Republican National Party Is Member Of International Democrat Union (IDU)


In these modern, strong delusional times, it is often hard to see the forest through the trees and to distinguish the lies from reality. Even the principles of law conclude that a lie may be confirmed and ratified as a legal “truth,” that black may be declared as white, left right, and up down. In short, we live in a democracy.

Plato wrote in his 5 regimes that this state of democracy is only the lowest form of humanity before the final step of total tyranny, from which a reset happens as the pure aristocracy reestablishes itself as the cure for democracy and tyranny, the repeating cycle of all the ages. Like the phoenix rising from its own spent ashes, these planned revolutions apparently reestablish the old order as the new order, the bloodlines of the ages appearing in new form and title. Same as the old boss…

But there is something new on the horizon. For we are witnessing global government for the first time in history. It’s not so much that this notion of globalist rule wasn’t already established long ago with such beauties as Unum Sanctum and other bull-shit from the powers of combined church and state that be, it’s that for the first time in history technology has caught up with greed and desire. The combined legacies of so many “leaders” have added up to one big modern orgy of infrastructure and control.

Democracy is politically spouted from all the virtual rooftops of the mass media, that exceedingly transparent controlled opposition of the old and new boss, as the CIA’s large-breasted bluebirds report and sing homage and fealty to that great system of political corruption. It is touted from the halls of legislature and parroted by the multitude of the unaware. And as it turns out, both main political parties are on board the same purposefully sinking ship, desperately and meticulously building a new Atlantis around their own dying model.

But do not be fooled, for this word Atlantis merely means fantasy, its synonyms being delusion, illusion, nightmare, apparition, chimera, mirage, a fool’s paradise, hallucination, fabrication, and of course the impossibility of a man-made utopia.

That only leaves a few things in opposition to such a false creation, and the antonyms to this word Atlantis are indeed simply truth, reality, certainty, actuality, and fact.

Now, the author realizes that the masses of goyim out there as the citizenships of the nations united in such an invention would rather support and live falsely in such a lie as this, a virtual matrix of pure delusion. I have no doubt that this will be the future of the majority. And so I am not here to try and prevent its dissemination as much as I am to document the tools of its creation. For we who will not take the marks and use the biometric identification and suffer the inoculations designed to rid us of our spirituality must be ever vigilant of such evils, such darkness posing as the light.

And so today we shall focus on what this author considers to be one of the most ridiculous customs and rituals that the common people participate in without having the slightest clue as to the origins and intent thereof. That is, of course, the private associations called as the political party system and its control over the electoral process.

But before we expose the communitarian, socialist agendas of both parties as that celebrated “democracy” in action, perhaps we should get a better grasp on the historical point of view of this word. So who likes and who opposes democracy?

–=–

DEMOCRATIC:

“Of or pertaining to democracy, or to a political party called “democratic,” particularly, in the United States, the Democratic party, which succeeded the Anti-federalist, or Republican, party.”

—Black’s Law 4th Edition

–=–

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”

—Plato

–=–

A pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”

Noah Webster

–=–

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

—John Adams

–=–

“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

—=—

“Democracy is the road to socialism.”

Karl Marx

–=–

“To my mind, there is a solution which has to do with democracy, because democratic governments are subject to the will of the people. So, if the people will it, you can actually create international institutions through the democratic states.”

George Soros

–=–

“Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.”

–H. L. Mencken

–=–

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”

—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

—=—

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill

–=–

Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and value with all nations.”

—Chuck Hagel, 24th United States Secretary of Defense under Obama, Chairperson of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board

–=–

“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.”

—Ron Paul

–=–

“I’ve always had a Marxist understanding of history: democracy is a result of a broad modernization process that happens in every country. Neocons think the use of political power can force the pace of change, but ultimately it depends on societies doing it themselves.”

—Francis Fukuyama

–=–

“Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.”

—Augusto Pinochet, president of Chile

–=–

“Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear.”

—Alan Coren

–=–

“Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.”

—Clement Attlee

–=–

“The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.”

—Theodore White

–=–

The President will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you… When evil men take office the whole gang will be in collusionThey will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. When Government removes your armaments, you will have no power, but government will have all power.” 

—Patrick Henry

–=–

“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”

—John F. Kennedy

–=–

“Democracy needs support, and the best support for democracy comes from other democracies.”

—Benazir Bhutto

–=–

Perhaps the greatest flaw in this concept of government in general, be it of kings or representatives, is the mistaken identity of its members. To assume the incorruptible nature of any man is the folly of all others. And in this lowest form of government called democracy, such an assumption would only lead to exactly what we see in government today. For behind the banner of democracy lies always the worst possible cheats, pirates, and thieves. And under that subjective banner lies only illiteracy and ignorance, the masses of they who actually vote for their tyrants while choosing to believe they are saviors.

To turn the entire world into individual democracies is the number one goal of the modern tyrant. For only in the ignorance of the masses may democracy may take hold, thrive, and destroy itself. From this subversion the tyrant thrives, the old system dies, and the new order begins. This rebirth process is well under way in most nations. And of course war will transpire in those whose people choose knowledge over the necessary ignorance of democratic public-mindedness, for war is merely the clearing of obstacles in a globally sanctioned international commerce of nations, utterly controlled by one united front ratified by those same tyrants promoting democracy now and central, globalist rule later.

–=–

“Democracy still has a real hope and chance in Iraq, and true freedom in this country would be the greatest testament to those who gave their lives for it.”

—Mary Landrieu

–=–

Nothing is more ridiculous than this political notion of killing millions and causing mass starvation, suffering, and destruction of infrastructure with only the somehow innocent and patriotically perceived design to spread freedom and democracy. This attitude that many millions or billions must die so that democracy can live is ludicrous at worse, paradoxical at best. But then, what else would one expect from these creators of a New Atlantis?

What really is this militarized, psychological warfare effort to spread democracy to the world? Why the need to cause democratic elections?

The answer is simple really… volunteerism, or at least the appearance of a voluntary society. You see, this term “volunteerism” goes by a different name in law, that being the doctrine of master and servant. When a commonality of people are all given “equality” to vote for their tyrants, the title of those tyrants is officially merely professed as legitimately elected “politicians.” Thus the voting process is the creator of mutualistic consent as mob rule. The minority assumes the majority will; the majority always being the most weak and susceptible to illusion and predictive programming. This is called as democracy, where a bunch of fools (a legal term meaning those not in right mind or in Latin non compos mentis) believe they each have a voice, when in reality their votes are counted as only one voice from one body. And those who choose not to decide between their tyrants in that democratic system of voting still have made a choice, that choice being assent to the majority will. It’s a no win situation, regardless of how we individually vote. For it is not the results of the vote that matter, only the volunteerism that causes legitimacy of the whole illusionary process. The act, not the result, is what makes tyrants become as legitimate in the minds of the masses.

Obviously both political parties and all third parties must include themselves in this democratic process. And so we can state with self-evident absoluteness that all parties must support democracy. The Lenin and Marx quotes above certainly help us to understand the origins and necessity of democracy as the gateway to all other systems, be they socialism, communism, or that great combination of all isms called and promoted as communitarianism. The reader would be shocked to learn that most “politicians” out there are grand supporters of this modern plan of communitarianism. And I invite the reader to research this on his or her own. A good source is here:

LINK–> http://web.archive.org/web/20080621055453/http://nord.twu.net/acl/evolution.html

Note: Please support Niki Raapana in her works. (http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com)

Now let us examine this collusion of the Republican National Party of the United States with the International Democrat Union (IDU), supporting so many other socialist and communitarian constructs around the world.

–=–

IDU Mission:

“Being committed to advancing the social and
political values on which democratic societies are founded,
including the basic personal freedoms and human rights,
as defined in the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights….”

–IDU founding Declaration of Principles, second Paragraph

–=–

Yep. You read the title of this blog-post correctly. As it turns out, the political party game is one giant United Nations, Agenda 21 fraud.

Yes, the Republican Party of the United States is actually a member of the International Democrat Union (IDU), which above all else promotes the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the supposed sovereignty of the United States constitution – and over that of any other member party’s (nation’s) constitutional charter as well! This is essential for global governance.

In an article written by Tom Deweese (American Policy Center) and posted on the Gunowners of America website, the IDU is succinctly unveiled:

“The root of the IDU’s political agenda is Fabian Socialism which wants to blur national borders and cultures, eliminate private property and individual liberty in favor of the common good. The Fabians consider themselves to be a ruling elite that knows better than individuals how to run our lives. Their way is: Heads, government wins. Tails, citizens lose. It is the worst form of tyranny. And this is the root of the IDU, and by association, apparently the Republican Party. That answers a lot of questions about recent Republican policy decisions…”

Link–> http://gunowners.org/op0542.htm

–=–

As it is so very easy to confuse the intentions of these international bodies with that of individual peoples of sovereign states, we must make this very important distinction between the United Nations and the individual but no longer seperate Nations that subscribe to it.

From the American Policy Institute in 2009, again by Mr. Tom Deweese, we read:

New GOP Chairman should remove Party from the International Democrat Union…

“As an example of how this second system works in practice, The Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.

While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.”

LINK–> http://americanpolicy.org/2009/01/08/new-gop-chairman-should-remove-party-from-the-international-democrat-union-3/

–=–

Of course those unalienable rights spoken of in the declaration of independence had nothing to do with public 14th amendment citizens of the United States, but only actually protected those private men who reserved all rights from the United States. The American Policy Institute will never tell the common citizenship this of course (or simply does not know). Often the parrots of policy know nothing of the words they speak, led by the beak to support and make falsely patriotic what should be abandoned and utterly destroyed, such as the existence and purpose of these controlling and corrupting political parties.

