March 18, 2018

Trump’s Jesuit Wicked Merovingian Mind Control



Current Wizard Of Oz – Yet There Have Been Many

A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need—MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action.
This is the very definition of TYRANNY.


There have been many;

Wizards Of Oz


To Be Or Not To Be Their Slave

The following is gleaned from a book called Cases in Constitutional Law, last published 1967, Library of Congress Card 68-18704, by Robert E and Robert F Cushman. It contains 159 cases and over 100 cases commented on or referred to in the 159 cases. The book is 1168 pages. The book tells you how the Bill of Rights was nationalized..

I conversed with a friend named Fred and wrote this to him concerning another patriot that debunked my findings when he would not let truth sink into his core beliefs. Since then he has capitulated and now sees it but it took him over 6 years to come to terms with the fraud, realizing it has been a fraud all along. All bold type in Part two is straight out of the Book. My comments are regular type.

Hopefully after reading these two parts you will come to realize Lysander Spooner writing to expose this in the 19th Century was right. The con job was just that, a con job of immense proportions. How the fraud lived so long is only due to the fact our family tree parents, going back to 1776/1787 were led by the nose as are the people of today. You have to have a core belief, and that, my friends is based on a lie. So as all foundations are either true or false, hopefully you will find what you have been brought up to believe is one huge fraud.

The Informer

Hi Fred, Well now that I let off some steam, here is more on Barron. It wasn’t just as someone we know said that, the supreme court brought it up in 2001. They brought Barron up way before 2001. I have a constitutional law book Titled Cases in Constitutional Law. It is ripe with cases on Barron and many more in its 1168 pages of knowledge. There are cases that they did not bring up that are just as important, one being Hepburn and Dundas v Ellezy, 2 Cranch 445. The heading of the case states:
“A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the circuit court for the district of Virginia. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Reading this, it goes way over people’s heads and they are not aware. As Montgomery found out, that President Washington created the states as districts in 1791, hence the phrase “district of Virginia” in the above case. It is an important case and you must get it because it is ripe with info that will wipe out the myth that people have had on the jurisdiction. A passage in the case so states after the Court gets rid of the notion that the people of the states are on the same footing as the people of the District of Columbia and said the plaintiff could not sue in Virginia. This is the defense position statement.
“Even if the Constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction that the Judiciary Act of 1789 has given, yet the court can take no jurisdiction which it is not given by the Act. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in this case.” .

A response was given by Plaintiff to rebut the above statement. The court then gave it’s decision and sided with Defense when Chief Justice Marshall said,
“The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.”

So basically the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives what jurisdiction the federal courts have, NOT the Congress as so many people believe and as the Defense attorney said, if it’s not to be found (jurisdiction) in that Act the fed court does not have it. Here we have direct admission that lawyers back then were dictating the parameters in which the courts had jurisdiction. The Informer, in his new history, brought this up when he cited the History of The American Bar by Charles Warren. I believe you have that book of the Informer. Might pay to reread it in light of this “revelation” the guy I was talking about had.

Now back to Barron. In the notes of the Constitutional Cases (BOOK) printed 1968, it states.
“While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been over ruled. ”

Brown v Walker (1896) Barron was again broached on self incrimination case. The BOOK had his to say;

     “In 1956 the Court reaffirmed the Brown decision in U1Imann v. United States . It rejected the defendant’s argument that “the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in general-such as loss of ]ob, expulsion from labor unions, state registration and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general pubIic opprobrium–is so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity.” The statute, like the Fifth Amendment provision, protects the witness only from having to give “testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge.”

