How Story-Telling of American History "Re-Wrote" The Law!
Inspired during my hearing of a report from a professor friend regarding political debates in America that included a general reference made to "The Constitution". I replied saying the idea that government is based solely on this Constitution doesn't follow historical fact as it is only one fourth of the Organic Laws and as such is required to be read in light of the other three Organic Laws. The professor agreed! American History has been re-written!
Date: 7/29/2016 5:55:08 AM ( 5 y ) ... viewed 2838 times
January 15, 2021 - Articles of Confederation Still Standing -
"If the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution of 1787, the united states in congress assembled would have placed the entire document in quotes and then stated: is hereby revoked (or repealed) and made null and void; and in place thereof it is declared and concluded, the same having been agreed to in a Congress of the United States that: 'Insert the Constitution of 1787 here' --in full quotation. Or they would have quoted and changed specific articles and replaced them with the new language in a similar manner. History and all available resources shows that this never occurred.(i)
The delegates chosen to revise the Articles of Confederation were primarily charged with discussing changes specific to the 8th article to provide means to extinguish war debts of the United States. Many states also wanted to ensure that nothing would be done to change the 5th article. Specifically the parts that says: 'No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two (delegates),' and: 'In determining questions in the United States, in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.' What happened instead was that the Articles of Confederation were left completely alone because of all the prior land cessions made to the Federal government 'United States of America' and later the temporary government district under the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. This is seen clearly when discussions of admitting Virginia's district of Kentucky into the confederation as a state and equal member of the union is postponed."*
Daniel provides two examples of this, one in The Articles plus one in The Northwest Ordinance.
December 31, 2020 -
"...As Americans, we were first united by our belief that 'rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God' and that defending liberty is more important than life itself. If we are to continue to be the land of the free, no government official, no governor, no bureaucrat, no judge, and no legislator must be allowed to decree what is orthodox in matters of religion or to require religious believers to violate their consciences. No right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions."
The most pertinent and leading keynote from the "Religious Freedom Proclamation" is "conscience" (even though not everyone has one). People who have a conscience must exercise it in the world today in order that it be expressed as a Right and thereby maintained. It is through this kind of exercise that "obedience to God" is made possible. However the idea of "rebellion" needs to evolve to a higher level in this instance because rebellion is the act of an inferior to a superior. When people realize their original sovereignty (that Americans began asserting as of the mid-1770s) and especially when they have established their Right of Self-Government upon their original proprietary jurisdiction of Land and Soil then no "rebellion" is necessary! Those who embody the "higher" realization are the superiors! As such their acts are of a repelling nature to tyrants rather that as a rebellious one.
December 27, 2020 -
"This has been the greatest year for Constitutional education we've ever had..."
December 6, 2020 - Think of Your Rights as Being "Unalienable" Instead of Just "Inalienable". -
A letter to a group with a good cause for freedom -
I wish the very best success for the full assertion of all Rights for every individual. Toward that goal I offer the following:
The term inalienable is not the same as unalienable otherwise Thomas Jefferson would have wrote inalienable instead of what he wrote: "unalienable" in: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
In case it is of interest to you - I have 124 references to unalienable in this blog:
"How Story-Telling of American History 'Re-Wrote' The Law!":
September 25, 2020 - British Law in America? -
Anna Von Reitz - "...Always remember that the [British] Territorial United States Government largely controls and influences our military, especially the US Navy, which sails under the British Monarch when it is on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways. And to a lesser extent, the Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
There is a reason that Colin Powell was knighted by Queen Bess II.
It's not a good reason from the American point of view.
This past week I have been engaged (again) in a discussion with British Legal Eagles about the nature and efficacy of British Law and the remedies available to Americans who choose to live under it.
Those promoting the British System as is, which includes 'voluntary' slavery and remedies that amount to healing our own wounds by indebting ourselves even more than their spending has already done -- can't seem to grasp the American perspective.
Why can't we be content to receive military script as money and recompense for all that has been done to us and stolen from us?
As one of them put it to me --- 'It spends, doesn't it?'
He couldn't quite grasp the fact that spending more of my own credit to make up for British graft wasn't really a remedy in my view.
He was equally abject when the glories of British 'judicial discretion' were lost on me.
'When obeying the Public Law becomes discretionary, you have no law,' I told him. He fell silent for a moment, stumped on that one, but quickly deflected and finally, not to be defeated, offered -- what is it that I want?
'I want you fellows to obey your constitutional obligations,' I said flatly. He cocked his head to one side, as if he'd been doing that all along. So I spelled it out.
When we, Americans, are on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways, the British Monarch is our Trustee and is obligated to ensure our safe passage; this is similar to when crewmen and passengers board a ship and their safety becomes the captain's responsibility.
The same applies when entering "American" military bases and arsenals and similar installations. Captain's rules apply. We all know that and take that for granted, but somehow miss the important point: this is a different kind of law, Admiralty Law, and it is literally a 'foreign law' with respect to us civilians, as is all Federal Code and its Regulations, and all State-of-State Statutory Law.
These are all 'foreign law' with respect to us, and per the Constitutions, Amendment XI, Americans are not subject to foreign law.
The only other instance where Americans are subject to foreign law is if they happen to be engaged in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol, tobacco or firearms across state lines.
If the Brits were obeying the Constitutions with respect to us, they would not be 'presuming' any form of British Law upon us, except in the aforementioned situations.
So, I concluded, all I 'want' is what you promised, that you honor your obligations under the Constitutions, and stop trying to traffic Americans into British Citizenship obligations and stop trying to subject us to British Law and Roman Civil Law, both.
I haven't heard a word back. The silence is deafening."
September 24, 2020 - Our Organic American Government -
"...Our Government is being summoned into Session for the first time since 1860 to deal with the long-overdue 'Reconstruction' of our American Confederation and the American Federal Republic -- the portion of the Federal Government that is supposed to be run by Americans."
Continuing in Part 2 - "...We must overcome this confusion in order to address the realities of this situation and stop wasting our time and our energy trying to correct foreign governments while neglecting our own."
Concluding in Part 3 - "...In 1819, Virginia ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment to the original Federal Constitution, The Constitution for the united States of America, issued in 1787. This Amendment, which appears as the Thirteenth Amendment to that Constitution, put 'teeth' into an already long-established prohibition against people in our government accepting 'titles' from foreign governments, especially the British Monarchy.
Under the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) Bar Attorneys who accept the title of 'Esquire' are not allowed to hold any public office in the American Federal Government and would suffer various penalties if they did.
Please note that TONA could not and did not prohibit attorney's participation in the British Territorial Government operating under The Constitution of the United States of America, nor could it be applied to the Papist Municipal Government operating under The Constitution of the United States.
In 1836, Abraham Lincoln was admitted to the Bar, accepted the title of Esquire, and was allowed to practice international corporate law in Illinois. When he was offered as a Presidential candidate in 1860, he could not qualify to run or act as President of the Federal Republic, because of the Titles of Nobility Act.
So, in the best tradition of British guile, he ran for the office of President of the Territorial Government instead ---- President of the United States of America, acting under The Constitution of the United States of America--- not President of the Federal Republic operating under The Constitution for the united States of America.
This arrangement neatly avoided the consequences of TONA and outraged the Southern States, which saw it (correctly) as evasion of their Constitution and emasculation of the Presidency, making it little more than a 'running boy for the British king'.
Millions of Americans voting in the 1860 elections were blissfully unaware of this Switcheroo and didn't notice the subtle change, so Lincoln and his British compatriots pulled off the scam, the South Seceded, and the mercenary conflict began.
The Civil War was never declared by any American Congress, nor was it ever ended by any Peace Treaty. An Armistice was established following the surrender of Lee's Army, President Andrew Johnson ---- who was not a lawyer and not a well-educated man --- declared 'peace on the land' via three Public Declarations. And that was that.
From these facts we now know that the American Civil War was not a war, but a mercenary conflict like Vietnam. We also know that President Johnson had no legitimate basis to establish a peace treaty, so acted to create a contract, instead, still operating in the foreign British Territorial (Commonwealth) office as President of the United States of America following in Lincoln's footsteps.
The Papist Municipal Government, which makes a large percentage of its money from enslaving people of all colors and trading upon their labor and other resources, sided with the South ---- and lost.
So, at the end of this vast illegal and immoral enterprise, the Southern States lay in ruins, the Northern State-of-State organizations were bankrupt, and nobody knew what was going on ---- except the foreign British Territorial contractors, who backed Lincoln in the first place, and who accomplished the sleight of hand that placed one of their Barristers in de facto control of the Federal government despite the Titles of Nobility Amendment.
Ulysses S. Grant was a gifted natural soldier, but he wasn't educated in law or diplomacy, knew little to nothing about government outside the military, and his ineptitude and that of his appointees in all these regards provided ample opportunity for cronyism, graft, and abuse of power under color of law that has continued to this day.
So that is 'how' the rats got in the grain storage---via Lincoln's misrepresented election to a foreign federal office, that of the Territorial Presidency, instead of the Presidency of the Federal Republic.
How they've endeavored to stay in purloined power for 160 years is another story."
August 29, 2020 - Public Notice to Law Enforcement, Sheriffs,
Elected Officials and Bar Association Members - April 5, 2015 -
Take Notice: The Roman Curia created the concept of legal fictions-- trusts,
foundations, and other corporations for good reasons-- however, legal fictions
can be misused. By Maxim of Law, those who create are responsible for their
creations. It follows that the Roman Curia is responsible for the proper
functioning of all corporations worldwide. As of September 1, 2013, Pope
Francis declared all corporations and corporate officers fully liable for their errors and omissions. This means you.
Also by Maxim of Law, there is no statute of limitation on fraud. Privately owned governmental services corporations have been fraudulently passing themselves off as the “government of the United States” since 1862. The longevity of this fraud in no way imbues it with authority. As an employee of these corporations you have no public office and no public bond and no foreign state immunity.
Federal Law Enforcement Personnel--- except U.S. Marshals:
Your status is that of a Mall Cop acting outside the Mall. You have no authority on the land jurisdiction of the Continental United States. You are acting under color of law when addressing Citizens of the Continental United States “as if” they were Citizens of the Federal United States. If you threaten any living inhabitant of the Continental United States with a gun, taser, or other weapon, you can be hung as an inland pirate. If you remove any livestock you can be hung as a cattle rustler. If you cause any harm, you can be sued without limit. If you wear any uniform or display any badge or use any name or office designed to deceive or project authority you do not have, you can be arrested for impersonating an officer.
You are acting in a purely private capacity and have only equal Civil Rights
that may be withdrawn at any time. You are also acting under Martial Law and
may face extreme punishment for infractions against the civilian populace. Acts of plunder, mortal violence, and mis-characterization of civilians as combatants are all death penalty offenses.
U.S. Marshals are allowed full egress within the Continental United States so
long as they are sworn and acting as officers sworn to uphold the actual
Constitution, are not acting deceptively, nor acting outside their international jurisdiction while in pursuit of their duty protecting the U.S. Mail.
Lawyers, Judges, Court Clerks--- When you address birthright Citizens of
the Continental United States in the foreign jurisdiction of the Federal United States or that of a Federal State, and deliberately confuse living people with corporate franchises merely named after them, you commit personage. This results in press-ganging land assets into the international jurisdiction of the sea, a crime outlawed worldwide for 200 years. It is a recognized act of inland piracy and it carries the death penalty. Mis-characterizing the identity or citizenship status of a birthright Citizen of the Continental United States is also a crime under the Geneva Protocols of 1949, Volume II, Article 3.
It also carries the Death Penalty.
Finally, no member of the Bar Association may sit upon the bench of any public
court nor occupy any public office of the Continental United States including
Congress. The involvement of any Bar Member automatically voids all
proceedings pretending subject matter jurisdiction related to the actual land or its assets---including the people of the Continental United States. The Titles of Nobility Amendment adopted and ratified prior to the American Civil War has not been repealed.
The Federal United States and the Municipality of Washington, DC all operate
under the auspices of the United Nations and are signatories of the Universal
Right of Self-Declaration. Anyone claiming to be a Citizen of the Continental
United States having a valid Birth Certificate(i) must be treated as such. Any debts or charges whatsoever related to vessels in commerce operated under his or her name by the Federal United States, any Federal State, the Washington DC
Municipality or the UNITED NATIONS must be discharged according to Maxim
of Law already cited: you are responsible for what you create.
The Federal United States and its Federal States have created numerous
vessels in commerce merely named after living Citizens of the Continental
United States and styled in the form: John Quincy Adams. The Washington DC
Municipality has similarly indulged in this practice and created franchises for itself named after living Citizens of the Continental United States styled in the form: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Most recently the UNITED NATIONS has created
public utilities and is operating them under names styled as: JOHN Q. ADAMS.
The organizations that have created these franchises are completely, 100% liable for their debts and obligations without exception and without recourse to claim upon the living people these franchises are named after.
You may not presume that the living people have consensually agreed to be
subjected to statutory law. You may not presume that they consensually agreed
to be obligated for the debts of any legal fiction persona's which have been
created and named after them by Third Parties secretively operating in a private capacity and merely claiming to represent the victims of this fraud.
This is your Due Notice that the living people inhabiting the Continental United States are presenting themselves and may not be addressed as if they belong to, are responsible for, or indebted in behalf of any legal fiction persona's operated under their given names by any international corporation.
Any continuance of any such claims and repugnant practices will be deemed
immediate cause to liquidate the American Bar Association as a criminal
syndicate and to deport its members from our shores. International action is
underway to secure the assets and credit owed to the victims.
Please read, research, and do your own due diligence. You are fully responsible for obeying the Public Law of the Continental United States including Revised Statute 2561 and The Constitution. Please respect the established jurisdictions of air, land, and sea--- and be aware that you may be arrested and fined or worse for failure to do so.
Issued this fifth day of April 2015, Judge Anna Maria Riezinger,
Alaska State Superior Court.
Comment: (i) This Blog-writer has a valid birth certificate that shows he was born on Michigan land and soil.
July 29, 2020 - "The Supreme Law of The Land" - By Ed Rivera -
"Americans are taught that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
and that land is the entire United States of America.
But, haven’t I proved that the US Constitution establishes a federal United States that is governed by a Congress and the President of the United States using military administrative law.(?) .........
And US citizens confirm this kind of government every time they act as jurors or register to vote in state or federal elections."
July 10, 2020 - The Actual Law and History -
The actual law and history is this---- and we do have proof and documentation of it all:
The Reconstruction of our Confederation of States of States (aka Confederate States) after the Civil War was never finished. This led to part of the original Federal Government known as the Federal Republic, being inoperable. That created a vacuum of power, and our unscrupulous European Subcontractors stepped into it.
The actual Federation of States (States not "States of States") was never involved in the war directly, but suffered considerable undermining and misinformation.
Many key officers and other people who worked for the actual Federation of States known as The United States of America, were shot like Lincoln, threatened, forced to flee for their lives to the hinterlands of the Great Northwest as "outlaws", bribed into complicity, blackmailed with sex and drugs, and otherwise overcome. This then allowed the actual criminals infesting Washington to bypass the actual government and usurp upon it.
They didn't "officially" commit treason, but treason it was. They "set aside" the actual government and the actual Federal Constitution, known as The Constitution for the united States of America, and began operating under "Emergency Powers" that were never granted and don't in fact exist.
They substituted British Territorial "States of States" for the missing American States of States that were supposed to be running the Federal Republic part of the Federal Government and displaced the actual State Government vested in the State Assemblies of living people.
As in Europe, they "enfranchised" everyone without full disclosure and "unlawfully converted" people into "persons" -- depriving them of their actual identities, rights, and assets.*
June 10, 2020 - The "American Civil War" -
"...The truth of the matter was conclusively proven by the Congressional Research Service decades ago: there is no Declaration of War and no Treaty of Peace associated with the American Civil War and the bulk of the Reconstruction Acts have never been repealed and remain in effect for the Territorial United States Government."
See May 20, 2020 update at five posts down.
February 26, 2020 -
Did you know that all the American "history teachers (have) left out 'mission critical, need-to-know information'"? .........
And that's no joke! .........
January 7, 2020 - "...educating ourselves and paying attention to things that are important—
- if Americans had been educated about their own government and history, none of what we and the rest of the world has suffered at the hands of 'the US' would have been possible."
This essential education needs to be independent of "government" and the rest of the G-MEM - C-MEM that constitute the world system matrix as it exists today. This "education" can be identified as "ReGenerative Education." It plays a leading role in the whole regenerative process that society is needing now and that will become more evident by the end of this year. The Cheeta vision (held by this Blog-writer) for supporting this process includes a truly Holistic ReGenerative teacher training.
January 3, 2020 - “Contradictions and Absurdities - A Twisted History” -
This Blog writer was just inspired with the above line that he thinks could be the title of “an unAmerican history course.” The only real question is where would such a course be presented? ......... (One thing for sure - it will not be presented in any pub;ic school! ; ~ )
The above post came as a direct result from correspondence with the founder of RE3 (mentioned in a couple other of this writer's CureZone Blogs) and which occurred immediately after the radio broadcast interview with Anna Von Reitz that RE3 founder called: "what a rabbit hole!"[i]
[i] This was said by a friend whom this writer sincerely loves and respects and who has a Human Design with undefined Head Centers was well as passive and receptive mind functions (rather than "active") and peripheral brain awareness (rather than "focused"). Nevertheless even though this writer has both head centers defined plus an active mind and focused brain function he did find the interview to have "hippity hop" jumps and perpetual "tunneling" into possible unexpected "digressions" and altogether understands how his friend could call this "a rabbit hole." Then again, United States History is (potentially) the mother of all rabbit holes!
July 3, 2019 - "The Fairytale Story of the Constitution" - By: Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera -
"... Every account of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 has been a made up story of the emergence of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, and the demise of the Articles of Confederation. Every telling must include a statement of how the Constitutional Convention delegates had to reject their written official duty to propose to the Confederation Congress revisions of the Articles of Confederation. Every historian of the constitutional era has said or has written that every delegate who signed the Constitution did so because he believed ratification of the proposed Constitution would replace the Confederacy by scrapping the Articles of Confederation."
May 20, 2020 - "About the Confederation...." By Anna Von Reitz -
The Articles of Confederation were in place from 1781 to 1860 and functioned just fine.
The States of America formed under the Articles of Confederation created a "Confederation" that functioned in commercial venues and established their own businesses doing business as, for example, The State of New York. These were commercial enterprises called "confederated states". Today, we would call them subsidiaries or maybe franchises.
Anyway, the were NOT overcome or undermined by the Constitutions, much less "replaced" by the Constitutions which is the drivel we were taught when I was in school.
What ended the States of America confederation was the schism we all know about, the Secession of the Southern Members of that Confederation, however, even that is grossly misrepresented by our "educational" system, because we are taught that the key issue that drove the split was slavery. ...*
October 12, 2019 -
"... We need to stop arguing and start observing and learning and realizing that 90% of what we have assumed about 'our' government and about the way the world works is pure, unmitigated nonsense."
