Episode 3, for your listening enjoyment. This is my interview with Vicky Davis, writer and researcher of ChannelingReality.com
I highly recommend that you read the following information (below) before or after listening to this interview, for I believe it is one of my most important research projects yet in uncovering the true nature of the United States. Also, please watch the two videos at the end, for a glimpse of the future of mankind and America…
For Land And Country
What does it mean to you when someone says “fight for your country”?
For some, the concept of just what a “country” is becomes blurred between two completely different things. While the conversational term for country usually defines the living people, the physical land, and the fictional government together in one neat package, the fact is that these things are quite different from one another, and are only connected through ink and consent of those living people as a “body politic”.
The “land” – the real and tangible thing we call home – is indeed not legally the “country”. Living men are also not legally the country.
The country is in fact a reamed folder of legal papers, notarized and signed by the appropriate members of a corporate “federation” called the United States. It’s borders are demarcated within this paperwork, but these too are not part of the actual physical land. It sets its own rules, changes those rules with the signing of a pen, and does so without the will of the people.
The land and the living people who inhabit it are called a country – a body politic – but only in a legal sense. The people, in order to inhabit this artificial country legally as “residents”, must also become artificial. They must become persons through contract so as to be part of (citizens) of this legal “country”.
“A “federation” is by definition an unincorporated entity, but a “federated” entity is corporated. A “union” of states is not a corporate entity, but that the “United” States is a corporation.”
Confused? You are supposed to be.
Instead of taking my word for it, I wonder what the government, the courts, and the Supreme Court thinks?
“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation,” –Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981), 644 F.2d, at 1383.
“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” –Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, Supreme Court, 332 U.S. 380
From the West LegalEdcenter’s Securities Litigation Report:
“Twenty-first century finance knows no true geographic borders. Money and risk can move around the globe with a touch of a button. Sober evidence of this was AIG’s swaps affiliate, AIG Financial Products, which had its major operations in London. When it failed, the U.S. economy and taxpayers shouldered a tremendous burden.
The current debt crisis in Europe is but a stark reminder of our interconnectedness. Moreover, it is precisely during times of heightened market uncertainty that transparent pricing of risk is essential. While European leaders are working to avert a deepening crisis, it is critical that we implement the Dodd-Frank Act to protect the American public.
We are actively consulting and coordinating with international regulators to promote robust and consistent standards in swaps oversight. We are sharing many of our memos, term sheets and draft work product with international regulators. Building on these efforts, I will be traveling to London to discuss derivatives reform as well as issues relating to high-frequency trading.
We also will work with international colleagues on memoranda of understanding for access to information and cooperative oversight. We also have a long history of recognizing foreign regulatory regimes. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFTC to recognize foreign regulatory frameworks that are comprehensive and comparable to U.S. oversight of the swaps markets in certain areas. We also anticipate seeking public input on the application of Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which says that the law doesn’t apply to activities outside the United States unless those activities have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce.“
So, let’s get this straight… The Dodd-Frank Act was a tool by Congress to prohibit one of government’s regulatory corporations (the Commodities Futures Trading Commission – CFTC) to act outside of United States jurisdiction as long as the activities to be regulated are outside of the United States? Yes sir. But the reality of what this means is even more shocking. For when the term “outside of the United States” is utilized here, it is referring to United States borders (remember, they are paper borders created by treaty and international agreements). This is where “Inland Ports” and “Foreign Trade Zones” come into play. This is how your “country” (both the land and the government) is incrementally being pulled out from under your feet – while American Idol agonizingly plays in the other room – through contracts, treaties, and international agreements.
If we were to look at a true representative interactive map of the borders of the United States, it would actually look like a U.S. shaped slice of Swiss cheese. Incrementally, as each Inland Port and Foreign Trade Zone is implemented, a new hole in the middle of the United States appears, where U.S. laws are non-existent.
Let’s take a land-locked state like Colorado for example. As there are no oceans (international waters) touching any of Colorado’s borders (the land), there is only one way to create an Inland Port in this state. The state must become a virtual body of water.