We must learn to recognize the difference between blood and fiction, between man untainted by political, public status and he who avoids such marks, names, and numbers in privacy. Citizenship is, of course, an alienation upon privacy. Thus the United Nations and its declarations only apply to the public citizenships of each nation, which are only the common, registered goyim (general people) and the commercial laws pertaining to us. The private men of each private (several) State will not be subject to such national rule, for they are the creators of nations. Gods. A “State” is nothing more than a Private bloodline of “People.” And it is these tyrants that create the democratic nations and the law of nations for their own protection against that mass of illiterates we call nationally as the public. In short, the United Nations is the uniting in commerce and law of all slave colonies called as nations. Colony means only farm or plantation. And global governance will only apply to those born in the nations; those birthed and certified in attainder or legal “corruption of blood” under a commercial, legal system of alienation.

It is certainly true that those who falsely believe they are free are the most hopelessly enslaved. And democracy is certainly the best tool for the propagation of such a false dialectic.

In the history section of the about tab from the IDU.org website we read:

“The International Democrat Union (IDU) is a working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right.

Formed in 1983, the IDU provides a forum in which Parties holding similar beliefs can come together and exchange views on matters of policy and organisational interest, so that they can learn from each other, act together, establish contacts and speak with one strong voice to promote democracy and centre-right policies around the globe. FOUNDER MEMBERS of the IDU included Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, then US Vice-President George Bush Sr, Paris Mayor and later President of France Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and many other Party Leaders.

Our Mission

I. The International Democrat Union (IDU) shall consist of Member Parties of the Asia Pacific Democrat Union (APDU); the Caribbean Democrat Union (CDU); the Democrat Union of Africa; the European Democrat Union (EDU); the European People’s Party (EPP); the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR); and the Union of Latin American Parties (UPLA), which have adhered to the IDU Declaration of Principles.

II. The IDU will foster the common philosophy of its Member Parties, establish permanent relations at a bilateral and multilateral level, encourage mutual support and to these ends will provide a forum for the exchange of views and information on matters of interest to all or a considerable number of its Member Parties.

Countries can only develop their full potential if they develop recognising the ideals of liberal democracy, freedom of the individual, and the need for economic growth to be based on individual initiative and free, competitive enterprise economies. The IDU has a clear role in a modern world, where today’s idea in one country is tomorrow’s policy in another.

Through the IDU, member Parties can exchange policy ideas, assist each other to win the political argument, and to win elections. There are regular meetings of both the full IDU and its Regional Unions and Organisations. The officers of the IDU are elected at Party Leaders’ Meetings which are held every three or four years.

At IDU Executive Meetings, briefings are given on local and topical issues, as well as consideration given to applicant parties. Apart from Executive Meetings and meetings of IDU’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the IDU holds events such as the Young Leaders Forum, plus undertakes fact-finding missions and election observation. A major event is also held every four years to coincide with the Republican Convention, the last one held in September 2012 in Tampa (Florida).

The IDU also organises campaigning seminars for politicians and party workers. These involve exchanges of information on campaign technology, fund-raising techniques, opinion polling, advertising and campaign organisation. The IDU plays an essential role in enabling like-minded, centre-right parties to share experiences in order to achieve electoral success.”

Under the history tab we read:

“19 dignitaries attended the meeting that established the IDU held at the Hotel Intercontinental n London on 24th June 1983: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Prime-Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU, Federal Republic of Germany); Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany); M Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Mr Andrew Peacock (Liberal Party, Australia); M Evangelos Averoff-Tossizza (Nea Demokratia, Greece); Sr Fraga Iribarne (Alianza Popular, Spain); Sr Oscar Alzaga, (Partido Democrata Popular, Spain); Mrs Susanne Wood, National Party, New Zealand); President Glafcos Clerides (Democratic Rally, Cyprus); Mr Ilkka Suominen (Kansallinen Kokoomus, Finland); Sr Lucas Pires (CDS, Portugal); Mr Tatsuo Tanaka (Liberal Democrat Party, Japan); Mr Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Mr Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada); Prime-Minister Poul Schluter (Det Konservative Folkeparti, Denmark); Mr Jo Benkow (Hoyre, Norway); and Mr Frank Fahrenkopf (Republican National Committee, USA).

In addition the US Vice-President George Bush and Norwegian Prime-Minister Kare Willoch (IDU’s second Chairman, from 1987 to 1989) were present and both spoke at the founding meetingClick here for the minutes of the founding meeting and Declaration of Principles in PDF format.

The IDU officers elected were: Chairman: Dr Alois Mock (Osterreichische Volkspartei, Austria); Vice-Chairmen: Ulf Adelsohn (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Sweden); Richard Allen (Republican National Committee, USA); Jacques Chirac (Rassemblement Pour la Republique, France); Cecil Parkinson (Conservative Party, Great Britain); Sir John Atwill (Liberal Party, Australia); and Prime-Minister Franz-Josef Strauss (CSU, Federal Republic of Germany), in addition to Treasurer: Allan Lawrence (Progressive Conservative Party, Canada) and Executive Secretary: Scott Hamilton (Conservative Party, Great Britain).

–=–

That’s right folks, the self-labeled “Conservative” Republican Party of the United States has partnered with such other national political parties as the Liberal Democrat Party of Japan, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Democratic Rally of Cyprus, and who could forget those supposed tyrannical redcoats of the Conservative Party of Great Britain?

THE CHAIRMAN:

Thank you very much Mr Vice-President, and I am particularly grateful to you coming to London and conferring additional reputation to our meeting by your presence. May I now ask Mr Fahrenkopf to take the floor.”

MR FRANK FAHRENKDPF:

“>Chairman, Republican National CommitteeU.S.A .]

“Mr Chairman, my colleagues, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I as Chairman of the Republican Party of the United States join Vice-President Bush in commemorating the historic creation of IDU here in London today.

A year and a half ago I attended an EDU meeting in Munichat which the seed of the Pacific Democrat Union and the International Democrat Union was sown. Last July, in Tokyo, the PDU was formed; and last week, in Honolulu, I had the great pleasure to host the PDU’s first annual council meeting. Today, we reap the remaining harvest of that Munich meeting with the birth of the IDUOn behalf of the Republican Partylet me assure my colleagues of our full cooperation and participation in the IDU – and in seeking our mutual goals of promoting democracy, freedom, self-determination and, most important, peace in the world.”

THE CHAIRMAN:

Thank you Mr Fahrenkopf.

May I now ask the Norwegian Prime-Minister to take the floor.”

—Minutes of the IDU founding meeting and Declaration of Principles

–=–

Even as the Pope calls for the same system of worldwide “peace and safety” through United Nations programs and one world religion, we are warned repeatedly that these artful terms are merely the lies of tyrants.

–=–

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape… 

1 Thessalonians 5:3 KJB

–=–

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”

—Daniel 8: 23-25, KJB

–=–

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

—Mathew 7: 15, KJB

—=—

“Now, it is true that the nature of society is to create, among its citizens, an illusion of safety; but it is also absolutely true that the safety is always necessarily an illusion. Artists are here to disturb the peace.”

—James Baldwin, ‘An interview with James Baldwin’ (1961)

—=—

“As distrust, in some sense, is the mother of safety, so security is the gate of danger. A man had need to fear this most of all, that he fears not at all.”

—Thomas Brooks, citation in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert’s, ‘Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers,’ p. 532 (1895).

—=—

20 bucks says the reader has no idea what the word “danger” means in its etymology.

–=–

DANGERnoun – mid-13c., “power of a lord or master, jurisdiction,” from Anglo-French daunger, Old French dangier “power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control” (12c., Modern French danger), alteration (due to assoc. with damnum) of dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominarium “power of a lord,” from Latin dominuslord, master” (see domain). Modern sense of “risk, peril” (from being in the control of someone or something else) evolved first in French and was in English late 14c. Replaced Old English pleoh; in early Middle English this sense is found in peril.

LINK–>http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=danger

–=–

The United States, the nation, is the creation of a danger, also called as a district. And citizen-ships are of course on a commercial voyage in peril, requiring licensure and insurance on their surname. This scratch of the surface will be expounded upon intricately in my upcoming book, a private work currently in editing and due out very soon, free to all who seek such forbidden knowledge.

It is strange that no one seems to question the fact that Abraham Lincoln, as he who caused what can only be compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia that killed so many millions, was the first Republican party president. And suddenly, a civil war? Suddenly, the first tyrannical executive order against brother and sister, mother and father. Suddenly, lawlessness according to the law of necessity in war. Suddenly, reconstruction of the constitution and government, including the 14th amendment that enslaved all commoners under a slave-state based on equality, but never equity?

No one seems to question that the later and 2nd president Roosevelt, whom days after his election caused congress to declare his and all future president’s virtual dictatorship through permanent national emergency status, was of this Democratic platform, though his previous presidential namesake was certainly of that “Grand Old Party.”  For those unfamiliar with these histories of the American presidency and the dictatorship spoken of, please see my articles entitled “Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution,” parts 1 & 2, or Volume II of my upcoming book series.

“Two distantly related branches of the family from Oyster Bay on Long Island and Hyde Park in Dutchess CountyUpstate New York achieved national political prominence with the elections of (republican) Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) and his fifth cousin (democratFranklin Delano Roosevelt (1933–1945), whose wife, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, was Theodore’s niece.”