Made a note a few hours earlier this morning (hours before the above article arrived) saying "I don't need 'The District of ... ' as my source of self-government." Now I can add "I don't need the 'pure, unmitigated nonsense'!"
August 13, 2018 - An End to Ignorance About Our Government! -
"I wish for an end to ignorance about our government, how it was formed, why it was formed, how it is structured and how it is supposed to work. For that I wish a vast national education effort to be made to teach actual American History instead of distorted pablum. Our government requires an intelligent and well-educated electorate operating at top speed and dealing with a full deck of verifiable facts and I wish to see that result enabled as quickly as possible."
We absolutely need "an end to ignorance about our government"! Unless there is some kind of a conceptual presentation on how a "national education effort" can practically work then I do not expect that level of teaching (too soon or soon enough). However - locally (and/or privately) is a whole different matter and can possibly begin with every charter and home school. More private schools can develop and/or adopt programs "to teach actual American History". I could be willing to be part of a team effort for developing a private school's new history "department". (updated 2-14-19 Happy Valentine's!)
October 28, 2019 - The Written Record of the Organic Laws of The United States of America Still Stands as the Truth in Law! -
All The Organic Laws
Are Still In Full Force -
Regardless of All The Naysayers!
Adopted to be engrossed 239 years ago — Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar Coin -
Today, the Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar Coin remembers the adoption of the precursor document, the Articles of Confederation, on June 26, 1778.
From the United States Statutes Annotated, Editor-in-Chief Bruce Barnett, published in 1916:
Articles of Confederation 1777 -
Congress Resolved, on the 11th of June, 1776, that a committee should be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between the Colonies; and on the day following, after it had been determined that the committee should consist of a member from each Colony, the following persons were appointed to perform that duty, to-wit: Mr. Bartlett, Mr. S. Adams, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Sherman, Mr. R. R. Livingston, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. M’Kean, Mr. Stone, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Hewes, Mr. E. Rutledge, and Mr. Gwinnett.
Upon the report of this committee, the subject was, from time to time, debated, until the 15th of November, 1777, when a copy of the confederation being made out, and sundry amendments made in the diction, without altering the sense, the same was finally agreed to.
Congress, at the same time, directed that the articles should be proposed to the legislatures of all the United States, to be considered, and if approved of by them, they were advised to authorize their delegates to ratify the same in the Congress of the United States; which being done, the same should become conclusive.
Three hundred copies of the Articles of Confederation were ordered to be printed for the use of Congress; and on the 17th of November, the form of a circular letter to accompany them was brought in by a committee appointed to prepare it, and being agreed to, thirteen copies of it were ordered to be made out, to be signed by the president and forwarded to the several States, with copies of the confederation.
On the 29th of November ensuing, a committee of three was appointed, to procure a translation of the articles to be made into the French language, and to report an address to the inhabitants of Canada, &c.
On the 26th of June, 1778, the form of a ratification of the Articles of Confederation was adopted, and, it having been engrossed on parchment, it was signed on the 9th of July on the part and in behalf of their respective States, by the delegates of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina, agreeably to the powers vested in them.
The delegates of North Carolina signed on the 21st of July, those of Georgia on the 24th of July, and those of New Jersey on the 26th of November following.
On the 5th of May, 1779, Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Van Dyke signed in behalf of the State of Delaware, Mr. M’Kean having previously signed in February, at which time he produced a power to that effect.
Maryland did not ratify until the year 1781. She had instructed her delegates, on the 15th of December, 1778, not to agree to the confederation until matters respecting the western lands should be settled on principles of equity and sound policy; but, on the 30th of January, 1781, finding that the enemies of the country took advantage of the circumstance to disseminate opinions of an ultimate dissolution of the Union, the legislature of the State passed an act to empower their delegates to subscribe and ratify the articles, which was accordingly done by Mr. Hanson and Mr. Carroll, on the 1st of March of that year, which completed the ratifications of the act; and Congress assembled on the 2d of March under the new powers.
Note. — The proof of this document, as published above was read by Mr. Ferdinand Jefferson, the Keeper of the Rolls of the Department of State, at Washington, who compared it with the original in his custody.
He says: “The initial letters of many of the words in the original of this instrument are capitals, but as no system appears to have been observed, the same words sometimes beginning with a capital and sometimes with a small letter, I have thought it best not to undertake to follow the original in this particular.
Moreover, there are three forms of the letter s: the capital S, the small s, and the long f, the last being used indiscriminately to words that should begin with a capital and those that should begin with a small s.”
From the Journals of the Continental Congress for June 26, 1778:
The committee appointed to prepare the form of a ratification of the articles of Confederation, brought in a form, which was agreed to as follows:
To all to whom these presents shall come: We, the undersigned delegates of the states affixed to our names send greeting.
Whereas, the delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled, did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, and in the second year of the independence of America, agree to certain articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words following, viz.
Which articles were by Congress “proposed to the legislatures of all the United States, to be considered, and if approved of by them, they were advised to authorize their delegates to ratify the same in the Congress of the United States.”
And, whereas, it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union; Know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained; and we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them; and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent; and that the union shall be perpetual.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, this ninth day of July in the year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America.
Ordered, That a copy of the Articles of Confederation, with the above ratification, be engrossed on parchment, in order that the same may be signed before Congress adjourn from this place.
The Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar Coin shows with an image of the printed Articles of Confederation, printed in 1778.
July 26, 2019 - Do Waldorf High School Teachers Include The Four Organic Laws When Teaching American History?
Just submitted the following to the Center for Anthroposophy:
Thank you for starting the only English-speaking Waldorf training program specifically for high school teachers as of about twenty-five years ago!
I think we would agree that one of the more distinguishing features of Waldorf in America is the teaching of American history. As an American researcher and writer I have a special interest in knowing certain curriculum that is used for teaching American history and most especially regarding American government as that is based on the original Organic Laws of The United States of America. My attempts (over the course of the last several months) toward learning the extent that the four Organic Laws may have been included in several of the Waldorf high schools have been unfruitful. However I am now very hopeful that you can respond and possibly with a greater comprehension of the extent of the possible "inclusion" of the Organic Laws - at least from the beginning twenty-five years ago. It has been said that research needs to start at the beginning and as far as I know you are the one who made the beginning of the English-speaking Waldorf training program specifically for high school teachers here in America.
Question: Were the four Organic Laws of The United States of America included in the original training for high school teachers ? .........
If so would it be possible to access written material on what was presented? .........
Thank you very much for considering my inquiry!
Looking forward to hearing from you!
August 2, 2019 - Contining With and Without "Waldorf" -
Short update on the inquiry posted immediately above:
Douglas replied twice, first to request clarity on what is meant by "the four Organic Laws." His second reply specifically in regards to "written material on what was presented" only claimed that they include photocopies of the Organic Laws. That prompted a further inquiry as to whether any perspective/s on the Organic Laws is included. No further response on that so far.
In the meanwhile this writer/researcher continues to seek references as to the true nature and true function of government (nature and purpose should be harmonious in American government however there is a "gap" between these two) and offers the following in regards to purpose. When you realize the true purpose for government then you can become aware of "the gap" between that and the actual nature of government as it exists today.
Purpose of Government
• The audience of the Declaration of Independence is human beings, not artificial entities.
• The purpose of de jure governments, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect UNALIENABLE [PRIVATE] RIGHTS.
• All rights are PROPERTY. Therefore, the purpose of government is to protect PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY.
• The first step in protecting PRIVATE property is to prevent it from being converted to PUBLIC property.
– After all, a government that won’t protect you from ITSELF has no business being hired to protect you from anyone else.
– A government that won’t protect you from itself or from converting your PRIVATE property into PUBLIC property is NOT a “government”, but a mafia “protection racket” and “taxes” are protection money.
• For details on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE, see:
Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
June 21, 2019 - Anna von Reitz Distinguishes the Variations of Style Grammar for "United States."
The United States = is unincorporated and represents the combined National Jurisdictions of the states of this country. Notice---- this is a Proper Name: The United States. The word "The" is part of the Proper Name and it is styled and capitalized in exactly this way.
"the" United States = foreign Holy Roman Empire Municipal Corporation under contract to provide essential government services. It's a foreign municipal corporation acting as a subcontractor exercising specific delegated powers and obligated to work within the limitations clearly stipulated by The Constitution of the United States.
The United States of America = the unincorporated Federation of States holding the international jurisdiction owed to this country and the original Delegator of the Delegated Powers under which the Territorial Subcontractor doing business "in our name" as "the United States of America" functions. Again, notice that "The" is part of the Proper Name of the Federation of States.
The Territorial commercial corporation doing business as "the United States of America" is a foreign commercial corporation subcontractor exercising specific delegated powers and obligated to work within the limitations clearly stipulated by The Constitution of the United States of America as originally enacted.
The United States aka: the States of the Union.
July 31, 2019 - More "United States" -
“... any territory, ... DC, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Philippine Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Johnson Island, Baker Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.”
This blog-writer has just submitted a question to the LOC Law Library regarding the source of the above quote.
August 25, 2019 - "... an unincorporated Holding Company" -
"There is one actual Federation of States doing business as The United States of America. It is an unincorporated Holding Company formed September 9, 1776; it is privately held by the States and People of this country, and has never been incorporated."
June 15, 2019 - History Lessons By: Anna Von Reitz -
First, the only entities involved in the "American Civil War" were Federal States of States, not the actual States of the Union. The American Civil War was in fact a mercenary conflict. It was never properly declared by any Congress and it has never been resolved by a Peace Treaty. Those Federal States of States, which are --- whether North or South --- all "Confederate States", have yet to be reconstructed, a circumstance that has never been fully explained to the American Public and which has never been corrected as a result.[
Second, this circumstance leaves a third of the Federal Government inoperable, and from our perspective, the most important part: that which is supposed to be operated by Americans for Americans. ...
If we came here for healing -
if we recognize the need for deep-healing -
(as that is the true nature of all healing that naturally penetrates and permeates the depth of our psyche where it joins with the collective)
then we can begin to approach "how story-telling of American history" essentially was a critical "death-blow" to "We The People."
"History" is our collective biography and biography can be a shared healing journey! This is the opportunity that Anna has to offer us!
As a researcher this blog writer finds Anna's presentation offer an exceptionally astute clarity in regards to true meaning of "Americans for Americans."
The 60s -
Boomers are often associated with the counterculture of the 1960s, the civil rights movement, and the "second-wave" feminist cause of the 1970s. Conversely, many trended in moderate to conservative directions opposite to the counterculture, especially those making professional careers in the military (officer and enlisted), law enforcement, business, blue collar trades, and Republican Party politics. They are also associated with the spending trends and narcissism of the "Me" generation.
The "History Lessons By: Anna Von Reitz" are largely based on, aligned with and/or verified by a culmination of the latest research. Naturally this revealed history was not known to any of the "Boomers" as of the mid-60s when the older Boomers began to vote. This writer is not saying that a more enlightened electorate in the 60s would have made the kind of difference that would have allowed we the People to recover our land and soil-based self-government. In order to have possibly made that "kind of difference" the above mentioned "History Lessons" would have been necessary - and they simply did not exist then. Now "the civil rights movement" can be viewed from another perspective that did not exist in the collective psych at that time. The 60s counterculture spirit was authentic yet more than spirit was required to fulfill the periodic need for a "revolution" as founding fathers like Jefferson said were needed for each generation. A greater self-knowledge was and still is critically needed for a long overdo American revolution. The lack of that knowledge has resulted in many people "perishing" in one way or another or simply assimilated into the matrix.
July 11, 2019 - Continuing the American History Lesson with Anna -
Thanks to the Great Fraud that began with the Civil War, and the fact that Reconstruction of our own States of State has never been completed, people in America have been forced to charter corporations as foreign, private entities, and to subject them to foreign administrative "law".
There isn't a judge left in America with a proper Oath of Office, except for the Postal District Judges, and they are serving as volunteers. All the other judges have all been commissioned to either: (1) serve under Title 5, which is administrative law of the corporations, or, (2) commissioned as Officers acting under the Code of Military Justice.
To hide this deplorable fact and muddy the water, they deliberately refuse to identify the nature of their office and the nature of the court they are serving. So not only are we deprived of our identity, they are deprived of theirs. They only pretend to be civilian judges occupying public offices.
We are all being forced to play roles according to a foreign script, and nobody is being honest enough about the circumstance to address the problem in a forthright way---- but there it is.
Do we have recourse? Yes, but first we have to understand who we are and where we are in terms of law, history, and jurisdiction.
Our States of the Union are fully competent to function in the international venues and they actually control and/or own all of these entities, directly or indirectly via delegation of powers, so we do in fact have the authority and the power to address this Mess and sort it out.
That is, we have the ability to make the correction, but only if we educate ourselves and correct our political status records and get organized to do it. ...
April 12, 2019 -
America had actually developed the only model of government known to the World (at that time or since) that totally separated itself from the corporate forms and styles of government that preceded it. That's what created the "Land of Liberty" that the World envied and to which many were drawn. I believe it's absolutely essential that everyone in the World understands that there is no other model from which to work. It's that simple. And if the People of the World are looking for the same Liberty and Freedom from tyranny that the early American Founding Fathers were seeking, there has got to be a firm understanding of what they actually created and how they lost it in only 38 years.
It's now essential for all Individuals who think of themselves as Americans to be clear about "forms and styles of government" because we will need to recover the particular form and style that is fully able to operate in complete harmony with the four original Organic Laws.
June 12, 2019 - Incorporated Entities Have No Sovereignty -
If States could act as States of States (that is, as incorporated entities) they would lose their sovereignty. They would, in effect, be demoted to the status of a mere commercial corporation like any other commercial corporation on the planet -- and in fact, there is language admitting that fact:
The government, by becoming a “corporator” (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that character and status of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242).
Therefore, no actual State of the Union can be incorporated. The States can charter corporations to act in their behalf, just as they did when they created the States of States that were members of the original Confederation, but the States themselves are attached to the physical world and geography of the land and soil; in their sovereign capacity, they are utterly unique.
This is also the Common Sense of the issue. Just as Ohio cannot act as Wisconsin, and I and my Sister are not "the same as" each other, even though we are closely related, there is no such interchangeability in the natural world, nor is there in the realm of sovereign States.
Thus it is literally impossible for me to be both a Texan and a Wisconsinite at the same time. There is only one of me, just as there is only one Texas and one Wisconsin and only one State Citizenship possible.
Federal "Citizenship" is an entirely different animal, allowing numerous possible attachments, as these forms of citizenship merely represent obligations of shareholders of incorporated entities. You can easily be a shareholder in two companies and you can be indebted and subjected to various vicissitudes by their Board of Directors, too. This is in fact part and parcel of how Americans have been enslaved and defrauded.
Our turf and our natural home is the land and soil of our States of the Union, each one utterly unique as we are ourselves. This is our position of strength. This is where we rule, and it is as State Citizens that we control the operations of our States. This is the natural political status that we lose when we adopt any Dual Citizenship offered by the federal corporations---- and here is more proof in their own words (thanks to Karen Gore):
The Oath of Office-- Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333, backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 - 92.31 and Title 8 USC section 1481 -- The public official relinquishes his "national citizenship" and are thus "foreign agents" as stipulated under Title 22 USC chap. 11 section 611 , "loss of national citizenship" ' Public officials are no longer US citizens , but rather are "foreign agents" and must register as such.
The United States Citizenship being lost in this case is "national citizenship" --- the citizenship of the soil jurisdiction of our State of the Union. It's "The United States" not "the United States" being discussed here. So when we cross over the invisible line known as "the Bar" and act as "public officials" in the Federal System, this means that we are acting as elected officers of a foreign corporation incorporated by a foreign government---- and thereby becoming Foreign Agents.
This is the same circumstance reflected by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Just the fact that there is an "Oath of Office" involved should be enough to tell us that we are on foreign ground, because our Biblical Land Law forbids the taking of oaths.
Thus, it is impossible for us to assemble as Americans, impossible for us to Assemble our States of the Union, and impossible for us to exercise the sovereign dominion of our States so long as we cling to any foreign office or political status as a shareholder or officer of a foreign corporation. This is a conflict of interest and kind that neither the law nor Common Sense can allow.
If I am a shareholder in a commercial corporation that stands to gain from controlling a State's natural resources, can I be trusted to administer the State's resources for the State's good? ...
May 9. 2019 - However - Now ...
...What I’m describing in this article is a major reason big government is such a convoluted mess. It’s a Rube Goldberg machine, contradicting itself and turning forward and backwards at the same time. Almost all elected officials are socialists of one brand or another, no matter what they profess. Speaking of messes, many people remember Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s famous statement about the “unaccounted for” trillions of dollars in Pentagon bookkeeping accounts. Without going into the deeper darker implications of that remark, it illustrates an (intentionally) hopeless tangle of hundreds of separate accounting government money records. This is what you’d expect from a behemoth dedicated to unconstitutional spending from one end of the sky to the other…
"Rube Goldberg machine" Indeed! This could serve as an inspiration for an advanced high school project that demonstrates the "Rube Goldberg machine" nature of government and in a way that includes the many corporations involved as well. However the corporations would not be of a "Rube Goldberg machine"(RGM) nature. They'd have to be depicted as various devils, black magicians, satanists, and the like who can pass through revolving doors within the RGM.
December 3, 2019 - The Word of Art for "state", 'State' and 'United States' -
"... The supreme political authority in America is the American People (Declaration of Independence, Conclusion; Constitution, Preamble), referred to by the Supreme Court as 'joint tenants in the sovereignty'; to wit:
'[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.' Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471 (1793).
The sovereign authority in the District of Columbia, however—as ordained by the American People (the 'Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty') in the Constitution (Article 1 § 8(17))—is Congress.
Whereas, there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to legislate rules or regulations (statutes) against Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty, this is not so with residents of the District of Columbia—who are subject to any legislation Congress may impose on them.
To ensnare Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty in the banker-contrived artifice of income tax in behalf of their banker creditor, Congress enacted recondite legislation that would foreclose Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty from fully comprehending the law, by transmuting certain everyday words into statutory terms with a convoluted or constitutionally opposite definition and meaning, and formulating statutes (and statutory definitions) using obscure rules of statutory construction to guarantee maximum complexity—thereby allowing Federal executive and judicial officers to operate within the 'letter of the law' and justify treating Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty as residents of the District of Columbia, but without having to explain what they are doing.
'Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow,' and today we are dealing, literally, with an infinity of absurdities foisted upon us in the wake of the initial absurdity perpetrated by Congress June 30, 1864 (described in detail in both the Houston and Lufkin Record).
On that date, Congress quietly decreed that the word 'state' (and shortly thereafter 'State' and 'United States') means 'the territories and the District of Columbia' (13 Stat. 223, 306, ch. 173, sec. 182, June 30, 1864 [Go to 'Turn to image' 306])—but ultimately translates to the District of Columbia only and excludes by design all commonwealths united by and under authority of the Constitution and admitted into the Union.
