2013-01-17

UNITED STATES, INC. (Part IV)

0 comments

Parens Patriae


  Parens Patriae is of Latin origin meaning "Parent of country".  The term for the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only "entrusted" (given custody) to their parents. Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a guardianship application the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old, and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously decided.  In other words, the government has ultimate say in your child's life; not you.  Sounds a bit silly, doesn't it?

  In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes."  The Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1922 but the Act continued to be in force until 1929.  Attempts were made to receive further support, but that was unsuccessful until the New Deal.  In addition to its role in the history of child welfare , the Sheppard-Towner Act has a significant place in the history of federalism and the expanded role of the federal government. The act for the first time said it was appropriate for the federal government to respond directly to the needs of women and children. This was and has remained a contested issue.  Why would a corporation worry about more than their own bottom line?  They don't.  Again, we are their assets, remember?  They are protecting their own property [us].

The New Deal


  Most historians believe that there were actually two New Deals "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38).  These deals were today's equivalent of the bailouts of Barack Obama's administration a few years ago, but with some interesting legislation bundled with it.  I have yet to look too deeply into the more recent treasonous bailouts and any/all legislation involved, but will in the near future (put a fire under my butt to do it and I'll probably do it, lol).  Just remember that both "Deals" were because of financial woes and under the premise of job creation; neither of which provided much (if any) success.  What do you expect?  Socialism, plain and simply, does not work.  Recovery finally arrived in Roosevelt's third term, when the demands of mobilization for World War II restored the country to full employment.  Ironically, Adolf Hitler probably did more to end the Great Depression in America than Franklin Roosevelt did -- war is money and power.

  The New Deal was a devastatingly large paradigm shift in roles for the United States' Federal government.  It was a leap into [by definition] socialism.  Coincidentally, the Social Security Act was a major contributor to the leap.  We all know what Socialism is, but what is a Security?

"SECURITY

Protection ; assurance; Indemnification. The term is usually applied to an obligation, pledge,mortgage, deposit, lien, etc., given by a debtor in order to make sure the payment or performance of his debt, by furnishing the creditor with a resource to be used in case of failure in the principal obligation. The name is also sometimes given to one who becomes surety or guarantor for another. See First Nat. Bank v. Hollinsworth, 78 Iowa, 575, 43 N. W. 536, 6 L. B. A. 92; Storm v. Waddell. 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 507; Goggins v. Jones, 115 Ga. 596, 41 S. E. 995; Jennings v. Davis, 31 Conn. 139; Mace v. Buchanan (Tenn. Ch.) 52 S. W. 507."

  You can more accurately refer to Social Security as Social Insurance.  To explain in very simple terms,  Social Insurance is borrowed from the value of your Bond (Birth Certificate).  This was further pulling your into the government consideration/asset role as a working servant (or, employee/agent) of the government.  It's definitely starting to look more like corporate law now, isn't it?  I would like you to remember, however, that you are not a Bond or Certificate.  You are a creation of God.  In the next post, we will separate the Bond and the Man[kind] when we delve into the types of law and what roles we play in them with Implied Consent (under the Presumption of Law); not yet though.

Prove My Birth Certificate is a Bond!

  Admittedly, this took a ton of research to acquire this information.  It is absolutely buried in false and misleading information.  I can blame the uninformed as well as the informed for this tragedy, but nonetheless, the information is out there if you dig deep enough and keep your opinion to yourself while you do.  Remember the Latin phrase "Parens Patriae"?  Well, before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family Bibles.  The same applied to the records of marriages and deaths.  Families and "law" recognized these as "official" records.  And, they were just that: Records (a written account of an act).

  Since 1921 the American people have registered the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen.  Recall that in 1933 with the government in bankruptcy and a New Deal authorizing Social Security, a social security number became a mandate by the federal government to be issued at birth.  The governors of the [then] 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit: "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution of the United States Article 4, Section 1, requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin. Foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in the home state. And that a judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.  An interesting legal definition is that of the word "State":

"One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause."