Since Congress need not grant immunity from state prosecution in order to compel testimony, the question arises whether it may do so if it wishes. The control over evidence admissible in state courts is traditionally a question of state power, and even the Supreme Court in administering the due process clause has been reluctant to interfere with this state prerogative. In Adams v. Maryland (1954) the Court held that Congress could, under the supremacy doctrine, forbid a state to use testimony given before a congressional committee. Adams had been summoned before the Senate Crimes Investigation (Kefauver) Committee and had bared his soul concerning his boob making activities. The state of Maryland , which had been unable to get other evidence against Adams , read the transcript of the committee hearing into the trial record as a confession, and he was convicted of illegal gambling. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that 859 forbade the use of such testimony “in any criminal proceeding against him in any court …. “While Congress could not compel testimony under the statute, such testimony as was given was protected; and the phrase “in any court” included state courts as well as federal. Forbidding such use of the testimony) was held to be a necessary and proper way of securing testimony. The Immunity Act of 1954 uses this same language, and the Adams interpretation was reaffirmed by the Court in the Ullmann case.

In the present case a federal grand jury was investigating charges against a railroad that it had granted discriminatory rates and rebates. Brown, who was an officer of the railroad, was called as a witness but refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers would tend to accuse and incriminate him. He was adjudged in contempt for his refusal to answer.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part;

     It is true that the Constitution does not operate upon a witness testifying in state courts , since we have held that the first eight amendments are limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and are not applicable to the several states , except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable. Barron v. Baltimore [1833] …. There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of Federal statutes ….[The Court here quotes the supremacy clause in Article VI.]
The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that “no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him, etc. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify,” etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law…; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had.

But even granting that there were still a bare possibility that by his disclosure he might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, that . . . is not a real and probable danger, with reference to the ordinary operations of the law in the ordinary courts, but “a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct.” Such dangers it was never the object of the provision to obviate.

The same answer may be made to the suggestion that the witness is imperfectly protected by reason of the fact that he may still be prosecuted and put to the annoyance and expense of pleading his immunity by way of confession and avoidance. This is a detriment which the law does not recognize. There is a possibility that any citizen, however innocent, may be subjected to a civil or criminal prosecution, and put to the expense of defending himself, but unless such prosecution be malicious, he is remediless, except so far as a recovery of costs may partially indemnify him ….

. . . While the constitutional provision in question is justly regarded as one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen, its object is fully accomplished by the statutory immunity, and we are therefore of opinion that the witness was compellable to answer, and that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shiras, with whom Mr. Justices Gray and White concurred, wrote a dissenting opinion. Mr. Justice Field wrote a separate dissent.”

In Powell v Alabama (1932) Barron was brought up again . Then in Palko v Connecticut (1937 Barron was again brought up and this is the BOOK’s comment .

     With the decision in Powell v. Alabama it appeared that the long struggle to nationalize the Bill of Rights might at last be bearing fruit. The Court had acknowledged that it no longer felt bound by the Hurtado reasoning; the application to the states of the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation and the First Amendment rights of free speech, press, religion, and assembly showed that some of the Bill of Rights guarantees could be applied to the states through due process of law. And now, in Powell, the Court for the first time had found one of the rights of persons accused of crime to be essential to due process.

‘The Palko case, printed below, made clear that the Court was not prepared to abandon earlier decisions such as Hurtado and Twining. Instead, it undertook to explain why some rights, such as the rights to counsel and free speech, are absorbed into due process; and why others, like jury trial and grand jury indictment, are not. It should be emphasized that the cases “absorbing” rights into the Fourteenth Amendment do not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1820). The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights still limit directly only the federal government; it is the Fourteenth Amendment which limits the states. What the Court has done is to reverse the practical effect of the rule in Barron v. Baltimore with respect to part, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. Some of these rights are still not considered by the Court to be so fundamental as to be required by due process of law . The Court in case after case has been classifying the provisions of the Bill of Rights into those which are essential to due process of law and thus bind the states through the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and those which are not essential to due process and by which ‘the states are not bound. In effect, the Court has established an “honor roll” of superior rights which bind both state and national governments. The opinion in the present case is important since it gives an official summary of this classification up to 1937 and states clearly the principles upon which the ‘classification rests.