Since June 30, 1864, any Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty (you) who innocently believes or admits that he resides in a state, State, or the United States, unwittingly confesses or concedes that he is a resident of the District of Columbia—and subject to the absolute, exclusive legislative power of Congress and jurisdiction of District of Columbia executive and bench officers (Department of Justice attorneys and United States District Judges and Magistrates).
Congress incorporated the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation February 21, 1871, and have ruled the District of Columbia under municipal (Roman civil) law ever since. ..."
This Blog-writer deeply appreciates every researcher, blogger, teacher, historian, "counselor at Law", etc. who includes live links to their cited references! The re-posting of the above (from Paul John; Hansen) came as a result of a search for (what turned out to be an additional) source for a cite referred to at Anna's current article.
November 12, 2019 - Continuing with Anna's Presentations on The Most Essential History of Law That Every American Needs to Know! -
... Public Law is the Law as most people think of it. Private "law" is the law of contracts between various parties. Contract law is supposed to follow the Law of Kinds, but since 1963, the Vatican has been pursuing a new Abomination, known as "The Collective Entity Doctrine".
This Doctrine of the Pontificate --- the pagan, Roman, Secular "Government" of the Church and its "Institutes" --- has grossly violated the Biblical Law of Kinds which requires contracts to be between "like" entities: people to people, unincorporated businesses to unincorporated businesses, incorporated businesses to incorporated businesses.
This was amended originally to allow people to trade with unincorporated businesses, and to allow unincorporated businesses to trade with incorporated businesses. But the incorporated businesses and the governments profiting from chartering incorporated business entities were greedy, and wanted to trade directly with people.
So the Roman Curia, the guilty parties responsible for this Mess have contrived to "erase" the difference between living people and incorporated commercial corporations, and make them all the same, all functioning under the same law, which--- of course -- the same guilty parties write and control.
This all kicked in at about the same time as Vatican II. Please note, all Roman Catholics. This is your Church doing all this crap. It has to be reformed or done away with.
Heads up, United Nations Organization, you are the intended next store front for this criminality. ...
January 10, 2020 - More Re: "Department of 'Justice'" -
"...the 'Department of Justice' is not an actual government department -- it's an 'executive' department, meaning that it was created within the structure of the interloping Scottish Corporation merely doing business as 'The United States of America, Inc.' at that time, for the use of the Executive Branch of their corporation as a legal department. ...
"The existence of the 'DOJ' isn't authorized anywhere in our agreements with either of the Territorial or Municipal Government entities, so it is
entirely an 'in-house' organization set up by the interloping European corporate managers as a convenience for them."
November 13, 2019 - Now for something completely different in regards to "history" -
"History has never been looked at from the perspective of global cycles or planetary transits through the Gates of the Chinese I’Ching. What does this new lens reveal about the way humanity has evolved? .........
Human Design’s 'Rave History' course is a three-part series starting with the Plutonic Interregnum, a 246-year cycle of Pluto beginning in 1781 when it entered the 41st Gate, and ending as it enters the 41st Gate once again in 2027. As Pluto transits a Gate for three to seven years, an entire generation will be carrying that imprint. This course elaborates on how those born during a specific point in Pluto’s transit carry a unique imprint that affects the evolution of culture and society."
Got inspired to connect with this material upon reading the current planetary transit of Pluto described as "The Planet of Empowerment."
May 18, 2019 - Fictio cedit veritati; fictio juris non est, ubi veritatis. -
Fiction yields to truth; a fiction of law does not exist, where there is of the truth.
"Fictio cedit veritati. Fictio juris non est ubi veritas. - Fiction yields to truth. Where there is truth, fiction of law exists not"
April 3, 2019 - "What was the Congress in Philadelphia doing? -
The Congress in Philadelphia was introducing what is now known as the great American Republican Experiment. They were attempting to create a new, untried, but often thought of style of natural Republican State government that was truly in the hands of the People who controlled their own culture, not the King or his corporate Representative Agents, and that would provide peace and harmony for the People and their Culture (land and water), free from 'manly republics and democracies corporate' that had been tried and failed. Hence, a new coined word: 'Nation'.
In order for us to fully understand the highly significant and unique elements of this Great American Republican Experiment, we must first be aware of one of the most important original requirements for political participation: one must know how to properly read and write, and uniformly understand what is written and read. This may sound too basic for you, but be patient and hang in there - it's worth it.
With this in mind, the Law of Grammar, which in turn prevails over the written Law of Statute, where certain precise words are needed to be specifically defined before anyone can fully understand what's to follow. ... Please bear with me and join me in respecting the true Latin/English/Latin origins of the words I use here (as they were applied and understood primarily by the Candid peoples of the World at the time the Declaration of Independence was written), and at least temporarily, resist your temptation to argue about word meanings as they may relate to any particular dictionary (old or new), of which we know there are numerous versions. ...this will allow me to more clearly communicate with you.
And one last thing: unlike the English language, Latin is expressed in either masculine singular or feminine plural gender terms that are precise, depending if translated in the positive or negative. Knowing the difference is essential for proper communication, especially for examining the 'flow of government'. For example, in excess of one-third (1/3) of America's organic (original) written framework remains in the original Latin. I will address a number of familiar word definitions, as I have applied, as follows for your convenience.
Democracy: Anglicized singular male expression from original Latin 'demos + cratios' meaning 'Upon the Majority of anything, including Men (People)'. The 'flow', or the 'res', is singular.
Republic: Anglicized singular male expression from original Latin 'res + publicus', meaning 'For all Men (People)'. The 'flow', or 'res', is singular.
Republican: Anglicized plural-feminine expression from original Latin 'res + publicae' to 'res + publicanus', meaning 'Of, By, For, From, and To all Men (People)'. The 'flow' is not only in the plural, but also 'plenary' in nature as in the natural Family Unit free of any corporate influences. Hence 'natural plenary checks & balances' that circulate around the 'Heart' (the Mother) to and from her husband to and from her offspring, to and from their father!
Indeed, the family Mother's Kitchen Table is considered to be the most powerful political desk in the World! Some learned writers and jurists on American History and Government often refer to America as 'A Mother's Government' for this reason; and I wish to take the liberty to extend that courtesy to the Mothers of the entire World in their natural Republican State. In a manner of speaking one could probably applaud the American Mothers' kitchen tables as the real source of the American Republican State Revolution, called 'home schooling' today."
Therefore the greater wisdom is recognizing that you can only ask for something according to the nature of the thing. Don't ask for respect for the "plural-feminine expression" from "Democracy." Instead recover the "natural Republican State." And "home schooling" is a very large part of this recovery! This part is greatly supported in the Cheeta vision.
April 22, 2019 - More Republican vs Republic - By Anna Reitz -
What our Forefathers built and what they envisioned from the start was a "republican" state and a "republican form of government". Please note those two letters "an" that are attached to the word "republic". In Latin, this converts the word from the male gender to the female gender, and conveys a significantly different meaning than the word, "republic".
With a "republican form of government" everyone in this country has both rights and responsibilities. Everyone has the right to own land and other property interests. Everyone has a duty to uphold the public law. Everyone has a duty to defend our country. Our nation extends down to the poorest and up to the richest among us. We are all equal in our political status, all enabled to elect fiduciary deputies to conduct our public business, all equally protected under the Public Law.
In a "republican state" the population is organized similar to the present government of the Swiss Cantons.
The job of American governance begins around the kitchen table, which is the focus of power, because the ultimate source of political power in a republican state is vested in the living people and extends outward from the family to the community to the county to the state to the country as a whole.
The living people occupy the pinnacle of power in a republican state and they are what is known as the civilian government. ...
February 4, 2020 - More "Republican Form" -
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government":
Republican government. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by
the people, either directly, or through representatives
chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially
delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
May 1, 2019 - "American Heritage" -
The magazine by this name says:
"In these divided times, knowledge about our shared history is more needed than ever."
Two shades of commentary here. First the lighter side: "knowledge about our shared history is more needed than ever." This writer would add one word for a complete endorsement here and that is "True" before "knowledge" - otherwise we'll probably get more "distorted pablum." (See: "August 13, 2018 - An End to Ignorance About Our Government!" above.)
That more caustic comment:
"These divided times" is a phrase that just might possibly be exclusively based on all the variations of modern day "yellow journalism." The magazine mentions additional terms such as "democracy" which if it's presented as if it is our true: "American Heritage" it then certainly qualifies for the phrase Anna used: "distorted pablum."
July 24, 2019 - Noteworthy From a Previous Issue of: "American Heritage" -
"... we ought to read history because it breaks down dividers between the disciplines of science, medicine, philosophy, art, and music, which is all part of the human story. History enables us to understand the interconnections. Understanding the 18th century, for example, depends on familiarity with its vocabulary, because their words often mean something different than they do today."
The first sentence points to the need for whole systems thinking. That will help toward a an even greater "holistic" thinking that is muti-dimentional. We need "to understand the interconnections." Otherwise the "dividers" tend to become blinders. Also consider that the strategy in any kind of "war" against a people is to divide and then conquer. The last sentence is an excellent reference to the need to clear the terms that are used in history with special emphasis on government history, banking history. Another words the two more notorious spheres some times referred to as "the Rights Sphere" and "the Economic Sphere."
April 4, 2019 - A little dust-up at Rumor Mill News - By Anna Von Reitz
Editors note: We were contacted by one of the people at Rumor Mill News and offered the opportunity to respond to the following: https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=120675
Here is Anna's response.
The FBI, or more likely, the military, may very well be controlling the Michigan General Jural Assembly activities as a Controlled Opposition Operation --- trying to get us to form a "State of State" for their use and then gloss it over and pretend that its a "State" without explaining to anyone that it is only euphemistically a "State" as in "Confederate State".
All the States of the Confederation were States of States ----- commercial corporations created to conduct commercial business for the States of the Federation. "Federation and Con -Federation" equals "Unincorporated States of the Union and Incorporated States of States belonging to the States of the Union". All the Territorial and Municipal States of States are Confederate "States" in the same sense.
In my contacts with the Michigan General Jural Assembly (MGJA) I was told at one point that the principle organizer, a man named Robert, had affiliation with General Douglas MacArthur's Staff. MacArthur, of course, presided over the disaster in which the Japanese gained access to our gold stored in the Philippines. Robert made the right noises and shared some worthwhile insights, so I believed that MGJA was on the right track.
Only later did I find out that they were including "US Citizens" as members and at that point, I addressed the problem. Just as I had tried to warn the Colorado Nine, I explained that "US Citizens" can't form an assembly for an actual geographically defined State, and if they do, they will be trespassing into our lawful jurisdiction and nothing they do will have any validity. They will just get in trouble.
The Federal Corporations both Territorial and Municipal allow for Dual Citizenship, but our States of the Union never have. It is literally impossible for a US Citizen owing a citizenship obligation to the Federal Corporations to assemble one of our States. At most, they can organize a Territorial or Municipal Confederate "State" ---- a State of State to operate as a commercial instrumentality of an actual State.
I assume from Robert's associations that their intent was to create a new Territorial State of State to replace the existing structure ---- and therein lies the rub from the perspective of the existing incorporated Service Providers. They have their own employees and "citizens" ---- either United States Citizens (Territorials) or Citizens of the United States (Municipals) creating new, competing franchises, new States of States that undermine the position of the existing States of States.
That's how these groups get into so much trouble and are accused of being in "insurrection" and so forth. It would be like working as an employee for Pepsi and at the same time, organizing production of Coca-Cola, or being a manager at Hormel while promoting Smithfield hams.
There's an intrinsic conflict of interest that in political terms is interpreted as "insurrection" or even treason.
If this is carried over into the kinds of activities that some of these groups have engaged in like forming "Committees of Safety" and acting like they are at war with their own employees, stockpiling weapons and "making contingency plans" and all that sort of thing, then it is not just talking or not liking your employer, it's taking shape as some kind of physical conflict among "US Citizens" ---a Civil War--- that serves nobody's best interests, including ours --- the actual States and People's.
The British Territorial Corporation is under contract to protect this country and its people, so from that standpoint also, such activities on the part of "US Citizens" is not acceptable.
So the British Territorials are obligated to crack down on such activities both in terms of "insurrection" against them and also "international terrorism" against us, the American States and People.
The horrible irony is, of course, that most of these people are just innocent Americans, were never actually "US Citizens" of either stripe, and they are just trying to restore their lawful government without knowing how their lawful government is constructed nor how it is supposed to work nor how their own political status has been converted, so that before they can even begin to work on their lawful government's problems, they have to correct their own political status records.
In order to restore our lawful unincorporated government, we have to act as unincorporated Lawful Persons --- as American State Nationals and American State Citizens standing on the land and soil of this country. But thanks to FDR, we have all been "presumed" to be operating as Legal Persons and as "US Citizens" since 1933.
It takes action on our parts to sever those legal presumptions and to correct the false registrations that have been concocted in support of those legal presumptions.
What is so tough about this is that Americans have been indoctrinated to think of themselves as "US Citizens" and taught to accept that as their identity, when the vast majority of us have either (1) never actually been US Citizens, never had a federal job or been dependent on the federal government; or (2) were in the military for a couple years and honorably discharged and been under no obligation of US Citizenship since then--- but were never told and failed to recognize the fact that Americans are not "naturally" US Citizens.
We are naturally American State Nationals. American State Nationals and American State Citizens are owed all the Treaties and the guarantees of the Constitutions. Our States are Parties to the Constitutions ---- "US Citizens" of both stripes, Territorial and Municipal --- are "presumed to be" just employees, foreigners, Brits or others, charged with providing the services our States agreed to receive.
American State Nationals and State Citizens are the Landlords, the Owner-Operators, and US Citizens are Hired Help.
That's why we can enforce the Constitutions and we can form up and assemble our actual States, but US Citizens cannot. This is why we can access the guarantees and protections of the Constitutions and they cannot.
And that is why it is absolutely necessary for people who are only "presumed to be" US Citizens--- all of us who are not actually military or Federal Civilian employees or dependents---- to do the paperwork and officially "return" from any presumed "US Citizenship" BEFORE assembling.
State Nationals and State Citizens are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble, but US Citizens of either kind have no such rights or guarantees, because they are operating in a different jurisdiction and capacity.
I just posted an Article that explains the difference between living people, Lawful Persons (known collectively as People) Legal Persons, and incorporated LEGAL PERSONS.
As terribly as I have been misrepresented, misquoted, and deliberately slandered and libeled, I earnestly desire that innocent people wake up and avoid harm. It's like the Prophet Amos said --- "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.". Let the knowledge come. Let it be spread, explained, understood, followed, so that none of the victims of this "System" come to more harm.
The admonition to be "Wise as serpents and gentle as doves" was made for this time in history. We must learn the knowledge of the "serpents" and use it against them, while remaining as gentle and peaceable as doves. 
November 4, 2018 - "... the crime of fraud knows no statute of limitations. This is why contracts all fail upon the first defect. ...
In this case, people have been taught to think of that THING in Washington, DC as their beloved 'government of the people, for the people and by the people', but in fact, 'the federal government' is an interlocking trust directorate of foreign corporate interests merely in the business of providing 'governmental services' for profit. And since 1860, there has been no counter-balance to provide the intended checks-and-balances on their power.
This is the first defect.
The contract between the American States and People and the 'federal government' was broken in 1860, but they were left uninformed by their remaining Territorial and Municipal partners. In fact, those same partners who owed them Good Faith and Good Service deliberately hid the situation and profited themselves from the circumstance instead. ..."
Comment: What a relief to know that even though "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish ... any Form of Government (when it) becomes destructive of certain unalienable Rights, ... among (which) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ..." the "broken contract" (mentioned immediately above) has essentially already accomplished the abolishing! The really good news here is that our "unalienable Rights" are actually still intact as the very nature of these Rights can never ever be contracted away! Now we are truly "without the United States". (All that really remains is to tell the truth of this.) Anything to contrary is absolutely an illusion! However, there apparently are plenty enough people who continue to believe in the illusion that keeps the illusion spinning its wheels! Nevertheless - for those who have an ear to hear - natural-born Americans are not automatically subject under any Federal rule unless they volunteer into the "illusion". The "States" are another story (actually and literally a multi-story! ; ~ ). (updated 2-14-19)
April 29, 2019 - Related to: "... the crime of fraud knows no statute of limitations ..." (Immediately above here). -
"Bayer and Monsanto are facing the music", by: Jon Rappoport
But, Bayer intends to re-write history -
As most of you know, Bayer now owns Monsanto. To make it happen, it forked out $66 billion in 2018. Among the new parent’s problems? Lawsuits against Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, Roundup.
Catch this, from fiercepharma.com: “Recently, in a key bellwether trial, a U.S. federal jury in San Francisco found Bayer liable for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma [caused by Monsanto’s Roundup] and awarded him $80 million in damages. Bayer said it plans to appeal, as it is doing with a [similar] California state suit that awarded the plaintiff $78 million. Still, there are more than 11,200 other similar suits [against Roundup], according to Bayer’s last tally.”
Therefore, key Bayer shareholders are angry at Bayer’s board for greenlighting the 2018 buyout of Monsanto. Bayer intends to eradicate the name “Monsanto,” and do business under a fully merged single name, its own. But for now, that hasn’t stopped the flood of lawsuits against Bayer aimed at its adopted child, Monsanto/Roundup.
What about sales of Roundup? As early as 2016, for several reasons, a sharp decline had already set in. One reason: in 2015, the World Health Organization had declared glyphosate, the prime ingredient in Roundup “a probably carcinogen.” Monsanto moved to cut 16% of its work force.
Bayer appears to be “taking one for the team.” It certainly bought Monsanto knowing full well that Roundup was going to be a big problem. It knew Monsanto had garnered a horrendous reputation from one end of the planet to the other—owing in part to Roundup, and also the disastrous pioneering of GMO crops. But big daddy Bayer didn’t flinch. After all, it has territory to defend—it’s in the same basic business as Monsanto was: genetic manipulation. To protect and sanitize that Brave New World territory, long-term, Bayer aims to swallow Monsanto whole, no matter how much penalty-money that costs, thus making Monsanto disappear for future generations.
“Monsanto? Oh yes. Wasn’t that some kind of farming company? Or a music group?”
That’s the game here. A handful of giant biotech companies (and their shadowy backers) intend to OWN the future, via various forms of radical gene-alteration, in plants, animals, and humans. They want nothing to hinder that agenda. Monsanto was a stain. It brought down heavy attacks on the whole “genetic community.” Therefore, it had to go. The only question was: who would come up with the huge buyout cash and make the sacrifice?
Once the core of the infamous Nazi cartel, IG Farben, Bayer had a history of re-writing history. Long term, it would know how to make Monsanto vanish, as if it had never existed.
That operation is now underway.
What all does Bayer own? .........
All of it may be worth avoiding any kind of support.
August 2, 2019 - Authorities on Private Rights - (Our "Unalienable Rights" Are Private Rights) -
"Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, [106 U.S. 196, 209] there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right."
