October 17, 2018

Blasphemy From The Vatican

Share

I’m Spartacus

 

Kings that build kingdoms need subjects. Subjects need liberty=rights=privileges granted them by the Kings. Citizen=subject=slave=animal. King nation builders = Sovereigns..So they build a corporate model which is their intellectual property and they tricked the average man into joining their Kingdom=community by contracting with their corporate kingdom thus becoming their human resource subject subjugated to their corporate authority. In the beginning it can be pretty nice yet as the kings administer their management of their corporate creation the subjects are eventually subjugated to more and more rules and less and less liberty rights privileges. This has happened several times in history and has happened to the United States Corporation. This man made RICO operation has nothing to do with your natural GOD GIVEN Freewill that unfortunately the majority of men and women are in confusion about. You average man have been conned since birth. They have contracted you into slavery and they have legally identified you as their property by renaming what you are, as a human, individual, PERSON, a corporate entity, as homo sapiens. There are other definitions as well, citizen, subject and the loathed slave just an animal. What has occurred is a transfer of property, man being the intellectual property of another, your Creator GOD cannot be claimed by these man made entities. The man must be deceived into surrendering his true identity and entering into contract with these kingdoms. This corporation is multi national, it is the various nations within the United Nations. All under the control of the Whore of Revelation. So when you rebel and demand your liberty, your rights that they have designed for you, you’re demanding more slavery. Because it is their creation, their corporation thus their intellectual property. Its no different than going into your bosses office at work and telling him how he is going to treat you in his place of business.  He just points to the door and say’s you’re fired.  These kings ignore you until you get a few followers then they crush you, even kill you. This crap has been going on all throughout world history. Nothing has changed in world history except they’ve learned to disguise the slavery almost perfectly. Maybe you’ve seen the movie Spartacus, or other rebellions revolutions and civil wars. Wars which were expensive thus they designed the perfectly disguised system of slavery which is why only a few discover it and attempt to expose it. What is needed is reconciliation with our True King the author of the book of Mathew in the New Testament. Only He will end this slavery. Only He will repair HIS Earth..

Share

Open Thread – Monday, February 22, 2016

TunnelsBOOMSArticle

1978 map of alleged tunnels under America.

 

Please use this open thread to post your information, ideas and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

 

Share

The Whore Of Revelation

Share

Over Population Debunked

 

 

“There has never been a so-called overpopulation problem nor an inability to provide food because of the ‘claims’ of scarcity that it is said would be brought about. What there has been is the promotion of the fear of overpopulation, to justify culling people for fear of them coming to learn the mechanism of their enslavement, with its lie of economy and the deliberate engineering of food scarcity and deliberate contamination, working together with its other accompanying means, as well as preventing effecient energy technologies from seeing the light of day –”—Six Honest Men

Episode 1: Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
SOURCED:
Overpopulation is a myth
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

 

Depopulation mechanisms are long drawn out processes. These processes are even made legal. Genocides have been the law in the past. Depopulation has been disguised as sustainable development. UNEP-Assessment on biodiversity, Agenda 2030-2050- 2100.

These criminals are not saving the Earth. They are covering up their criminal legalese fictions.

 

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe:
past experiences and future possibilites
Martin F. Price
Environmental Change Unit,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom
http://www.npsumava.cz/gallery/8/2426-sg1_price.pdf

UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy – The Task of Unifying the World Mind
https://orwelliania.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/unesco-its-purpose-and-its-philosophy-the-task-of-unifying-the-world-mind/

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELmUY4KFUZc

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecx_u0mUHh4

Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHqdwmqu-h0

Share

Fiction Of Law

LEGAL FICTION – ABSURDITY IN LAW

A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts[1] which is then used in order to apply a legal rule. Legal fiction allows an intellectual tradition of defining a legal standard such as by way of a person, which has resulted in the creation of classic hypothetical figures in law including: The man on the Clapham omnibus, the right-thinking member of society, the officious bystander, the “reasonable parent,” the “reasonable landlord,” and the “fair-minded and informed observer,” and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias.[2] Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems.

While all creation of law is subject to unintended consequences, that resulting from legal fiction can produce particular outrage because it follows from a premise in pure fantasy.[3] Legal fictions may be counterintuitive to those surprised to hear logic from fantasy as a means to administer justice in the modern course of everyday life, but they are preserved to advance public policy and preserve the rights of certain individuals and institutions. Such an example is when a corporation is treated in judicial proceedings as if it were a “natural person” and thus has the same legal rights and responsibilities as a natural person.