–Wikipedia entry for Roosevelt family

–=–

But where exactly does this leave us as compared to the already so-named competition?What about the other United States “Democratic” Party?

–=–

“Note that the Political Party today known as the “Democratic Party” was
initially established as theRepublican Party.” The Jeffersonian party
members were labeled “Democratic” by opposition Federalists –
an attempt to stigmatize them as purveyors of democracy or mob rule.
By the Jacksonian era, the term “The Democracy” was in use by the party;
the name “Democratic Party” was eventually settled upon and
became the official name in 1844.”

–Thomas Jefferson, by Joyce Appleby, Encyclopedia Britannica

–=–

One would be hard-pressed to describe the National Democratic Party of America as anything but a promoter of it’s own brand of the similitude of neoliberal, communitarian socialism promoted by its mainstream counterpart. And certainly the antics of this current president need to be discussed as to their source.

For instance, the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America stated in true communitarian spirit the following in its report entitled “New Ground 45” in 1996:

March – April, 1996

A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity: Employment and Survival in Urban America

By Bob Roman

Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America,” the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats. The panelists were Toni Preckwinkle, Alderman of Chicago’s 4th Ward; Barack Obama, candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District; Professor William Julius Wilson, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago; Professor Michael Dawson, University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph Schwartz, Temple University and a member of DSA’s National Political Committee…

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign iswhat does it take to create productive communities,” not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first ishuman capital development.” By this he meant public education (think Common Core), welfare reform (Think Obama-Care), and a “workforce preparation strategy” (more Common Core). Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training (i.e. Common Core and Obama-care). While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy,” Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in (wealth) redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts

Link–> http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

–=–

Not only was Barack Obama an honored attendee and speaker for the socialist party of Chicago, in September 1995 he was a contracted publicist for the Marxist “New Party”.

“About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, CANDIDATES MUST SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE NP. The contract mandates that THEY MUST HAVE A VISIBLE AND ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama…”

Link–> http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.ht

–=–

Perhaps the most amazing cognitive disassociation and dissonance of the American people is the fact that “democracy” and the spread of it actually means that the people do not elect their own president/head of state.

The member nations/states of the International Democrat Union, including the United States, are almost exclusively nations/states where the president/head of state is elected through parliament or electoral college. In other words, in most of these “democratic” nations/states, the head of state is an INDIRECT ELECTION, NOT BY THE COMMON, VOTING PEOPLE.

For instance, the following nations have indirect elections for president, either as a monarchy, by election of legislature or by electoral college, orby some other committee or parliament, as opposed to that supposedly communist China, where the common people actually directly vote for their president:

Albania
Australia
Belgium –
Canada
Peoples Republic of China –
Denmark
Estonia
Ethiopia –
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong –
Hungary
India –
Iraq –
Israel –
Italy –
Jamaica –
Japan –
Kosovo –
Kuwait –
Lous –
Lebenon –
Libya –
Luxemburg –
Morocco –
Nepal –
Netherlands –
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan –
Saudi Arabia –
South Africa –
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland –
Syria –
Thailand –
United Arab Emirates –
United Kingdom
United States
Vatican City –

Complete list here –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country

–=–

In contrast, when we view the nations or states that do have direct elections, with few exceptions they are generally considered as “third world” counties. It is not that they are, just that the self-proclaimed first-worlders call them as such. Ireland and Iran for instance hold direct elections, two very isolationist countries that do not cooperate with the monarchical or electoral systems and wish to preserve their culture and religious heritage. The same cannot be said of America, a people that seem to have no idea that their vote is purely a political pole, a popularity contest, and not the actual vote for a president. We do not vote for the best man, only for the best fictional party member, 1984 style.

I have presented here many threads to follow for the reader. At the time of this posting the IDU.org website is conveniently and temporarily not in service. And so I hope this collection of information will be a foundation for your own future research and sharing with others so brainwashed by this illegitimate system.

Will it stop you from voting? Who cares? The result is always the same with or without your individual vote, and not enough common goyim will see this to matter. I speak now only to the remnant, to those desiring to be unenfranchised from their false, political freedom.

DOM – Used as a termination, denotes jurisdiction, or property and jurisdiction; primarily, doom, judgment; as in kingdom, earldom. Hence it is used to denote state, condition or quality, as in wisdom, freedom. (Webster’s 1828)

FREEnoun –  [Hebrew. See Frank.] 1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations. 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. 3. Instituted by a free people, or by consent or choice of those who are to be subjects, and securing private rights and privileges by fixed laws and principles; not arbitrary or despotic; as a free constitution or government. There can be no free government without a democratical branch in the constitution. 4. Not imprisoned, confined or under arrest; as, the prisoner is set free. 5. Unconstrained; unrestrained; not under compulsion or control. A man is free to pursue his own choice; he enjoys free will. 6. Permitted; allowed; open; not appropriated; as, places of honor and confidence are free to all; we seldom hear of a commerce perfectly free. (Webs1828)

FREEDOMnoun – 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. Freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. [See Liberty.] 2. Particular privileges; franchise; immunity; as the freedom of a city. 3. Power of enjoying franchises. 4. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 5. Any exemption from constraint or control. 6. Ease or facility of doing any thing. He speaks or acts with freedom. 7. Frankness; boldness. He addressed his audience with freedom. 8. License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of decorum; with a plural. Beware of what are called innocent freedoms. (Webster’s 1828)

FREEDOMLiberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. (Bouvier’s 1856)

ENFRANCHISETo make free; to incorporate a man in a society or body politic.(Black’s 4th)

ENFRANCHISEMENTThe act of making free; giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Admission to the freedom of a city; admission to political rights, and particularly the right of suffrage. Anciently, the acquisition of freedom by a villein from his lord. The word is now used principally either of the manumission of slaves, of giving to a borough or other constituency a right to return a member or members to parliament, or of the conversion of copyhold into freehold. (Black’s 4th)

ENFRANCHISEMENT nounRelease from slavery or custody. 1. The admission of persons to the freedom of a corporation or state; investiture with the privileges of free citizens; the incorporating of a person into any society or body politic. (Webs1828)

–=–

“In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage.”

–Black’s Law 2nd Edition, definition of franchise

–=–

This idea of liberty and freedom is taken so completely out of context to the average “citizenship” in public-mindedness that the notion that we live in a voluntary society where servants choose their masters as the doctrines of law is completely lost. We do not realize that it is our own unrestrained freedoms (liberties) as franchises of the state that actually cause us to be slaves to it. For a citizen-ship is like a rental care, a legal status that is bound to all legal laws of persons. And so the freedom (franchise) enjoyed, including the right to suffer from our own choices, also called suffrage or voting, is the very nature of the slavery system called politically (artificially) as liberty. Yet again, we are taking what is false, what is created only in the Atlantean jurisdiction, and pretending it to be a reality.

And so if one and only one thing is learned by the reader of this article it must be this: that the powers that be exist and subsist only because we suffer (vote) for them to do just that. In other words, we can only blame ourselves for voting for the better of two evils. No one is forcing our hand. No one is forcing our participation in the franchise of citizenship. We put ourselves into the path and ad-venture of the danger of another. We consent through our actions and inaction, and by doing so allow the worst of the worst element of the human equation to cheat, steal, and pirate everything we need even while it allows us the franchise to use what we want. After all, we voted for everything we complain about and deserve everything we are handed. Until we admit defeat, we cannot and will not find natural freedom, only the false appearance of nature as a political art from called franchise.

In the end, which is by the way right now, we need not fear the threat of globalism for it is already here. To fear deceit when it is already upon us is foolishness. Fear of it is truly irrelevant at this stage of a very ancient game of pledging. The only consideration we must individually make is wether to participate in it or not, whether to voluntarily carry its enfranchised mark, surname, and number or not, and ultimately whether we are willing to be persecuted, imprisoned, and killed for daring to have, and more importantly act upon, the Highest knowledge of self-evident Truth.

Remember, you are voting for a party, not a man. The party has no power without the person you vote (or don’t vote) for and thus give legitimacy to. Whether we give willingly our choice or refrain and offer no choice at all, either action is an expression of consent. Not tacit, expressive.

We must choose our Master. Reality or Atlantis. It’s that simple.

Until then, enjoy the big legal lie…

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, April 28th, 2016

Leave a comment

37 Comments

  1. Reblogged this on deinvestiture.

    Reply
  2. Marilyn Gilak

     /  April 28, 2016

    >

    Reply
  3. Smilardog

     /  April 28, 2016

    Why does life have to be so damn complicated?

    Reply
  4. T.J. McCann

     /  April 29, 2016

    ” Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    Madison, Federalist #10, 1787

    Incidentally, law dictionaries are not necessarily the most authoritative definition of a word; They are only the definitions more likely to be used within the legal profession, but even then the definitions not narrowed to specific use in the legal profession might also be used in legal writings. For instance, to this nation’s founders, “Freedom” was the absence of constraints upon one’s actions, whereas “Liberty” was one’s actions only being limited in a civil society by others rights and law.

    Reply
    • Good to hear from you T.J.

      As to your comment about words and their authority, I think you may be missing the bigger picture. We are speaking not of the origin or common meaning of words, but of their artful, legal meaning. These are two opposing things. It matters not the authority of the actual word, though it is important to know the current and older interpretations. Granted. But the important aspect of the legal language, that of legal dictionaries, is that those words belong to the legal realm, not the Natural or spiritual realm. In other words, and this is key, it is not up to you or me to decide upon the meaning of these terms of art. These are proprietary words defined specifically by another. So whatever way we interpret these words means exactly shit. Our judge is an attorney in a black robe, not our self or God. The judge, that agent of our principal corporation, is the god of words. you may pray and even appeal to that authority, but you may never create it. We are subject to their definitions whatever they may be. And yes, they may change daily to suit the needs of the district (Caesar). This is well admitted by many “justices.”

