts and character tarred in past “

fusion center” efforts relying on smears from Southern Poverty Law Center and other totalitarianism-promoting groups. We’ve further seen, for years,

SPLC characterizing Oath Keepers as a “hate” group.

So the FBI further breaks down domestic extremist “threats” as: Sovereign citizen extremists; Abortion extremists; Animal rights and environmental extremists; Militia extremists; Anarchist extremists; and White supremacy extremists.

Curious. Absent from the radar are communists and domestic Islamist groups.  And evidently,  George Soros-affiliated “Women’s March” partners, along with #DisruptJ20 radicals and black separatist and reconquista agitators are also of no concern.

So let’s cut to the chase and see who really bears special scrutiny, in the eyes of the FBI, “militia extremists”:

What They Believe: A militia is a group of citizens who come together to protect the country, usually during an emergency. Some militia extremists, however, seek to violently attack or overthrow the U.S. government. Often calling themselves “patriots,” they believe the government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional limits, or has not been able to protect the country against global dangers.

As far as the first and third sentences, what is there to disagree with, or that’s “extreme”?  So the FBI need to elaborate on the second sentence about “violent attacks”:

Who or What They Target: Violent militia extremists mainly target those they believe could violate their constitutional rights, such as police officers and judges. In one 2010 case, a Michigan militia group planned to kill a police officer and later attack the parade of cars in the funeral, hoping to start a large battle. The FBI and its partners stopped them from carrying out their plan.

What they’re referring to is the Hutaree case. That’s the one where the federal judge dismissed all the terror charges against seven defendants, and accepted guilty pleas with sentences for time served for three defendants charged with machine gun possession. That means the FBI is wrong to represent the allegations as fact.

That’s it? That’s what’s being singled out to illustrate the “militia extremist” threat?

Let’s hope the Trump administration soon gets a handle on this kind of taxpayer-funded nonsense. Let’s hope it cuts the strings of bureaucratic puppets still engaged in a propaganda agenda to portray patriots as threats.

Categories: 2nd_amendment, All, Oath Keepers

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You might be a conspiracy theorist if the person you face lacks critical thinking skills

https://ppjg.me/2017/01/26/conspiracy-theorist/

Extremists

ppjg  January 26, 2017

And one used when you have exposed information that has obviously been produced to misinform the public, to expose wrong doing, or in the case of numerous “terrorist” attacks put on by the FBI…….to question the statements of known liars!

Extremists

Has the American Dream Become the American Nightmare?

January 25th, 2017 by

http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/has_the_american_dream_become_the_american_nightmare

American NightmareBy John W. Whitehead
January 24, 2017

“Most Germans, so far as I could see, did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of their splendid culture was being destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work were being regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation … On the whole, people did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous tyranny. On the contrary, they appeared to support it with genuine enthusiasm.” ― William L. Shirer, The Nightmare Years 1930-40

For too long now, the American people have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the government’s job is to take care of us: to feed us, clothe us, house us, educate us, raise our children, heal our infirmities, manage our finances, protect us from our enemies, guard us against all dangers (real and imaginary), and provide for our every need.

Where Americans go wrong is in failing to recognize that there’s always a catch to such devil’s bargains purportedly carried out for the good of all society.

You want free education for your children? The government can take care of it. In exchange for free public schools, however, your children will be molded and indoctrinated into compliant, obedient citizens who reflect the government’s values rather than your own.

You want free health care? The government can take care of that, too. In exchange, your medical decisions—how you live and die—will ultimately be determined by corporations to whom you are little more than a line item impacting their profit and loss margins.

You want to be insulated from all things that might cause offense? That’s not a problem for the government. Its thought police will use hate crime laws to criminalize speech, thought and actions that may be politically incorrect.

You want a guarantee of safety? Sure, but your local police will also have to be militarized and trained in battlefield tactics, your communities and communications will be subjected to round-the-clock surveillance, and you—the citizenry—will be treated as suspects and enemy combatants.

You want to root out domestic extremism and terrorism? That’s just fine. But in the process of identifying and targeting terrorists, the government will have the power to label anyone who disagrees with its policies as an extremist/terrorist and subject them to indefinite detentions.