  More on titles and capacity in the next post (extremely important terms to remember).  Let's recap a bit: the state claims an interest in every child within its jurisdictionThe state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (or, trustee (another important word) over your children (ever hear of Child Protective Services?). The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. Why do you think they teach teachers to not only teach their students, but their parents that their child needs a good education so that they can grow up and get a good job?  Again, you are you, but you are also an asset of a trust (similar to a corporation) and you have a bond as a receipt.  As equitable consideration, you reap the "benefits" and "privileges" given to you by your trusts executive/president.

  This may all seem fairly foreign to you still yet, but the next post of this series will clear up a lot of this information.  I am working hard to keep fact-checking and cross-referencing my assertions, but constructive criticism is greatly appreciated!  In the next post I will try to cover the following topics:
  • If my Birth Certificate is really a Bond, how much is it worth?
  • What is law and what types of law are there?
  • What is a Trust?
  • What is a Legal Fiction?
  • What is a Strawman?
  • What does it mean to be Sovereign?

Continue reading →
2013-01-16

UNITED STATES, INC. (Part III)

0 comments

Does Congress Know that the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional? 


  Yes!! On March 8th, 1957 in a Joint Resolution of the Georgia General Assembly (pages 15641-15646)(PDF):


"The Congress of the United States is hereby memorialized and respectfully urged to declare that the exclusions of the Southern Senators and Representatives from the 39th, 40th and 41st Congresses were malignant acts of arbitrary power and rendered those Congresses invalidly constituted; that the forms of law with which those invalid Congresses attempted to clothe the submission of the 14th and 15th amendments and to cloth the subsequent acts to compel unwilling States to ratify these invalidly proposed amendments, imparted no validity to these acts and amendments; and that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect."


  Darn tootin' they know! The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress declares that the 14th Amendment is null, void and of no effect due to manifest violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, especially Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution by Article V!  Most recently, this has been mentioned in the CRS Report for Congress in November of 2008 (page 5, CRS-2, paragraph 1)(PDF):


"...was signed by Secretary of State William H. Seward rather than the President.  6 The sixth executive order, dated July 20, 1868, and concerning the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, was also signed by Secretary Seward and has the form of a proclamation. The same was true of the seventh executive order, dated July 28, 1868, certifying the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordering its publication. Indeed, both of these last two instruments appeared in the Statutes at Large as proclamations.  7 Such were the confused beginnings of bringing order out of the chaos surrounding the issuance of presidential directives."

  Nowhere in the Constitution is it legal to ratify any section of the Constitution with an Executive Order.  More importantly, these aren't even really legitimate Executive Orders!!  They were signed by the Secretary of State (William H. Seward); not the President.  This (the 14th Amendment) created the de facto government we have today rather than the de jure the Constitution and our Republic's founding fathers intended.  We are "subject to" (or, "under") the "jurisdiction" of the "de facto" government, the Legislative Democracy.  Here's the definitions for "subject to" [according to Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (PDF)]:

"SUBJECT TO. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for. American Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 251 Mass. 329, 146 N.E. 801; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 315 Mo. 485, 286 S.W. 371, 377; Allen v. Simmons, 97 W. Va. 318, 125 S.E. 86, 88; Middleton v. Findla, 25 Cal. 76; Manning v. Sams, 143 Ga. 205, 84 S.E. 451; Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302, 127 A.L.R. 163."

   That doesn't sound like "free" to me:

"FREE. Not subject to legal constraint of another. Unconstrained; having power to follow the dictates of his own will. Not subject to the dominion of another. Not compelled to involuntary servitude. Used in this sense as opposed to "slave." Not bound to service for a fixed term of years; in distinction to being bound as an apprentice. Enjoying full civic rights. Available to all citizens alike without charge; .as a free school. Available for public use without charge or toll; .as a free bridge. Not despotic; assuring liberty; defending individual rights against encroachment by any person or class; instituted by a free people; said of governments, institutions, etc. Webster. Certain, and also consistent with an honorable degree in life; as free services, in the feudal law. Confined to the person possessing, instead of being shared with others; as a free fishery. Not engaged in a war as belligerent or ally; neutral; as in the maxim, "Free ships make free goods."