In another situation, and for a very different purpose, the Court classified the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights. In fixing the constitutional status of territories after the war with Spain, the Court held that in governing “unincorporated” territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, Congress was restricted only by those guarantees in the Bill of Rights which are basic and fundamental, and not by those which are merely “procedural” or “remedial,” such as the guarantee of trial by jury. See Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922). This classification is essentially the same as that in Palko v. Connecticut .

One question which the Palko case failed to answer satisfactorily was what was meant by “absorption” or “incorporation” of a Bill of Rights guarantee into due process. Did it mean that the right, as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted by the Supreme Court in federal cases, was made applicable to the states? Or was the right as applied to the states a more general right, less clearly defined and permitting more leeway and discretion on the part of the states? Clearly, incorporation of the First Amendment has meant its application to the states exactly as it is applied to the national government. Justices Brandeis and Holmes, in their dissent in the Gitlow case, suggested that the free speech applicable to the states perhaps “may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States .” The Court, however, has never acknowledged such a distinction, and the same rules for deciding such cases are applied to the states and the nation alike.

With the gradual extension of due process to include other rights, an important controversy developed as to how these rights would apply to the states. This problem is discussed in connection with the specific rights in the chapter below.”

Another case is United States v Lanza (1922). This is what the court stated then I will go to the BOOK comments and bear in mind what happened at the Ruby Ridge trial against the government agent and put into that what the BOOK states.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion:

     “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the Amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each. The 5th Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the Federal government (Barron v. Baltimore [1833]) and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the Federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here the same act was an offense against the state of Washington , because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy ….

If Congress sees fit to bar prosecution by the Federal courts for any act when punishment for violation of state prohibition has been imposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision; but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from Federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect for the Federal statute, or for its deterrent effect. But it is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough for us to hold that, in the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court, under a state law, for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors, is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States, under the Federal law, for the same acts ….
Judgment reversed.

Now for the comment by the BOOK:

          It was one of the universal maxims of the common law that no man should be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense. Protection against double jeopardy is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment against invasion by the federal government, while a similar clause is found in the bills of rights of most of the state constitutions. A person is held to be in jeopardy when his trial has progressed to the point where he actually confronts the jury. If convicted, he may waive his immunity from double jeopardy by an appeal to a higher court which may allow him a new trial; but if acquitted, further proceedings against him by the prosecuting authorities are barred, the government not even being allowed to appeal the case on the ground of error of law. See United States v. Sanges (1892). Moreover, if he appeals his conviction and is granted a new trial the defendant can only be retried on the charge of which he was convicted. Thus in Green v. United States (1957) a person who was indicted and tried for first degree murder but was found guilty by the jury of second degree murder could not, after successfully appealing the second degree murder charge, be retried on the original charge of first degree murder. He had already been once in jeopardy for that cr/me and had not waived his protection by appealing his conviction for a different crime.

In certain recognized circumstances a court can declare a mistrial and subject the accused to a second trial without violating the protection against double jeopardy. This is true where it turns out that a juror is disqualified, see Thompson v. United States (1894); and in United States v. Perez (1824) it was held permissible where the jury could not agree on a verdict; “The prisoner has not been convicted or acquitted, and may again be put upon his defense. We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances which would render it proper to interfere.” The double jeopardy clause would prevent declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial solely to permit the government more time to secure evidence against the accused. In Downum v. United States (1963) the government asked that the jury be discharged when it discovered two of its key witnesses were missing. Two days later a new jury was empanelled and Downurn was convicted. The Court conceded that a new jury could be empanelled after the discharge of the first where there is “an imperious necessity to do so,” or in “very extraordinary and striking circumstances.”