It’s alleged legal fiction is used as a definition or means for an improvised solution to *antinomy in law,[citation needed] such as the Morton’s fork or double bind in the rules of the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament which specify that a Member of Parliament cannot resign from office, but since the law also states that a Member of Parliament who is appointed to a paid office of the Crown must either step down or stand for re-election, the effect of a resignation can be accomplished by appointment to such an office. The second rule is used to circumvent the first rule.

[*antinomy, a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.]

The term “legal fiction” is not usually used in a pejorative way, and has been likened to scaffolding around a building under construction.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction

http://www.britannica.com/topic/antinomy

 

The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.

The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.

It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law. “Our various introduction of John Doe and Richard Roe; our solemn process upon disseisin by Hugh Hunt; our casually losing and finding a ship (which never was in Europe) in the parish of St. Mary Le Bow, in the ward of Cheap; our trying the validity of a will by an imaginary wager of five pounds; our imagining and compassing the king’s death, by giving information which may defeat an attack upon an enemy’s settlement in the antipodes; our charge of picking a pocket or forging a bill with force and arms; of neglecting to repair a bridge, against the peace of the king, his crown and dignity are circumstances, which, looked at by themselves, would convey an impression of no very favorable nature, with respect to the wisdom of our jurisprudence.”

FICTION OF LAW – http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f111.htm
ASSUMPTION OF RISK – http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a083.htm
PRESUMPTION – http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p149.htm
DISSEISIN – http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d181.htm

-Office of President -Office of President of the United States -Office of President of the United States of America …are 3 separate titles? And that another definition of the word, of = without? And that United is a past tense adverb; adverb changes the verb States to adverb/verb fiction?

 

Most informed people are aware that a corporation is a “fictitious entity” – greatly ignored however is the fact the The State is equally a fictitious entity.
Both concepts are Fantasies of Law. In effect, BULLSHIT. A State is a corporation.

In 1871 the 41st US Congress changed ‘Washington D.C.’, the Government of the United States, into a commercial enterprise. This was the condition by the banks in order to lend money to the ailing states. With the contractual integration of all American states into this “Corporation” every US citizen unknowingly became practically an employee of this company (UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, § 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C): (15) “United States” means – (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.) 

The imaginings of elite term smiths leading the masses using deceptions to cover up their frauds.

I recommend the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The History Of the Great {Swindlers who got their} American Fortunes by Gustavus Myers. The Law Of Nations by Emerich Vattel.

based of information gleaned from the Congressional Record of the United States documenting the abuses of the peoples, lands and wealth of the United States Company once the British East Indies Company by the wealthy few… Read these volumes and learn how laws and lawmakers are used to further the aims of those who would and did effect the removal of the wealth of this great land into the coffers of the few.

Real history doesn’t say anything nice or positive about the Great Wealthy Aristocratic Americans who as it turns out are bloodlines of the Aristocratic British, The Posterity. These books are anti-collectist capitalistic. They are anti-wealthy. It is not spoken of favorably by most established sources – but nobody can deny its research and its facts. If you are a descendant of a DuPont, or a Rockefeller, or a Carnegie, or a Vanderbilt, or J. P. Morgan, or the railroad barons you will not like Gustavus Myers.

 

 

Share

The Declaration Deception

Share

The Constitution Delusion

The "Constitution" Delusion - Part I



ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST

by James Hazel

You will find the enclosed articles, published under the Masthead of
THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST, to be factual and provocative. They raise
disturbing questions concerning the basis of modern government. These
questions MUST BE ANSWERED by individuals who are in search of personal
Liberty. Failure to solve the riddles posed by a bewildering
Constitution can result, at best, in wasted energy and spirit-crushing
frustration. At worst, failure may result in individual tragedies and
collective catastrophe.

But an individual cannot answer questions he does not know how to ask;
or solve riddles of which he is unaware. That’s where you come in! It’s
important that these questions, issues and "riddles" be brought to the
attention of numerous Americans. 