[U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)]
"For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without the mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals."
"By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it." - Ibid.
[William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765); SOURCE: http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/215.html]
"Where [PRIVATE] rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or [STATUTORY] legislation which would abrogate [reduce or impair] them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)]
The Sovereignty Educational Defense Ministry (SEDM) says "unalienable Rights" are aka "inalienable rights". If this is true then the quote of the Declaration of Independence at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial using the phrase "inalienable rights" that was an apparent misquote of "unalienable Rights" as it is written in the original document should not be controversial. However these are "unalienable" and "inalienable" are two different words and consequently they don't have the exact same meaning. In any case this blog-writer has written to the governmental agency that manages the national parks which includes the memorial and is awaiting their reply as to how the "apparent misquote of 'unalienable Rights' as it is written in the original document" occurred at the memorial. This writer is not convinced and refers to the following comments that he believes are worth considering:
Inalienable vs. unalienable
July 18, 2014 at 12:33 am -
Absolute nonsense trying to sell the idea that the two words have the same meaning.
Inalienable: The use of inalienable means the individual believes in Hobb’s political theory and that each individual ought to contract away their rights to a single sovereign who can never be questioned or removed. Tyranny.
Unalienable: The use of unalienable means the individual believes in Lockean political theory and that each individual in a society ought to contract with the government to protect their unalienable rights. The people are sovereign.
Don L says:
September 26, 2014 at 9:12 pm -
Right on!!! Lincoln did not save the Union by agreement between “…ought be free an independent states [nations]…” He created the all powerful central government or the State: a Union by coercion. And, in so doing, he destroyed states’ rights and the idea of “…just powers deriving from the consent of the governed.” We need to Un-Lincoln America and reclaim UNalienable rights!!!
April 24, 2015 at 10:50 am -
Black’s Law Dictionary of 1910 – (you have to go back that far due to revisionist tampering) states that “unalienable” not only defines that our rights cannot be taken away or given up, but that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for them to be taken away or given up. There’s a big difference there. Unalienable – pronounced “UN-a-lein-able” Has quite a specific meaning, and it’s been all but lost on this generation – as evidenced by this article.
July 31, 2015 at 6:00 pm -
The difference was explained to me in college as a very significant one, which comports well with the notion that Newt Gingrich would have used unalienable. The memory device provided was that the i in in… counts for one upright meaning, whereas the u in un… counts for two – to help one remember the relative intensity of the inviolability in the meaning of each word. That is to say, an inalienable right is one that accrues to an individual, that no one can take away, and that may be violated or abridged only with the consent of the person possessed of such right. Privacy, for example. An unalienable right is one intrinsic to the human by nature (and nature’s God), such that not only may it not be taken away, but also that not even the possessor may give it away or agree to its abridgement – for example, one’s life, even by one’s own hand (in the traditional Judaeo-Christian sense that suicide is not permissible). I suspect that the change was intentionally introduced in the final document, since those who wrote it were men of letters and sensitive to nuance of meaning.
October 29, 2018 - One Way to End Ignorance About "Our" Government -
"... If government’s media mouthpiece were gone, people would be forced to make up their own minds about government (or, in the age of President Trump, one could say, people would be forced to make up their own minds about the deep-state, non-patriotic, sell-out, operatives within government). And eventually, they would. And it wouldn’t be a happy moment, for government (deep-state operatives).
The Origin of the "Newspaper." -
Unsurprisingly, the first 'newspapers,' in ancient China, Egypt, and Rome, were government-issued bulletins. They were decrees, commands, and announcements.
They were deployed to control citizens’ actions and paint an official picture of reality.
At some point, leaders recognized that, with the expansion of individual freedom, more subtle methods for control and 'guided perception' were necessary. Hence, modern media.
For this to work, reporters had to be elevated to privileged status. They were now town criers dressed to kill.
'Owing to excessive propaganda, lies, and style masquerading as substance, all news is canceled.' That would be a kind of forced declaration of independence." (Updated 2-14-19)
March 12, 2019 - In Order To Be Free - We Have to Face Up to a 150 Years of History -
... in order to be free, one must take responsibility and self-govern --- and that we have failed to do. To correct the situation requires us to make a mighty correction and at least in the short term, undertake a lot of work.
There are two foreign occupying forces on our soil, one British, one Holy Roman Empire-based.
The British Territorial Government controls our military and trade functions and runs the military-industrial complex.
The Holy Roman Empire-based organization runs the "civil" government as in Federal Civil Service, under the auspices of the Municipal Congress authorities (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) operating in gross usurpation.
Both of these entities are foreign subcontractors with respect to our actual government, but we have been lulled to sleep and haven't operated our actual government in 150 years, so they have just made themselves at home and drunk up our wine cellars.
Most of the time they work together hand-in-hand to fleece us blind.
Sometimes they play carrot and stick with us, with one pretending to be the "Good Guy" and the other pretending to be the "Bad Guy".
And sometimes they earnestly fight with each other over turf, over direction, over profits.
They are currently coming up against each other as the "Royalists" of the Monarchies come push to shove against the "Globalist" Holy Roman Empire. Instead of viewing these as anything completely separate from each other, it is more profitable to imagine it as an in-house fight between Cousins.
One Cousin, the Holy Roman Empire, is trying to draw in its carefully constructed net of interlocking trust directorates and rule the whole world via controlling money and commerce, while the other Cousin is objecting to having its share of worldly power subjected to the Globalist scheme.
Both of them mean to do us harm and continue fleecing us, so again, we have a choice between Bad and Bad, just two different flavors thereof, but the circumstance together with growing worldwide awareness of their criminal activities does open up the opportunity for us to shake awake and self-govern.
If we don't have the right to tell our subcontractors how high to jump, who does?
In order to do so, we have to face up to a 150 years of history, have to overcome falsified commercial claims, have to overcome 12 years of public school indoctrination, have to find the courage and energy to act, have to plot a lawful path out of this morass and have to get organized to self-govern.
We are the lawful sovereigns of the land and soil ...
March 29, 2019 - The "American" in Washington's Farewell Address -
A comment posted at Paul Stramer's -
"I deeply appreciate your first question! I immediately imagined being confronted by either a municipal or territorial employee and responding with 'your' question - knowing that there is absolutely no evidence that denies my unalienable American status! And now that I have just found my DD214 (buried deep in my file cabinet archive ) I will proceed with the final paperwork to the Coast Guard and officially announce my return 'home.'
Washington apparently made one most-direct reference to the term: 'American.' The one sentence that I found regarding this begins with: 'The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity...' I find his address extremely verbose. However I imagine he was not aware of that (according to the unconscious activations shown in his Human Design: (http://www.humandesignsystem.com/archive/charts/WashingtonGeorge.pdf).
In any case the status of 'American' in this address emphasizes continental land jurisdiction rather than State soil jurisdiction and therefore it probably can't be considered as a complete reference to all that the American status entails. (What do you say Anna?)
August 14, 2018 - Just discovered the following from this government publication:
"... In no previous publication has any attempt been made to publish the variant texts of the plans presented to the convention by Edmund Randolph, William Paterson, and Alexander Hamilton. It has usually been assumed that the texts of these plans as published in Madison’s journal were authentic. Recent investigations have shown, however, that the texts of these plans actually presented to the convention were in many particulars widely different from the plans as given by Madison."
(This is from a PDF that is just one of at least eight additional "download options".)
I found the page at the top of "about 9,070 results" for "Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States". I first discovered that title at "The Avalon Project" in my search re: "Articles of Confederation" via a link "Regarding Document Transcripts" preceded by another link.
I was inspired to search the original signatures on the Articles of Confederation by the representatives and especially in regards to how they identified their respective states.
What originally got me started to research this was the phrase "States of States" that Anna Von Reitz had referred to a number of times.
(Note on 8-21-18: The above deserves further research that could be a priority for me if it "fed me" just as my Human Design requires.)
August 21, 2018 - "Historians have to understand debates over political economy in the 1780s if they want to comprehend the initial drive behind, and ratification of, the U.S. Constitution." -
“… Cathy Matson and Peter Onuf’s 1990 book, A Union of Interests: Political and Economic Thought in Revolutionary America, was published at the tail end of the republican paradigm, one of the most productive discussions in the academy. Largely propelled by the work of Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and J.G.A. Pocock, scholarly studies of societal and individual belief systems fundamentally reframed the way historians understood the origins, and aftermath, of the American Revolution. The contribution of Matson and Onuf’s book to this discussion as their ability to synthesize the diverse trends of ‘classical republican, liberal, and jurisprudential traditions... to reconstruct the discourse of American federalism.’ As they demonstrated throughout A Union of Interests, the discourse that surrounded the ratification of the Constitution was premised upon the federalist position that economic development would go hand-in-hand with a stronger central state. The key takeaway from their work was that historians have to understand debates over political economy in the 1780s if they want to comprehend the initial drive behind, and ratification of, the U.S. Constitution.
The second significant historiographical paradigm is that of the fiscal-military state and the formation of the federal government. The fiscal-military state formulation was originally conceived by John Brewer in order to explain Britain’s divergent governmental path compared to continental European states during the ‘military revolution’ of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In essence, Britain had a strong state because it had sophisticated means to extract taxes and secure loans, as well as a powerful navy to further the Empire’s global needs. Even if the relative size of its administration paled in comparison to that of France and Spain, the British state did have strong fiscal and military capabilities. Max Edling’s 2003 book, A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State applied Brewer’s formulation to the initial push for strengthening the U.S. national government in the 1780s. The object of the federalists, prior to the ratification debate, was to create a state that would have real fiscal and military powers – similar to the British model – but also protect the individual liberties fought for during the American Revolution. As drafted in 1787, and before the emergence of the antifederalist-federalist debate, the U.S. Constitution provided the national government with precisely these powers. …” (Updated 2-14-19)
May 17, 2018 - Rewriting History via "the core of the American Historical Association" [(AHA) herein lies a big "ah ha"!] -
Back in 1923, the Carnegie Foundation conducted a contest. The prize was a scholarship to Oxford, in England for a PhD. The Foundation placed advertisements in magazines and on the radio seeking history teachers with Advanced Degrees to compete for the prize. The contest amounted to writing an essay about the current state of America. The judges of the contest declared that twenty young history teachers had won and then swept them off to London. There, they were lined up and each bestowed with PhDs from Oxford as well a Fellowship with the Guggenheim Foundation. They received no further education (just the honorifics) but, instead, were brought back the the USA and became the core of the American Historical Association.
The AHA "determined what history books will be used in all public schools."
In 1928, the American Historical Association was granted $400,000 by the Carnegie Endowment to write a seven volume study on the direction the nation was to take. The thrust of these books was that "the future of this country belongs to collectivism and humanism.", The AHA has since then, determined what history books will be used in all public schools. If your school district receives any Federal funds, then they are mandated, by Congress, to teach history from these revisionist volumes. The Carnegie Foundation (in collusion with the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation) has been rewriting history for the last eighty-five years. Their goal was to create a passive, dumbed down society that would not oppose their vision for the future. Pretty much everything you think you know is made up.
It's not what you don't know that will screw you up, it's what you are absolutely sure of that is absolutely wrong." - Mark Twain -
Now I am grateful for certain individual's derogatory remarks about me being a "hippie" - as the above quoted article attracted my attention based on its title: "Hippies" and my intuition told me this could be a "positive" reference for that "certain individual" to re-consider. In any case I Am Grateful to have a validating reference for being in the "3%" (even though I never really thought of myself as a "hippie" - a "freak" possibly - however I think it is better stated as a "mutation" or "an Individual with a Human Design to mutate. (Updated 2-14-19)
History Keeps Repeating the Strategy: "Divide and Conquer"! -
"... the corrupt power establishment’s biggest fear is the coming together of collective human intent for the good of society as a whole. In other words, governments know they can continue corrupt, self-serving practices as long as they successfully divide their population across politically exaggerated lines using race, religion, class, sexuality and the like. It is a tool to separate such groups - and keep them separated.
Again- this isn’t the result of some omnipotent, evil “elite” as some ignorantly claim. Rather, it is the natural, systemic result of the kind of social system we are maintaining. The power establishment has no face - there is no empirical “they”- it is an ever rotating group of manifested mentalities which result as a direct consequence from the system we perpetuate.
In fact, the most important singular statement of the film’s narration, which defines the purpose of Zeitgeist: The Movie itself, is:
“The social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division has completely inhibited the culture. Religion, patriotism, race, wealth, class and every other form of arbitrary separatist identification and thus conceit has served to create a controlled population utterly malleable in the hands of the few. Divide and conquer is the motto... And as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else they lend themselves to being completely enslaved.” - Peter Joseph.
Comment: The Cheeta vision is a matrix of connectivity.
April 6, 2019 - Additional Comments:
Re: "the system we perpetuate": Indeed - "the corrupt power establishment ..." (just as it is referenced in the above quote) is the "result as a direct consequence from the system we perpetuate" however the people are most largely unaware of what we need to do to correct the errors that have allowed for this result. The awareness can come - and since the state of unawareness was intentionally established via the government's "educational" programming systems that result in a deep conditioning of virtually all American peoples we will most likely need to allow a seven-year de-conditioning process to unlearn what we thought we learned. In order to take on this particular "de-conditioning process."
This adds up to is a multi-faceted de-conditioning process for the full reclamation of our powers (both individually and collectively) as well as well as the full reclamation of our Lawful authority AKA out original land and soil-based sovereignty. As such this can be considered as a spiritual blessing that will come as a result of our "preparing the way." The spiritual will need to be supported by the physical via a simultaneous de-conditioning needed to allow the higher spiritual consciousness to fully incarnate in our body. Altogether this constitutes a three-fold renewal of Spirit-Psyche and Body. To proceed with this work requires personal empowerment as well as the support from mutual empowerment. Jon Rappoport has a contribution toward personal empowerment in his article following:
Power Outside The Matrix - The Free Individual Returns from the Dead
by Jon Rappoport
Freedom isn’t merely an idea. When an individual feels and knows he is free, all sorts of changes take place, even on a physical level:
Brain function increases and quickens. Endocrine levels optimize. The cells of the body awaken to a higher degree, and energy output rises.
From the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s.
From his point of view, what does the social landscape look like?
It looks like: THE OBSESSION TO ORGANIZE.
If you want to spend a disturbing afternoon, read through (and try to fathom) the bewildering blizzard of sub-organizations that make up the European Union. I did. And I emerged with a new definition of insanity. OTO. The Obsession to Organize.
OTO speaks of a bottomless fear that somewhere, someone might be living free.
People tend to think their own power is either a delusion or some sort of abstraction that’s never really experienced. So when the subject is broached, it goes nowhere. It fizzles out. It garners shrugs and looks of confusion. Power? Are you talking about the ability to lift weights?
And therefore, the whole notion of freedom makes a very small impression, because without power, what’s the message of freedom?
Every which way power can be discredited or misunderstood…people will discredit it and misunderstand it.
And then all psychological and physiological and mental and physical and emotional and perceptual and hormonal processes undergo a major downward shift, in order to accommodate to a reality, a space in which the individual has virtually no power at all.
April 7, 2019 - The Vulnerabilities of Written History -
“Documents vanish, dissolve, decompose. They are washed away by the weather, or consumed by insects and bacteria, or (deliberately) destroyed, hidden, obfuscated, or revised. That is before we address the subjectivity of the historical record. …. Newspapers record stories with biases firmly in place. …"
July 28, 2018 - The Original 13 Individual Colonies - Later They "United" -
"... The 13 colonies were established in North America by Great Britain during the 17th century. The colonies were established to harvest raw materials, such as lumber, fur and fish, necessary for Britain’s growing empire.
The 13 colonies during the Revolutionary War-era were:
Province of New Hampshire
Province of Massachusetts Bay
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Province of New York
Province of New Jersey
Province of Pennsylvania
Province of Maryland
Colony and Dominion of Virginia
Province of North Carolina
Province of South Carolina
Province of Georgia
The 13 Colonies Before the Revolutionary War:
Three types of governments existed in the colonies prior to the American Revolution: royal, charter and proprietary.
Royal colonies were governed directly by the British government through a royal governor appointed by the Crown. The royal colonies were: New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Charter colonies were granted to businesses. The business owner created the laws but they were required to base their laws on English law at the time. The charter colonies were: Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay Colony and Rhode Island.
Proprietary colonies had charters that granted ownership of the colony to one person or a family. The proprietor was given full governing rights. The proprietary colonies were: Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
The original charter colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island eventually had their charters revoked in the 17th century and were taken over by the British government upon which they became royal colonies with royal governments, much to the colonist’s dismay.
Yet, despite the fact that many of the colonies were royal colonies, for a period of time prior to the American Revolution, the thirteen colonies had been allowed to self-govern.
This was due to what is now known as the policy of Salutary Neglect, which was based on the premise that if the colonies were left alone, they would flourish and Great Britain would reap the benefits in increased trade, tax revenue and profits.
It was during this period of salutary neglect that the colonies learned to self-govern which helped the colonists develop their sense of independence and self-sufficiency.
The policy of Salutary Neglect was in place for many decades, from the early to mid 1700s, until the end of the French and Indian War when the British government found itself in desperate need of funds to pay off the war debt and to cover the cost of the large number of troops it had sent to North America to protect the new land it had won. ..."
August 13, 2018 - The Signing of The Articles of Confederation -
“… And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectfully represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America."
Based on the transcription at the Library of Congress each representative prefaced their signature with the phrase: “On the part and behalf of …”. The thirteen "States" were identified as:
"the State of Delaware,
the State of New Hampshire,
the State of Maryland,
the State of Virginia,
the State of Massachusetts Bay,
the State of N. Carolina,
the State of Rhode Island,
the State of South Carolina,
the State of Connecticut,
the State of Georgia,
the State of New York,
the State of New Jersey,
the State of Pennsylvania."
May 26, 2018 - Clearing the Confusion Regarding the Two Confederations -
The First Confederation formed by the States during the (American) Revolution (1781) was composed of National-Level States of States: The State of Georgia, The State of Maine, The State of Connecticut..... and these States of States were business entities owned by the States called Georgia, Maine, Connecticut.....
The States own The States of States. Maine owns The State of Maine.
The States formed a Federation of States known as The United States of America to function as a Holding Company for all the assets and powers that they would agree to hold in common. The States specifically and through their Holding Company retained control of the land and soil jurisdictions of this country.
That is, the States never gave up a cubic centimeter of soil or land to The States of States.
The States of States were created to function in the realm of international trade and commerce in behalf of the States and in the global jurisdiction of the air, also in behalf of the States.
The States of States formed their original Confederation during the Revolution (1781). When the Constitution was adopted in 1787 the Second Confederation was set up to exercise the Delegated Powers.
Where the real confusion arises is the idea that the original Confederation disappeared or was "replaced" by the Second Confederation. It wasn't. All that happened was that the Second Confederation of The States of States operated the Delegated Powers under British control / influence, and the First Confederation continued to operate the Non-Delegated Powers.