Are you starting to get the picture?

This is the terrible price—the loss of our freedoms and the enslavement of future generations—that must eventually be paid for the goods and services rendered by a government whose priorities are the acquisition of ever-more power, control and money.

As the old adage warns: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

Unfortunately, we’ve been on the receiving end of the government’s taxpayer-funded handouts—and its deceptively well-intended dictates—for so long that many Americans have forgotten what it is to think for themselves, provide for themselves, and govern themselves.

Indeed, this age of entitlement is a far cry from the kind of constitutional republic America’s founders envisioned.

Gone is the proud, independent-minded, pioneering spirit of early Americans like my parents who rejected what they called “hand-outs,” worked hard for whatever they had, protected their homes and families, and believed the government’s job was to govern based on the consent of the governed and not dictate.

Contrast those fiercely-independent, early Americans who took to heart James Madison’s admonition to distrust all those in power with today’s citizens who not only expect the government to care for their needs but have blindly entrusted the government with vast, growing powers.

By giving the government the green light to act in loco parentis and treat the citizenry as children in need of caretakers, “we the people” have allowed ourselves to be demoted and infantilized, reduced from knowledgeable, independent-minded, capable masters of a republic to wayward, undisciplined, dependent, vulnerable children incapable of caring for ourselves.

It’s time to grow up.

Incredibly, despite the fact that we allowed the government to become all-knowing, all-powerful and all-mighty in the mistaken belief that it would make our lives safer, easier and more affluent, we’re still shocked when that power and might is used against us.

It’s time to stop being so gullible and so trusting.

Even when the headlines blare out the news about SWAT team raids gone awry, police shootings of unarmed citizens, roadside cavity searches of young women, children being shackled and tasered, and Americans jailed for profit in private prisons, we still somehow maintain our state of denial until suddenly we’re the ones in the firing line being treated like suspects and criminals, having our skulls cracked, our doors smashed, our pets shot, our children terrorized, and our loved ones jailed for non-offenses.

It’s time to remove those rose-colored, partisan-tinted glasses and wake up to the fact that our nation of sheep has given rise to a government of wolves.

Even though, deep down, we have suspected that the system is run by an elite who views the citizenry as little more than cattle destined for the slaughterhouse, we’re still shocked to find ourselves treated like slaves and economic units.

How could we not have seen it coming?

How long has the writing been on the wall?

How could we have been so blind, deaf and dumb to the warnings all around us?

Unfortunately, it happens this way in every age, in every place where freedom falls and tyranny flourishes.

As Aldous Huxley recognized in his foreword to Brave New World: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”

This is how the seeds of authoritarianism are planted and watered and cultivated into aggressive, invasive growths that can quickly dominate an environment.

Remember, tyrants don’t always come to power in a show of force. Often, they sweet-talk their way to absolute power, buoyed along by a wave of populist demand for someone to save the country from economic, military and political crises.

As historian Jim Powell writes for Forbes:

Hitler didn’t take over a small government with an effective separation of enumerated, delegated and limited powers.  He took over a large welfare state… He dealt with unemployment by introducing forced labor for both men and women.  Government  control of the economy made it virtually impossible for anyone to seriously threaten his regime. Hitler added secret police, death camps and another war machine. The German educational system, which had inspired so many American progressives, played a major role in all this… the government gained complete control of schools and universities, and their top priority was teaching obedience. The professorial elite promoted collectivism.  The highest calling was working for the government.

It can easily happen here.

In fact, the early signs of this downshift are all around us if you only know where to look.

You can smell it in the air: there’s danger coming. A recent New Yorker article reveals the lengths some of the wealthiest in America are going to in order to survive an apocalyptic breakdown of society: isolated refuges, bunkers, gas masks, generators, solar panels, ammunition, etc.

You can see it in the changes taking place all around you: the government is preparing for something ominous. For example, the Pentagon is using a dystopian training video to prepare special forces to deal with the urban challenges of megacities: criminal networks, illicit economies, decentralized syndicates of crime, substandard infrastructure, religious and ethnic tensions, impoverishment, economic inequality, protesters, slums, open landfills, over-burdened sewers, and a “growing mass of unemployed.”