It is essential that a dialogue begin to take place concerning the
intentions and covert motives behind the Constitution; and of that
instrument’s real purposes, as well as its grave, deleterious effects
throughout the history of America. Many of the issues raised in my
enclosed articles, have NEVER BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE!
These are indeed novel, CUTTING EDGE CONCEPTS. As you will soon realize
-- they are well-documented; and you may wonder why no one, in over 200
years, has raised them before. You will find one answer to that
question in 'THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY,' which is included herein. 

For the benefit of your subscribers and readers, I urge you to reprint
any or all of the enclosed ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST articles that you
find of interest. I will appreciate your giving appropriate credit for
the source. 

I also publish some powerful, mind-boggling, and thoroughly- documented
reviews and commentaries -- for details, contact: James Hazel, P.O. Box
863, Mount Angel, OR 97362. 

I Thank you in advance for taking the time to examine and review the
enclosures. But be forewarned: they may knock your socks off! 

THAT CUNNING CONSTITUTION On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine clever
businessmen proposed a Constitution for the United States of America.
Today, those 39 men are memorialized as the Founding Fathers. A more
perfect title for the consortium would be the Fleecing Fathers! 

With unparalleled conceit, they styled themselves: "We, the People of
the United States." Never before in history had there been a legal body
named "the People of the United States." In the Union of Independent
States, under the Articles of Confederation, there were citizens of a
State and residents or inhabitants of a State, but no collective status
named People of a State or of States. The Fleecing Fathers coined the
name for themselves. Their motives were as sinister as the Constitution
they tagged after their new name; after:
"We, the People of the United States, in Order to Form a More Perfect
Union..." 

The Charter they crafted was as hallucinatory [emphasis added] as a
President’s State of the Union address; wordsmithed to appear
innocuous, but in language calculated to slash, kill and indenture the
innocents who are lulled to sleep by euphonic rhetoric.

Their proposed constitution was advertised as the blueprint for eternal
bliss; for peace, safety and order for all free men then living, and
for their generations ad infinitum.

BUT IN FACT, it provided for that constitution to be a commercial
establishment; to be erected in an unapproachable place, above, around,
but most particularly BETWEEN the wealthy States of the Union whose
names it plagiarized. The face of the Preamble and the seven Articles
of Incorporation literally reveal to whom the profits and benefits are
assigned: to the Fleecing Fathers (We, the People) and their linear
descendants. 

Did you think the Constitution was a Warm, Fuzzy Sacred Puppy!? 

LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION 1. "We, the People of the
United States" includes ONLY those 39 men who signed the Constitution
on September 27, 1787. 

2. The only Public Authority vested in the 39 Signers was to "propose
amendments to the Articles of Confederation." In 1781, those Articles
of Confederation had established a perpetual Union of States. 

3. The Constitution established an entirely different Union, without
abolishing the perpetual Union. Its authors did not propose amendments
to the Articles of Confederation. They acted individually and
collectively in their private capacity. 

4. The Constitution is a private-law instrument which establishes a
commercial monopoly. Its primary "place of business" or Seat of
Government is between and above the States of the perpetual Union. 

5. The Constitution does not act directly on citizens of the States in
perpetual Union except on those citizens who voluntarily or tacitly
consented to be subject to its terms. 

6. The perpetual Union consisted of only those 13 sovereign States
which joined under the Articles of Confederation. No other States have
ever been added to that Union. 

7. All 50 "states," which are members of the "United States" pursuant
to the Constitution, are all "new States" or "statuses"; including the
original 13 state-names; surreptitiously appropriated from the 13
States in perpetual Union. 

8. Inhabitants, citizens or residents of the 37 district-states which
have been admitted to the different, more perfect Union by the
Congress, since the first 13 new States were admitted in 1789, have no
standing to claim the rights which are reserved to citizens of the
sovereign States in perpetual Union. They may claim their Natural
Birthrights, with no organized government to support and adjudicate
their claims. Or they may claim the puny, revocable privileges offered
by the Constitution in exchange for their allegiance and servile
servitude. 

THE CONSTITUTION: BLUEPRINT FOR HUMAN BONDAGE The 39 authors of the
Constitution, resorted to virtually every editorial trick in the book
to draft an instrument which would enable them, and their heirs, to
enslave whoever would dare cross, or be born into, their private
es-State. 

The instrument is all about enslaving the mass of men under the
euphemism of voluntary servitude. To interpret their motives and
methods, we examine the Corporate Articles which concern human slavery:
Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 4 and 5, and Article V (which refers
to Article I, Section 9). The most pertinent Clause of Article I,
provided as follows: 

"The Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." 