          Here the government had simply started the trial before it had located all its witnesses.
A move such as this does not, however, amount to a denial of due process when done in a state court. In Brock v. North Carolina (1953) the state court had declared a mistrial and ordered a continuance of the case in order to permit the state to deal with some of its own witnesses who had unexpectedly refused to testify on pleas of self-incrimination. Citing the Palko case, the Court held that the double jeopardy provision was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and this particular action was not shocking enough to make the trial unfair. In 1967 the Court declined to decide whether or not the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would be extended to the states. Although it had granted certiorari to decide the question, on a full hearing of the case it agreed that the state action did not amount to double jeopardy and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See Cichos v. Indiana .

Since one is not in jeopardy until his trial actually begins, indictment for crime does not put a person in jeopardy, and therefore repeated indictments do not constitute double jeopardy. Moreover, the government can appeal the dismissal of an indictment, and such an appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality of criminal legislation which a lower court holds unconstitutional. See discussion in the note to Muskrat v. United States .

It does not constitute double jeopardy to try a person each time he commits the same offense over again . Thus a conscientious objector who has sewed a prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft may be tried and convicted again if he continues in his refusal. The same is true of a person who is punished for contempt for refusing to give testimony. Where, however, a witness is asked to identify a person as a Communist and in reply refuses to so identify “anyone,” she is guilty of only one contempt, despite a refusal to answer the same question asked 11 times with regard to other persons. See Yates v; United States (1957). Where Congress has made conspiracy to commit a felony a separate crime from the commission of the felony itself, a person may be tried for both crimes. Whether the second trial constitutes double jeopardy in cases like this depends on the nature of the evidence needed to convict. The Court in Morgan v. Devine (1915) quoted with approval from Bishop on Criminal Law: “The test is whether, if what is set out in the second indictment had been proved under the first, there could have been a conviction; when there could, the second cannot be maintained; when there could not, it can be.”

One of the obvious results of living under our federal form of government is that every person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of two separate governments, the state and the national. It is entirely possible, therefore, for a single act to constitute an offense against the statutes of the United States and at the same time to be punishable under state law. This is true in the case of counterfeiting the national currency, corrupt practices in the conduct of congressional elections, assaults against federal officers, the larceny of goods moving in interstate commerce, violations of the former Prohibition Amendment, etc. In these cases it has long been held that a person may be tried and punished by both governments without violating the protection against double jeopardy. That guarantee is violated only by a second trial for the same offense against the same sovereignty, not by a trial /or the same act when it constitutes a separate and distinct crime against another sovereign. This doctrine had, of course, considerable practical effect in connection with the enforcement of the Prohibition Amendment, under which concurrent jurisdiction rested in the state and national governments. Note the similarity of this rule to the one applied to the self-incrimination cases.

In the present case Lanza had been convicted by the state courts of Washington for violating the state prohibition act. He was then indicted in a federal court for the same act, which also violated the Volstead Act. The district judge dismissed the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy and the government appealed. The Lanza rule, though sharply criticized, sti11 stands. Abbate v. United States (1959) held that a man convicted of a crime in Illinois could later be tried for the same act (dynamiting telephone communications) under a federal law. Lanza was specifically reaffirmed by a six-to-three decision. On the same day the Court held, five to four, that one acquitted in a federal court of robbing a federally insured bank could later be tried and convicted in a state court for the same robbery. See Bartkus v. Illinois (1959).

While the Lanza rule has a logical persuasiveness about it and the Court has done nothing to weaken it, it has not been given wide application. It is not, for example, followed in international law. As early as 1820 the Supreme Court recognized that while all states could try a person for piracy, “there can be no doubt that the plea of autrefois acquit would be good, in any civilized state, though resting on a prosecution in the courts of any other civilized state.” See United States v. Furlong. Nor has the Court felt the rule should apply in cases where two states have concurrent jurisdiction, as on the Columbia River where Washington and Oregon both have jurisdiction over the entire river so as “to avoid any nice question as to whether a criminal act sought to be prosecuted was committed on one side or the other of the exact boundary in the channel” “Where an act is . . . prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states,” the Court commented, “the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both states, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one state cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other.” See Nielson v. Oregon (1909).