You can hear it in the news coming out of the independent media: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches have already weakened our long-established bulwarks against tyranny by their constant undermining of the Constitution and the president’s amassing of imperial power.

We are no longer a constitutional republic.

The American dream is turning into a living nightmare.

We are fast moving towards full-blown fascism.

So what’s the answer?

The powers that be can—and will—continue to distract us with electronic gadgets and entertainment news, they can seduce us with promises they have no intention of keeping, they can drug us with politics packaged to resemble religion, and they can use the schools to breed a populace of compliant slaves.

In the end, however, the choice of whether to keep drinking the Kool-Aid or reject the false prophets and promises of the police state—a.k.a. fascism or totalitarianism or tyranny—rests with “we the people.”

After all, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it was “we the people” who struck this devil’s bargain in the first place, trading our liberties for dubious promises of prosperity, security and advancement.

Through our inaction, our apathy and our unwillingness to do the hard work of holding the government accountable, perhaps “we the people” have been the greatest menace to freedom.

Perhaps all of this is our fault.

My parents’ advice was that if you made a mess, you had to clean it up.

No one else is going to clean this mess up for us, certainly not anyone on the government’s payroll.

As Jim Powell rightly concludes: “Ultimately, liberty can be protected only if people care enough to fight for it, because everywhere governments push for more power, and they never give it up willingly.”

So let’s stop buying into the fairytale that politicians are saviors, capable of fixing what’s wrong with our communities and our lives.

Let’s stop expecting the government to solve all our problems.

Stop playing the partisan game that paints anyone not of your political persuasion as evil.

Stop defending the insanity of an immoral system of government that sees nothing wrong with bombing innocent civilians, jailing innocent citizens, and treating human beings as little more than cattle.

Stop validating a system of laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

While you’re at it, start taking responsibility for your lives—and your freedoms—again. And maybe, just maybe, there will be some hope for tomorrow.

 

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

In spite of John’s good intentions, he still remains un-willing to confront the real problem of Corporate Government and THE BANKING CARTEL. Where does he think all this crap we are subjected to is coming from if we are a democracy? Can’t a democracy just vote the bums out? Those of you who really believe we have freedom of choice in our government have been asleep all your life. The truth is explicitly laid out in the following article.

It’s the Banks!

American Nightmare

It’s the Banks!

January 24th, 2017 by

http://www.paulstramer.net/2017/01/its-banks-or-stop-being-stupid-part-22.html

PLEASE READ OLDDOGS COMMENTS FOLLOWING THIS ARTICLE

By Anna Von Reitz

The banks control the governments, not the other way around.  It has been this way for 150 years in Britain, the Commonwealth countries, the US, Germany, most of Europe, most of Asia, most of Africa…. and when a government tries to assert itself and make its own decisions and adopt its own currency for the benefit of its own people, as Libya’s government did and as Iran’s government has, it is promptly attacked by all the other governments.  Why?  Because the banks run the governments as storefront governmental services corporations, and the banks like it that way.

It gives them a free hand and world dominance.  They get to use the resources of the entire planet any way they please.  They get to regulate and de-regulate themselves in whatever way is most advantageous to them.  Forget the good of the people or the country they are supposed to be representing.   

Just look at what FDR did to THE VIRGINIA COLONY CORPORATION when he shut it down and opened THE UNITED STATES, INC.?   And when he bankrupted the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.?  These were predatory corporate take-overs and mergers—- and we all paid for them.

Look at what the Federal Reserve Banks did to the American states and people during the Depression?  The suffering and losses that the American states and people endured were enjoyed as benefits and bargains by the perpetrators of the artificial Boom of the 1920’s and the same self-interested men glutted even more profit from the Bust of the Great Depression. 

Those responsible, including FDR, should have been tried as criminals, not lauded as heroes; the people were not sophisticated enough to recognize what the banks and their willing drones, the politicians, had foisted off on them.  Then as now, they slumbered on, secure in the comforting but false assumption that this was their government and their government wouldn’t harm them.  

Let’s not forget the sanctimonious role of the members of the Bar Associations colluding with the banks and their sub rosa employees, the politicians— papering everything over and reassuring the public that it was all “legal” and proper.