  Also, according to the 14th Amendment, Section 4, we are collateral for the United States corporation's debt!  In the next section, we'll answer the "how"...

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

What is a Birth Certificate and Live Birth Record?

   Glad you asked!  ;)  First let's define the components of these phrases (words):


"BIRTH. The act of being born or wholly brought into separate existence. Wallace v. State, 10 Tex. App. 270."

"CERTIFICATE. A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality been complied with. Particularly, such written assurance made or issuing from some court, and designed as a notice of things done therein, or as a warrant or authority, to some other court, judge, or officer. People v. Foster, 27 Misc. Rep. 576, 58 N. Y. Supp. 574; U. S. v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336, 2 Sup. Ct. 6S2, 27 L. Ed. 746; Ti- conic Bank v. Stackpole, 41 Me. 305. A document in use in the English customhouse. No goods can be exported by certificate, except foreign goods formerly imported, on which the whole or a part of the customs paid on importation is to be drawn back."

"RECORD.  A written account of some act, transaction, or instrument, drawn up, under authority of law, by a proper officer, and designed to remain as a memorial or permanent evidence of the matters to which It relates. There are three kinds of records, viz.: (1) judicial, as an attainder; (2) ministerial, on oath, being an office orinquisition found; (3) by way of conveyance, as a deed enrolled. Wharton. In practice. A written memorial of all the acts and proceedings in an action or suit in a court of record. The record is the official and authentic history of the cause, consisting in entries of each successive step in the proceedings, chronicling the various acts of the parties and of the court, couched in the formal language established by usage, terminating with the judgment rendered in the cause, and intended to remain as a per- petual and unimpeachable memorial of the proceedings and judgment. At common law, “record” signifies a roll of parchment upon which the proceedings and transactions of a court are entered or drawn up by its officers, and which is then deposited in its treasury in perpetuam rei memoriam. 3 Steph. Comm. 583 ; 3 Bl. Comm. 24. A court of record is that where the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetualmemorial and testimony, which rolls are called the “records of the court,” and are of such high and supereminent authority that their truth is not to be called in question. Hahn v. Kelly, .34 Cal. 422, 94 Am. Dec. 742. And see O’Connell v. Hotchkiss, 44 Conn. 53; Murrah v. State, 51 Miss. 656; Bellas v. Mc- Carty, 10 Watts (Pa.) 24; U. S. v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695, 13 Sup. Ct. 479, 37 L Ed. 335; State v. Godwin, 27 N. C. 403, 44 Am. Dec. 42; Vail v. Iglehart. 69 111. 334; State v. Anders, 64 Kan. 742. 68 Pac. 668: Wilkinson v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 23 Fed. 502; In re Chris- tern, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 531. In the practice of appellatetribunals, the word “record” is generally understood to mean the history of the proceedings on the trial of the action below, (with the pleadings, offers, objections to evidence, rulings of the court, exceptions, charge, etc.,) in so far as the same appears in the record furnished to the appellate court in the paper-books or other transcripts. Hence, derivatively, It means the aggregate of the various judicial steps taken on the trial below, in so far as they were taken, presented, or allowed in the formal and proper manner necessary to put them upon the record of the court This is the meaning in such phrases as “no error in the record,” “contents of the record,” “outside the record,” etc." 