The manifest unfairness of the Lanza rule has been widely recognized, and following the Abbate and Bartkus decisions the Attorney General of the United States ordered that “no federal case should be tried when there has already been a state prosecution for substantially the same act or acts without the United States Attorney first submitting a recommendation to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General in the Department.” And in Petite v. United States (1960) Petite, a lawyer in deportation proceedings against the same man held in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, induced his client to swear falsely that he had been born in the United States. For this suborning of perjury he was convicted and punished in the federal district court in Pennsylvania , and later in the federal district court in Maryland . When the case came to the Supreme Court the Solicitor General moved that the second judgment be vacated and the indictment dismissed. He contended that the double jeopardy clause had not been violated, but stated that “the initiation of the second prosecution in this case was contrary to sound policy and that for that reason, and in the interests of justice, the indictment should be dismissed.” The Supreme Court, without passing on the double jeopardy question, granted the motion.”

Thanks goes out to the INFORMER and others who were the reason for the legalism cleverness used to trap us all into bondage.. Because these real truth seekers and freedom fighters fought to expose this treachery.. To a mass society with deaf ears and blind eyes..

So there you are citizen, the real story. Now I think you citizen[s] have a lot of cognitive dissonance and ego to get rid of. After all, I would say you dear citizen are several years behind the actual truth and knowledge of this great corporate  legal con in your core beliefs mythical thinking. Well, if you ever obtain the level of competence that we have obtained then you can be onto better things and won’t be so ego centered in the future with that mockery you’re so trained in.  It is nice to be eating humble pie once in awhile, really, its not so bad. I think everyone has a lot to learn from reading this and the cases if they so choose. But they need interpretation like this BOOK gives, because after all it’s what “they”  the citizens sovereign owners who established this politically charted nation/state who interpret as ruling, to manage us, not how we interpret these laws they wrote. We are only citizen slaves by contract, remember?

A Bill of Privileges was never a Bill of Rights…

Have a nice day.



Are You A Practicing Communist National Socialist Communitarian

Here in the United States today, we citizens pride ourselves on being staunch anti-communists. A lot of us think of the communists as the bad guys and the cause of our troubles and that the rest of the worlds. This bad guy must look really bad and we should spot him easily in a crowd. Let us examine what a communist really is. Communism is a way of life that is contrary to most teachings of the Bible..

In 1848 Karl Marx fine tuned this way of life with his communist manifesto, he also put the 10 planks of communism together with the help of a few friends, namely the Vatican. Now this statement is easy to prove but I want to discuss the Manifesto right now. Just keep in mind Karl Marx did not create communism or write it, he only helped to improve upon it.

The communist manifesto is the foundation of what communist ideology is all about. A true communist in a communist country would be practicing all these 10 planks. Today in the USA, The citizen via various corporate contractual agreements are practicing all of these 10 planks and most of the citizens don’t even know that they are in reality communists. They should rather call themselves something else. Keep in mind while reading these planks, you dear Comrade are a card carrying Socialist Securities Insured member of this ‘Community’ hoping to someday collect your Social Security Retirement checks..Think about that the next time you say you hate socialism..

Now to the Manifesto

(THE ABOLITION OF PROPERTY AND LAND AND THE APPLICATION OF ALL RENT IN LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES). As an old law of Moses and in the first 150 years of America, when you owned land, you had absolute title to that land and no other party could lay claim on it whatsoever unless you sold the land or voluntarily let another party lay claim. But then, you had the right to get it back if it would take your grandchildren to claim it all back. Today, we have only what you might call a 99 year lease. The state can confiscate your land for non-payment of taxes. The only reason the state can do this is that you don’t really own your land. The state has controlling interest on your land and you are merely paying rent, and this rent goes towards the public use.

The 2nd Plank:(A PROGRESSIVE, GRADUATED INCOME TAX). Need I explain this ? We all know that we have income tax in this United States of America and that the more you make, the higher your Tax bracket, the more you are taxed. We did not have income tax until the 1940s.