Perhaps that was the death-knell of sanity in America, when the members of the Bar started calling everything “legal” and not enough voices objected.  

It signaled that the American people no longer remembered the difference between “lawful” — the Law of the Land — and “legal” — the Law of the Sea. 

Another death knell came when people started being confused between the “people of the United States” and “citizens of the United States”, and millions in a Zombie-like trance, beguiled and trusting what they believed to be their own dear government, agreed and said, yes, we are citizens….  

At each juncture the perpetrators eased in and raped the sleeping Body Politic. 

 

The banks and their buddies have run rampant for a century and a half and despite all the miseries and expense of constant wars, despite the loss of millions of our sons and daughters, despite the malaise of our economy, the burgeoning welfare class, the press-ganging of our Mothers and daughters to work as second wage earners merely to scrape by,  the merciless inflation of the only currency available for use, the increasingly reckless, arrogant, coercive, and abusive attitude of the quote-unquote “government”—- we all managed to stagger along, just barely, kept in constant fear of the Internal Revenue Service on one hand, and predatory law suits on the other.

Here, in the richest country on Earth, supposedly living the good life in the victorious bastion of Freedom— we have been enslaved and swindled by our employees, bankers, and lawyers on a crime spree that would make Ramses of Egypt blush.

Quadrillions of dollars-worth of actual hard assets, gold and silver, jewels and art work, artifacts and precious documents, are on deposit with these same banks.  These riches belong to people who are the beneficiaries of the “Historic Trusts”. These trust deposits are supposed to be managed by Trustees, who are appointed to their role or who inherit the positions, sometimes for many generations.

Instead of honoring their obligation to the Depositors, the banks are holding onto the assets of the Historic Trusts and refusing to allow the lawful Trustees to access these assets and use them as the Donors stipulated.  The banks are acting as self-interested robbers—again—pure and simple.

The oldest Historic Trusts were founded in late Antiquity, at the time of the Roman collapse. Through the Dark Ages and well into the Renaissance, Historic Trusts were used to collect, protect, and transfer the wealth of men and organizations.  By far the most common and among the richest Historic Trusts are those founded by Spanish Conquistadors and by the Spanish Monarchs through the early 1800’s. 

These vast depositories of actual asset wealth were, for the most part, passed on by the original owners for the benefit of places and people, including their own families, home towns, favorite places, charities, churches, and even their professions…. and are today ear-marked by the current Trustees and Beneficiaries for the benefit of all Mankind.

The bankers have two-blocked all effort to secure the release of these vast stores of assets.  They have pitilessly seen the photos of starving children in Africa and called them, “Monkeys”.  They have swathed themselves in silk suits and fur and lived in the finest homes and considered themselves very wise and superior to the Common Man, who they have referred to as, “Livestock”. 

They have self-righteously donated dribs and drabs to charity and special causes, most of them calculated to benefit the banks and their pet projects, or used to promote their own government storefronts, or to pay off politicians, or to reward their faithful servants in the Bar Associations. They’ve made themselves out to be great philanthropists– using money they stole or coerced or gained by enslaving and making the lives of others miserable.  And via the spilled blood of the innocent slaughtered in wars for profit. 

This is how we have the spectacle of the World Bank, IBRD, and others caught red-handed with gold and other assets confiscated from our grandparents and great-grandparents —– pretending that this gold just appeared out of nowhere in their coffers and also pretending that they don’t know where it came from. 

We know where it came from.  For starters, it came from my Grandmother’s wedding ring, twisted off of her finger by foreign commercial mercenaries employed by FDR. 

Observe how the World Bank and IBRD tried to wash their guilty hands by offering to give our gold away to the rest of the world? 

And that is just $387 billion-worth.  That’s chump change.

 

The failure of the World Bank/IBRD to return our confiscated gold to us is a tiny, almost trivial bit of the dishonesty that the banks, politicians, and lawyers have nurtured into a festering epidemic– an epidemic of institutionalized corruption that is overwhelming and poisoning the whole planet. 

So now they’ve got themselves in a spot.  And the propaganda machines just aren’t working anymore. Let’s cover some of the high points.