The 39 inventors of the Private Commercial Constitution were not
concerned with eventually abolishing slavery of black men, but with
extending coercive servitude to include ALL men other than themselves
and their posterity, while collecting a tax on import and export of
slaves, for the corporate coffer. 

As provided by Article VII, the Constitution was erected as an
Establishment (i.e., a place of business or commerce) on imaginary
lines ABOVE and BETWEEN the States which would ratify or agree to it,
and which would thereby collectively grant the 39 "We, the People" the
private corporate charter they proposed and applied for.
Having acquired absolute jurisdiction over the "places" drawn by
imaginary lines; they thereafter had the right to charge tolls, fees,
duties or taxes for any person or thing that may cross their private
property. 

Other provisions, including provision for establishing the corporate
headquarters in a district (of Columbia), situated between states; and
the promulgation of new Articles (known as the "13th and 14th
amendments"), with their prolific byelaws, made completion of their
scheme of mass enslavement, possible. 

DECODING THE MOTHER OF ALL RIDDLES When is this Union not the Union? 

In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the
Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers
voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a
literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of
Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what
educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First
impressions, however, are often wrong. 

Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing?
HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far
exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true
symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making
legal instruments. 

When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining
the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at
Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of
formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years
of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution
were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a
more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant! 

The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are
those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution.
In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one
Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic
[emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution
for over 200 years. 

Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence,
invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The
Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles. 

They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble
they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this
Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they
spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the
pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article
2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect
Union. 

For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in
1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and
politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false
precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which
declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the
Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The
present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit.
[emphasis added] 

The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which
existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union
was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego"
and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot
logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more
unique. 

Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on
that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union,
nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely
plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating
the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their
citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the
Authors and their Posterity. 

As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order,
after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped.
"When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the
original, lawful Union. 

A MOUSE IN BEN’S POCKET [from Joshua Mouse's Notes On the
Constitutional Convention] 

A cabal of businessmen, mostly Free Masons, met in secret sessions.
They were charged, as their respective credentials stated, to propose
amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They soon adopted a
different, more sinister agenda. 

In their public capacity, authorized by the Legislatures of several
independent States "to amend or revise the Articles of Confederation";
they were obligated to Convene in Public. 

But Secret Societies, by definition and necessity, meet in secret. As
for business or commercial negotiations, especially those which involve
trade secrets: the historical Maxim is that it’s nobody else’s
business. The fact that the Free Press and the general public were
barred from the Convention, raised many hackles and suspicions.
Patrick Henry, from his vantage point outside the bar, in Virginia,
thought he smelt a rat. 

The year was 1787. The place: Philadelphia’s State House. Security was
tight. A pundit was heard to exclaim: "Nary a mouse could breech the
guard." But one did. His name was Joshua. His notes read (in pertinent
part) as follows: 

JUNE 23, 1787, 2 O’clock P.M. -- The argument between Mason and
Hamilton wearied the Master, who called a recess. 

B. Franklin, G. Washington and A. Hamilton retired to the table near my
post, discretely distant from the others. Grasping fast my notepad, I
scurried into the generous pocket of Franklin’s coat to better hear,
while taking repast of crumbs his careless valet had missed on last
cleaning. 

GW: To continue the conversation began over dinner last night: of this
I am certain: to indenture the common herd to serve us like our black
slaves, will require their tacit consent. We must therefore devise an
instrument that they will unanimously misperceive to be in their best
interests, over our own. It must appear to be not only for them, but
more importantly, deriving from, of and by the common people, while the
ultimate power is reserved to us. 

AH: (Addressing Franklin): The proposition of our friend and lodge
Brother, George, deserves our most profound scrutiny and assistance. If
General Washington’s martial talents are excelled by others, it is his
experience and expertise in Agriculture; and especially in the
management, breeding, and domestication of black human animals. 

BF: Gentlemen, we have long had before us a model of a contract such as
George advocates. Back in ‘34, when I was a young printer, I published
Anderson’s Constitutions; which established the formal, written
government for the fraternity of Free Masons. Surely you have both
studied it as you have progressed through the Degrees. 