I will add that there are trusts out there to protect the very wealthy from the IRS created by them that created that federal reserve bank system. Which is privately owned. For example Movie stars don’t own anything, the TRUSTS they established own it all and they are mere employees of that trust, so when for example Bruce Willis gets 25 mil for one of his stupid fake movie roles that 25 mil is installed in a safe place called a trust. He then draws out a paycheck and pays his fair share of that to the IRS.

The 3rd Plank:(THE ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHT OF INHERITANCE). In the old law of Moses, and the first 150 years of America there was no inheritance tax. In the Law of Moses, land was transferred to the eldest son absolutely. In the the first 150 years of America, the right of inheritance was also absolute. There were no parties involved. This started with getting a marriage license which makes the state the third party. When a spouse dies, the other spouse cannot claim the fruits of the marriage because of the third party. the state now would in affect say “buy me out”. Then the land would be forced to be sold just to pay the state, and almost always attorneys, who always want cash. This happens to senior citizens in the good ole USA all the time, work 30 or 40 years to pay off a mortgage then when one passes the other’s SSI income isn’t enough to live on let alone pay the state rent on the house the couple bought and paid for.. Thanks so much you Senators, you whores of Babylon.

The 4th Plank:(THE CONFISCATION OF ALL PROPERTY OF EMIGRANTS AND REBELS). Some people are beginning to find out what is really going on. They are beginning to rebel against these communists and/or satanic practices and in the process, SWAT teams are sent against them. Businesses are padlocked: Homes are leined; bank accounts are seized, some are jailed with out due process; and others killed. What will it take for the die hard left right paradigm true believers to finally recognize they are under the ancient TALMUD, and Babylonian law, calling it The Commercial Code. When will Bible believing folks wake up to the truth and truly follow Bible Scripture rather than the Law of Hammurabi..

The 5th Plank:( THE CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITOL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY). This brings us straight to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK. Privately owned by 12 European families and operated by 8 Jewish families of European decent. The basis of the Federal Reserve Note which is a certified Negotiable Debt Instrument is merely a line of credit which is the reason it has no gold or silver backing it, it is welfare insurance script. The government borrows these notes to pass out to the people and you will notice how huge the constitutors-tax payers federal deficit they are responsible is. All for the cost of printing these notes. In the Law of Moses and in the first 150 years of America, people used gold and silver coins which had intrinsic value. This worthless money is then distributed through the local banks. You constitutor tax payers owe this deficit back to the elite Europeans that set this deal up here in the Estates.

The 6th Plank:(THE CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE). This is accomplished by the Federal communications commission which controls, regulates and licenses all news papers and magazines: Radio and television stations, local or national distribution who are a corporate or a state created entity. Transportation is controlled by various state departments of motor vehicles and enforced by the various law enforcement agencies, did ya get that word FORCED in there. I guess the mainstream government controlled media are looking out for you. They’re teaching you constitutor citizen milk cows to self censor any uncomfortable TRUTH as well…

The 7th Plank:(THE EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE AND BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION WASTELAND AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN). Factories are all controlled by the government by means of permits and licenses, and various other agencies like OSHA, labor boards and others. Smaller businesses are really extensions of these factories because most are franchises. You cannot put up a business and start selling somebody’s product unless you first ask and pay for this privilege, even if you create the product your self, or buy in bulk, Farms are told which crop to grow and harvest, and are sometimes paid not to harvest, the most profitable crop being industrial hemp was outlawed in 1937, as this product was to competitive and Dupont and big oil cant be having that. Farms and ranches are controlled by various government agencies like soil Conservation Districts, B.L.M Forest service Management agencies via various contractual agreement. ACHTUNG POLICE STATE.

The 8th Plank:( EQUAL LIABILITY FOR ALL TO LABOR AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE). Equal liability is accomplished by means of the social insecurity account and most are members of an industrial army because you cannot get a job with a corporation unless you have a socialist insecurity number. You are part of the socialist Insecurity army and being unemployed, The unemployment office will send benefits to you. Ever collected Socialist Unemployment Checks Comrade?