      This is why the most important word in law is the word name. Name means noun. And the word name in the Bible is “shem” as the tribe of Shem, the tribe of the name. The bloodlines. It is they who control the words of their own creation, which we subscribe to in their person (legal status). All law is attached to that name, as certified at birth. Every invocation of that name, be it benefits, licenses, or other uses confirms the law of the name, which is of their proprietary language.

      Interestingly, the word “thesaurus” actually means legally the “treasury.” This is because money is worthless without words. Numbers are worthless without the names (words) of things that money’s value is placed upon. Words are the real treasure of any tyrant. Without names (words), there is no under-standing of law. Words are a curse, written in cursive, but only when worshiped as higher than that which they represent. Names, flattering titles, identifications, persons, places, and things. All things are named. All things are of the thesaurus (treasure). All word-treasure is patented and proprietary to their creator (government). Thus all things are letters patent by their name (noun).

      “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.” ―Philip K. Dick

      When you leave this system and stop supporting its crimes and terms of art in its person (status) then you can come back here and tell me what your words mean. Until then, like I have done, you better admit your own defeat. You better realize your own illiteracy, not because you don’t know the common language but in fact because you do know it. Speaking the common tongue in the jurisdiction of the legal language is akin to insanity, which is how they view us, as non compos mentis (not of right mind), which is to say not of right language. Not of comprehension but only of under-standing. If you use the person of another in surety, then you are bound by their interpretations of words, and by extension the law made up by their words.

      Love your enemies… but not their designs. Hate their words and their artifice, but love their True Nature. The word “love” means “believe,” that is, the word “lief” or “lieve” is defined as “love.” And so our enemy is not merely words, but the authority of words over the Reality they represent.

      Hope all is well with you…

      -Clint-

      Reply
      • Pearls. Thank you.

        Reply
      • T.J. McCann

         /  May 21, 2016

        Clint, thank you for your charitable welcome.

        My original post here only made brief comment upon your reference to Law dictionaries as providing “legal definitions”. However because of the length of your response, and the need to address our differences more thoroughly while not overwhelming your own site with my response, I have posted my response to your comments here on my own blog, Liberty Born.

        I welcome any response you might provide there, or here. If you choose to respond there on Liberty Born,, you have my word that your replies will be unedited and posted in total, with the exception of any excessive ad hominem slurs.

        Also my standing challenge to address these differences on a neutral radio program remains.

        https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/conspiracy-of-words/

        Regards,
        TjM

        Reply
        • If you’d like to arrange a “debate” where we don’t talk over each other and are respectful I’d be happy to do it. But you would need to have the disposition of wanting to actually learn instead of merely speaking contrarily without backing it up, as I would as well.

          As for “commenting” I will let my 3 volumes of upcoming research speak for me, because I am only interested in the way things are, not the way I believe things ought to be. I don’t confuse my desires nor my public and alternative radio “education” with Reality. And I definitely don’t pretend that the words I use are my own nor that I have the right to redefine them in another’s legal system of letters patent.

          If you want to learn about terms of art, both in law and in every art and industry out there, and how they are different from etymology then great. But I won’t argue back and forth about patriotic beliefs and false “truths” that are easily proved to be lies.

          Legal dictionaries are mostly well-sourced and cited words that are defined by the judiciary. Thus, the following quotes are very important:

          —=—

          “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

          –Thomas Jefferson

          —=—

          “The words of the Constitution… are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life.”

          —Felix Frankfurter, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, quoted from: 1949 [Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Supreme Court from Taft to Burger (LSU Press, 1979), pg. 14.]

          —=—

          “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.”

          —Charles Evans Hughes, 11th Chief Justice of the United States, 44th United States Secretary of State, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and 36th Governor of New York

          –=–

          “We have seen that the American Constitution has changed, is changing, and by the law of its existence must continue to change, in its substance and practical working even when its words remain the same.”

          —James Bryce, Chief Secretary for Ireland (U.K.), Ambassador to the United States of America (U.K.), President of the Board of Trade (U.K.), Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (U.K.), etc.

          -—=—-

          “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

          “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is… If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.  So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

          —John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 4th United States Secretary of State, Member, U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia, 1st quote from: 1803 [John Marshall and John Edward Oster, ‘The Political and Economic Doctrines of John Marshall’ (New York: Neale Publishing Co., 1914), pg. 307.) 2nd quote from: Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

          –=–

          -Clint-

          Reply
          • T.J. McCann

             /  May 22, 2016

            Clint,

            You do mistake the purpose to our having a live discussion on air, and your role in that discussion. However it is duly noted that you now balk in an actual, referenced discussion of the facts, and instead choose to engage in vapid posturing, and providing a series of irrelevant quotations without analysis only and obviously intending to take them out of context, even as is your habit with single words.

            Debate is a purely academic exercise in which form and adaptability are emphasized over fact and valid evidence. Debate is not what we’d be doing, and in fact that fact and substance would be demanded over form, serial claims, and posturing. I’ve already seen you are more than willing to warp any obscure reference into being the whole of reality, when this is obviously not a valid perspective on reality.

            The purpose of any debate would be for you to finally provide real evidence for your claims, and not merely making further claims. I would be responding with concrete evidence and valid sources taken in context. You will not be there to “educate” me. This will not be the protected nurturing forum of your own radio show.

            You will quickly see that you’re not there to educate me, as I’m already well educated in both language and history, and have been cited by other recognized authors and those actually involved in litigation. Rather your purpose would be only to defend your fringe thesis. I fully anticipate your need to cite yourself as the only valid authority, even as you now claim you will be “educating” me. However, I don’t presume to have the ability to educate you, as you’ve been resistant to that for all your years. However I am quite certain that I would clean your clock in every regard, and do so with other authorities and references beyond myself.

            Contrary to your representation, the proprietary habit word dissection and abuse, and regurgitating the unsupported claims from obscure corners of the Internet, do not constitute “research”. Your word abuse is more suitable for a table game, than it is to be immortalized in a bound volume having only the limited appeal of those who are already linguistically, constitutionally, and historically challenged. .

            Yes, in regard to your quotes, I’m quite certain we both recognize that the Judiciary and other authorities have engaged in wanton word abuse, but that does not excuse your own word abuse, nor serve to validate any facet of your thesis.

            You are deflecting with those quotes, and your posturing, and obfuscating the truth, as is your wont, which gets us back to you actually responding to my previous responses to your claims at my site:

            https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/conspiracy-of-words/

            It should be recognized that you have previously refused to engage a discussion of these issues on RBN. It is apparent that you’re incapable of defending your own thesis anywhere more than the undisturbed bubble under your tight control. .

            Prove me wrong; better still, prove yourself correct. Are you incapable of doing so?

            Clint, there is one simple question you should be able to answer now, particularly as a host of a program called “The Corporation Nation”. What evidence do you have that the United States federal government is legally incorporated? Some time ago a caller probed John Stadtmiller with that very question on his program, and Stadtmiller then passed on the question to the other half of his brain, Ronald McDonald. McDonald’s answer as to prove the federal government was incorporated was, … to vaguely indicate a dictionary. (A dictionary! Are you kidding me?) . It should be obvious that dictionaries do not dictate reality, and no incorporation under the law has ever occurred by any dictionary. Clint, I’m hoping you can provide a much more valid as to how this alleged incorporation occurred, and what might be the possible gain from it given that it would provide the federal government with no new authority or immunity. . Dictionaries will not aid you in now, not even law dictionaries.

            Reply
            • I love how you insist on providing the definition of “debate” instead of asking my intention, then complain about my defining words.

              I’ll take this as a solid no.

              Since that is the case, I gotta ask… why do you come here to my site and read my research and never actually dispute any of it, but only talk shit about me in ad hominem?

              If you want me to answer this specific question, I will need to know what it is that you consider as a source, since the opinions of Supreme Court Justice and founding fathers don’t seem to do it for you. Dictionaries are apparently out. So make a list for me would ya? Encyclopedia? Court cases? U.S. Code? Alex Jones? What is it that makes you believe, and what can I possibly provide that I haven’t already in all my films, writings, and again, as I tried to say earlier, my 2700 pages or so that will be out soon?

              Every official source you poo poo. What am I to do?

              No long answers and reputation beating here any more. I’ll erase it. Just answer the question and I will reciprocate in kind. But I’m not gonna waste my time trying to prove fiction to one who doesn’t understand it is even fiction.

              -Clint-

              Reply
              • T.J. McCann

                 /  May 22, 2016

                Deleted. Try again. Try following instructions. What sources are acceptable? Stop attacking the messenger. No extraneous diatribe. No excuses. Cause if you looked, you’d actually find many sources. -Clint-

                Reply
              • T.J. McCann

                 /  May 22, 2016

                I’m not reading these. Just answer the question. -Clint-

                Reply
              • T.J. McCann

                 /  May 22, 2016

                Yet again, man, get a clue. Stop with this vomit and answer the question. What sources are acceptable? -Clint-

                Reply
              • T.J. McCann

                 /  May 23, 2016

                Clint,

                Here is an example of what does not constitute proof of that federal incorporation under the law, and an explanation why this is true. I hope you can recognize this as reasonable and accurate.