  With those definitions in mind and passed along with Amendment 14 of the Constitution, Article III, Section 2 states:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

  So, now you are in equity at law.  To attempt to summarize:  we are living under a commercial jurisdiction.  All of the laws that you hear everyone complaining about until their teeth bleed like taxes, gun control, traffic, etc are all under the umbrella of commercial law.  There really isn't another jurisdiction any more.  We have ignored and consented to this treason for over 140 years now and most of our "government" is now corporate!  It gets even worse, however, because in 1992, the Nazi's son George Bush ("Sr.") signed Executive Order #12803 into law.  I'm not going to quote it because I think you should read it.  I will summarize by saying that it privatizes the United States and all of it assets and instruments.  YOU ARE AN ASSET OF THE UNITED STATES!  


How Can This Be?! 

 (Prerequisites: Federal Reserve Act of 1913 & Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (CRS Report)

  America went back to Britain for an extension; and Britain agreed for a term of twenty years, in exchange for an agreement to three big conditions. One, that America creates another national bank, despite Andrew Jackson's valid reasoning for discontinuing such in 1836. The second and third conditions were that Britain's 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified. The national bank was the Federal Reserve Bank, which was completed and fully operational by 1913. Also in 1913 came the 16th Amendment. Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." One result of this national emergency was the introduction of the so-called "alphabet agencies" - i.e. the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, etc. - implemented for the purpose of protecting the government from foreign terrorists, which because the entity in control of the laws is Britain - is usually considered the American people.  Simple, right?  ;)

  In the next post I will attempt to prove how your Birth Certificate is a Bond.  I will walk you through looking it up in the Stock Market and find out what "Person" is currently trading on the equity of your estate.  So, here are the next questions I will attempt to answer.  I would also like to encourage you, the reader, to suggest additional questions or topics to write about.  This particular group of posts will be an ongoing project for some time, I believe.  Please help!  
  • What is a Bond?
  • **More...haven't thought of them yet**
Continue reading →
2013-01-15

Chaffing/Chemtrails Central Florida

0 comments

Eyes Burning or Itching?  Thank Mac Dill AFB!



My eyes have been bothering me for the past couple weeks and a local weather man for our local ABC Action News Station explained the drizzle-looking "rain" signatures on the radar:

"We mentioned "chaff" last night as our radar was showing what appeared to be rain...with no clouds, obviously, it's not. Every now and again, the military does experiments with little strips of aluminum. It's a radar jamming experiment, and the results are radar signatures. The Local NWS did a nice tidbit on it today. Just click on the link to see it...then LIKE their page. Great folks over there!"

   Checked out the page and here is the referenced material:

Is it really rain? Or chaff? - Sun Sentinel
Using WSR-88D Dual-Polarization Products to Identify Chaff - NOAA


Continue reading →

UNITED STATES, INC. (Part II)

0 comments

Names and NAMES

What is a name, really?  At its simplest, it is an address or a way to address someone and get their attention.  Below is the best description I could find in context of names and titles.  Just a forewarning (for little ears, lol), there is some swearing in the video; mostly satirical.  He adequately and elegantly explains the multiple facets of names and the abstractions of them therein, but goes off on a weird tangent about "gurus" and stuff like that that I obviously disagree with.  If you like the way he explains things of this nature, please feel free to buy into his seminars (I believe they are over the phone).  You can skip the video if you want, but just understand that when I refer to a name with correct punctuation (ie: Philip Smith), I am referring to myself.  When I use the corporate form, I will capitalize each letter (PHILIP SMITH, for example).  
  I would like to note that it doesn't really matter what name you use or how it is spelled or capitalized, it is simply a way to understand the fact that you are you and a name is simply a way to address you and what capacity you are operating in.  For instance, when referring to "The United States of America" we are referring to the Constitutional Republic operating in Common Law organically and originally intended or UNITED STATES referring to the corporate, illegal, Legislative Democracy in the District of Columbia operating in Statutory Jurisdiction.

Do Your Homework!  

  If you are the observant type,  you may have noticed that I have linked many words and phrases to their respective definitions in the Black's Law Dictionary.  I would like to recommend that you cross-reference said definitions with the Bouvier's Dictionary as it predates Black's.  Another good read to get you ahead of the game is to read about the Maxims of Law, but it is not required as I will make a feeble attempt at summation.