The 9th Plank:( THE COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES AND THE GRADUAL ABOLITION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND COUNTRY BY MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OVER THE COUNTRY). Real wealth comes from the land and in the 1920s, almost half the population owned their own land out- right. That has fallen steadily since then through farm foreclosures because those farmers were needed in the cities to work war machine factories building implements to conquer the rest of the world. Equal distribution is not distributed evenly but rather distributed where you are needed. By the turn of the century, this country has more super corporate farms and the millions of family owned and operated farms are vanishing, recently almond growers in California were ordered by the FDA to no longer sell RAW Almonds, they must first go to the NEW PASTEURIZATION CORPORATE PLANT before the market. Russia comes to mind, maybe China perhaps. Oops.. I thought Communism was myth…

The 10th Plank:(THE FREE EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS). Really do I need to explain this ? Even private and church schools need to obtain permits and licenses from the government and follow a state approved curriculum. This way your children can be taught humanistic principles and communist ideology. Subtly but surely. That’s why the idiots running The Government its FREE Welfare Indoctrination for everyone Public schools system think they are doing right, they were schooled to do it that way, and then when those other folks complain about it because its NOT FAIR AT ALL their labeled dissident trouble makers..

One big difference between Russia/China and America is that in Russia/China people do not pretend to have property, they do not call themselves homeowners unlike in The United Estates. Private property has been subjugated to the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. . Now are you a practicing SOCIALIST COMMY, why of course YOU are. And you didn’t even know it…

The Left Right Paradigm IS Communism and National Socialism All rolled into one nice package… Communitarianism.. The people that did this to YOU are very clever rascals..

So are YOU a practicing Communist National Socialist Communitarian Communazi? That government is…Did YOU vote? Well then if you voted for this you’ve nothing to complain about.. This is what they keep serving you with…

There you go.. Now go call some silly boy a communist… AND you dear Constitutor Citizen tax payer who agrees with all of that National Debt responsibility as you’ve had all of your personal wealth placed in collateral as part of the agreement shoudl have have no trouble spotting those scary communists walking amongst us all.. Try the mirror out this morning, see if that guy scares ya…

This write up is the property of Karl Marx and whoever those men in black ghost writers were who tutored him in London back in the 1840s…


Modern Educayshun


I don’t think a rational person would need it explained to them how the entire system is corrupt. It is in effect, ‘self-evident’ to any lucid observer. Obviously those who’ve corrupted it, conspired together to do so.. Oops…

Rugged individualism has been traded in for Pussyism…


Behavioural Engineering – Social Engineering – For Belief Engineering

Consider the Literary ‘supremacy’ – Word term linguistics supremacy – The superior I.Q. of white/black/brown/yellow men, under the influence of demonic possession to that of the inferior I.Q of those men of all cultures races and creeds who are not under the influence of demonic possession… In our daily observations of so called base idiocy and misplaced understanding of the real function of the idea of Intelligence Quotients defined by those under such influences..{I’m willing to bet 98% of folks wandering around out yonder in their meat life rides cannot spot the possessed ones even when they are standing in the open shouting at them..}

If that is the case everything around us all, historical, scientific, philosophical, would be highly suspect.. Especially considering their possession of ancient documents hidden away in their secret vaults we have no access to.. So they can rewrite history, go back and replicate false narratives by creating and using false ancient documents.. Or art.. Or archeological discovery.. Or deep sea discovery..All sudden fascinating and amazing discoveries..

These scoundrels can make up anything and make it appear real.. They’re practitioners of believability.. “Oh mortal man what can you not be made to believe”… Better understand the anatomy of controlled opposition.. Controlled research arena opposition.. They would leave no loose ends.. Consider the etymology of the words believe and knowledge.. Then again, Oh mortal man what can you not be made to want to believe… Like one thousands cuts with the knife.. Like one thousand or one hundred thousand false narratives.. How does one overcome that? They own it all. Even weaponized truth and tell.. They will release truth and study that result..