                In Tom Lacovara’s “Thesis” on RTR he indicates that:
                “The United States went from being a Constitutional Republic in the year of 1868, to a “FEDERAL CORPORATION”, so says US CODE TITLE 28 USC 3002 15 (a)”
                While this may seem to be a good candidate for being proof, given that it is U.S. Code, , it actually is no proof at all.

                Title 28 US Code Section 3002 is actually a definitions section for words used in that chapter. By this, Lacovara would seemingly have us believe that the United States is proven to be incorporated by a definition, not by any Act. Notably, definitions recognize how things are, or what they are, and not how they might be made to be. . Also, contrary to Lacovara’s indication, this reference indicates nothing about any transition from Republic to being a corporation, not does it mention the year 1828.

                The irony here is that we have always been both a Republic and a Federal corporation from the first formation of this country. .

                Lacovara’s referenced definition 15 is for the “United States” and definition (A) indicates “a Federal corporation.”

                Context is critical to understanding this definition. At its formation the United States was a confederation of the states, forming a Federal body or “corpus” (Latin), a corporation.

                In its most fundamental meaning, a corporation is an association to act as a single body, or literally “corpus”.. The definition is stating that the United States is a federal government body formed by an association, specifically the association of the sovereign States. The definition has nothing whatsoever to do with incorporation under the law.

                This reference in U.S. Code is the exact same context used by Allen West in his interview with Judge Napolitano in which West indicated that, “The President is the Chief executive officer of this corporation called the United States of America”. As with the definition in U;S. Code, Allen West was not making the startling revelation that the federal government is legally incorporated, but rather pointing out that the federal government is created by the sovereign states, and therefore has a fiduciary responsibility to operate responsibly within a budget.

                 

                Reply
            • I’m so confused… here was your comment from above. I accepted your challenge, and now you refuse. WTF?

              “Also my standing challenge to address these differences on a neutral radio program remains.” –T.J. McCann

              Reply
              • T.J. McCann

                 /  May 23, 2016

                Where exactly did you “accept my challenge”? You did nothing of the sort. Instead of answering my challenge, you pretended you had asked me a question, although you had never done so, and then interpreted my answer to be no, stating quote, “I’ll take this as a solid no.”.

                There was, in fact, no intervening response from you between my challenge, and you scurrilously pretending to have issued to me a challenge yourself, and simultaneously interpreting my answer as “no” to a question you never posed.

                These sorts of jejune antics are inappropriate for any intelligent discussion, but then having deleted 3 of my responses here, and then pretending that I never stipulated what obviously is necessary to prove the legal incorporation of the federal government, when I had done so twice quite clearly — is just rank dishonesty and showing an seriously problem with your moral conduct.

                Given your penchant for dishonest conduct,, I will be answering your last post on my own blog, and at the end of that post I will provide you with a small surprise,

                Reply
                • You are fucking nuts. Now you are not posting my comment on your website like promised, and vomiting crap out of nowhere about my character. I’m done. Anyone reading this thread can see you are just wasting my time and are contrarian to no end. Please refrain from any more activity here. I should have learned my lesson last encounter with you.

                  I quote from myself above: “If you’d like to arrange a “debate” where we don’t talk over each other and are respectful I’d be happy to do it.”

                  Reply
                  • T.J. McCann

                     /  May 26, 2016

                    This was about providing proof for our claims, not regurgitating sovereign citizen credo without proof, and then dumping a long series of historical facts, that do not prove any point in your favor, and at the end simply stating on your own that the federal municpal government was incorporated.

                    What that’s called is “intellectual dishonesty”.

                    If you think that nonsense passes for discussion, or anything close to research, that’s what’s “fucking nuts”.

                    But even more amusing is that the guy who outright declares there’s a “conspiracy of words”, himself does nothing but abuse the meaning of words, ignores context, and fabricates his own definitions.

                    THAT is the definition of Irony — provided it doesn’t come from that dictionary you’re writing! No wonder callers at RBN are still making jokes about the sort of book Clint is writing. You’re a snake oil salesman, except the snake oil admittedly offers no cure.

                    About the only thing you’ve done even remotely smart is not go head to head with me on air, because it would be total carnage. I tried civil discussion with you and got nothing but bullcrap in return. You’re killing my country.

                    Reply
                    • I openly have accepted your challenge to go on air, and you still say I haven’t. Everyone can see this by reading this and past posts. Go away you twisted fuck!

                    • T.J. McCann

                       /  May 29, 2016

                      You are banned here. Go pester someone else. -Clint

  5. I think I have to register or create a reality blogger account to comment so this is a test fire reply just to see if I may reply at all, without giving my name rank[and i do rank as it has been 4 days since my last confession, I mean shower], i am not grinning either!

    Reply
  6. Sir Clint; This is Sandor speaking; It is good that you omitted my last reply ! Thank you for being wise ! So ; these 3 symbols ( G O D ); they are a verb ? That is one of the most bizarre thoughts/conclusions this one has ever heard ! “What does this mean; what SIR sayeth?”. The verb sayeth , “I AM THE BEING” ******************************* “HE is THE ONE BEING” sayeth Sandor.
    And , that is an action ( a verb ) , wow?
    It is a verb.
    GOD (THE BEING) is always in action, an ever present (presense/presence) in our time of need.
    THE BEING , [J E S U S] is THIS VERB [GOD].
    OK, OK; I am committing an error, I am making a mistake by yelling(making a mistake/SINNING.
    I am doing wrong against my fellow mankind/people—men/woman/children. Sin is error, sin is either against people or JESUS the NAZARENE Jesus.
    Jesus Christ[Christ is not His name, but a title[I don’t know exactly but, His mother and brothers and sisters did not call Him for dinner by yelling; “Hey Christ; come to dinner, where are you Christ? ” Stupid goyem, so dumb!!!!!
    You goyem/chattle/cattle you are stupid.
    Shut up; sit down; you fools.
    >>>>>> p a u s e <<<<<<< moment of lunacy, pardon me.
    JESUS ( THEE BEING ) (THEE I AM ) of the burning bush, He told Abraham to prepare his son Isaac and sacrifice him to ( I AM )
    Jesus [the Creator of all that is seen and unseen] was Fathered by the by FATHER GOD —HOLY GHOST/Spirit; through the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
    Listen dumbass goyem/chattle/cattle/slaves of Satan/Lucifer,Abadon/belial/osiris/.
    It does not make sense/sence; Our minds cannot compute this.
    GOD is a Triune God.
    The Trinity cannot be understood with our minds,brains,concsienses.
    Only the HOLY Spirit/ Ghost can reveal the TRUTH to our Spirits when we Follow Jesus.
    It is very simple, Follow Jesus, don't just be an imitator, Jesus wants to live through us. He is the energy of love.
    Mankind/womankind/people you are evil
    Say it with me " I AM EVIL "
    Anything that is not oof faith is sin.
    If God is not in a matter/or in a thought; it is evil.
    Only God and what He is involved in is good.
    I'm evil and everyone is evil. Even in your dreams, we do evil business.
    You are hopeless without JESUS;;;
    why ;;why' ????????????????
    JESUS' BLOOD had to be spilled in VIOLENCE to atone,pay for our crimes.
    YES, you are a criminal, Kathy,james,lucy,peter,al,mohammed,isaac,michael, everyone of us is a scumbag, a shitbag of a cesspool of stinking rotten menstrual rags, rotting human sausage casings of shit/feces/urine/vomit .
    follow him
    AL; aka "Sandor"; follow Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
    JUST DO IT
    DO IT
    NOW…………………….

    Reply
    • Not sure why the whole thing has to sound so batshit crazy, but you have the right idea. “Christ” never said follow christ, he said follow God and the Spiritual Law through his example and be christ-like. The blood is figurative. The cross is a mistranslation, a metaphor meaning stake. Pull up your stake (cross) in public society (artifice) and follow christ’s example in Nature. Instead people wear the cross as an empty symbol without understanding its meaning – no action (verb) there, just idolatry. Son = Word = Law. Sin is merely that which is artificial held above Reality, Nature. It’s way more simple than it seems. What is sacred to man is not sacred to Nature (God). Sacred means cursed.

      BTW… I held your comment, as you know, because it had nothing to do with this blog or this post.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  7. Note: This was my 1st response to T.J. on his site, which has still not been posted, stating “your comment is awaiting moderation.” Amazingly, he is ignoring this information and claiming I have provided no sources. This is insanity, and a good look at the obfuscation techniques used by “truthers.” I will not participate any further in this colossal waste of time, and provide the following for those that wish to learn.

    Update: He did not accept or post this response at all, and merely badgered me with fallacy. Unbelievable deceit to myself and his readers.

    To T.J.

    Better… but not quite an answer. I did not ask what was not a source. But keep trying.

    Now that you have explained to us that the United States is indeed a corporation (Federal body politic) i.e. corpus in Latin, I’m not sure what it is that you need?

    As for Title 28 above, it is actually very clear. Just as the Parliament created the East India Company to do its farming of men (revenue collection), so too did the congress create the United States corporation for the same purpose. Just like the colonists were forced to pay for the unsold tea through the Tea Act that gave monopoly to the EIC, so too do the subjects of the United States pay for the financial debauchery and losses of the United States, i.e. Washington D.C., a municipal corporation.