Here's Where It Gets A Bit Crazy


  I'm going to say something that will most likely either make you think I'm crazy or make you poop your pants.  You are a corporation owned by another corporation.  There.  I said it.  In 1862 Congress decided to take it upon themselves to change the meaning of a very important word: Person.  

"...every individual, partnership, firm, association, or corporntion, (and any word or words in this act indicating or referring to person or persons shall be taken to mean and include partnerships, firms, associations, or corporations, when not otherwise designated or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof..."

  The meaning of the word was changed to mean and/or include corporations.  This was further blasphemed by making people subjects to the jurisdiction of the newly created corporate government.  The 14th Amendment to the UNITED STATES Constitution in 1868:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

  In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, there are many definitions for "UNITED STATES", but one sticks out specifically:

"5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law."  

   Better yet, we can use the United States Code or USC to define the corporation:

"(15) “United States” means—
           (A) a Federal corporation;
           (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States
           (C) an instrumentality of the United States."

   I will reiterate, you are a corporation (in this definition, "entity") owned by another corporation (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Inc. (dba. UNITED STATES)).

Can A Corporation That Owns Other Corporations Tell It What To Do?

  In short, yes.  If you look at Federal (Commercial/Statutory/Corporate) Code of Regulations, Title 27, Part 1, Section 72.1:

" 72.1Procedures relating to personal property and carriers.Regulations in this part shall relate to personal property and carriers seized by alcohol, tobacco and firearms officers as subject to forfeiture as being involved, used, or intended to be used, as the case may be, in any violation of Federal laws."

  Summarizing the several sections of the amendment in order, the first is that of the most general application, and which has mainly engaged the attention of the courts. It creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (see PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) ; and secures all "persons" against any state action which is either deprivation of life, liberty, or, property without due process of law or denial of the equal protection of the laws.  (SEE: Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution):

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    In other words, all laws are subject to all citizens (or persons/legal fictions) of the United States.  The next question should automatically present itself.

How Is This Legal?

  That's just it: it isn't.  Article 6 of the Constitution specifically states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

  And, the 14th Amendment (never being properly ratified, by the way) creates a new form of government, different form of citizenship, and different jurisdiction.  That is why the 10th Amendment does not apply to a 14th Amendment citizenship (the "new" definition of citizen, that is).  Here is the 10th Amendment for your convenience:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  For brevity's sake, I am going to continue on to the following questions in my next post.  Sorry for the ranting, but it needs to be explained in depth.

  • Does Congress know that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional?
  • What is the Birth Certificate?
  • What is it to be Sovereign?
Continue reading →
2013-01-14

UNITED STATES, INC. (Part I)

0 comments

Forward

  Since September 11th, 2001 I have been changed into a bit of a skeptic.  The uphill battle of breaking down the wool intricately woven over my eyes since birth proved a challenging endeavor.  What I mean is I felt something was amiss regarding the official presumptions of the mass media's portrayal of significant historical events as they seemed to be either incomplete or completely flawed.  9/11 will remain a mystery for those who refuse to accept either side of the conspiracy.  I use the word "conspiracy" intentionally.  The word, as defined by numerous dictionaries, essentially means an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot (ref.).   So, any reference to the events of the attacks revolves around a conspiracy; the official and unofficial accounts without significant physical evidence are both, in fact, conspiracy theories.  The goal of this series of posts is to open your eyes to the facade of legitimate governance this country can no longer see because we neglect to remember our own history.

  Regardless of your stance on terrorists and conspiracy, you have to agree that the world changed in late 2001.  But, is that really the most significant turning point, at least in American history?  Let's go back for a moment and get a bird's eye view of another significant (but, subtle) event in our nations' history (apostrophe after "nations" intentional).

Republic or Democracy?