The US Dollar isn’t worthless paper.  It is in fact asset-backed by oil, both crude and refined oil products.  That’s why it is called the “Petrodollar”.  So let’s get that myth dismissed right now. 

The US Dollar also isn’t the American Dollar.  Let’s get that nasty confusion cleared up, too.  Our Dollar is a unit of exceedingly pure silver. Always has been.

And let’s pop the Gold Bubble, too. 

The sudden insist-on-gold mentality among Chinese investors is based on fear encouraged by self-interested sellers of gold—and equally unprincipled Chinese hucksters hoping to make a fortune by running up the worldwide price of gold.

The grandsons of the same men who set up the scam on Jekyll Island have moved their operations to China. Why?  — to spring a trap fourteen decades in the making, but simple enough in design:

Collect, confiscate, impound, steal, import, control by hook or by crook all the gold in the world, and then force the grandsons and granddaughters of the people you stole the gold from to buy it back from you at wildly inflated prices.  Lie and pretend that the world’s gold reserves are much smaller and therefore more precious than they really are.  

Which brings me back to the issue of the Historic Trusts and the quadrillions of dollars-worth of hard assets cashiered away for hundreds of years, all being held captive by the banks that have no right of any kind to hold those assets against the Will of the Depositors, the rights of the Trustees, and the welfare of the Beneficiaries.

There is right now in the Central Bank of Mexico a huge deposit of Spanish gold that belongs to the indigenous peoples, the sons of Spanish pioneers and the daughters of American cowboys now living in the Western United States. It was placed on deposit there are as a humanitarian bequest by the King of Spain, who intended that it be spent on infrastructure and educational programs, hospitals, and all the other things that people throughout this region needed in 1834. 

The gold was never delivered because other interests set up new, untrustworthy government storefronts that were not committed to spending the money according to the King’s wishes, so there it sits— more than 150 years later, gathering interest and value every year.  It has grown into a very substantial trust, able to support new infrastructure, new industries, new social services, new means of transportation, medical research, cultural preservation, and vast, vast humanitarian relief to some of the poorest of the poor in America— no more photos of Navajo Elders squatting in front of a five gallon pail turned into a dangerous fuming charcoal stove trying to keep warm.

The banks are two-blocking the use of these and similar funds throughout the world because a few insanely greedy individuals refuse to come to an accommodation with the Trustees of the Historic Trusts.  They aren’t content to make 2 or 3 or even 10 times profit on the gold they have stolen, confiscated, and impounded.  No, they want profits in the neighborhood of 100 times what they have invested. They think they will just sit on the Historic Trusts and outright steal them and nobody will have the resources to bring them to Justice. They think they can discount the actual Trustees, the Beneficiaries— and the Law, by handing off the management responsibility to a Third Party, who they also propose to control and boss around.  

Why not?  They literally employ — in your name, of course — all the politicians you send to Washington and all the legislators sitting in “State of State” legislatures throughout the country. 

 

All these people you think of as your representatives are literally bought and paid for corporate franchise employees of the banks running the governmental services corporations you have also mistaken to be your lawful government.  Their only actual obligation is to make profit for the local “State of State” franchise. 

This is their job and they can’t do anything else, because a commercial corporation is a psychopathic entity by definition.  The fiduciary deputies of such an organization are allowed to worship only one god—–profit at any cost.  That’s the way commercial corporations operate and unknown to you that is what nearly all the county, state, and federal government operations have become: self-interested commercial corporations.  

That’s also why banks are the horrible institutions they are.  If their Boards of Directors spent one penny that wasn’t aimed at making more profit for the shareholders and investors of the banks, they would not only lose their jobs, they would be sued and hounded and disgraced.

When you talk to the men in charge of the major banks and commercial corporations, they are compulsively fixated on making profit —and too many of them are willing to tear down and ruin the Earth and kill the people on it, all in pursuit of profit—for some numbers on a screen.

If you are sickened by this, and you should be, you will now know for sure that banks, governments, and courts are all in desperate need of reform and the entire concept of the commercial corporation must be revisited.  Mankind is profoundly endangered by continuing to shelter psychopathic organizations in our midst.  We can no longer turn a blind eye to the social and environmental and human cost of commercial corporations run amok. 