And in the background, the great Holding Company of the States, The United States of America (unincorporated) was the Source of all the Non-Delegated and Delegated Powers mutually extended by the States.
So the delegation goes like this: States combine to form a Federation of States dba The United States of America to hold their international and global powers in common. They form a first Confederation of States of States to conduct their business in these realms. They split the powers into "Non-Delegated" and "Delegated" subsets and create a second Confederation to exercise the Delegated powers in 1787.
We've been hoodwinked into paying attention only to the Delegated Powers and the Federal United States government that was created to exercise these powers, and have "forgotten" about the source of all these "powers" ---- the actual government is not the Federal United States Government in any form.
January 28, 2018 - AMERICA: SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED-30 Second American History -
Copyrighted on the 17th of January 2017 with All rights reserved - By: Anna Maria Riezinger.
To: Donald J. Trump -
President of the United States of America
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Washington, DC
Page 2 of 60
This little monograph was prepared for President Donald J. Trump, and strictly speaking, it is addressed to him. … it’s not only information needed by Mr. Trump….
I have made no effort beyond a cursory naming and dating to give reference citations, except for a few relatively new or unknown cites that don’t appear elsewhere in my writings. All the proof needed is already well-established in the public record and anyone can find it, just as I did, by looking for it.
My dog is senile. He has taken to wandering around aimlessly from room to room, pausing, and giving a single ‘Woof!’ It seems to express all the questions in the world: ‘Where am I?’ ‘How did I get here?’ ‘Have I been fed yet?’ ‘Why did I come here?’ ‘What was I doing--- or meaning to do?’
These are the sort of questions this monograph addresses, providing a logical framework showing how our government is supposed to be structured, how it is in fact structured, how it came to be this way, and ----in a very prosaic way, what needs to be done to fix it.
For most of you who missed Eighth Grade American History, this will be all brand new. For some of you, it will stir vague remembrances. For almost everyone it will be our history as seen from a new viewpoint - that of a businessman looking at the business entities and relationships that have formed the federal government in America..”
I’m all for at least one “new viewpoint” when it comes to understanding American History and especially when the intention is to understand “how our government is supposed to be structured”. However I must say in this instant that the “government” as it appears to be portrayed now (via all conventional media) is not really “for almost everyone”. I believe it is more true to say it is against “almost everyone” since it declared Americans as “enemy” as per the “Trading With The Enemy” Act.
Re: "looking at the business entities and relationships that have formed the federal government in America" -
This is one viewpoint that was not included in the education "for almost everyone". If the premise of the quoted line immediately above here is true then the "viewpoint" of government endorsed education on the history of government is a contrived viewpoint with at least 33% of the reality missing from the history pages!
January 30th - Anna Mentioned September 9, 1776 and that inspired me to search out the subject matter and now (2:40 AM Pacific) I just located the source of that information!
(I'm delighted to have this particular research have footnote number 33 after having asked for assistance from the state library that gave their good faith effort however they didn't completely deliver what I was asking for! But I persisted and continued extending the search to reach the source! ; ~ )
The following underscores my own research and the Organic Law lessons as a student of Dr Ed Rivera:
"... (1) our republican nation-states are formed by declarations not by constitutions;
(2) The United States of America (unincorporated) is the first and last union formed by our nation- states.
(3) The United States of America is the Proper Name of our country in international terms and exercises the sovereign (that is, unincorporated) power of the nation-states. All power flows from the people to the counties to the nation-states to The United States of America (unincorporated) and thence to federal subsidiaries."
April 24, 2018 - "The TWO Unions -- Our Dominion and Order" - By Anna Von Reitz -
"We've been lied to. It's really as simple as that. So, now that we know, we are responsible for making correction.
We were told in school that 'The Articles of Confederation' which created a 'perpetual union' of the National-level States of America as of March 1, 1781, was somehow replaced by the constitutional agreements that came along a decade later.
But that's a lie.
If it were true, there would be action either by The United States of America (Unincorporated) or by the States of America in Congress Assembled, repealing and dissolving The Articles of Confederation. No such documentation exists. Therefore, The Articles of Confederation remain in full force and effect."
July 29, 2016 - Continuing in Reference To The Articles of Confederation -
The book: "1984" is possibly the leading narrative on the necessity for re-writing history whenever government deems it in its best interest.
We in the u.s. of A. have been long past "1984" as a (de facto) reality. The history here that has long been re-written (as early as September 17, 1787) when the fourth "Organic Law" in the form of the writing of "the Constitution" was completed. Probably, the most important particular "history" that was re-written at that time was in regards to the validity of the second Organic Law: The Articles of Confederation (1777).
The new Federalist claimed that their new Constitution replaced the second Organic Law however replacement would have required a lawful repealing of the later and that simply never ever occurred. The difference between the historical truth and rewritten history in this instance is the difference between genuine liberty and "doublethink".
May 21, 2018 - An Example of "Revisionist History" - How Story-Telling Rewrote The "Organic" Agriculture "Law". -
"On February 6, 2018, the Organic Farmers Association wrote and sent a letter to the Honorable Sonny Perdue, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, regarding the National Organic Program’s (NOP) statement that 'Certification of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic operations is allowed under the USDA organic regulations, and has been since the National Organic Program began.' ...
Dear Secretary Perdue;
The Organic Farmers Association (OFA) is a membership organization that represents America’s certified organic farmers. While we have supporting and organizational members, only domestic certified organic farmers vote on OFA’s policies and leadership.
At OFA, we are very concerned by the National Organic Program’s (NOP) January 25, 2018, statement that 'Certification of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic operations is allowed under the USDA organic regulations, and has been since the National Organic Program began.' We see this action as revisionist history, and an incorrect interpretation of organic law. ..."
If the organic farmers only knew that under the first and second Organic Laws of The United States of America (the original unincorporated entity formed in 1776) namely: "The Declaration of Independence" and "The Articles of Confederation" they have unalienable, natural-born (God-given) Rights to trade their goods with other Americans without any interference from external government - they would spare themselves from all the inabilities, the unwillingness, the dis-interest on the part of corporate government and the mega-food industrial complex that essentially controls the governmental Department of Agriculture.
"Increasingly, the organic market is dominated by industrial brands that look little different from their conventional counterparts."
May 20, 2018 - Symbology of The American Eagle -
"Our astrology comes to us from Ancient Rome, where the eagle was Jupiter’s messenger. Pliny the Elder described the eagle as one of the signa militaria, or 'military symbols' of the army. An eagle would be set free during the consecration of an emperor. Jupiter was associated with power in Rome. Pliny called the eagle 'most honorable (or honored) and strongest of all birds'."
August 2nd, 2016 -
I'm posting the following here rather than start a new blog-post as I begin to research about The California Republic's original constitution that I believe "guaranteed" free higher education to it's Citizens.
In the process of my research I found this to be of interest:
"... Although tradition speaks of the unfurling of the Stars and Stripes immediately after the Declaration of Independence, there is no definite evidence of the use of the flag of thirteen stars and thirteen stripes prior to its adoption by the American Congress. George Henry Preble, Rear Admiral, U. S. N., in his "History of the Flag of the United States of America,'' has this to say:
'Beyond a doubt, the thirteen stars and stripes were unfurled at the battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, eight days after the official promulgation of them at Philadelphia, ...'"
The following is from the "archive" and may be my main reference and basis for a letter to the UC regents:
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty ; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, § 1]
The superior "Declaration of Rights" should be based on the phrase "unalienable Rights" exactly as it is written in the first Organic Law: The Declaration of Independence.
The two terms: "unalienable" and "inalienable" have distinctively different meanings.
[Now (11:06 AM on Tuesday, August 2nd) I'm convinced that this particular post: "Re-writting History" is the perfect place for this additional posting as I read at the adask.wordpress.com:
"... the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the 'Declaration of Independence' attributed to Jefferson that referred to our 'inalienable Rights'. But the text of the 'Declaration of Independence' expressly refers to our 'unalienable Rights'. Thus, the 'Declaration of Independence' is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone."
Purpose of government.
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good mav require it. [Constitution of 1849, Art. I, §2]
[Comment] Do UC Regents declare any kind of "oath of office" that includes supporting this constitution? I've not seen one. If the Regents do declare their allegiance to the "spirit of the (American and then California) Law" then the people need to hold the Regents accountable to their declarations and to supporting "the protection ... of the people" who in this instance are students - firstly by protecting their unalienable Rights to "enjoying and defending (their) life and liberty; ... pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness" without risk of injury (as is known to have occurred with vaccinations).
August 6th, 2016 -
I have made minor edits above to reflect the answers I've received from the California State Library regarding the University regents. The Librarian (like myself) did not find any prescribed oaths for the Regents. IMO - oaths are essential for "office-holders" when their functions are primarily one of public trust in service to the people of the area they serve. I'm surprised not to see an "oath" readily available in the California Constitution for the Regents.
The Regents apparently co-wrote the University of California's new requirement, that they passed last year, for all students to have their MMR, TdaP, Varicella and Meningococcal conjugate shots before the first day of school. There are several areas of issues regarding this including legal issues however I present an additional perspective that some may automatically think is "legal" whereas the foundation I am pointing is actually one of fundamental Law namely the Organic Laws of the United States of America. It is somewhat a "knee-jerk reaction" to think in legal terms as is so often the case in a litigious society and yet loose sight of what comes before the legal system. In such a state I feel the necessity to return to the foundation, not only for the Regents to refer to but especially for the students to be empowered by, possibly "enlightened" by.
I count it a real misfortune that American history as it is taught in the school system is compromised. If we are to continue as an American people we must recover our history. You could say that I'm on a mission for that purpose - The Recovery of American History.
The Declaration of Independence is the first of four Organic Laws the cornerstone of American Law. Without it we do not have American Law or an American Nation. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 is the fourth Organic Law and it naturally comes after the first. Referring to this Constitution as if it were the only foundation for America is truly problematic because it's true standing can only be within the context of the first Organic Law. If the "Constitution" is "divorced" from the Declaration of Independence then we are without our "North Star" as our guiding light. We must "hold these truths to be self evident" or we are subject to whatever the prevailing political winds of the day may be. We must know that "Life" includes our individual health and total well-being that is our natural unalienable Right meaning that it can not be given away or compromised by anything including an institution's "requirement" under color of institutional law and/or in the name of public health. There is no public health without healthy individuals - the only place where health begins. (Health is actually another area of issues regarding vaccinations.)
The second Organic Law is The Articles of Confederation wherein every State is bond to honor the freedom of its "free inhabitants", who are free from external government as that is completely congruent with the first Organic Law that finally rejected external government.
April 4, 2019 - No Pledges Ever - By Anna Von Reitz
We all grew up being exposed to "The Pledge of Allegiance" as schoolchildren. We were indoctrinated from an early age to mindlessly recite something without knowing what it really meant.
Start with the fact that a "Pledge" is a Feudal Oath given by a Serf or Tenant to a sovereign, promising "allegiance" another word from the feudal relationship vocabulary, subjecting yourself to the sovereign and promising to support and protect the sovereign.
And what was standing in the "sovereign" position in "The Pledge of Allegiance"?
The flag of something calling itself "the United States of America" --- they just didn't bother to tell anyone which United States of America.
Most Americans have been kept from ever knowing that there are many different variations of both "United States" and "United States of America" and yes, it does matter which one you are talking about.
There is the unincorporated version of The United States which refers to the sovereign soil jurisdiction State Republics and their "Union" formed in 1776, and there is the unincorporated version of The United States of America, our Holding Company formed September 9, 1776, which refers to the sovereign International Land Jurisdiction of the unincorporated States of the Union.
These are the two entities that Americans naturally think of when someone says, "United States" or "United States of America", but in addition to these unincorporated entities that hold the land and soil jurisdictions of our country, there are other incorporated entities that are supposed to work for our States and People.
These include two other "kinds" of United States and United States of America that operate in the Municipal jurisdiction of the the Holy Roman Empire and the International Jurisdiction of the Sea, respectively.
These incorporated versions are "doing business names" of foreign corporations that are on our shores, purportedly to provide specified governmental services under the provisions of their respective Constitutions.
Their "United States" which is actually "the United States, Inc." is run by the members of the Territorial Congress acting as the government of the Washington, DC Municipality, which is an independent international city state like Vatican City and the Inner City of London known as Westminster and more recently, New York City and the United Nations have made bold to become ---without our permission, separate international governments standing on the land and soil of New York.
Time for the People of New York to wake up and put these Freebooters in their place, but that's another story.
Right now, just take in the fact that "United States" in this context means the Municipal Government being run by the members of Congress as a "plenary oligarchy" that is only supposed to operate and exist within the ten miles square of the District of Columbia. [Article I, Section 8, Clause 17]
Also take note that when this version of incorporated foreign "United States" is being referenced, the definite article associated with it is not capitalized and not part of the name. That is, our actual government's Proper Name is "The United States", while their strictly limited foreign Municipal government providing services "in our names" is "the" United States.
The same sort of confusion occurs with "the" United States of America, which refers to the British Territorial service providers under contract to our States. In the same way, the Proper Name of our unincorporated version is "The United States of America" and "The" is both capitalized and part of the name. Their foreign incorporated version --- again --- is "the" United States of America.
So when we look at their "Pledge of Allegiance" what do we see? Which "United States of America" is being referenced? Ours or the British version?
We already know that a "Pledge" is a Feudal Oath and we know our Founders weren't into Feudalism, so we should not be surprised to observe that the Queen's subjects are pledging themselves to "the" United States of America via their Pledge of Allegiance to the Queen and the British Territorial corporation doing business as "the" United States of America.
Read it and weep:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" ---- this is the war flag of the British Territorial Commercial Corporation doing business "in our name" --- the United States of America, Inc.
"and to the Republic for which it stands" ----- we got a passing mention and a presumed Dual Citizenship obligation thrown in.
"one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ---- and the problem with this is? (1) It isn't clear which "God" we are subjecting ourselves to; (2) they are just subcontractors and we owe them no more loyalty than they show us; (3) we, Americans, enjoy freedom, not "liberty" which is what British sailors get when they arrive in ports of call.
As you can see, pledging is a British thing. It has nothing to do with us, our American Government, or any natural obligation we have as Americans.
Americans don't do pledges because we are sovereigns in our own right, and pledging to a foreign sovereign obligates us to serve them instead of serving our own sovereignty.
So we never, ever, under any circumstance make "pledges" to anyone or anything, including the flag being flown "for" us by a British Territorial Corporation.
Think of the insanity of what is being employed against us? A living man subjects himself to an inanimate symbol like a flag? Can you think of a worse form of idolatry?
This innocent-sounding "pledge" disrespects all three major western religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all forbid the worship of idols.
Yet, here we have had generations of clueless American schoolchildren -- and adults, too--- pledging their lives and substance to an inanimate object, an idol, being used under contract by a British Territorial Commercial Corporation as a war flag.
Needless to say, this venal and undisclosed practice of "pledging" has to stop and it has to be known and repudiated by any and every thinking man and woman in this country.
No sentient Christian, Jew, or Muslim can ever take such a pledge, nor should they.
If you do knowingly ever take a "pledge" of any kind, be aware that whatever you are "pledging" is encumbered and that whatever you are "pledging to" becomes the ruler over you.
Do you want to be ruled over by a war flag being borrowed from our actual government by a British Territorial Commercial Company operating out of Puerto Rico under Spanish Law and calling itself "the United States of America"?
Didn't think so, but had to ask, because that is what happens when you recite "The Pledge of Allegiance".
Much of what we have been told in Public Schools across America and also taught to accept and to do, is wrong, or a half truth, or a sin by omission leading us to make wrong assumptions to our detriment.
This is just one particularly evil example of betrayal of our trust.
April 11, 2019 - More Flag History - (Anna just might love this if she doesn't already know it! ; ~ ) -
The Original 1892 Wording and Ritual of the Pledge -
The original words and accompanying ritual of the Pledge of Allegiance was presented in the September 8th, 1892 issue of The Youth’s Companion—a popular weekly magazine published in Boston.
Its September 8th issue had the following announcement: “When the Superintendents of Education, last February, accepted The Companion’s plan for this national Public School celebration, they instructed their Executive Committee to prepare an Official Programme of exercises for the day, uniform for every school....Let every pupil and friend of the Schools who reads The Companion, at once, present personally the following Programme to the Teachers, Superintendents, School Boards, and Newspapers in the towns and cities in which they reside.”
This “Official Programme” for the “National Columbus Day Public Schools Celebration of October 21, 1892” was a complete patriotic program for the nation’s public schools’ celebration. Francis J. Bellamy prepared its two-page “Official Programme”:
1. Reading of the President’s Proclamation by the Master of Ceremonies...
2. Raising of the Flag by the Veterans...
3. Salute to the Flag by the Pupils:
“At a signal from the Principal, the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another order is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute—right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with forehead close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.’ At the words, ‘to my flag,’ the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture until the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side. Then, still standing as the instruments strike a chord, all will sing ‘America’—‘My Country, ’tis of Thee.’”
4. Acknowledgement of God. Prayer or Scripture.
The 1923 and 1924 Modifications of the Wording of the Original Pledge -
The First National Flag Conference, held in Washington, June 14–15, 1923, which was attended by 80 delegates from patriotic societies, fraternal orders, civic bodies, and other organizations, modified the Pledge to read: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The Second National Flag Conference, held in Washington on Flag Day, June 14, 1924, further modified the Pledge to read as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
The 1942 Modifications of the Flag Salute Ritual -
On June 22, 1942, the US Congress officially approved the 1924 version of the Pledge and added it to the US Flag Code. In December 1942, Congress substituted the present ritual of the right hand over the heart in place of the original straight right arm salute. Congress apparently was embarrassed by the similarity between the original Flag salute and the Nazi salute.
The 1954 Modification of the Wording of the 1924 Pledge -
The US Congress and the President officially added “under God” to the Pledge on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. This version goes as follows, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, With liberty and justice for all.”
Three minor variations were considered:
1. “One nation under God,”
2. “One nation, under God,” and
3. “One nation indivisible under God.”
Congress accepted the Library of Congress’ recommendation of variation #1. The Library gave the following reason for its recommendation: “Since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for the comma after nation.”
Probably most people recite the Pledge as if it has a comma after “One Nation,” as shown in the #2 variation considered in 1954. The National Education Association apparently advises teachers to use the “correct” #1 variation and to oppose the use of the #2 variation in the classroom. The absence or presence of this comma is noticeable when a class or other group attempts to recite the Pledge in unison. No organization apparently is interested in promoting the #3 variation of the Pledge.
Pledge of Allegiance - Still More Flag History That None of Us Ever Got an Inkling of in Public School! -
The Youth’s Companion magazine published the Pledge of Allegiance in its September 8th issue of 1892. In 1898, shortly after the United States Congress declared war on Spain, the New York state legislature passed the first state compulsory verbal flag salute. The law mandated daily flag salute in all public schools. The New York Department of Education gave the teacher five verbal flag salutes to chose from, one of which was the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge recitation statues passed the state legislature of Rhode Island in 1901, Arizona in 1903, Kansas in 1907, and Maryland in 1918.