When an Inland Port is created, it becomes an international jurisdiction under international Maritime Law. And since Maritime/Admiralty law is the “law of the sea”, the land must become a port among a body of water in legal terms. Thus, as a port receiving trade through trade-routes, the land now becomes international jurisdiction. it’s brilliant really, when you stop and think about it. Suddenly a port pops up in the middle of of the land, with no water around it whatsoever. And yet it falls under the law of the sea!
So how is this accomplished?
Perhaps you’ve heard of the controversial NAFTA Super Highways…
You see, the rest of the United States (the land) becomes a “land-bridge” over virtual (paper) water between these ports and zones, and the roads and highways now outside of the United States called NAFTA represent international virtual waterways under international Admiralty Law going from Inland Port to Inland Port. Thus, the whole structure of ports and highways are under the law of the sea – outside of the United States. Why start a limited corporation in the great state of Colorado when you can move 10 miles away into an unlimited Foreign Trade Zone? Why hire American workers with all of their demands and minimum wages laws when you can hire foreigners living in these Foreign Zones? After all, anyone can live and work in the Zones without being a United States citizen. And with no U.S. labor laws, health insurance, or pension funding requirements for retirement, why hire American when you can hire Chinese, Indonesian, or Indian at a fraction of the cost? It’s just on the other side of the Highway you know…
In the middle of America…
So now let’s get back to government’s opinion:
“The House and Senate Reports accompanying the legislation virtually compel this conclusion, explaining as they do that “a foreign government’s . . . employment or engagement of laborers, clerical staff or marketing agents . . . would be among those included within” the definition of commercial activity. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 16 (1976) (House Report); S. Rep. No. 94-1310, p. 16 (1976) (Senate Report)…”
“I had thought the [507 U.S. 349, 369] issue put to rest some time ago when, in a slightly different context, CHIEF JUSTICE Marshall observed:
“It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many States of this Union who have an interest in Banks, are not suable even in their own Courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The State of Georgia, by giving to the Bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transactions of the Bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act.” –U.S. Supreme Court, Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia (1824) 22 US (9 Wheat) 904, 6 L.Ed 244
See also Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 695 -696 (1976) (plurality opinion).”
According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, under the definition for the word “corporation”, it states:
“Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,” continues the judge, “it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use.”
(Author’s Note: It is important to note here that technically the corporation of the United States or portions thereof can be “conveyed” to foreign hands, including the United Nations. Remember, this is all on paper, through treaties and agreements. And it wont likely make the nightly news as it happens piece by piece, port by port, zone by zone… This can all be done while never changing the corporate charter name of “United States” or of states, counties, cities (municipal corporations), and districts.)
And this legal definition goes on to state:
Corporation: “Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic, and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly.”
And Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines the word corporator as:
CORPORATOR. One who is a member of a corporation. 2. In general, a corporator is entitled to enjoy all the benefits and rights which belong to any other member of the corporation as such. But in some corporations, where the rights are of a pecuniary nature, each corporator is entitles to those rights in proportion to his interest; he will therefore be entitled to vote only in proportion to the amount of his stock, and be entitled to dividends in the same proportion. 3. A corporator is not in general liable personally for any act of the corporation, unless he has been made so by the charter creating the corporation.
(Author’s Note: This means the American people can be made liable for United Nations debt or funding, and that the United States is a member- i. e. not a “sovereign” entity – with only a “vote” in world affairs, including its own.)
Note here that the United States is a “member” of the United Nations, and of the International Monetary Fund (World Bank).
Can you put the pieces together?
And of course when Bouvier’s defines the United States, it says:
UNION. By this word is understood the United States of America; as, all good citizens will support the Union.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. The United States… 5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property.