Recall its Article 10, which permits even probates of each Lodge to
merge their opinions with the majority, to be addressed to their
Master. Not, mind you, that the Master need act on the instructions of
the lowly. And consider Article 39, which provides for secret election
of the Grand Master and other officers; with its appearance that Power
lies with the majority; but is silent about the provocateurs who mingle
with it, fomenting the consensus of opinion. 

In combination, the Articles of Anderson’s Constitutions establishes a
government which superficially appears to be of, by and for the general
Lodge membership, but which in their legal language make all meaningful
power to reside in the hands of the Ruling Elite. 

Anderson’s is an exemplary model for accomplishing what George
proposes; that is: drawing the labor of all inhabitants, of every race
-- with the exception of ourselves and our posterity-- into a condition
of tacitly-consensual servitude; to be human resources for our eternal
Agri-Business. 

(Old Ben pushed a soiled handkerchief into my sanctuary. The discussion
continued for several more minutes; but muffled to my ear). 

I scampered from Franklin’s coat as the threesome arose, and resumed my
post near the woodpile. 

A. Hamilton received permission to address the Convention.
"Gentlemen," he began, "I propose a new form of government; a proposal
which will end our impasse and which, I predict, will garner the
unanimous approval of the governed..." 

THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA Constitutionalists are Constitutionalists
because they are confused.
All it takes for one to become a fervent Anti-Constitutionalist is A
BRIEF MOMENT OF CLARITY. This may be that moment! 

The typical Constitutionalist adheres religiously to the false tenet
that the Constitution provided for a continuing government for those
thirteen sovereign States which comprised the Union under the Articles
of Confederation. In other words, the Doctrine alleges that upon
ratification of the Constitution, those 13 States came into the more
perfect Union, lock, stock and barrel. 

In fact, only the NAMES of those 13 States were admitted into the more
perfect Union! After the new, different Union was established with the
admission of the first 13 names, the perpetual Union between the
Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation, continued to
exist. Neither the boundaries, sovereignty nor jurisdiction of any of
the Original States was altered or abolished.
And they exist today. Perpetuity is much longer than 200 years! 

The first 13 names to enter the more perfect Union were each admitted
under authority of Article IV, Section 3, of that Sacred Writ; that
Corporate Commercial Charter to which so many fools pledge their lives
and honor: the Constitution for the United States of America. It
states: 

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another
(perpetual Union) State; nor any (new) State be formed by the Junction
of two or more (new) States, or parts of (new) States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the (new) States concerned as well as of
the Congress." 

We, the People, those 39 inventors of the more perfect Union, lacked
authority to act on the Sovereign States of the Confederation.
Therefore, each reference they made to "any State or States," referred
only to their New States - to names or Statuses. The Original States,
under the Articles of Confederation, remained intact and sovereign;
associated in an unique perpetual Union. 

By the explicit terms of the Charter (at Article IV, Section 3, above),
no new Name or Status (State) admitted into the more perfect Union,
could bring with it any jurisdiction (power and authority) of any
perpetual Union State. 

Article IV, Section 3, provides that new States "may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union." The Unanimous Order of the Convention,
issued simultaneous with the signing of the proposed Constitution,
provided that the Congress and President be selected and installed
BEFORE the terms of the Constitution, including the admission of any
States, would be executed. 

Before approving admission of new names or statuses (States) into
nominal, inferior membership; the "Chairman" (President) and “Board of
Directors” who were charged with enacting the bylaws (the Congress),
must be installed. 

All new members, names, statuses (States), beginning with the first 13,
were admitted only by approval of the pre-installed Congress. 

The "United States of America" under the commercial Constitution is a
clever forgery, which appropriates not only the names of lawful States
in perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation, but even the
name of that pre-existing Union, itself! 

The Constitution is a gigantic fraud, perpetrated upon generations of
trusting and gullible inhabitants of North America. It doesn’t benefit
me; and it doesn’t benefit YOU, unless you are a direct descendant of
one of the 39 Fleecing Fathers. It is fit only for docile and
domesticated herd animals who do not object to being bred, harnessed
and milked for the profit of a privileged few. 

I have recorded here only one of the deceitful webs woven in that
commercial charter. There are many, many more. To ferret them out for
yourself you need only read the Constitution literally; as all legal
instruments must be interpreted. 

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY [Why Otherwise Intelligent People
Slavishly Support a Constitution They Don’t Understand.] 