Everyone reading this is the heir to a vast fortune, yes, even the entire Earth, is yours and subject to your dominion.  Vast stockpiles of gold and riches are set aside for you, because one way or another, everyone on this planet is a beneficiary of one or another of the Historic Trusts.

These are the storehouses of the Lord, set aside for this time.  In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI ordered them to be opened.  As of 2017, here we still sit, waiting on Francis and the Curia and the Vatican Chancery Court.

There was a final sacrifice in Canaan 2000 years ago. A young man put aside his life for the sake of his friends and his love of the Earth and all Mankind.  He paid it as the ransom for all people of all races and all religions forevermore.  He paid it for the sheep and for the goats alike.  Even the profit-mad bankers.  He paid the price of all our debts in all jurisdictions forever. And when I say all debts and all jurisdictions— I mean exactly that: all debts. 

 

Let that sink in. 

 

Not just for Christians.  Not just for Hebrews.  This was done for all Mankind.  Everywhere.  Regardless of belief.  Regardless of faith.  And then, one more extraordinary thing—- having purchased us, he set us free and honored the Law of Heaven.  

He set us free from all debts for all time, but to fulfill what is written and to make all things correct, I have presented the Payment Bond and made it effective for one thousand years beginning January 6, 2017 through January 6, 3017.  This is for the redemption of the Kingdom of God, and all those NAMED as part of it. This ax fell on the Vatican Chancery Court on the Day of the Three Kings, the traditional day when the kings of the Earth bring their gifts to the King of Heaven.

So now the die is cast, and Pope Francis and his entire organization is held to account for allowing the imposition of debt where none exists, for failure to release the Historic Trusts for the relief of Mankind, for the creation of commercial corporations by the Roman Curia and for allowing these diabolical inventions of the mind to run rampant upon the Earth. 

The Indemnity Bond posted for the people of Earth is without limit. The first Set-Off Bond is for $100 billion dollars in silver, renewable as needed. And the Payment Bond, AMRI00003, is good for a thousand years— after which we will have our final Visitation and all will be fulfilled.

I am sorry for all my own sins and apologize to those people I have offended by entitling this series of essays with the tag line: Or, Stop Being Stupid.  I think that it is obvious that we and many generations before us have been stupid, dull, slow, gullible, complacent, unwary, and the list goes on.  How else have we been so deceived? 

 

I think it is also obvious that, yes, we do have a choice in the matter.  We can go on believing the lies and the fairytales— and go on being enslaved in the Land of the Free—- or we can face the facts and jerk awake and ask the questions we need to ask— and foremost among them, how is this even possible? 

How have the people of the whole world been deceived, defrauded, and misled for thousands of years?  It stands firmly on the record that we have been.

People often say to me, “This has the ring of truth!”

There’s a reason for that.  It sounds true because it is true.  Once you step back and really think about it, it’s obvious.  It’s right in front of our faces.  It is written in our history, revealed in our holy books, repeated in our Laws, blazoned across the heavens, and resonating in our DNA.  We know the Truth.  We just have to admit it to ourselves and then declare it and share it.

Billions of people on this planet are suffering and going without the basics of life for no good reason.  Other lives are rendered truncated and miserable, crippled by artificially manufactured scarcity—- lacks deliberately created by banks, governments, and other commercial corporations via unlawful monopolization and manipulation of commodity markets and natural resources.

This is being done to the Heirs of Creation, the Children of the True God, the living people who are owed the benefits of the Historic Trusts regardless of their race, religion, or nation. 

It’s time that the banks are brought to “an accommodation” with respect to their activities interfering in the operation of our lawful government and withholding access to the benefit of our trusts both public and private, and the release of the hegemonies they have established to control our lives, our labor and our use of our own natural resources. 

It’s time to examine the purposes of banks and other commercial corporations and to question any necessity for their continued existence in their present forms.

We must remember that the Roman Curia created the entire concept of corporations.  It is their responsibility to control them and to redefine them as necessary to ensure their proper functioning.  When a dream turns into a nightmare and the pet becomes rabid, it’s time for the owners to wake up and either find the cure or put the creature down.