Again from the Supreme Court – near the year of the founding of this “country”…
“If Congress, previous to the Articles of Confederation, possessed any authority, it was an authority, as I have shown, derived from the people of each province in the first instance. When the obnoxious acts of Parliament passed, if the people in each province had chosen to resist separately, they undoubtedly had equal right to do so as to join in general measures of resistance with the people of the other provinces, however unwise and destructive such a policy might and undoubtedly would have been. If they had pursued this separate system, and afterwards the people of each province had resolved that such province should be a free and independent state, the state from that moment would have become possessed of all the powers of sovereignty internal and external — viz., the exclusive right of providing for their own government, and regulating their intercourse with foreign nations — as completely as any one of the ancient kingdoms or republics of the world, which never yet had formed or thought of forming any sort of federal union whatever. A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person) I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens which compose that state and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it, all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republics) in general is that in the former, the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the case, for it has not been so universally.
But in a republic, all the citizens, as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is in effect an act of the whole community which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their politic capacity only. Thus A. B. C. and D., citizens of Pennsylvania and as such together with all the citizens of Pennsylvania, share in the sovereignty of the state. Suppose a state to consist exactly of the number of 100,000 citizens, and it were practicable for all of them to assemble at one time and in one place, and that 99,999 did actually assemble. The state would not be in fact assembled. Why? Because the state in fact is composed of all the citizens, not of a part only, however large that part may be, and one is wanting, in the same manner as 99 is not a hundred, because one pound is wanting to complete the full sum.
But as such exactness in human affairs cannot take place, as the world would be at an end or involved in universal massacre and confusion if entire unanimity from every society was required; as the assembling in large numbers, if practicable as to the actual meeting of all the citizens, or even a considerable part of them, could be productive of no rational result because there could be no general debate, no consultation of the whole, nor of consequence a determination grounded on reason and reflection, and a deliberate view of all the circumstances necessary to be taken into consideration, mankind has long practiced (except where special exceptions have been solemnly adopted) upon the principle that the majority shall bind the whole, and in large countries, at least, that representatives shall be chosen to act on the part of the whole. But when they do so, they decide for the whole, and not for themselves only.
Thus when the legislature of any state passes a bill by a majority, competent to bind the whole, it is an act of the whole assembly, not of the majority merely. So when this Court gives a judgment by the opinion of a majority, it is the judgment, in a legal sense, of the whole Court. So I conceive when any law is passed in any state in pursuance of constitutional authority, it is a law of the whole state acting in its legislative capacity, as are also executive and judiciary acts constitutionally authorized, acts of the whole state in its executive or judiciary capacity, and not the personal acts alone of the individuals, composing those branches of government. The same principles apply as to legislative, executive, or judicial acts of the United States, which are acts of the people of the United States in those respective capacities, as the former are of the people of a single state. These principles have long been familiar in regard to the exercise of a constitutional power as to treaties. These are deemed the treaties of the two nations, not of the persons only whose authority was actually employed in their formation. There is not one principle that I can imagine which gives such an effect as to treaties that has not such an operation on any other legitimate act of government, all powers being equally derived from the same fountain, all held equally in trust, and all, when rightfully exercised, equally binding upon those from whom the authority was derived.
I conclude, therefore, that every particle of authority which originally resided either in Congress or in any branch of the state governments was derived from the people who were permanent inhabitants of each province in the first instance and afterwards became citizens of each state; that this authority was conveyed by each body politic separately, and not by all the people in the several provinces or states jointly, and of course that no authority could be conveyed to the whole but that which previously was possessed by the several parts; that the distinction between a state and the people of a state has in this respect no foundation, each expression in substance meaning the same thing; consequently, that one ground of argument at the bar, tending to show the superior sovereignty of Congress in the instance in question, was not tenable, and therefore that upon that ground the exercise of the authority in question can not be supported.”
This important opinion tells you one very important thing… You do not now or did they then live in a true idealistic republic! If you are a citizen, you are nothing more than a part of the whole citizenry (in this case equality is a bad thing, for it takes away your rights). You are the State – a tiny piece of the jigsaw puzzle made up of equal size citizens. The people and the State are the same thing. “Distinct individuals have no power or sovereignty – only the state does as a body politic of all the people combined. This literally squashes the theory that in the United States all men are kings of themselves. This is just a falacy to be shelved with all the other “free country” myths out there. And the State creates these treaties and agreements with Foreign entities with the legal presumption that you don’t give a damn!
You aren’t fighting it, if you even know about it, and so the plans for world governance and the conveyance of the United States lands into United Nations (NWO) hands goes on unhindered.