What if an unseen entity had thousands of years to practice screwing with mortal mans five senses… Can you imagine what that scoundrel could do? Can you? Instead of a comedy of errors I’d call it their comedy of terrors.. I’m saying the enemy of man and Earth has the capability to create any document of literature or art or anything they want tomorrow and they can easily convince the world it is as old as they say it is.. And they’ve been doing that for a very long time now.. Intelligencia Distractions.. Homeland Defense Mechanism.. Claiming they own this earth and defending it from another that claims he created it.. A grand theft in action.. Grand theft Opera.. What a grand gift this is to be born in it..

Truth Fears No Investigation – People that block and censure to shape and control their narrative fear something…


Cointellpro is the very anatomy of controlled opposition-Essential Intelligence Operations of set up opposition or infiltrate opposition…
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.

DEFINITION: A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries.

Are we all under surveillance…

Who owns every corporation on this earth? Why that’s easy, the greatest intelligencia agency in world history..

How to turn everything into a weapon…

Everything is a distraction…



Psychasec Company Is Creating HUMANOID/CLONE Organic SLEEVES For Humans To LIVE IN



Anatomy Of The State

“With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and commonsense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.
If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.”
~Murray N.Rothbard (`Anatomy of the State’ – 2009)

Murray Rothbard

“Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent system of conscription. It was the crucial act in creating a mixed economy run by Big Government, a system of state monopoly capitalism run by the central government in collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism.”~Murray Rothbard

Murray Newton Rothbard (/?m?ri ?r???b??rd/; March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School,[1][2] a revisionist historian,[3][4] and a political theorist[5](pp11, 286, 380) whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism.[6] Rothbard was the founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism, a staunch advocate of historical revisionism, and a central figure in the twentieth-century American libertarian movement. He wrote over twenty books on political theory, revisionist history, economics, and other subjects.[7] Rothbard asserted that all services provided by the “monopoly system of the corporate state” could be provided more efficiently by the private sector and wrote that the state is “the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.”[8][9][10][11][12][13] He called fractional-reserve banking a form of fraud and opposed central banking.[14] He categorically opposed all military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations.[15](pp4-5, 129)[16] According to his protégé Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard.”[17]

Rothbard was a heterodox political economist.[18][19] Economist Jeffrey Herbener, who calls Rothbard his friend and “intellectual mentor”, wrote that Rothbard received “only ostracism” from mainstream academia.[20] Rothbard rejected mainstream economic methodologies and instead embraced the praxeology of his most important intellectual precursor, Ludwig von Mises. To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. “Lew” Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama.
. . . . . .
Lysander Spooner
Lysander Spooner(January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, political philosopher, essayist, pamphlet writer, Unitarian Christian abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which closed after legal problems with the federal government.
Spooner challenged the claim that the text of the Constitution permitted slavery.[14] Although he recognized that the Founders had probably not intended to outlaw slavery when writing the Constitution, he argued that only the meaning of the text, not the private intentions of its writers, was enforceable.



Most Published SCIENCE Research Findings Are False

Do enjoy the read;

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis Abstract Summary There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research. Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies to the most modern molecular research. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof. Go to: Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings Several methodologists have pointed out that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. *Negative* research is also very useful. *Negative* is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” 
Also see: 

Scientists do lie a lot…

When Politics and Money come through the door the TRUTH goes out the window..


Stephen Hawking Hoax Ends

Apparently the ACTOR that played Hawking was tired of playing this character Hawking.. Maybe the Holy Pontifical Hoax himself decided the Hawking show should end.. Who knows.. No more Stevey Hoaxing Hawking.. Finally.. Scientism kept him alive.. GRIN…

Stephen Hawking

a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,

Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts

Lucasian Professor of Mathematics


Millions likely fooled by the Stephen Hawking Hoax…