    For context, not as “proof” as you define it, we must understand the following:

    DISTRICTIO – Latin. A distress; a distraint. (Black4)

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – A territory situated on the Potomac river, and being the seat of government of the United States. It was originally ten miles square, and was composed of portions of Maryland and Virginia ceded by those states to the United States; but in 1846 the tract coming from Virginia was retroceded. Legally it is neither a state nor a territory, but is made subject, by the constitution, to the exclusive jurisdiction of congress. (Black4)

    District of Columbia – Is neither a State nor a Territory. Congress is authorized “to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” Maryland and Virginia ceded territory on the Potomac, which Congress, by act of July 16, 1790, accepted. In December, 1800, the seat of government was removed from Philadelphia. By the act of July 11,1846, Congress retroceded the county of Alexandria to Virginia. The District constitutes the county of Washington. A citizen of the District of Columbia Is not a citizen of a State. The laws in force December 1, 1873, were revised and republished, by direction of Congress, in a separate volume known as the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia. (WCA1889)

    It must be understood here that a citizenship of the United States district is not a private citizen of any of the 50 States. The word State, when capitalized, means a private (foreign) People. Several States means private People (States). Without this understanding, there is no point in going on. As you alluded to above, the de jure (legitimate) People of each State confirm and ratify the de facto (illegitimate) nation, placing it commercially under the law of nations, not the constitution. Nothing is constitutional about it, nor does that word have any relevance to what is de facto (militarily enforced). The president is Chief Officer of the military, and the military is there to protect the private, several People (States). The citizenships of the United States municipal corporation are not the private People of each State. The private States are “We, the People” in confederation, or what you refer to above as a series of republics in conspiracy (confederation/combination). The United States, however, is not in any way a republic. It cannot be, for there are not private People in the United States, again meaning that no States (We, the People) are under the authority of United States. The U.S. protects the States. That is its function. It is a commercial agency created by them to control us in interstate commerce. United States citizens are foreigners in any state, as defined above, so all things we do are “interstate,” as we are foreign residents, our domicile being the district (United States corporation).

    The constitution says:

    “…and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    —Article 4, Section 4, Clause 2 of the United States constitution

    We are considered as domestics. The States (private People) are protected from us.What is considered domestic is that which pertains to the nation, the domicilium of the municipal corporation.

    Now, I won’t go any further here until we can agree on the above terms. I will not entertain anything from you but legitimate and earnest questions and information. Keep the personal comments and attacks away and let’s focus on coming to a conclusion that is not based on personal opinion but on fact.

    For further research, I suggest the following:

    Encyclopedia Britannica eloquently defines this purely false-nature (sin) of what a legal fiction is:

    “LEGAL FICTION – a rule assuming as TRUE something that is clearly FALSE. A fiction is often used to get around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are hesitant to change or to encumber with specific limitations. Thus, when a legislature has no legal power to sit beyond a certain midnight but has five hours more of work still to do, it is easier to turn back the official clock from time to time than it is to change the law or constitution.

    “In ancient Rome, where every family needed a male heir, the lack of one was overcome through the legal fiction of adoption. In England, when courts handling civil cases were full, the Court of Queen’s (or King’s) Bench, a criminal court, could take some of the load by PRETENDING that the defendant in a simple civil suit had been arrested and was in custody.

    “Almost any legal fiction can be stated in terms of FACT. Thus, the fiction that a corporation is, for many purposes, a PERSON separate from its members is equivalent to saying that, for those purposes, the law deals with the group as a unit, disregarding for the moment the group’s individual members as such…”

    INTERNATIONAL LAW – The law which regulates the intercourse of nations; the law of nations. The customary law which determines the rights and regulates the intercourse of independent states in peace and war. The system of rules and principles, founded on treaty, custom, precedent, and the consensus of opinion as to justice and moral obligation, which civilized nations recognize as binding upon them in their mutual dealings and relations. Public international law is the body of rules which control the conduct of independent states in their relations with each other.

    NATIVE – A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.

    NATIVITY – noun 1. Birth; the coming into life or the world. The feast of Christmas is observed in memory of Christs nativity. 2. Time, place and manner of birth; as, to calculate ones nativity. 3. STATE or PLACE of being PRODUCED… (Webs1828)

    NATIVUS – A servant born.

    NATIVITAS – In old English law. Villenage; that state in which men were born slaves.

    NATIVI DE STIPITE – Villeins or bondmen by birth or stock.

    NATIVI CONVENTIONARII – Villeins or bondmen by contract or agreement.

    BONDSMAN – A surety; one who has entered into a bond as surety. The word seems to apply especially to the sureties upon the bonds of officers, trustees, etc., while bail should be reserved for the sureties on recognizances and bail-bonds. (Black1)

    MUNICIPIUM – In Roman law, a foreign town to which the freedom of the city of Rome was granted, and whose inhabitants had the privilege of enjoying offices and honors there. A free town which retained its original right of self-government, but whose inhabitants also acquired certain rights of Roman citizens.

    MUNICIPALITY – A legally incorporated or duly authorized association of inhabitants of limited area for local governmental or other public purposes. A body politic created by the incorporation of the people of a prescribed locality invested with subordinate powers of legislation to assist in the civil government of the state and to regulate and administer local and internal affairs of the community.

    MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE – A law, rule, or ordinance enacted or adopted by a municipal corporation for the proper conduct of its affairs or the government of its inhabitants. Particularly a regulation under a delegation of power from the state. (Black4)

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT – In English law, a general statute passed in 1835, prescribing general regulations for the incorporation and government of boroughs.

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – A public corporation, created by government for political purposes, and having subordinate and local powers of legislation. An incorporation of persons, inhabitants of a particular place, or connected with a particular district, enabling them to conduct its local civil government. A legal institution (fiction) formed by charter from sovereign power erecting a populous community of prescribed area into a body politic and corporate with corporate name and continuous succession and for the purpose and with the authority of subordinate self-government and improvement and local administration of affairs of state. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes, possessing local legislative and administrative power, also power to exercise within such area so much of the administrative power of the state as may be delegated to it and possessing limited capacity to own and hold property, and to act in purveyance of public conveniences. Cities, towns, and villages are municipal corporations proper… the term may include counties.

    MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES – As used in statutes contemplating the consent of such authorities, the term means the consent by the legislative authorities of the city acting by ordinance; for example, in a town, the members of the town board.

    MUNICIPAL OFFICER – One who holds an office of a municipality. A city, town, or borough; not including a county…

    MUNICEPS – Latin. In Roman Law, eligible to office. A provincial person; a countryman. This was the designation of one born in the provinces or in a city politically connected with Rome, who had come to Rome, and though a Roman citizen, yet was looked down upon as a provincial, and not allowed to hold the higher offices. In the provinces the term seems to have been applied to the freemen of any city who were eligible to the municipal offices.

    INTRAMURAL – Within the walls. The powers of a municipal corporation are “intramural” and “extramural”; the one being the powers exercised within the corporate limits, and the other being those exercised without. (Black4)

    PROVINCIAL – adjective – Pertaining to a province or relating to it; as a provincial government; a provincial dialect. 1. Appendant to the principal kingdom or state; as provincial dominion; provincial territory. 2. Not polished; rude; as provincial accent or manners. 3. Pertaining to an ecclesiastical province, or to the jurisdiction of an archbishop; not ecumenical; as a provincial synod. – noun – A spiritual governor. In catholic countries, one who has the direction of the several convents of a province. 1. A person belonging to a province. (Webs1828)

    CITY – In America, a municipal corporation; also the territory within the corporate limits. A large town or municipal corporation. A political entity or subdivision for governmental purposes; a public institution for self-government; a public corporation for public purposes. A state agency for carrying on local government. A voluntary association or corporation. The fundamental distinction between town and city organization is that in the former (a town) all the qualified inhabitants meet together to deliberate and vote as individual, each in his own right, while in the latter (a city) all municipal functions are performed by deputies; the one (a town) being direct, the other (a city) representative. The word “city,” however, is often used to include an incorporated town, and to include villages. It has also been held that, under statutes, the term includes all municipal corporations and corporate authorities, such as a board of park commissioners; but that it does not include a village…

    Finally, you can go to court cases to find the municipal corporation of Washington D.C. as defendant:

    “Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled ‘An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia’ (16 St. 419), are as follows: ‘Section 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.’ ‘Sec. 18. That the legislative power of the District shall [129 U.S. 141, 144] extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon states by the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the United States; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.’ These sections are carried forward into the act of congress of June 22, 1874, entitled ‘An act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,’ as sections 2, 49, 50…

    And Whereas: The Constitution does provide that Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. 

And Whereas: On February 21, 1871, the Forty First Congress passed an act entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” legislating the organization of a municipal corporation to run the day to day affairs of the District of Columbia, the seat of government, which transferred the United States of America, the Republic, into “a corporate entity” entitled UNITED STATES, in capital letters, having “no” jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia. 

And Whereas: Congress adopted the text of the federal constitution as the constitution or charter of this municipal corporation. This municipal corporation was granted the power to contract to provide municipal services to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia and necessarily as an operation of the privileges and immunity clause of Article Four of the Constitution, any other person who chooses to contract for its services.

    —=—

    “It is contended by the plaintiff that it (the District of Columbia) is not amenable to the statute of limitations, for three reasons—First, because of its dignity as partaking of the sovereign power of government; secondly, because it is not embraced in the terms of the statute of limitations in force in the District; and, thirdly, because if the general words of the statute are sufficiently broad to include the District, still municipal corporations, unless specially mentioned, are not subject to the statute.