For some clarification, here are the Bovier’s Law Dictionary definitions of a “Republic”:
REPUBLIC. A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government. 1 Toull. n. 28, and n. 202, note. In this sense, it is used by Ben Johnson. Those that, by their deeds make it known, whose dignity they do sustain; And life, state, glory, all they gain, Count the Republic’s, not their own, Vide Body Politic; Nation; State.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. A government in the republican form; a government of the people; it is usually put in opposition to a monarchical or aristocratic government. 2. The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that “the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government.” The form of government is to be guarantied, which supposes a form already established, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect. See Story, Const. §1807.
Yet another common fallacy squashed by the constitution itself!
Some how the people of the United States have mixed up the notion that the “United States” government – the central government of Washington D.C. as a federation – is supposed to be a republic. But this is not what the constitution states at all. The only requirement of the United States Federal Government laid out in its constitution is that the United States corporation in Washington D.C. must protect the already establish form of government of each individual state. Remember, the citizen is subject to two forms of government, one the state and one Federal.
On this, the Supreme Court state its opinion:
“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.“ –The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”
While you may live in a republic within your individual state, you do not live in a republic called the United States. The distinction here is absolutely key, and the tempering of fallacious considerations of the intent of the national government
And if “Common Law” is your bag, you should know that in the same case the Supreme Court stated its opinion about the Common Law:
“It is a rule at common law (the reason applies in equity and other civil law cases) that if a party can plead a fact material to his defense, and omits to do it at the proper time, he can never avail himself of it afterwards.”
Now why would anyone in their right mind agree to such a sinister and offending rule as this? And why would anyone submit to this?
Can you imagine…
You: Oh yeah judge, I forgot to mention that I have a video tape and 20 witnesses that saw me 1,000 miles away from the scene of the crime at the exact time of the crime.
Judge (as his gavel smashes down): Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!
It goes on to say:
“The law rather chooses that a party should incur a risk of this nature than leave a door open to endless litigation upon pretenses the truth of which it is very difficult to discover.”
God forbid we should have long litigation in order to discover the truth!
This is called the “justice system”, by the way. And the only thing common about common law is that it is commonly tyrannical just like any other legal system. Even if you had a good experience in court by a judge who seemed lawful or constitutional, this does not dismiss the fact that at any time this type of “opinion” can arise. It’s a rule that a judge may choose to follow at his whim. And while a man acting as judge may certainly consider late evidence, he certainly is not required to. Law means nothing to a corrupt politician or judge. And it is certainly a fallacy to overlook the rules just because once you had a good experience. The fallacy: This judge acted fairly and constitutionally, therefore all judges act fairly and constitutionally.
In this particular case, believe it or not, the “person” harmed was actually physically dead, but since the defendants did not claim this fact within the discovery process, this fact actually had no bearing on the case. The fact that the person was dead was not considered when doing wrong to that person. Image how that felt to the defendants when those words were uttered by the judge, who were no doubt thinking… Why in the hell would this fact even need to be mentioned???
“II. The death of Doane has been alleged for another purpose.
It is said that the decree is to restore to Elisha Doane, which was impossible because Elisha Doane was not then in being. Admitting that upon this record we are to take judicial notice that Doane was dead at the time of pronouncing the decree (in which I am by no means clear), yet if this was the real reason why the plaintiffs in error had withheld the property or its proceeds, they might themselves have said so. They have not, and as each party generally makes the best of his own case, we are to presume that did not in fact constitute their reason. In this case it could be of no avail but at the utmost to prevent the allowance of interest until a demand actually made. It never could destroy the whole beneficial effect of a decree given in rem, and when the parties who make the objection were in court and parties to the very decree complained of. I think nothing can be more evident than that if the decree be not totally void, the administrators are entitled to the benefit of it, at least until it is set aside for error, if there be any error in it, and such a remedy is now practicable. If a scire facias was necessary before execution could have been obtained out of the court which passed the decree, it could be for no other reason than that the other party might have an opportunity to contest the validity of the letters and the existence of the administration, if any such objection could be supported. Such an objection might have been made here. It has not been made. There is therefore, I conceive, no principle of law or justice which forbids giving effect to the decree upon this ground.”