The banks and their government storefronts and the other commercial corporations pillaging the people and raping the planet must be fundamentally and permanently reformed. The Curia is the international body responsible for doing this and the Roman Pontiff is the official responsible for implementing it.

I have waited nine long years for the Curia to address the obvious and pungent problem.  I have marked the days since the order was given by Benedict XVI to open the Lord’s storehouses and provide relief to the people of this planet. And now I have presented the Payment Bond to the Vatican Chancery Court. 

In all these ways and for all these reasons, Pope Francis and the Roman Curia and the Vatican Chancery Court stand at the epicenter of this essential conflict between the commercial corporations and the beneficiaries of the Divine Trust. As with any trust, the Will of the Donor and the good of the Beneficiaries must be honored by the Trustees.

Otherwise, they must be recognized as False Trustees and ousted for cause.

In the nine years since Benedict gave the order to open the Lord’s storehouses, the people of this planet have continued to suffer in every corner.  The Historic Trusts remain in lock-down imposed by the banks, which also refuse to release credit on the interest owed.  The Curia shimmy-shuffles back and forth and takes no action to rein in, much less redefine, the limits and objectives of the banks and other commercial corporations.  The Vatican Chancery Court likewise hovers in interminable call-waiting status long after the facts have been established and the issues ripened for decision.

As of January 6, the books have been balanced. They must stay balanced for 1,000 years no matter what else anyone may do.   

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:

www.annavonreitz.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!!!

Anna has risked her life for you for years, so don’t you think it’s time you made sure everyone you know gets a copy of this? If ANYONE you send it to gets pissed off at you, simply shut them out of your life, because you will not have one much longer without a hundred million people standing up and getting rid of these psychopaths.

IN THE POLITICAL WORLD, OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS DON’T MATTER.

January 23rd, 2017 by

http://www.rebelmadman.com/?p=599

By Michael Gaddy

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” ~Excerpt from the Farewell Address of George Washington, 1796.

There exists among people two distinct philosophy’s; on one hand, there is the very small minority whose main desire in life is to be left alone to their own devices. They ask not for help or hindrance; they simply wish to be able to succeed or fail on their own abilities, not depending on others for help nor having to defend themselves from those who seek power over them. If they choose to help others along the way they want that idea to arise from their own motives and abilities and not coercion. A very generous attribution would be approximately 8% of the citizens of this country fall into this category.

The other approximately 92% of citizens, whether they find themselves politically on the right or on the left, many times see our Constitution and Bill of Rights as an impediment to their ability to use the coercive force of government to impose their ideas; their values; and their morality on others.

The political left seeks to implement and control a government which will serve as a god-like entity which can be used to forcibly take from those who produce to give to those who don’t. They view this as some divine attribute conferred on them because they have been anointed by some mystical power to confer social justice on the masses. As this purely Marxist belief began to take hold in our country before WWII, basically on the shoulders of the New Deal agenda, even those on the political right saw the attraction to this agenda by the masses and therefore sought to adopt at least part of these socialist policies, not because it fit their political agenda, but because they knew the key to power was the ability to offer more free stuff than the guy in the other party, for to gain the power and coercive forces of government one must convince more of Boobus Americanus to vote for them than vote for their political opponent.

The political right seeks to implement their policies under the guise of national fervor. Perpetual war for perpetual peace provides the platform to grow government exponentially for the purpose of defense—after all—there is a boogie man behind every door—-especially if your beloved government has given that demon tyrant millions of taxpayer dollars to make himself more scary.  Since there are demons everywhere, freedoms must be forcibly taken by government just in case somewhere down the road Ignoramus Americanus catches on to the ruse and like our Founders decides a drastic change is needed in the way government is being conducted and decides to exercise the rights to “throw off” such a government as is listed in the Declaration of Independence and replace it with one more attuned to Liberty.

Those on the right also see themselves as the anointed ones, many times referring to their religious beliefs as just cause to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own persons and property. The religious beliefs most rejected in history have been those which have been forced on those who do not know what is best for them in the eyes of their elected betters.