At first glance, the impartial scientific observer discovers in the
Constitution what appear to be gross inconsistencies in Language and
grammar. But on closer inspection he finds they are not inconsistencies
or typos after all, but are in fact evidence of an underlying sinister
nature and intent. 

To offer up only one of dozens of examples, many of which have even
more grave implications than our instant sample: 

Article VI, Section 2, mentions "the Laws of the United States,"
providing that they shall constitute one-third of "the supreme Law of
the Land." That’s pretty heavy stuff, with no room for ambiguity! But
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, mentions different Laws which, not
being the Laws of the United States, are deemed inferior. Those
inferior Laws are the Laws which the Militia may be called forth to
execute. They are "the Laws of the Union." 

The Apologist for the Constitution and its authors, the Fleecing
Fathers, will allege that those giant, highly-educated minds used the
United States and the Union interchangeably, and that they mean one and
the same thing. THEY DON’T! In fact, "the United States" and "the
Union," as legal entities, are as different as black and white or night
and day! They are not literally the same. And in the context of
history, they are as dissimilar as a real person and an artificial
person. 

If the Apologist is wrong and the literal language of the Constitution
is the Legal Reality, what are the implications, beyond confusing the
Hell out of millions of somnambulistic Americans? Consider this: 

While Article I identifies the purpose of the Militia (plural) as being
to execute the (inferior) Laws of the Union, and the unanimously
misconstrued Second Amendment defines the purpose of the Militia as
being necessary to the security of a free State; what does that say
about "the United States" and its supreme Laws? BINGO! Of Course! -
"the United States" is an UN-FREE STATE, and pre-existing States of the
Union (that unique, perpetual legal entity under the preexisting
Articles of Confederation) and the Laws thereof, are the free States
which the Militia is charged with defending. 

As these words are written the confused members of the many upstart
"Citizen Militia" (respectively singular) have not yet been slaughtered
or taken as prisoners by the Armed Forces of the United States. (Time
will correct that nonfeasance). To a man, the members of self-appointed
Militia pledge their very lives to the defense and support of the
Constitution... not to the defense of the lawful perpetual Union, and
to the execution of its Laws. No sane and fully-informed Man would
consider supporting a constitution that is unfit for, and designed to
"kill," the natural, inborn freedom of Men and Women.
What psychological imperatives drive people to commit their minds and
bodies to such delusions? The following analogy should suffice to get
the point across: A certain child acts like a perfect angel at home;
well-mannered, ingratiating, studious and seemingly empathetic. But
when out of his mother’s line of vision, he is a budding sociopath. He
steals from cons and manipulates everyone in his destructive path. He
is the veritable Bad Seed. To the casual observer, he is a classic
schizophrenic; a split or dual personality.
But in fact his real personality is sociopathic. The personality he
presents to his mother is superficial, merely an appearance. 

Mother isn’t completely stupid. She sees inconsistencies between her
child’s at-home and away personas. There are the unexplained fruits of
them that appear in the child’s room. There are the "hateful rumors" of
mutilation of small animals, spread by neighbors. 

But Mother ignores the "inconsistencies," and gives the benefit of the
doubt to her sweet, precocious child. After all SHE is Good. She knows
that. And therefore, her child, however poorly she understands his
nature, must also be Good. He is, after all, a child that derives of
her, by her and in the universal view, for the Mother. Protecting,
supporting and defending her offspring (like supporting a misunderstood
constitution) is an emotional necessity having nothing to do with
reason and logic. 

It’s one thing, and as excusable as it is understandable, to permit
one’s emotion to rule in matters concerning his progeny. But where
legal instruments are concerned, which can result in our death,
deprivation, imprisonment or other restraints on our birthrights to
Liberty; we dare not suspend our reason, logic, common sense and
capacity for CRITICAL ANALYSIS! 

Editor’s Comments: In regarding the pretended "perpetual Union" created
by the so-called "Articles of Confederation" as lawful, Mr.
Hazel makes a serious error. As Lysander Spooner effectively indicated
in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' all supposed
"constitutions" are instruments of fraud and deception. This applies as
much to the pretended "Articles of Confederation" as it applies to the
falsely-called "U.S. Constitution." 

The spinners of all supposed "constitutions" are spiders spinning webs
of illusion, delusion, and hallucination!
Share

Malhuer Crisis Social Engineering Actress Is Well Known

 

Share

History Of The Great American Fortunes 1

Share