You: But judge, the victim was already dead before I had anything to do with her!
Judge: Inadmissible! Guilty as charged!!!
Ok, extreme I admit. The point is that the possibility – as a rule – is that at any time a judge can dismiss crucial evidence that would prove your innocence without considering it.
But listen to what was stated even later in this case:
“A court of justice, indeed, ought at its peril to take notice of its own jurisdiction, and it is not often that cases of such doubt arise that a judge can be at a loss on the subject. But it may happen and does sometimes happen that innocent and serious doubts are really entertained. Is a court therefore, because its judgments may be finally dissented from by a superior tribunal, to be considered as flying in the face of the law, so that parties before it shall not only be protected in disobeying it but punished for their obedience? If this be the case, the old maxim cedunt arma togae (let arms yield to the toga – modern: let military power give way to civil power) will very ill apply to courts of justice. Instead of being the peaceful arbiters of right and the sacred asylum of unprotected innocence, their very forums will be the seat of war and confusion.”
Why is this all so important to the establishment of a New World Order Government?
Well let’s see… so far the Supreme court has allowed corporations to be people with rights, allowed these corporations to merge and acquire each other to establish monopolies and trusts, allowed these corporations not only to clone life but to create new genetically altered life and then patent that life-form as a novel (unique) property of the corporation and government, it has ruled that children can be vaccinated without parental consent, it has allowed the United Nations to claim a part of the City of New York as international land immune from U.S. law, and seems to not be at all concerned with the thousands of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders that have allowed everything from martial law in America to unmanned drones for the use of killing Americans abroad and spying on them nationally.
Now why in God’s name would I put my trust in this body of “Justices” to do the right thing in protecting me or my country or to combat the implementation of world governance? They are, after all, appointed by the same president and congress that is allowing it to happen in the first place! They aren’t even voted in by the people who suffer their opinions!!!
So what does it mean to you to” fight for your country”?
Well, you better start comprehending that your country and your state is in the control of a rogue government, and that to save the land the government must not be allowed to expand globally by expanding its ream of paper to include all of the United Nations as it’s master.
The “United States” is in the process of becoming nothing more than an admiralty law-based “land-bridge” between oceans and countries, a port of call for the world government and its corporations built with your taxpayer money.
And all of this proving the pen is mightier than the sword, simply because the people will not wield the sword as their fore-fathers supposedly did.
In our interview, we discussed that in order to create a new World Government, the current borders of the United States must be destroyed. It is, however, important to state that the individual state governments and borders need not be demolished simply because the Federal government and borders are abolished. It is in fact the contractual nature of the individual states to this central government which is the cause of the loss of individual state sovereignty. As individual republics, under a new United States “union” the country would be no less grand.
Is it only me that feels this way?
…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
–Constitution of the united states of America
“Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
–New Hampshire Constitution, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights
“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”
–Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky Bill of Rights
“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”
–Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights
“3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.”
–North Carolina Constitution, November 21, 1789
“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
–Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.”
–Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, United Nations (paying lip service to this decree with despicable arrogance and confidence as it subsumes all other constitutions!)
So what part of this aren’t you comprehending?
And just what do you think the 2nd amendment is for?
Better listen to the show now folks, and start to grasp exactly what’s happening in a local, county, district, state, and national government near you. For right this very second, government is doing all of the above for you, on paper, handing over the “country” to a global corporate federation, making the above options of abolition obsolete and unlawful with each treaty and contract your representatives sign, conveying the land to foreign interests…
And remember, just because you don’t see it doesn’t change the fact that it”s happening…
This is what you are truly fighting:
And the future of food (just replace metal powder with protein powder):
Truth is so much stranger than fiction, and so much closer to science fiction than imaginable.
In closing, I can only say that no matter what your “country” means to you; no matter how you define it – I think now would be a good time to start fighting for it while it’s still recognizable as such, and while we still have a resemblance to natural humans.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Monday, February 11th, 2013