Many in our own county cannot see the inconsistency in their belief that government does not have the right to take their private property or close roads to public lands but believe that same government has the right to forcibly dictate what others can or cannot put into their own bodies. Of course most of these folks frequently exercise their right to consume adult beverages, but would use government to force their political/religious beliefs onto others. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if you can’t own yourself, you can never be truly free.

Damn that Constitution and Bill of Rights when it gets in the way of what those righteous folks know is best for the guy down the street. There ought to be a law that ignores the unalienable rights of others, they exclaim, when their beliefs or wishes to impose their values on others is challenged. Meanwhile they weep, wail and gnash their teeth because their political base deteriorates, all the while failing to look their own hypocrisy in the eye.

Bottom line is neither party wants our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be strictly enforced because it would limit the powers of their chosen political party or newly elected candidate and their subsequent ability to force their belief system on those they see as somehow inferior.

If you believe I am incorrect in this assertion, just check out social media and read what those who support Donald Trump want him to do once he is in office. The fact the great majority of actions they want Trump to take are not listed in the powers of the executive means nothing to them. Constitution—- “we don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, we have the Donald.”

Robert Lefevre offered great insight into this wonderful left-right paradigm.

“There is no other way of explaining the phenomenon. Good men do find their way into government. But having gotten there, they must either perform their function or resign. If they perform their function, they use the government, an agency of compulsively gathered coercive force, to accomplish that function. Inevitably, they hurt someone. This is undoubtedly the reason such a furore is maintained over the necessity for a two-party system. Nothing is said in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about the necessity of a two-party system. Yet most Americans hold that two parties are necessary.

The reason is obvious. The party in power inevitably employs its friends and well-wishers, and passes laws and enforces proceedings against others not of the same political conviction.

Over a period of time these laws and enforcements build up a body of resistance. The oppression mounts. It may become a public scandal. Finally, the “ins” are ousted and the other party assumes power.

Immediately the process repeats but with alternate emphasis. Those who are “ins” become “outs.” And the newly hired “ins” go to work to cut their friends free from oppression and to visit their vengeance upon those who subscribed to the beliefs of the former “ins.” Then the same iniquities come to pass all over again. Those persecuted change places with the persecutors. And around and around goes the political wheel of chance, with the voting public spinning the wheel.”

As long as the left can blame the problems of the country on the Bush’s, Graham’s and Romney’s of the Republican Party and the right can do the same with the Obama’s, Clinton’s and the Democrats, our Constitution and Bill of Rights will continue to disappear into the sinkhole of history, because freedom and liberty must always take a back seat to two-party politics in the eyes of the two-party power structure.

The problems we face in this country are because we are not following our founding principles, not because a right-wing tyrant or a left-wing tyrant is nesting in the White House or the halls of Congress. Both political parties see a strict adherence to our Constitution as a reduction to their power and ability to coerce. Supporting either party is a death-blow delivered against a small, constitutional, limited government.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

Mike

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

This article needs to be read every day until the concept is memorized. However it will never produce results until the people have been educated on the history of governments and their downfalls. That is what it takes to make freedom from tyranny sink in, and empress on their minds that their own tyranny is their self-centeredness. Most people only care about their own problems and ignore their neighbors. There will be no improvement in government until the people, one and all, recognize the importance of protecting everyone’s freedom, and the only way to do that is by having been raised in a godly family that really cares about their neighbors.

Once that feeling of responsibility is removed from society, then it’s every man for his-self. And that is when evil men come in to pillage whole Nations. The first thing evil men do is get control of the Nations currency, then the education of children, then the media industry to hold their control over everyone. Next is the military and law enforcement become their tools for holding their power. And all this time the corporations and politicians have been getting richer and richer, until every man women and child is expected to conform to government rule and not make demands.

It matters not who gets elected because every politician arrives under the power of the real governors of the land; the Investment bankers, Queen of England, and the Pope. These tyrants claim ownership of nearly everything on earth and not until they are eliminated will we be able to re-construct society and heal our land. If you have not been able to realize the presence of an all powerful God, whose objective is to make His Power Know, then all the money and power you may obtain will only weigh you down.

CONSTITUTION


SEO Powered By SEOPressor