    The first question, therefore, will be whether the District of Columbia is or is not a municipal body merely, or whether it has such a sovereign character, or is so identified with or representative of the sovereignty of the United States as to be entitled to the prerogatives and exemptions of sovereignity. In order to a better understanding of the subject under consideration it will be proper to take a brief survey of the government of the District and the changes it has undergone since its first organization. Prior to 1871 the local government of the District of Columbia, on the east side of the Potomac, had been divided between the corporations of Washington and Georgetown and the levy court of the county of Washington. Georgetown had been incorporated by the legislature of Maryland as early as 1789, (Davis, Laws D. C. 478,) as Alexandria had been, by the legislature of Virginia, as early as 1748 and 1779, (Id. 533, 541;) and those towns or cities were clearly nothing more than ordinary municipal corporations, with the usual powers of such corporations. When the government of the United States took possession of the District in December, 1800, it was divided by congress into two counties, that of Alexandria on the west side of the Potomac, and that of Washington on the east side; and the laws of Virginia were continued over the former, and the laws of Maryland over the latter, and a court called the ‘Circuit Court of the District of Columbia,’ was established, with general jurisdiction, civil and criminal, to hold sessions alternately in each county; but the corporate rights of the cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, and of all other corporate bodies, were expressly left unimpaired, except as related to judicial powers. See Act Feb. 27, 1801, (2 St. 103.) A supplementary act, passed a few days later, gave to the circuit court certain administrative powers, the same as those vested in the county and levy courts of Virginia and Maryland, respectively, and it was declared that the magistrates to be appointed should be a board of commissioners within their respective counties, and have the same powers and perform the same duties as the levy courts of Maryland. These powers related to the construction and repair of roads, bridges, ferries, the care of the poor, etc. Act March 3, 1801, (2 St. 115.) On May 3, 1802, an act was passed to incorporate the city of Washington. 2 St. 195. It invested the mayor and common council (the latter being elected by the white male inhabitants) with all the usual powers of municipal bodies, such as the power to pass by-laws and ordinances; powers of administration, regulation, and taxation; among others, specially named, the power ‘to erect and repair bridges; to keep in repair all necessary streets, avenues, drains, and sewers; and to pass regulations necessary for the preservation of the same, agreeably to the plan of the said city.’ Various amendments, from time to time, were made to this charter, and additional powers were conferred. A general revision of it was made by act of congress passed May 15, 1820. 3 St. 583. A further revision was made, and additional powers were given, by the act of May 17, 1848, (9 St. 223,) but nothing to change the essential character of the corporation. The powers of the levy court extended more particularly to the country, outside of the cities, but also to some matters in the cities common to the whole county. It was reorganized and its powers and duties more specifically defined in the acts of July 1, 1812, (2 St. 771,) and of March 3, 1863, (12 St. 799.) By the last act the members of the court were to be nine in number, and to be appointed by the president and senate. In the first year of the (civil) war, August 6, 1861, (12 St. 320,) an act was passed ‘to create a metropolitan police district of the District of Columbia, and to establish a police therefor.’ The police had previously been appointed and regulated by the mayor and common council of Washington; but it was now deemed important that it should be under the control of the government. The act provided for the appointment of five commissioners by the president and senate, who, together with the mayors of Washington and Georgetown, were to form the board of police for the District; and this board was invested with extraordinary powers of surveillance and guardianship of the peace. This general review of the form of government which prevailed in the District of Columbia and city of Washington prior to 1871 is sufficient to show that it was strictly municipal in its character; and that the government of the United States, except so far as the protection of its own public buildings and property was concerned, took no part in the local government any more than any state government interferes with the municipal administration of its cities. The officers of the departments, even the president himself, exercised no local authority in city affairs. It is true, in consequence of the large property interests of the United States in Washington, in the public parks and buildings, the government always made some contribution to the finances of the city, but the residue was raised by taxing the inhabitants of the city and District just as the inhabitants of all municipal bodies are taxed. In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the District government. A legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the act of February 21st of that year, entitled ‘An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,’ (16 St. 419,) it was enacted (section 1) that all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the ‘District of Columbia,’ by which name it was constituted ‘a body corporate for municipal purposes,’ with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and ‘to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States.’ A governor and legislature were created, also a board of public works; the latter to consist of the governor, as its president, and four other persons, to be appointed by the president and senate. To this board was given the control and repair of the streets, avenues, alleys, and sewers of the city of Washington, and all other works which might be intrusted to their charge by the legislative assembly or congress. They were empowered to disburse the moneys raised for the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys, and sewers, and roads and bridges, and to assess upon adjoining property, specially benefited thereby, a reasonable proportion of the cost, not exceeding one-third. The acts of this board were held to be binding on the municipality of the District in Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540. It was regarded as a mere branch of the District government, though appointed by the president, and not subject to the control of the District authorities. This constitution lasted until June 20, 1874, when an act was passed entitled ‘An act for the government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.’ 18 St. 116. By this act the government established by the act of 1871 was abolished, and the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, was authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and authority then vested in the governor and board of public works, except as afterwards limited by the act. By a subsequent act, approved June 11, 1878, (20 St. 102,) it was enacted that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in statu quo. Under these different changes the administration of the affairs of the District of Columbia and city of Washington has gone on in much the same way, except a change in the depositaries of power, and in the extent and number of powers conferred upon them. Legislative powers have now ceased, and the municipal government is confined to mere administration. The identity of corporate existence is continued, and all actions and suits for and against the District are preserved unaffected by the changes that have occurred. In view of these laws the counsel of the plaintiff contend that the government of the District of Columbia is a department of the United States government, and that the corporation is a mere name, and not a person, in the sense of the law, distinct from the government itself. We cannot assent to this view. It is contrary to the express language of the statutes. That language is that the District shall ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation’ with all rights of action and suits for and against it. If it were a department of the government, how could it be sued? Can the treasury department be sued? or any other department? We are of opinion that the corporate capacity and corporate liabilities of the District of Columbia remain as before, and that its character as a mere municipal corporation has not been changed. The mode of appointing its officers does not abrogate its character as a municipal body politic. We do not suppose that it is necessary to a municipal government, or to municipal responsibility, that the officers should be elected by the people. Local self-government is undoubtedly desirable where there are not forcible reasons against its exercise. But it is not required by any inexorable principle. All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the state or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior legislature sees fit to confer upon them. The form of those agencies and the mode of appointing officials to execute them are matters of legislative discretion. Commissioners are not unfrequently appointed by the legislature or executive of a state for the administration of municipal affairs, or some portion thereof, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. It may be demanded by motives of expediency or the exigencies of the situation,—by the boldness of corruption, the absence of public order and security, or the necessity of high executive ability in dealing with particular populations. Such unusual constitutions do not release the people from the duty of obedience or from taxation, or the municipal body from those liabilities to which such bodies are ordinarily subject. Protection of life and property are enjoyed, perhaps, in greater degree than they could be, in such cases, under elective magistracies; and the government of the whole people is preserved in the legislative representation of the state or general government. ‘Nor can it in principle,’ said Mr. Justice HUNT in the Barnes Case, ‘be of the slightest consequence by what means these several officers are placed in their position,—whether they are elected by the people of the municipality or appointed by the president or a governor. The people are the recognized source of all authority, state and municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by a circuitous process.’ Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540, 545. One argument of the plaintiff’s counsel in this connection is that the District of Columbia is a separate state, or sovereignty, according to the definition of writers on public law, being a distinct political society. This position is assented to by Chief Justice MARSHALL, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452, where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a state. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a state in the sense of being a distinct political community, but held that the word ‘state’ in the constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several ‘states,’ refers to the states of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a state; but the sovereign power of this qualified state is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character, which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United States. Therefore, while the District may, in a sense, be called a state, it is such in a very qualified sense. No more than this was meant by Chief Justice TANEY, when, in Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer, 14 Pet. 141, 146, he spoke of the District of Columbia as being formed, by the acts of congress, into one separate political community, and of the two counties composing it (Washington and Alexandria) as resembling different counties in the same state, by reason whereof it was held that parties residing in one county could not be said to be ‘beyond the seas,’ or in a different jurisdiction, in reference to the other county, though the two counties were subject to different laws. We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, having a right to sue and be sued, and subject to the ordinary rules that govern the law of procedure between private persons.

    Corporations are ‘persons’ in the law. There is no apparent reason why they should not be included in the statute. It is conceded that private corporations are included. On what ground, then, can municipal corporations be excluded? Not on the ground that they are not ‘persons,’ for that would exclude private corporations. They are therefore within the terms of the law… Are they not also within the spirit and reason of the law? They are certainly within the reason of the preamble. It is just as much for the public interest and tranquillity that municipal corporations should be limited in the time of bringing suits as that individuals or private corporations should be. The reason stated in the preamble for the passage of the law applies to all; and, moreover, it shows that the objects of the law are beneficent ones, and, therefore, that it should be liberally construed. It cannot apply to the sovereign power, of course. No restrictive laws apply to the sovereign unless so expressed. And especially no laws affecting a right on the ground of neglect or laches, because neglect and laches cannot be imputed to him. And it matters not whether the sovereign be an individual monarch, or a republic or state. The principle applies to all sovereigns. The reason usually assigned for this prerogative is that the sovereign is not answerable for the delinquencies of his agents. But, whatever the true reason may be, such is the general law,—such the universal law, except where it is expressly waived. The privilege, however, is a prerogative one, and cannot be challenged by any person inferior to the sovereign, whether that person be natural or corporate. It is scarcely necessary to discuss further the question of the applicability of the statute of limitations to a purely municipal corporation when it is embraced within the general terms of the law. It was expressly decided to be applicable in the cases of Kennebunkport v. Smith, 22 Me. 445; Cincinnati v. First Presbyterian Church, 8 Ohio, 299; Same v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594; St. Charles Co. v. Powell, 22 Mo. 525; Armstrong v. Dalton, 4 Dev. 569; and other cases cited in the notes to Wood, Lim. § 53, and to 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 668. Judge DILLON, in the section last cited, accurately says: ‘The doctrine is well understood, that to the sovereign power the maxim ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi’ applies, and that the United States and the several states are not, without express words, bound by statutes of limitation. Although municipal corporations are considered as public agencies, exercising, in behalf of the state, public duties, there are many cases which hold that such corporations are not exempt from the operation of limitation statutes, but that such statutes, at least as respects all real and personal actions, run in favor of and against these corporations in the same manner and to the same extent as against natural persons.’ In Evans v. Erie Co., 66 Pa. St. 222, 228, SHARSWOOD, J., says: ‘That the statute of limitations runs against a county or other municipal corporation, we think, cannot be doubted. The prerogative is that of the sovereign alone; nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae. Her grantees, though artificial bodies created by her, are in the same category with natural persons.’ See also, Dundee Harbour v. Dougall, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 317. But we forbear to quote further authorities on the subject. We hold the doctrine to be well settled. What may be the rule in regard to purprestures and public nuisances, by encroachments upon the high ways and other public places, it is not necessary to determine. They are generally offenses against the sovereign power itself, and, as such, no length of time can protect them. Where the right of property in such places is vested in the municipality, an assertion of that right may or may not be subject to the law of limitations. We express no opinion on that point, since it may be affected by considerations which are not involved in the present case.