After World War I, the newly formed American Legion, sometimes joined by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, began pressuring state legislatures to make the Pledge of Allegiance a compulsory ritual for public school students. The number of states requiring public schools to recite the Pledge has varied widely over the century.
Comment: I wonder whether the "American Legion" is an incorporated entity.
In 2006, 43 states require the public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. A prototypical statue goes as follows, “Every instructional day in the public schools of this state shall be commenced with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pupils who do not wish to participate in this patriotic exercise shall be excused from reciting the Pledge.” Oregon requires only one recitation a week. Wisconsin also requires private-school students to recite the Pledge. Wisconsin also gives the public schools the option of substituting the National Anthem for the Pledge.
Comment: "In 2006" would mean the "43 states" are all incorporated entities.
During the height of the Presidential Campaign of 1988, the Pledge of Allegiance was first recited on the floor of the House of Representatives on September 13, 1988. The House Speaker ruled that from that day forward, the Pledge would be recited at the start of each business day of the House. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina recited the Pledge for the first time on the Senate floor on June 24, 1999. The Senate unanimously adopted its resolution to recite the Pledge on the same day the House had voted to adopt an unsuccessful Amendment to the Constitution to ban flag desecration.
Two men of the Youth’s Companion magazine deserve much of the credit for creating today’s flag and Pledge of Allegiance patriotism in the USA—James Upham, manager of the magazine’s Premium Department, and Francis Bellamy, assistant to Daniel Ford, owner and editor of the magazine.
In the 1880’s, Upham, using his marketing skills, began his campaign to sell flags to the public schools—first for the flagpole out in front of the school and later for a flag in every classroom. Using promotions in the Youth’s Companion magazine and the incentives of flag premiums to interest the students and teachers in supporting his flag campaign, he urged school boards, educational leaders, and the heads of the Chicago’s World’s Fair to support his flag campaign which was tied in with his 1892 Public School Columbus Day Celebration.
Upham and Bellamy, at the Youth’s Companion, both urged teachers to organize their students for the Columbus Day Public School Celebration. Students were urged to mobilize their teachers. Upham secured the approval of the World’s Congress Auxiliary in the Columbian Exposition to permit the Youth’s Companion to lead the celebration.
Using his advertising and public relations skills and his extensive knowledge of American history and philosophical principles, Francis Bellamy wrote a verbal flag salute, the Pledge of Allegiance, which expressed two basic American principles; “liberty” and “justice for all”. As a good advertising man, he also avoided another basic but controversial principle—“equality for all.”
Comment: The separation of “justice for all” vs “equality for all” underscores that "equal justice" is an oxymoron.
Francis Bellamy wrote a Pledge based on his understanding of the principles on which the Constitution is made. Bellamy was very familiar with America’s tradition and history. For example, in 1906, he published his book, “President’s of the United States from Jefferson to Fillmore.”
Bellamy knew the history of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was very familiar with the ideas of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison. Bellamy personally believed in the basic principles of “equality, liberty, and justice for all” citizens. He knew that in 1892 white male Americans were upset with the controversial issue of equal rights for women, slaves, blacks, Indians, etc., who were not considered “citizens.” As an advertising man, who wished to please his customers, he left the word “equality,” out of his Pledge. As a Baptist minister, he also purposely left out the word, “God.” The Founding Fathers preferred the word, “providence.”
Bellamy’s original Pledge was, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The words, “my flag,” gave the Pledge an international overtone because the citizens of any republic could recite it. The American Legion, in 1923, led the effort to get rid of this international overtone by dropping the words, “my flag,” and replacing it with the words, “the flag of the United States of America.”
Bellamy wanted the concept of “equality” in his Pledge but, in 1892, the USA was a segregated and sexist country. Bellamy believed strongly in social, political, and economic equality. He believed that extreme individualism and unregulated liberty had harmed the disadvantaged in American society.
The Pledge is a normative statement, not a factual statement. Unfortunately, the Pledge is often accepted as a factual statement. In 1892, the USA did not have “liberty and justice for all”—justice for women took until the 1920’s and the 1960s for blacks. Americans usually assume that the “justice” is what they see on TV—jury trial type drama. This type of law is less than 5% of justice in the USA. Americans are poorly informed about the operations of various courts of law—district courts, circuit courts, state courts, and federal courts. Some may have experienced a traffic court or a drug-treatment court.
Most Americans Don’t Know What Laws Are Obeyed and What Are Not Obeyed. -
Most Americans don’t know what laws are obeyed and what are not obeyed. They are dimly aware of the standards, and rules of the federal, state, and local governments for particular types of situations, e.g., juvenile law, military law, and procedural law. They have not read their county and municipal ordinances and codes. Some may be unfamiliar with codes of law, e.g., codes of federal rules and regulations. Others may be familiar with tax codes, the Code of Military Justice, or the regulations of agencies.
A system of injustice and segregation was common in the South into the 1960’s. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “It was a great relief to be in a federal court. Here the atmosphere of justice prevailed. No one can understand the feeling that comes to a Southern Negro on entering a federal court unless he sees with his own eyes and feels with his own soul the sabotage of justice in the city and state courts of the South”.
Upham and Bellamy were in contact with the leading American intellectual of their day— William Torrey Harris. Harris (1833–1909) was the most widely known public school educator and philosopher in the USA in the late 19th Century. He served as US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906. In the 1880s, he was the Superintendent of Schools in Concord, Massachusetts, where he also assisted Bronson Alcott with his Concord School of Philosophy. Harris was the editor of the Hegelian magazine, Journal of Speculative Philosophy. While is St. Louis, he worked to extend public high school education, to expand the curricula, and to incorporate a kindergarten into the public school system. He led efforts to incorporate art, music, science, and manual arts into the public school system.
With the aid of William Torrey Harris, who was a leader of the National Education Association (NBA), Bellamy met with state Superintendents of Education at the 1892 NBA National Convention. Harris’ backing of Upham’s and Bellamy’s public school celebration assured the NEA’s unanimous endorsement. The Association lent its name as sponsor of the celebration, appointed the state Superintendents of Public Instruction as a General Committee to lead the movement in their states, and named an Executive Committee to be in charge of the Columbus Day Public School Celebration. This Committee picked Bellamy as its Chairman and as contact man with the Youth’s Companion Magazine. The magazine and Bellamy had the responsibility for overseeing and financing the campaign.
William Harris had contacts with the leading American intellectuals in the 1890’s. He was a mentor of John Dewey and published Dewey’s early philosophical articles in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. Harris was for decades in the vanguard of American development in philosophy. Harris wrote the definitive, “A. Bronson Alcott, His Life and Philosophy” in two volumes, published in 1893. Alcott was a neighbor and best friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson and also the father of the authoress, Louisa May Alcott.
Some of the leading American thinkers met each summer with Harris at the Glenmore School of Culture Sciences near Keene, New York, in the Adirondack Park. This Park is the largest state park in the USA. It is larger than Yellowstone Park. It is a unique combination of public wilderness land and trails intertwining with private lands.
The Glenmore School of Culture Sciences was a philosopher’s summer camp. The 1892 summer Prospectus lists the speakers. Harris spoke on “The Philosophy of A. Bronson Alcott, Ralph W. Emerson, and the New Transcendentalist.” John Dewey spoke on “Tendencies in English Thought During the 19th Century”. Ibn Ali Saleiman spoke on “The Quoran” and the “Development of Islam.” William James lectured on miscellaneous topics.
Some of the leading American thinkers met here each summer with Harris. In the 1890’s, William James was a frequent speaker at the camp. Harris and Dewey were probably the two most influential figures in applied education in the United States in the first half of the 20th Century.
The two patriotic organizations that deserve much of the credit for the central role of the Pledge of Allegiance in American patriotic culture are probably the American Legion and the Knights of Columbus. The Veterans of Foreign Wars deserve much of the credit for making the Star-Spangled Banner the National Anthem. Apparently, no organization or Congressman has proposed putting the third democratic principle in the Pledge—“equality for all.”
The American Legion, starting in the 1920s, initiated most of the legislation in the states to require the public school students to recite the Pledge. It also fought in the courts’ effort to excuse students from reciting the Pledge. Through the years, the Legion has also pressured many federal, state, and local legislative bodies into reciting the Pledge at the beginning of their business.
“Under God” was added to the Pledge in June, 1954. One reason for this addition was the Brown versus Board of Education decision by the US Supreme Court in May, 1954 ending segregation in the public schools. Many of those, who opposed integration, felt that the integration movement was inspired by atheistic Communists and their allies.
The man to first initiate the addition of “under God” to the Pledge was Louis A. Bowman (1872–1959). He spent his adult life first in Chicago and then in its suburb, Oak Park. His occupation was as a trust officer and lawyer for the largest Chicago Banks, including the LaSalle Bank. During World War I, he was active in the American Protective League, a volunteer organization under the aegis of the United States Justice Department and the War Department that rooted out United States residents and immigrants in the Chicago area suspected of espionage, sabotage, or disloyalty to the United States. He was very active in the Presbyterian Church and the Young Man’s Christian Association.
He served 11 years as Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948, Lincoln’s Birthday, he led the Society in reciting the Pledge with two words added, “under God.” He stated that the words came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (not as originally written but added during Lincoln’s recitation). He avoided the major point that Lincoln was making in his Address that the United States was “a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Bowman believed in segregated school systems. In 1954, he made the following statement about the Brown versus Board of Education decision of the US Supreme Court:
“The United States Supreme Court has rendered an opinion creating chaos throughout the nation...the anti-segregationist opinion of 1954 cannot stand permanently... A non-segregation opinion cannot be enforced on a national level.
“A word of caution to all citizens...Paul’s great statement ‘God hath made of one blood all nations of the earth’ as authority for favoring no segregation. That is erroneous, for the last half of that same verse says ‘and hath determined the boundaries of their abodes.’ It was never God’s design to have them mingle on an equally social basis other than in their common blood creation. Many Negroes prefer segregation. Do not deny them this right. Give them every proper courtesy, full justice, and all reasonable opportunities for education and employment at adequate compensation but in harmony with God’s clear intention. Keep them separate.”
The political leaders of the South also felt the same way about the 1954 US Supreme Court Decision about Brown versus the Board of Education. They believed that the integration movement was led by Communist sympathizers.
In the 1950s, the National Security Council and the United States Department of Defense, in cooperation with some religious groups, strove to incorporate a belief in God and a religious faith into the official tenants of American patriotism.’ The USA was in a “Cold War” with the “atheistic Communism” of the Soviet Union and Communist China.
The Defense Department wished to motivate its military personnel to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. The Department also wished to motivate the general public to be willing to participate in a nuclear war, if necessary, for their country. The Department of Defense believed that if the military and the general public had a strong religious faith and were loyal to God and Country, the citizens would be willing to risk their lives in nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Over the decades, the US Department of Defense has promoted many patriotic programs for the general public, such as the recent “Support Our Troops” campaign.
President Eisenhower, working closely with Reverend Billy Graham and other Protestant religious leaders, supported the Defense Department in these patriotic campaigns. One of the most popular public measures during his administration was the two-word addition to the Pledge of “under God” that symbolically institutionalized an American civil-military–religion as part of the nation’s domestic and international policies. He said, “In this way, we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way, we shall constantly strengthened those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace or in war.” Eisenhower said, “Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism. Without God, there could be no American form of government nor an American Way of Life.”
President Eisenhower had not been a church member until after he was elected President. Eisenhower was not interested in fighting segregation. He had supported a segregated Army during World War II and opposed President Truman’s integration of the armed forces in 1948.
In the 1950s, the National Security Council began its rise to power as a major foreign policy decisionmaking organization. A top secret document, NSC–68, spelled out the plans for fighting and winning the Cold War. Part of this plan was for a civil–military–religious indoctrination campaign that could help build public morale, patriotism, and religious faith, which would enable the public and armed forces to fight and survive a nuclear war. This plan, in the 1950s, was NSC–68, a secret document that argued that the federal government should create an American will through spiritual mobilization of the American people by emphasizing its “Christian democratic heritage.” In the armed forces, the Chaplain Corps helped with its Character Guidance Program.
The spiritual regeneration of the American people by the armed forces began with a campaign to organize a professional military chaplaincy. The US Chapel Corps became an integral component of the Cold War defense establishment. This paved the way for the infusion of evangelical Christianity into military character education and to improve the national character by a strong religious component. National security required a determined, courageous, and religious American people willing to engage in nuclear warfare with the atheistic Communist governments of the Soviet Union and China.
One private group, working closely with the Defense Department on this spiritual and religious revival campaign, was the Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge, founded by several advertising men. This foundation educated the public about the dangers of Communism and called on the nation to go back to its “Christian heritage.” The American Heritage Foundation, Reverend Billy Graham, and other groups soon joined in this effort.
The Fourth Degree, the highest order of the Knights of Columbus, was the nation’s leader of the campaign to add “under God” to the Pledge in 1954. John Swift, the Supreme Knight, vigorously promoted an anti-secularist and anti-Communist program. His movement for the addition of “under God” to the Pledge originated in April, 1951 when the Supreme Board of Directors of the Fourth Degree adopted a resolution that “under God” be recited at the Fourth Degree Assemblies. The Supreme Council of 1952 passed a resolution urging Congress to amend the Pledge.
John E. Swift, Supreme Knight between 1945 and 1953, and Luke Hart, Supreme Leader between 1953 and 1964, were diligent workers and loyal sons of the Roman Catholic Church. Swift, for example, was an Officer of the Pontifical Court of Pope Pius XII in Vatican City and also Secret Chamberlain of Cape and Sword to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII.
The Knights have the commendation of the entire Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy and have received special commendations from the Popes. The Knights are organized with Four Degrees and four objectives. The First Degree objective is Charity; the Second Degree is Unity: the Third Degree is Fraternity; and the Fourth Degree is the fostering of Patriotism—a religious patriotism.
Pope Pius XII was strongly anti-Communist. Pius XII, Christ’s Vicar for the Roman Catholic Church from 1938 to 1957, strongly supported church efforts in America and Europe to make the public more aware of the threat of atheistic Communism and the dangers of secularism and Socialism.
He had been criticized for not condemning the atrocities of Hitler and Mussolini and their anti-Semitism before and during World War II. He had strongly opposed Communism. To fight Communism was to be on the side of Christ. In a crusade against the Communist Eastern block, he strove to warn the world against the dangers of Communism. He believed he had the historic mission of leader against atheistic Communism. In Italy, he unsuccessfully tried to get the Italian government to outlaw the Communist Party.
On the religious front, he made the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption (1950) and made use of his infallibility powers to proclaim the Marian Year of 1954. In 1954, he told his close associates that Christ had appeared at dawn at his bedside. Saint Mary, the Mother of God, is the patron saint of the United States. Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC, is the papal university in the USA, where the papal flag flies along side the American flag.
The Congressman, who successfully lead the campaign in the US Congress to add “under God” to the Pledge in 1954, was Congressman Louis Rabaut of the Detroit area. He was a member of the Knights of Columbus and was a deeply religious Roman Catholic. His belief in God permeated his whole life and found expression in his family—three daughters became nuns and a son became a priest.
April 20, 2019 - Directly From John Baer -
"The Pledge was written by Rev. Francis Bellamy, an employee of the Youth's Companion magazine (weekly circulation 500,000). He officially wrote it for the NEA superintendents of education, which worked closely with the YC. The goal was to make a loyalty Oath for immigrant children and a probably a loyalty oath for southern rebels.
He was a Christian socialist who believed Jesus was a socialist. He got most of his socialists ideas from his cousin, Edward Bellamy His father's church is in NYC across from Cargnie Hall. His most famous ancestor is Samuel Bellamy, the famous pirate.
Occasionally his Pledge was used by international peace groups, In 1923... the DAR and American Legion added 'the USA' to the Pledge. In 1954 the Knights of Columbus added 'under God,.' The addition was highly praised by the Pope. Rev Bellamy purposely kept 'God' out of his Pledge perhaps because he was a baptist who in 1892 often believed strongly in separation of church and state. Francis became a very successful advertising and marketing man in NYC.
Yours John Baer, ... Annapolis MD..."
This blog author imagines that he could possibly do further research on the above. Some such searches could focus on the "Youth's Companion magazine", "the NEA", "the DAR", and "Christian socialist." Also the idea of "a loyalty oath for southern rebels" seems strangely peculiar.
A second request was made to author John for a reference regarding Webster's words on an "indivisible nation."
March 9, 2018 - Link to the Organic Laws in United States Code:
September 18, 2018 - Reverified:
March 10th, 2018 -
Continuing on the above theme regarding "vaccinations" even though I have sent off my letter to the UC Regents as I now have some additional "leads" regarding deep issues with the law.
In the process I discovered the following book: "Restore The Republic". Serendipitously the forward by Ron Paul speaks to a "redefinition" that is expressed in a Congressional Research Service report that I took note of regarding the Commerce Clause and that I do not agree with.
“… the commerce clause originally was intended as a limited grant of federal power to allow the federal government to ensure free-trade between the states. ‘Progressive’ lawyers, judges, politicians, and academics attacked this accepted understanding, however, and redefined the commerce clause as a general grant of power to regulate all areas of our economic and personal lives. …” Ron Paul in the Forward to Jonathan Emord’s book “Restore the Republic” (2012).
Jonathan begins his Introduction (after a quote from Madison) with: “The United States has lost its constitutional identity.”
I don’t think there is more precise wording that can be assembled to express the mammoth truth of this statement. The more I contemplate it the more profound it becomes in my awareness! To know the depth and breadth of the truth in this statement (IMO) requires a graduate level understanding of the four Organic Laws of The United States of America. That is because the three preceding Organic Laws are required as a collective context for a true understanding of the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787. This last Organic law didn't suddenly appear out of no where! In fact it is a direct extension of the second Organic Law: The "Articles of Confederation", a Law that is still recognized in the set of four by the United States Government Printing Office in the publication of "United States Code" where on the title page of Volume One it reads: "Organic Laws" followed by "Title 1".
Understanding the four Organic Laws will give you a true historical perspective of the "United States" whereby you will see that that the "United States" is distinctly preceded by "The United States of America" in both the first and second Organic Laws; that the "United States" pertains to property owned by "The United States of America" as set forth in the Northwest Territory as represented in the third Organic Law: "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government". A "myopic" focus just on the "Constitution" does not necessarily include the greater and very essential context of the complete foundation for "the last Organic Law: the Constitution of September 17, 1787".
(Note - April 24, 2018 - For another important reference to the Articles of Confederation see the entry below at: "December 21, 2017".)
Also - More on "Unalienable":
“…1778, John Jay … in an essay entitled. ‘A Freeholder, A Hint to the Legislature of the State of New York’ …The undoubted right and unalienable privilege of a freeman …”:
April 1, 2019 - More Regrading "Lawyers, Judges, Politicians," etc. -
"Especially For Lawyers --- Public Notice" By: Anna Von Reitz -
This goes out to every American and to every United States Citizen and to every lawyer in America----let's all get this straight once and for all:
No incorporated entity can be a sovereign entity. By definition.
All incorporated entities are created by a charter or other written covenant granted by a sovereign entity or some higher level parent corporation which is in turn granted a charter or covenant by a sovereign entity.
There may be layers upon layers of different trusts and foundations and C-Corps and S-Corps and LLCs and only God knows what else, but at the end of the day, all the corporations in the world owe their existence to a sovereign and not a single corporate entity is sovereign. Not one.
Therefore, when you have an incorporated entity pretending to be a sovereign government and claiming such things as sovereign immunity, you've got an obvious fraud going on.
When you have an incorporated entity pretending to be an agent of a sovereign government and exercising authority "as if" it were a sovereign entity, yet it has no valid authorization ---- again, you've got a fraud going on.
None of these Federal Corporations and none of their States of State organizations are sovereign entities.
They have no sovereign immunity.
They have no authorization to act "as" sovereign entities on our shores; any such presumption is a violation of the Constitutions owed to our States of the Union.
These entities are renegade foreign commercial corporations traded on the Stock Exchanges, acting as Taxpayers with EINs and TINs and CAGE numbers and Dunn and Bradstreet and Standard and Poor's ratings:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INC.
STATE OF NEW YORK, INC.
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
State of Colorado, Inc.
These are all foreign incorporated Governmental Service Contractors that are supposed to be providing the services stipulated under their respective Constitutions.
The only thing confusing about this is that there are two groups of them operating at the same time ---- Territorial corporations that use the Upper and Lower Case naming conventions, like the State of Wisconsin, and Municipal corporations that use the Roman all capitals letters style: STATE OF WISCONSIN.
One set of these corporations is run by the British Territorial United States Government. The other set is run by the Municipal United States Congress.
And none of them are sovereign entities with respect to us and neither one suddenly morphed into anything that can claim to be our government just because they are under contract to provide governmental services to our States of the Union.
Please take Notice of these facts and conduct yourselves accordingly, or risk being accomplices to fraud and other crimes.
March 11th, 2018 -
From Black's Law Dictionary -
"Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred."
"Not subject to alienation ..."
Although both of these legal terms share the core term of "lien these are actually two different terms with separate and distinct meanings. The difference is between "incapable" and "not subject to".
March 12th, 2018 - Alfred Adask explains the difference:
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. It is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.
But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.
I highly encourage your clear understanding of the above distinction. Let there be no doubt in your thoughts or in your heart about all your Rights both your natural unalienable Rights as well as your inalienable rights.
Alfred Adask continues to articulate the difference:
If we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:
“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. ...”
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, ... The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. That which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. As you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or right would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.
Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).
I would encourage you to underscore: "You can see the power potential in 'unalienable'" in every way that you can. What is unalienable is absolutely beyond the jurisdiction of Congress! What is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress is not subject to governmental regulations. Let your unalienable Rights be your reality! Let all things to the country be the illusionary fiction that they truly are.
March 9, 2019 - Continuing With Alfred Adask -
It’s not an accident that I pronounce “unalienable” the way I do. I understand that most people pronounce it as you described and I understand that my “mis-pronouncing” the word will probably “jar” their “ear”. While most of the world seems to pronounce “unalienable” as “un-A-lee-un-a-ble,” I intentionally pronounce the word “un-a-LEEN-a-ble”.
Why? Because the meanings of the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:
“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.
Black‘s 8th does not even define “unalienable” and would thus have us believe that the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are synonymous.
But if we go back to Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined as:
“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”
Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:
“Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.
But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.
if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:
“INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.”
“UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While “inalienable” rights can’t be “lawfully” transferred “to another,” they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps “unlawfully” (privately??) “transferred” to someone else. However, those rights which are “unalienable” are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is “unalienable,” is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word “unalienable” describes things which are “not in commerce”. However, it appears that those things which are “inalienable” could be “in commerce”. as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government’s claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is “unalienable,” that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in “unalienable”.
Most importantly, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,” all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man’s meddling. Bouvier’s agrees by defining “unalienable” as including our “natural” rights (which flow from “nature’s God”).
Admittedly, both “inalienable” and “unalienable” are defined to include the concept of “liberty”. Thus, there is some confusion, some overlap, in the two definitions. Some things may be both “inalienable and also “unalienable”. Therefore, my argument about the distinctions between the two terms is not necessarily as pristine as I would like.
Nevertheless, the two terms are significantly different and virtually all of the real power will be found in the word “unalienable” rather than in the word “inalienable”. Those things which are “unalienable” are from God, outside of commerce, and impossible to “alienate” by external force or by personal consent. “Inalienable” offers no advantages that I’m able to see as compared to “unalienable”. “Inalienable” offers some possible disadvantages such as the possibility that you might be allowed to voluntarily waive whatever “inalienable” rights you possess.
I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, “unalienable” offers great and absolute power while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”.
So why take a chance? Why not make it your business to ensure that every time you have a chance to use one word or the other you always choose to use “unalienable”? Why not use the exact word (“unalienable”) that was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence?
While the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” have significantly different meanings, their “sounds” are almost identical and only a highly-tuned “ear” will note the distinction in sound and then meaning between them. I believe our modern gov-co fears and detests “unalienable” but doesn’t much mind that we use the word “inalienable”. The first term is lethal to gov-co powers; the second is not particularly threatening.
I visited the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC about five years ago. I was amazed to see that the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights”. But the text of the Declaration of Independence” expressly refers to our “unalienable Rights”. Thus, the “Declaration of Independence” is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone. I couldn’t be more surprised if the gov-co has misspelled Jefferson’s name.
I cannot believe that the designers and builders of the Jefferson Memorial misspelled “unalienable” or “accidentally” replaced “unalienable” with “inalienable”. This change was done intentionally and because the word “inalienable” is trivial while the word “unalienable” is powerful to a spiritual degree.
I am discouraged to realize that tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of Americans have visited the Jefferson Memorial without realizing that “inalienable” had been substituted for “unalienable”. I doubt that I’m the first to recognize that substitution, but I’ve never heard of anyone previously understanding and objecting to that substitution.
The difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” is similar to the difference between a bean blower and a 50 caliber rifle. They both fire projectiles, but where the flying beans are virtually harmless, the 50 caliber bullets are absolutely lethal.
Therefore, I intentionally “mispronunciate” (as our former President Bush might say) the word “unalienable” to “jar” each listener’s “ear” and make absolutely clear that they’ve just heard the explosive “BOOM!” of a 50 caliber rifle every time I “pull the trigger” and not a mere bean blower’s “phfffft”.
Thanks for the fantastically detailed reply. I, too, have noted the use and misuse of “unalienable” vs. “inalienable”. I’m going to read your text a few more time to “drink in” the full essence of what you’re saying. I should have known better, having listened to you for many tens of hours, that you not only say what you mean but say it AS you mean! Difference between a “bean blower and .50 caliber rifle”!! Amen! ...
I find it so very good to have "Al" restate the truly vital distinction once again between these terms: “inalienable” and “unalienable”! Both light and contrast are necessary to in order to see! To truly see/realize our Un-alienable Rights it apparently was necessary to allow the governmental misquoted version of the Declaration of Independence. I am so very grateful to see the light shining brightly through this witness and for his ability to articulate "the contrast"!
I posted the essential message of the above comment at Al's site and added a P.S. that I was inspired to research about the planning of the Jefferson Memorial as to how the Declaration of Independence would be quoted. Moments ago I submitted the following inquiry with the government publishing office:
Are there records regarding the designing process for the Jefferson Memorial that specify how the Declaration of Independence was to be quoted?
March 10, 2019 - Continuing - The above inquiry was acknowledged by "government publishing" and I am looking forward to having their answer this week! Also Al acknowledged my comment and announced that he'll be writing anther article on freedom and liberty. I responded to that and very much look forward to his article!
March 11, 2019 - "Gov Info" redirected me to a local government depository library and (to make a long story short) I just inquired with "Monticello.org" as follows:
Greetings dear friends of Jefferson!
I am doing research on how the Jefferson Memorial got the misquote from our first Organic Law pertaining to our "unalienable rights." What information do you have as to how the misquote occurred? .........
Comment: I think they should know. (I rarely use "should" however this time I think it's appropriate. ; ~ )
March 25, 2019 - Continuing -
Just finally got the reply from the inquiry referred to immediately above here and was redirected to the National Park Services which manages the Jefferson Memorial. Submitted my inquiry with this entity as follows:
The Jefferson Memorial has a misquote from our first Organic Law pertaining to our "unalienable rights." Instead of "unalienable" it has "inalienable". How did that misquote occur? ......... I will appreciate the information that you have as to how the misquote occurred.
May 21, 2019 - About 57 Days Later -
Hadn't received any reply from the so called National Park Service (apparently under the "U.S. Department of the Interior" - wonder if that is just a corporate fiction). Re-submitted the inquiry of March 25th (posted immediately above). If the info doesn't come then may have to do a freedom of information request.
August 13, 2017 -
The importance of human history lies in its meaning. Answering this question (one of eight) is a requirement that helps characterize one's world view: "What is the meaning of human history?"
Comment: Another question to consider is "What is the true purpose of the history writers? (2-15-19)
August 24th, 2017 -
Although we have a virtually undisputed history in the court room referred to below you won't find the inspiration for the making of the German dictator included in the United States history books.
In a suggested letter by Ed Rivera to presidential candidates Ed quotes from a DVD version of the Nuremberg Trial. I had to verify that quote before posting it here. I just found it at Amazon:
“Stahmer cued Goring to explain where the idea had come from to combine the ceremonial head of state and the head of government in one person, Adolf Hitler. That was simple, Goring explained. They had taken their example from the similar dual roles of the president of the United States.” -
Nuremberg : Infamy on Trial Reprint Edition
by Joseph E. Persico
I find this a rather electrifying verification. Now I'd like to see how close I can get to the court transcripts!
In the meanwhile here's another reference to the above:
“Goring even claimed that when Hitler subverted Germany’s republican constitution by amalgamating the offices of chancellor and president, he was merely emulating the powers of the office of President of the United States, which merged the roles of head of government and head of state.”
Author of the above quoted article provided me with two links. One to: "The International Military Tribunal for Germany - Contents of The Nuremberg Trials Collection" at the Lillian Goldman Law Library 127 Wall Street, New Haven, Conn.. I need to contact their librarian.
August 26th, 2017 -
There are two different offices of President referred to in the American Constitution of September 17, 1787.
Also found an impressive old newspaper with article on the combined offices that were given to Hitler.
“Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. … in private Hitler had expressed hope that ‘the old reactionary’ would die soon so that he could merge the two offices of president and Chancellor together. ...”
Plus: A “… course was adopted for curtailing the (separate) powers of the president. One prerogative after another was taken from Hindenburg, as in the second Reichstag Fire Decree the right to appoint national commissioners …, and in the Enabling Act the right to issue decree laws. As for the balance, Hindenburg’s death was awaited. When he did die in August 1934, Hitler could have had himself or some puppet elected president. But he preferred combining the two offices of president and chancellor by decree, subsequently sanctioned by plebiscite.”
Jul 30, 2019 - Continuing With The Dynamic Duo of Offices: Head of State + Head of Government -
(Are Two Heads Better Than One or Does This Make A Monster?) -
"How did Donald John Trump become President of the United States? He became President of the United States just as former Presidents of the United States, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln achieved that office--by first being elected President of the United States of America by presidential Electors, now called the Electoral College and then by taking the oral oath to the Office of President of the United States. The 'States' in the Office of President of the United States are the federal States waiting to join the States of and be admitted into the Confederation: The United States of America. By combining the two offices in one man, it was possible to extend federal legislative jurisdiction over non-federal private property by attributing Bill signing authority to the President of the United States of America."
Only by understanding that these "federal States ..." are under the proprietary jurisdiction of "the United States" and that all "jurisdiction of the United States" is proprietary-based can anyone begin realizing the actual Lawful limits of "all jurisdiction of the United States." From this realization comes further realization that one has the freedom to choose not to volunteer themselves under the "jurisdiction of the United States" if one is not on or doing business with or within "the proprietary jurisdiction of the United States."
August 28th, 2017 -
Cont. research Re: the Nuremberg Trials:
"... Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Allied Control Council (ACC) Law No. 10, October 1946-April 1949.
Originally, a second international trial at Nuremberg was to have focused primarily on the activities of German finance and industry during the Third Reich. The so-called 'industrialists trial,' was widely regard(ed) as of equal importance to the prosecution of the Nazi and SS high command. The United States vetoed this plan, declaring in the autumn of 1945 that it would refuse to participate in any further international trials and would hold separate prosecutions on its own."
August 29th, 2017 -
Sent email message to author Joseph Persico asking for his assistance in accessing an online source of the Nuremberg trial transcripts.
September 12, 2017 -
Got a reply from a family member of Joseph Persico informing me that he had crossed the threshold.
Further research regarding Hitler's rise to power gave me what I call the connecting surface dots except for the financing. Now I have both surface and backing in one article.
Sept. 18th, 2017 -
It appears that Hitler (with the essential help he needed from others) had accomplished in a relatively short period of just a few years what it took the government of the "United States" about 214 years to accomplish.
March 15, 2019 - Hitler vs the School of Wisdom -
"... (Hermann) Keyserling believed that the old policy of militarism was dead. Military states were wrong and so was War. Count Keyserling instead argued that the world’s only hope lay in the adoption of international basic rights and principles. In connection with his political writings, he promoted a type of aristocratic rule inspired by Plato’s Republic. Count Keysering was the first to coin the term Führerprinzip, for leadership principle. He thought that certain 'gifted individuals' were 'born to rule' on the basis of Social Darwinism. It was part of his attempt to embody the classic ideas of Plato’s republic. Under Hermann’s implementation the Gold Leaders were a new type of aristocrat drawn mainly from the successful business class. Political scientists would later classify him as another elitist, not appreciating the philosophic basis. His political writing were always a minor part of his writings, which were primarily devoted to spiritual topics.Then in the late 1920s the National Socialist party started to gain in popularity. The Nazis then stole and perverted Herman Keyserling’s idea of Fuhrer to mean an exalted dictator above the law. Keyserling reacted by speaking out even more vehemently in opposition to Hitler and the Nazis. Although conservative by nature he vehemently rejected all racism.
The Nazis responded with what Keyserling called a campaign of vilification against him and the School of Wisdom. The Count kept on writing and speaking out. When Hitler came to power the Nazi government revoked Herman’s citizenship because he was an immigrant from Estonia. The Nazis also revoked the citizenship of his two sons, even though they were born in Darmstadt and even though they were the great grandsons of Bismarck. The Count kept writing and speaking out. Hitler then closed the School entirely and exiled the Keyerlings to virtual house arrest in northern Germany. The two Keyserling sons were drafted into the Army. Herman and Maria were isolated and impoverished. Herman’s health deteriorated in the poor conditions. The School of Wisdom was over. It’s symbol, the open angle standing for inclusivity, was defeated by the Swastica."
Comment: The "revoked ... citizenship of his two sons" only underscores Hitler's disregard of the good that was accomplished by Bismarck before Hitler was finally able to seize the office of chancellor and make himself the dictator-Fuhrer.
Found the School of Wisdom site in a search inspired by Jung's attendance there and part of my research to see how Hermann Keyserling was related to Carl von Keyserlingk who hosted Rudolf Steiner's Agriculture lectures.
September 19th, 2017 -
"... unalienable rights are God’s laws and written laws must, as supported by the Declaration of Independence, apply only to a government whose purpose it is to secure those unalienable rights for the people. Complex and intricate bureaucratic government institutions are meant to ensnare those looking for the simple application of God’s unwritten law. Government laws must conform with God’s laws, so as with all written laws loopholes abound in government laws. ..."
May 17, 2017 - Your Unalienable Rights -
"Unalienable Rights are the inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the state, and which, being antecedent to and above the state, can never be taken away, diminished, altered or levied by the state, except by due process of Law, nor can any Unalienable Right be fundementally removed or waived by contract, whether by non disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.
The Original, Permanent, Unalienable Rights of Every Man or Woman Include:
The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and Persuit of Happiness.
The Right to Contract or not to Contract which is unlimited.
The Right to earn a living, Income by being compensated with wages or a salary in a fair exchange for ones work.
The Right to travel in the ordinary course of ones life and business.
The Right to privacy and confidentiality, free from unwarranted invasion.
The Right to own and hold property, Lawfully without trespass.
The Right to self defence when threatened with harm, loss or deceit.
The Right to Due Process of Law with notice and opportunity to defend.
The Right to be presumed innocent, suffering no detention or arrest, No search or seizure, without reasonable cause.
The Right to remain silent when accused to avoid self incrimination.
The Right to equality in the eyes of the law and to equal representation.
The Right to trial by jury, being an impartial panel of ones peers.
The Right to appeal in law against conviction or sentence, or both.
The Right to expose knowledge necessary to ones Rights and Freedoms.
The Right to peaceful association, Assembly, Expression and Protest.
The Right to practice a Religion and to have beliefs of ones choosing.
The Right to Love and Consensual Marriage with children, as a Family.
The Right to security from abuse, Persecution, Tyranny and War.
The Right to refuse to kill under command, by reason of Conscience.
The Right to live in peace and to be left alone when Law Abiding.
Surely the most critical failure of the people is their failure to ensure the teaching and common knowledge of their Unalienable Rights. If You do not know Your Rights You effectively have none. By the path of ignorance, weather by apathy or deception. The people arrive in a state of exploitation, oppression and tyranny.
Learn Your Rights, They are Your Rights, No body or State can take away or alter Your Unalienable Rights."
This blog-writer has posted on other blog pages the difference between Unalienable Rights and inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence declares "unalienable Rights" however "governmental" agencies speak of inalienable rights. Why is that? .........
May 26, 2017 -
"To understand the differences between unalienable and inalienable, we have to precede the Declaration of Independence, ..."
July 7, 2017 -
Commented at a Lyndon LaRouche YouTube video (with a link to this blog) stating that there is a difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable" - the later being the term that the narrator had uttered while apparently reading the Declaration of Independence printing of "unalienable".
"You can search for twenty years, as we have, and never find a Congressional declaration of war nor a peace treaty related to the so-called 'American Civil War'".
May 31, 2018 - BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY - A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW -
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 -
"ABANDONED AND CAPTURED PROPERTY ACT. -
The act of Congress of March 12, 1863, relating to certain property in the Confederate States. It expressly excludes from its operation property which had been used to carry on war against the United States. August 20, 1866, is, as to the operation of the act, the date of the end of the war."
July 10, 2017 -
Posted the following (at Paul Stramer's site) Re: "Dear George.... " by Anna Von Reitz:
Has the "Hereditary Head of State" been officially recognized by any countries outside of the united States of America? If so how was that recognition expressed?
September 3, 2017 - Need to know the Law in effect in 1776:
"Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word 'State' to signify a 'legal estate of possession.'"
Just emailed a Law library asking for the legal definition for "state" and/or "State" in effect in 1776. (I am so grateful for all the computer technology and especially the research assistance that I have access to now!)
September 16, 2017 -
Sent the following message to a friend who forwarded the "Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction" to our group:
"Although a part of elementary American Law yet what US public school student has ever seen this in any class on government?
Much appreciate the information (that I hope will become common knowledge for every American from at least age fourteen on up)."
November 19, 2017 -
The historical fact of the combination of two powerful offices at the "seat of government" (namely "President of the United States of America" plus "President of the United States") as presented above ("the 24th" - as in August 24, 2016) ) has now resurfaced in this current new moon cycle for further commentary. I just read a presentation on the “Difference between Head Of State and President” that inspired me to contact the author:
Who is the author of “Difference between Head Of State and President”?:
This just happens to be one of my very special research projects! ; ~ )
Would it be possible for me to have email contact or a way of correspondence?
December 21, 2017 - From Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera - Lead professor of the Organic Laws of the United States of America -
"... We know from our examination of the office of the President of the United States located in Article I of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, and the Article II office of President of the United States of America that combining the two offices by allowing the person elected President of the United States of America to take the oath of office of the President of the United States creates a military dictatorship. Testimony given in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials confirms that Hitler used the American Presidency as a model for his dictatorship.
The combination of the office of President of the United States of America and the office of President of the United States caused the American public to believe that the Bills signed by the same man who had been elected President of the United States of America by the Presidential Electors meant the Bills applied to the States of the Confederacy as well as the States of the Northwest Territory."
Be-lie-ve it or not the "American public" was hoodwinked by the so-called "Father of our country" himself.
Ed continues to say:
"With the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 rightfully restored to its correct place as the Constitution of the Confederacy, statute laws of the United States can be confined to the territory or other property owned by or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. The confinement of federal laws to federal territory has always been the problem with the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the United States. This problem has persisted because there is no broad public recognition that the President of the United States and the President of the United States of America are two different offices. The only way the federal government can operate at its present scale is to continue the deception begun by George Washington and the only way the American people can have freedom is to expose it."
YouTube video parts the curtain on just "How 'Story-Telling' of American History (effectively) "Re-Wrote" The Law!" with Ex CIA Officer Kevin Shipp on "Shadow Government And Deep State".
January 1, 2019 - Happy New Year CureZone readers! -
Another perspective on Hitler -
"Steiner said that an incarnation of the Beast will first arise in 1933, which is when Hitler came to power."
The first incarnation/rising was made possible in large part with the combined offices of head of state and head of government as indicated in the above posts along with certain financing of truly soul-less corporate entities. I suspect that the event of September 11, 2001 can be when a second rising occurred - the thought of which inspires me to check the Book of Revelation concerning "the beast".
February 10, 2018 - "A ‘distinctive edge’ in ‘becoming the head of the government'".
In his message to the Senate on July 10, 1832 President Andrew Jackson vetoed their bill to renew the charter for The Bank of the United States. Biographer Robert V. Rimini says it was "one of the strongest and most controversial presidential statements". Stephen W. Stathis writes:
“(Jackson’s) view meant that Congress ‘must now consider the President’s wishes on all bills before enacting them, or risk a veto.’ It established an important precedent that significantly strengthened the presidency, ‘essentially altered the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of the government,’ and gave the President a ‘distinctive edge’ in ‘becoming the head of the government, not simply an equal partner.’
The initial test of Jackson’s expanded influence over legislation occurred shortly after the veto, when Congress faced the decision of whether to accept the president’s position or reject it by overriding the veto. …
Despite the great oratorical skills of Webster and Clay, the Senate debate ended with the override attempt falling far short of the two-thirds majority needed.”
This "distinctive edge in becoming the head of the government" strikes my interest!
Also Andrew Jackson was a Mason - which makes me wonder what masonic mission/s Jackson might have been aligned with while acting as President.
January 7, 2018 - Why There Is No Justice In America -
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano recently wrote a book that rips the government up one side and down the other. In the book, Constitutional Chaos, he laments the fact that federal, state and local governments are not bound in absolute obedience to the law. His first sentence in his first book is: “It should be against the law to break the law.” What is his remedy for such lawless government? He concludes his book by saying: “Congress and the state legislatures should enact legislation simply requiring that the police and all law enforcement personnel, and everyone who works for or is an agent of the government, be governed by, subject to, and required to comply with all the laws.”
Now, why wasn’t that thought of before? If the people have to obey the laws, then why shouldn’t the government? If he succeeded at nothing else, Judge Napolitano has put the focus exactly where it should be. How has government been able to commit all the wrongs he so ably detailed in his book? Judge Napolitano acknowledges on page 18 that he has no answers, when he states on page 18 of his book: “It is anyone’s guess why employees of the federal government can lie to private citizens without penalty, but citizen can go to jail for lying to the federal government even when they are innocent.”
The answer will confound everyone. Congress has managed by legislative stealth to make the people of the states believe federal law applies to them. The Constitution and all laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for—government. The English common law is the law for the people in 49 of the 50 states. Judge Napolitano has not noticed that government over the course of more than 200 years has managed to get the people to believe that government law applies to them. If government fails to obey the Constitution, it is the people who must correct government. Judge Napolitano has accurately documented government on a lawless rampage, but he has failed entirely in understanding the basis of our government and the origin of our laws. He may have been a very fair and compassionate judge, but he certainly did not learn much employment law. Government employees like private employees are not responsible for what they do on the job the employer is. Which of the three branches is the employer?
November 1, 2017 - From Anna Von Reitz - Memo to General Kelly:
The reason for the so-called "Civil War" wasn't slavery and wasn't secession, nor was it -- as you recently suggested "a failure to compromise".
It happened because the British government abused it's delegated authority to set our foreign trade policies.
Britain protected its own markets and those of other European nations by levying very heavy tariffs on American goods and entering into trade agreements (purportedly in our behalf, of course) that were disastrous for the Northern manufacturing states. As a direct result, American goods-- even in America-- were 30% to 40% more expensive than European goods.
The Southern states naturally wanted to buy the (artificially) cheaper European goods instead of the more expensive products of the Northern states.
And the Northern states, in turn, were absolutely desperate to keep what domestic market they had, thanks to the abusive British trade policies being imposed on them.
The market the Southern states provided was absolutely necessary to the Northern states' survival and that is why they went to war.
All the rest was just top dressing and the Brits not wanting to take the blame they deserved to take for it.
We have it straight from the diaries of Salomon Rothschild--- British breach of trust, self-interest, and meddling caused the whole debacle, along with plenty of help from the Rothschilds, who played Piggy in the Middle. ...
Just as it has been said: "follow the money".
September 29, 2017 -
"When America was thought of in the 1850s, it was mainly Southerners who came to mind: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Marshall, Jackson, Davy Crockett, Clay, and Calhoun. After the Civil War, America would be identified with Northerners: Lincoln, Webster, Adams, Grant, and Roosevelt. In short, what is called the Civil War was not a conservative act to preserve the Union, it was a violent revolutionary transformation from a federative polity of sovereign States (a kind of Switzerland writ large) into a would-be unitary state. This brought about a shift of political power from the States to the central government and a transformation of American identity.
Consequently, we have inherited two incompatible visions of America: a founding Jeffersonian America based on State and local sovereignty and a Lincolnian America based on centralized bureaucratic national sovereignty. The latter currently dominates. But there are signs the regime has exhausted its moral and intellectual resources, and has become so large as to be dysfunctional. If so, we would do well to revisit that founding Jeffersonian America to see what salience it has for us today. We cannot do so, however, without passing through the Southern tradition which was, and still is, the most loyal to the Jeffersonian inheritance. To do that is to gain a deeper, more differentiated, and more humane understanding of America."
Corruption is an element that has often used by dominant capitalistic corporations to create a need (that did not exist before the corruption) so that the corporation can sell their "goods and services". The principal also includes centralized banking and centralized government. Although there has been much devastaion in agriculture, economies, law (or legal realm) and in government there still remains pre-corruption elements that are surviving for a possible post-apocalyptic "revival". I am encouraged by what is surviving of the Southern American culture.
November 2, 2018 - Search For "The American Republic" - In Response to: "$100 Reward --- Find the Missing 'Republic'". -
"The American Republic is created in the image of the Roman Republic, when New Hampshire becomes the ninth State to ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787 to make it the Constitution of the United States, thus permitting George Washington to join the executive power with the legislative power, when he takes the oral oath of Office of President of the United States on April 30, 1789. On May Day 1789 the New World Order began and the world would never be the same again."
April 15, 2019 - More on "The Republic" From Dr. Ed Rivera -
"... Article I of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States, establishes an administrative territorial government that mimics a representative republic complete with a President, a Chief Justice and a two-year Congress. Article II of that Constitution is, actually, an amendment of the Articles of Confederation of November 15,1777 by which the office of President of the United States of America was added to the Confederation government."
Anna had reported that her offer of "$100 Reward --- Find the Missing 'Republic'" was successfully won by a friend of hers however (as far as I know) the content of her friend's response was never made public. This knowledge deserves to be made public. The quote of Ed Rivera immediately above here is the second presentation that now fully answers the challenge. If one can think logically in the light of the Organic Laws then what Ed presents is what can only make sense. This form of government "that mimics a representative republic" can only possibly be applied in one of two jurisdictions - either the "territorial government" or the municipal government however "a representative republic" is most doubtful for the later since Washington DC doesn't have representatives. That leaves the "territorial government" as the only logical "location" as to where "the Missing 'Republic'" can be found.
March 13, 2019 - How Story-Telling of Medical History "Rewrote" Those Related Laws.
Jon Rapport (Q) interviews a retired vaccine researcher: (A).
... Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective. ...
June 19, 2019 - "The Long and Short of It: the RFK Assassination Truth Reduced to Two Paragraphs" By Anna von Reitz -
She quotes flagpole.com/news/ (link follows):
Unlike his assassinated brother, RFK received a first-class autopsy whose results are trustworthy. Renowned medical examiner Thomas Noguchi performed the autopsy. The autopsy report and Noguchi’s trial testimony reveal that all three bullets striking RFK were fired from behind him, and the three bullets had been fired at point-blank range—“[the] muzzle distance… was very, very close.” The fatal bullet was fired from a firearm “one inch from the edge of [RFK’s] right ear and three inches behind the head.”
Sirhan could not possibly have fired these three shots. He was in front of RFK and never came within 4 or 5 feet of him.
Is that clear enough for everyone?
The DOJ was complicit. The FBI was complicit. The CIA was complicit. The LAPD was complicit. They all lied their rumps off.
I knew that on my 12th birthday, June 6, 1968. The first thing I heard that morning was the assassination of RFK, the last US Attorney General who actually tried to defend the American States and People.
Want to know the EXACT details? Read Lisa Pease's new book, "A Lie Too Big to Fail".
Want the abstract I quoted above? Go here:
 "Nineteen Eighty-four (published in 1949), a novel (George Orwell) wrote as a warning after years of brooding on the twin menaces of Nazism and Stalinism. The novel is set in an imaginary future in which the world is dominated by three perpetually warring totalitarian police states. The book’s hero, the Englishman Winston Smith, is a minor party functionary in one of those states. His longing for truth and decency leads him to secretly rebel against the government, which perpetuates its rule by systematically distorting the truth and continuously rewriting history to suit its own purposes.":
 Lien -
"A qualified right of property which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or charge or for performance of some act. ...":
 The Universe Next Door A BASIC WORLDVIEW CATALOGUE; September 2010 - Introduction:
 TAUNTON DAILY GAZETTE, Massachusetts, August 2, 1934 -
* Germany President Paul Von Hindenburg death
* Adolph Hitler becomes president
* Nazis begin climb to full power of Germany:
 “Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic By Donald G. Left:
 “Political Education of Arnold Brecht: An Autobiography, 1884-1970” by Arnold Brecht:
"Arnold Brecht witnessed and participated in the course of German history from the late 19th century to the present. Serving under seven Reich chancellors, he became acting Secretary of State, and was finally removed from office by Hitler in 1933.":
 The "Right to Due Process ..." is one of at least "Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction" -
"1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of 'wrong party' defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself (4th Amendment); see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
'The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend.' Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.
'one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal.' Hoffman v US, 341 U.S. 486.
￼￼￼￼The Frog Farm FAQ, version 1.7 37 / 60
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.
Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by 'accepted practice' rather than due process of law.
See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.":
 At lease one additional element "... Of Jurisdiction" regards the proprietary nature of jurisdiction. The lawful jurisdiction of Government is entirely proprietary based. In other words government has jurisdiction only over what it owns. I.e. Federal jurisdiction is limited to the ten square miles of Washington, DC, the Federal territories and Federal lands that have been sold to the the "United States" allowing for exclusive legislative jurisdiction over those lands. Incorporated States with State Constitutions that include "the Constitution of the United States" as the supreme law of the land thereby have the same limitations to proprietary-based jurisdiction whether it is exclusively State owned property or joint jurisdiction between State and Federal Government. (I intend to return to this Footnote to include references.)
 "United States of America and United States - Are They The Same?" - By Eduardo M. Rivera:
 WHY THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN AMERICA
The Congressional Judicial Hoax
A California Case Study © 2005 by
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera Introduction:
 I estimate 32% based on a three-fold view on Government consisting of a "Rights Sphere", an "Economic Sphere", and a "Social Sphere" and assigning all three as equal in their "weight" and claiming that the full-disclosure on the "economic sphere" is so severely wanting that it does not represent reality and therefore, ironically, it is worthless!
 "Resolved, That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words 'United Colonies' have been used, the stile be altered, for the future, to the 'United States'.":
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 -
Monday, September 9, 1776:
and an image:
The Library of Congress
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Journals of the Continental Congress, Volume 5
Page 747 of 856:
 The “Veto of the Second Bank of the United States - July 1832” in:
"Landmark Debates in Congress: From the Declaration of Independence to the War in Iraq",
By Stephen W. Stathis. (2009)
 Regarding chartered banks the State is a “Silent” Partner -
"A bank, incorporated or chartered by the State Government, an Incorporated/Chartered Bank, is in reality an alter ego or second self of the State Government.
This situation makes the State a silent partner to the Incorporated Bank.":
 Two Confederations of the Original National States of States:
 "What if television news disappeared and we invented ourselves?",
by Jon Rappoport:
 "The Creation Of The American Republic By Nine Of The Thirteen Original States Of The United States Of America", by: Ed Rivera, March 31, 2011 at: http://www.edrivera.com/?m=201103
and subsequently published at Organic Laws Institute: https://organiclaws.org/
 Cheeta: https://www.curezone.org/blogs/c/s.asp?f=3569&ob=d&c=1
 Chapter 3, Part 3, A-1 of "Emergence from Illusion - A Memoir of Ricardo Johansson"
 See: "Introduction To Cheeta!": https://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2417869#i
"Making Contact with The Life of Nature": https://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2384923#i
and 55 additional Cheeta Blogs.
 ”A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived, The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes"
By: Adam Rutherford.
 "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Revised History and Analysis 1892–2007" By: Dr. John W. Baer:
 "Emergence from Illusion - A Memoir of Ricardo Johansson", Pg 66.
 I imagine that Anna may very well have a clear vision of the "vast national education effort" that she has mentioned although only with this four-worded phrase (just quoted here) - however this blog-writer is reasonably confident that the "effort" could only reach those adult Americans who can hear Anna's message and are attracted to what she presents as well as how she presents it. The thinking re: "national education" in the "comment" (that was initially posted immediately following her quoted "wish") at first had some form of public education in mind as the only known "national" means for education - however - now (May 1, 2019) this writer can imagine the possibility of other means. The point of mentioning "those adult Americans" is to add a most recent inspiration in the possibility of outreach to young people - especially in High School. This author wrote to two Waldorf high schools in the last six days with no replies (as of 1:30 PM Pacific). Adults could possibly require seven or more years to decondition from their life-long conditioning of what Anna has most clearly illustrated as their second-class status. Although high schoolers may have eight to ten years of conditioning by way of saying the pledge of allegiance to something that they have not been fully informed about their actual engagement in the legal realm of government is most probably very minimal and therefore the need for clarifying terms (possibly the first part of the very first step in the "reconditioning" process) could be naturally introduced as part of their school curriculum (and ideally as intergrated subject lessons).
 "Rube Goldberg machine"+"government"= "About 73,500 results"!
 "History And Knowing Who We Are":
 "Unalienable Rights", Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) http://sedm.org
27, December 2016.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
An interregnum ... is a period of discontinuity or "gap" in a government, organization, or social order. Archetypally, it was the period of time between the reign of one monarch and the next (coming from Latin inter-, "between" and rēgnum, "reign" [from rex, rēgis, "king"]), and the concepts of interregnum and regency therefore overlap. Historically, the longer and heavier interregna were typically accompanied by widespread unrest, civil and succession wars between warlords, and power vacuums filled by foreign invasions or the emergence of a new power. A failed state is usually in interregnum. ...
Applying this in light of "the Plutonic Interregnum" this blog-writer suddenly realizes this "246-year cycle of Pluto beginning in 1781" has escalating signs characteristic of the biblical warnings of the "end times." This is readily understandable given several keynotes of Pluto: "Secrecy, Power and powerlessness, Magic, Media, Propaganda." Much more could be said regarding "the Plutonic Interregnum" and American History!
 "The Second Class nature of Federal citizenship has been kept a secret from most Americans.:
 recondite . . . adjective . . . very difficult to understand and beyond the reach of ordinary comprehension and knowledge : deep . . . Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Incorporated Version 2.5 (Merriam-Webster, Inc.: Springfield, Mass., 2000), s.v. “Recondite.”
 John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn.: 1914), p. 2166.
 “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871 [Go to “Turn to image” 419]; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).
 These acronyms represent the matrix: "G-MEM - C-MEM" -
 Page 39 of "America: Some Assembly Required" By: Anna Maria Riezinger.
 "Monkey Business Christmas Special - Episode 17":
(As of about 41:30)
 Possibly from 1772:
 "The Clearest Historical Perspective That Proves Dr. Ed Rivera is Correct." -
By Daniel F - An article in an email of 9/22/2015 (sent by Ed Rivera to his subscription list) titled: "Simple Historical Proof".
See Daniel's reference to: "Journals of the Continental Congress" - Volume 24 (pp. 1-528) January 1, 1783 to August 29, 1783:
And especially to the Prefatory Note on Page vi: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=024/lljc024.db&recNum=5&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28jc0241%29%29%230240001&linkText=1
Links to here from:
"Protect Local Control of our Food" on September 4, 2018 at:
The Constitution, government, historical fact, Organic Laws, American History, California history, California constitution, university of california, tuition free, unalienable, God's law, written law, rights, banks, Confederation, liberty, freedom, American, flag, Pledge of Allegiance, loyalty Oath, Jefferson, Constitutional Convention delegates, republican form, legal fiction
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page