  This has been a hot topic for over 100 years.  Why?  Why do Democrats and Republicans constantly and consistently bicker and argue?  One argument that has been convoluted by micro-managed differences is the all-encompassing question as to the governmental state of our country.  So, what are we?  First of all, let's define the two.  To avoid arguments over what dictionary best suits who, I will be using Bouvier's Legal Dictionary 1856 edition and for brevity, Black's Law Dictionary (when necessary).

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT:
  1. 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.

DEMOCRACY [government]:
  That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body, as was the practice in some of the states of Ancient Greece; the term representative democracy has been given to a republican government like that of the United States. 

  Wait.  What is a Representative Democracy?

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:  A form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 31. 

  Not to be confused with a Direct Democracy, by the way.

What Happened in 1871? 


  So, who sets the policies in a Representative Democracy?  The elected "body" creates policies/laws.  But, this still does not answer the original inquiry.  To answer the question, we must step back to the year 1871, more precisely, February 21st. The Forty-First Congress is in session soon after the Civil War. This Congress passed an Act titled "An Act to Provide A Government for the District of Columbia", more commonly referred to as the "Act of 1871" (Acts of Congress, Section 34, Session III, Chapters 61 & 62). What this act created was a separate government for the Distric of Columbia (a ten square mile land parcel in America's Northeast quadrant).

  The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America. Does this sound at all familiar?  Remember Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the "spreading of Democracy"?  Believe me, Democracy spreading is more accurately akin to spreading herpes.  The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London).  Essentially, Congress indebted themselves to said bankers by creating a government in their name and with their [Statutory] laws.  Yes, this is treason.

  In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner: "The Constitution for the united states of America".  The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.  

  The question regarding the type of government should now be clear. We are both a Legislative Democracy and Constitutional Republic simultaneously. Essentially, what we want and expect our nation to be is a Republic, but the Federal Government (the Legislative Democracy) has stripped away our sovereignty and basic Human Rights to enable a subtle takeover by foreign banking institutions.   This now presents more questions. One of which may be "why?" and another "how?", but the next questions that I will attempt to answer in Part II will be the following (probably,):

  • Why does the capitalization matter in the name? 
  • How does this effect me and my family?
  • What is the Birth Certificate, really? 
  • What is a Person? 
  • What is a Citizen?
  • What does it mean to be sovereign?

  Let these questions marinate in your head for a moment; deeply consider the meaning of each (for an exercise of sorts, heh).  Stay tuned for Part II, if you're still awake at this point.

Next>
Continue reading →
2013-01-09

Free Online Learning!

0 comments
  Recently stumbled upon some free online classes and thought I'd share it with my readers (do I even have readers?  lol).  There are 20 categories from 33 participating universities.  Give it a whirl!

https://www.coursera.org/
Continue reading →

Resent Personal Discovery: Mind Mapping Software

0 comments

What is Mind Mapping Software?

  I have heard about it for quite some time now, but have always passed it off as weird, hippy, metaphysical crap.  I saw a video somebody posted on Google+ regarding a Android app and, of course, the screenshot caught my eye.  I tried the free version of the software and really liked it, but the $4.99 price was a bit steep for something I wouldn't use too often on my mobile phone.

  I found myself scouring the Internet for [free] Linux solutions.  I tried two different applications that looked great and had the functionality I desired.  First, I tried VYM (View Your Mind) simply because it was high-rated in the Ubuntu Software Center, but found the graphics to be a bit crappy.  Don't get me wrong though...it is great software, it just didn't work the way I wanted it to.  


  After a while of tinkering (see screenshot above), I decided to replicate the same map of United States courts in another application I saw called XMind and, so far, I like XMind a bit more than VYM.  



  I think I'll stick with XMind for the time being.  Not a very big post, but I wanted to express the value I feel this software will bring me in breaking seemingly complex systems and ideas down to a more reasonable, visual level.  Give it a whirl!  For the record, XMind is also available for Windows and Mac users too:

http://www.xmind.net/
Continue reading →