    The court below, in its opinion on the demurrer, suggests another ground, having relation to the form of the action, on which it is supposed that the plea of the statute of limitations in this case is untenable. It is this: that the action is founded on a statute, and that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions founded on statutes or other records or specialties, but only to such as are founded on simple contract or on tort. We think, however, that the court is in error in supposing that the present action is founded on the statute. It is an action on the case upon an implied assumpsit arising out of the defendant’s breach of a duty imposed by statute, and the required performance of that duty by the plaintiff in consequence. This raised an implied obligation on the part of the defendant to reimburse and pay to the plaintiff the moneys expended in that behalf. The action is founded on this implied obligation, and not on the statute, and is really an action of assumpsit. The fact that the duty which the defendant failed to perform was a statutory one does not make the action one upon the statute. The action is clearly one of those described in the statute of limitations. The case of Carrol v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, is strongly in point. That was a bill against stockholders of an insolvent bank to enforce their liability for double the amount of their stock, according to the provisions of the charter. It was held by this court that the liability of the stockholders arose from their acceptance of the charter, and their implied promise to fulfill its requirements, and that the legal remedy to enforce it was an action on the case, to which the statute of limitations would apply, and hence that it applied to a bill in equity founded on the same obligation. To the same effect is the case of Beatty’s Adm’rs v. Burnes’ Adm’rs, 8 Cranch, 98, where an action for money had and received was brought, under the Maryland act of 1791, against a party who had received from the United States payment for land situated in the District, which land was claimed by the plaintiff to belong to him. This court held that inasmuch as the form of the action was covered by the statute of limitations of Maryland, it could be pleaded in bar, notwithstanding the action was given by the statute of 1791. So, in McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270, 277, it was held that the statute of limitations of Ohio was pleadable to an action on the case brought against a receiver of the land-office to recover damages for his refusing to enter the plaintiff’s application in the books of his office for certain lands in his district. It was contended that such a case could not have been contemplated by the legislature; but the court held that the action was within the terms of the statute, and that this was sufficient. Many more cases might be cited to the same point, but it is wholly unnecessary.

    —METROPOLITAN R. CO. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Decided: October 21, 1889 – 132 U.S. 1 (10 S.Ct. 19, 33 L. Ed. 231) Nathaniel Wilson and Walter D. Davidge, for plaintiff in error. A. G. Riddle and H. E. Davis, for defendant in error. BRADLEY, J.

    The most important aspect of this is to distinguish between the legitimate corpus of People (States) and the incorporation of a district as a municipal corporation called the United States as seat of commercial (illegitimate/specifically non-constitutional) operations in government. Again, the East India Company is very similar. Your question is whether or not the United States is a corporation? You know it is. But your real question seems to be whether it is a corporation like Wal Mart is a corporation. No, of course not. It is a company under control of congress. And anyone in citizenship to it is also under the law of congress. The States in their private capacity are not under congress. They are the creators of congress. They are the sovereignty. One who is under a sovereignty (in subjective citizenship to it as its agent) is not a sovereign.

    And so to call anything the “United States” does as unconstitutional is purely a redundant statement. It is designed to operate outside of the negative principles of the constitution, which only protects the privacy of those private State citizens that reserved their unalienable rights. Public citizenships sell those rights in exchange for franchise (public) rights of the United States.

    If it is not clear here, it must be said that the “United States” has nothing to do with the private, several (foreign) States (People). The state governments (municipal corporations) created by each foreign State (People) are purely for the purposes of governing commercial agents of the United States, including foreign aliens, but that the People of each State are not under their own created government. They are not, in other words, under the public law.

    I am open to any respectful questions you have, in the interest of learning yourself or educating myself without fallacious rhetoric or personal opinion.

    -Clint-

    Reply
  8. One addition to the above response… to say there are no private People in the United States (Washington D.C.) is to say there is no life there; nothing of Nature or the Natural Law. It is all fiction, and its laws apply only to fictions of its own law. Citizenship is a status, which means person, and has no reference to a “Creation of God.” The People are an Act of God, U.S. citizenships are an act of state. This is the biggest difference between the States and the Nation (district). A public citizenship of the U.S. is spiritually dead, civilly alive. Fiction.

    -Clint-

    Reply
    • Since you are playing games and still haven’t posted my response, yet insist on character assassination with no reason, I left this final comment, and post it here in case you shun this one too…

      Case in point. You have not provided one source or citation at all. Just character assassination, attacking the messenger. I am not sure what your readers may get out of this thread, but let me be clear, I am being accused here of only offering primary source documentation without my own opinion on the subject as a bad thing, and the “accuser” has made dozens of claims without a shred of evidence to support it while accusing me strangely enough of same. This type of behavior is what is killing the alternative information circuit, and is the opposite of good or even half-way decent research and vetting of information. I feel like I’m the victim of a surreal practical joke where everything is backwards. I don’t honestly know what to say, and I cannot take this as a legitimate discourse. I hope your readers recognize this strange behavior, and still have some sanity left in them to demand primary sources instead of patriot mythology. Anyone here may contact me with dignity and respect if they have questions or have sourced contributions. But I refuse to take part in this fallacious rhetoric to no end with such an extraordinarily pervasive contrarian. I remember Walter Burien warned me about people who want to waste your time as a psy-op. This seems to fit the bill.

      I’m done. Good luck.

      Reply
      • JFC Man! The guy has a site with the words “Liberty born” emblazoned on the top of it, even in parlance that fairly retarded. What did you expect?

        Reply
  9. T.J. McCann

     /  May 25, 2016

    You are not welcome here. -Clint-

    ———————

    From T.J.

    Here is my response to your original post:

    https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/conspiracy-of-words/comment-page-1/#comment-194

    Reply
    • “The history of the English language unmistakably shows it **is not constructed like bunch of Lego blocks pieced together to form words**, but rather is the result of **Greek** and **Roman** influences, with its basis being **Anglo-Friesian** dialects brought to Great Britain in the 5th Century”
      I don’t even need to point out the irony.

      Reply
  10. Thanks for every other excellent article. Where else could anyone get that type of information in such an ideal way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the search for such information.

    Reply
  11. May your journey be…

    Reply
  12. Man, if you think walking away from your effort has been a waste of time then I must disagree. No one – or very few – construct a work of art in the manner you do. Though no new content will be posted here, I look forward to reading the current project. The loss I feel parallels that when a favorite penciler/writer completed his creative run on the Avengers 30 years ago. Not only did his work define the look and feel of the characters, his storytelling kept readers – at least me – in perpetual suspense
    .
    After he left, thought dialogues disappeared and reading graphic opera did not hold the same allure it once did. Now 100x the audience walks into a theater to watch the Avengers on three-dimensional motion. Most ignore the predictable format, just as they ignore the superficial conflicts, tensions, and whimsical banter. But like George Perez, I will miss looking forward to this blog.

    I know precisely what you mean pertaining to truth. John Kaminski once wrote: the reason why media does not print the truth is that there is no money in it.” Apparently few people want to listen, think – less want to change what they are doing. Pessimism leaks out sometimes. When I discovered the game around the concept “legal person”, it opened my eyes to a vast range of subjects that compelled no interest before. But, foremost, I found Black’s Legal Dictionary a valuable resource. Even so, I resigned from work and dropped into a kind of erudite depression, often staring into the night sky wondering what to tell my children. I could not put them back into the womb.

    Time had to pass. Now they are intelligent, skilled, and remain locked in the false dichotomies and side issues not worth their cognition. Born into slavery, aware of it, but uncertain what to do about it. I speak out when given notice, or commanded by school robots to comply with paperwork – this year vaccinations. “What good is freedom of religious belief,” said I, “if one is not free to exercise it?” The nurse replied: “vaccinating your child has nothing to do with religion.” You got that right.

    Thank You for one thing at least: I no longer miss the point nor remain quiet. I hope others out there have understood your passion and your message. I further hope that one by one we become belligerent when necessary, and affirm our right to exist on Earth as a living man. I do not remember when I found your blog nor how, but your writing skill, your attention to detail inspired me. Be strong. Be well. God be with you.

    retemple

    Reply
  1. Conspiracy of Words | Liberty Born

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: