Grand Illusion – 3

When did Congress achieve a status of near divine authority over all American Persons? How else to explain the extraordinary Powers to tax the tangible, by the measure of the intangible, while demanding absolute obedience once reserved for Masters over their Slaves.

Only in anti-America do men work as wage-slaves and rejoice for the privilege of working at all. Even the unemployed are taxed on their meager wage rations. A free-loader is now the lowest form of debt-slaver, as if not paying an unlawfully applied, federal Mass-Capitation-income-tax was indeed immoral. In a Nation of debt-slaves he who escapes the tax whip is the object of scorn and class hatred. Obediently paying a Mass-Capitation tax is not a moral quality of a higher Noble purpose. An individual Mass-Capitation tax is a purposeful insult to the very elemental notion of freedom itself. The price to be paid to remain alive and free is always rising. The cost of living for a vast majority is the primary reason the enjoyment of life is nearly impossible.

In a country where lawful money was outlawed, to clear the Market for bad debt-money, with only a whimper of disgust from the Judicial, the generational consequences are now firmly manifested in the Moral rejection of actual freedom. People have embraced tax slavery so deeply they are proud to be debt slaves. Very few ever pay attention to the fact not a penny of the taxes collected actually pay for a single government service.

The Grace Commission Report JANUARY 15, 1984


—Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.

—Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.

With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

But why expect anything from a government which has created the problems to enrich the few at the expense of the rest?

The fallacy of federal moral superiority in all economic choices lies in the contradictions of assuming the roots of the enabling powers or “implied powers” are superior to the Enumerated powers by Consent. Or why demand such powers at all?

Any power encoded in law which requires people to be a happy slave is Evil. People will say, “Well I would rather be a happy, evil slave then an unhappy, starving free man.”

 The sad fact that such a Faustian choice is often enough, the only one available, actually proves why such federal “implied” powers have failed to produce a single quality of individual good. Only in anti-America is it good to be a slave and bad to be a free man. The evil is in the law itself. Obedience to evil laws makes a mockery of individual moral-conscience. The very purpose of moral-conscience is turned on its head, when submission to evil is required to be safe from State authoritarians, but only as an obedient citizen. When authoritarians decide your choices for you how can you claim to be free? And where did that power of first choice come from exactly?

The federal government having decided to take the lowest moral road of all, has no conscience equitable with “Divine Authority” or even moral authority, as it is practiced. A secular government which claims no Higher Order of Truth even exists, cannot be a rightful judge of its own inherent evil. Which is why such morally deficient governments eventually become so blatantly Evil to their rotten cores. They simply claim they can do no evil or better yet, no such evil can exist, except when they decide it is a characteristic of a disobedient citizen.

When a Law demands obedience contrary to natural Will of Moral-Conscience, no man must obey like a dog the demands of a false master. Only that which is evil demands its actions to be judged as good, while inflicting Harm of increasing severity to achieve its goals. In anti-America superior Federal authority has to be Evil [coercion] in order to be Good for Society. The social tension people naturally feel from this coercive activity is often expressed as indirect violence towards authority in general, or specific actions of civil disobedience. When the Will of the People is being violated by such evils, the questions of Sovereignty must be answered. What is freedom when sovereignty means nothing as a citizen of the State?

A willful disobedience by a servant of his master’s order is an intentional disobedience, that is, the thing done or omitted to be done was done or omitted intentionally, but it does not necessarily imply any evil intent on the part of the servant or malice toward his master. [May v. New York Motion Picture Corp., 45 Cal. App. 396 (Cal. App. 1920)].”

Title 26 7203 “Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax–”

People have been led to believe such issues of Vested Rights of Sovereignty were long since defeated and thus, discarded on the trash heap of history. But the truth of the matter is to be found in the why…. as in why such claims have vanished from public view. A concerted effort has been made for quite some time to diminish the importance to the extant that it is now a mute question.

To find the root of the oppression, means looking back into history once again to see why the issue had to be removed from fuller understanding. Why does the federal government want sovereign individual authority to be defeated and or ignored? Perhaps, it is also a question of who desires this diminishment of Rights? Who benefits from the trampling of individual unalienable Rights? What hidden element is operating on the people from the past, undisclosed upon the present? Which part of the Law is really acting on people of today? This is quite true in regards to past Treaties, especially those which dealt with the emerging corporation named, the United States of America. The past entanglements, while easily ignored or even ridiculed when held up for discussion, nonetheless, did contribute to the historical flow of political and lawful activities still lurking in the shadows of the modern era.

For example: Esquires are titles of Nobility. If the Kings loyal servants aka Esquires sign a Treaty, as in the Paris Peace Treaty, representing both sides of the Contract, why does that contract have any lawful force over the People, who never signed it at all? Why is this such an odd twist on direct representation? Who really represented the People in a Contract bound to a Treaty of which their Authority had no voice?

The Constitution allows the federal government to act on an international level, representing the States as a single body. So why allow the King to have only his Esquires, even though they {John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay}were very well respected back home, as the only voices he would hear? Why were the victors being treated as the defeated? To whom does an Esquire have loyalty, but he who gave him such a Noble Title? Only if you are A subject to the Saxon King, does that question mean anything. Or someone else with no such allegiance to a defeated Crown, would have spoken for the Peoples Congress, thereby objecting to the Saxon Kings declarations:

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God[divine authority], king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America”—{*Oops, say what did he mean by that final assertion of formal Title, of great Noble Status over the United States of America?}

“As rulers of States of the Empire, the electors enjoyed all the privileges of the other princes, including the right to enter into alliances, autonomy in relation to dynastic affairs and precedence over other subjects. The Golden Bull recognised certain additional rights belonging to the electors. For instance, electors were granted a monopoly over all mines of gold, silver, and other metals within their territories, to tax Jews, to collect tolls, and to mint money; these powers belonged to the Emperor in the other territories, and princes who wrongly assumed them could be deprived of their status. Thus, the electors were among the most powerful princes in the Empire. Electors also enjoyed several judicial powers within their territories. Their subjects could not be tried in the imperial courts, and appeal from their courts lay only in cases where denial of justice was claimed.

After the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire in August 1806, the electors continued to reign over their territories, many of them taking higher titles. The Dukes of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Saxony made themselves Kings, as later did the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, who was already King of Great Britain.”

If he already owned the corporation [arch-treasurer?] U. S. A. for which America stands, then is He simply re-delegating his Authority, to his now independent USA corporation? If he is representing the “united states corporation” as its Prince-elector, to the former papal throne then is He signifying a chain of authority by Title of King, into the Treaty, which was going to become National Law? Who just gained superior Authority, where none had been previously established? The ever so tiny detail here is not as insignificant as history pretends.

The Prince-electors (or simply Electors) of the Holy Roman Empire were the members of the electoral college of the Holy Roman Empire, having the function of electing the Roman king or, from the middle of the 16th century onwards, directly the Holy Roman Emperor (that would be the Pope). The heir-apparent to a prince-elector was known as an electoral prince. The dignity of Elector was extremely prestigious and second only to King or Emperor.

(*In September 1769, Prince William appointed Meyer Amschel Rothschild of nearby Frankfurt to transact some of his financial affairs in the capacity of Crown Agent. Whom are also titled, “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.”)

The emblem of fascism, a pair of them, commands the wall above and behind the speakers rostrum in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. They’re called Fasces, and I can think of no reason for them to be there other than to declare the fascistic nature of American republican democracy. A Fasces is a Roman device. Actually, it originated with the ancient Etruscans, from whom the earliest Romans derived their religious jurisprudence nearly three thousand years ago. It’s an ax-head whose handle is a bundle of rods tightly strapped together by a red sinew. It symbolizes the ordering of priestly functions in a single infallible sovereign, an autocrat who could require life and limb of his subjects. If the fasces is entwined with laurel, like the pair on the House wall, it signifies Caesarean military power. The Romans called this infallible sovereign Pontifex Maximus, “Supreme Bridge-builder.” No Roman was called Pontifex Maximus until the title was given to Julius Caesar in 48 BC.” 

The basis of Roman Catholic persecution was political. Catholics owed allegiance to Pontifex Maximus, the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome was a foreign ruler who, as a matter of public policy, regarded the British king and his Protestant Church as heretics to be destroyed. From the American colonists’ standpoint, to allow Catholics to vote or hold office was tantamount to surrendering the colonies to foreign conqueror. A crucial part of maintaining personal liberty in Protestant colonial America was keeping Roman Catholics out of government. But then came the Revolution. The colonial citizenry fought for and won their independence from Great Britain. They established a Constitution that amounted to… surrendering their country to a foreign conqueror. Consider the legalities. Before the Constitution was ratified, American Catholics had few civil rights; after ratification, they had them all. Article VI, section 3 provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the United States,” while the First Amendment denies Congress the power “to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” With Article IV Section 3 and the First Amendment, the Constitution welcomed agents of Pontifex Maximus, the world’s chief enemy of Protestantism, into the ranks of government.” All Quotes except(*)from Tupper Saussy.

The essence of Roman-ism is summed in this: “Subjection of the intellect to divine authority in matters connected with religion.”


“Jefferson thought his bill for religious reform in Virginia was in the spirit of breaking the power of the William the Conqueror’s priests that reinforced Norman tyranny with the pope’s approval. Yet Jefferson was also well aware that Cavalier tradition in Virginia was deeply wary of the example of the Puritan tyranny of Oliver Cromwell. Puritans had demonstrated that they could find their own way of enforcing a tyrannical unity of religion and state. The founding of America cannot be understood without the recognition that the violent chaos of the English Civil War lurked in the backs of the minds of men from Massachusetts and Virginia. The deepest source of the overarching human universalism of the U.S. Constitution originated not from the “Puritan” ethos or “Cavalier” political genius, but from the attempt to find a rational common ground that could transcend or overcoming this underlying polarity. Although the attempt to avert a repeat of England’s civil war ultimately failed, and Americanism subsequently stabilized upon the Puritan-based polarity, the surviving dynamics of the universalistic genius of the American Constitution could never have been founded upon this polarity alone.

The greatest architect of America’s right to religious freedom was Virginian Thomas Jefferson, not a cultural Puritan. The historical dynamics that made Jefferson’s program for freedom of religion politically possible was a détente between the polarities represented by Massachusetts and Virginia. The right to religious freedom was a product of the attempt to transcend the mutual intolerance between Puritan-Yankee and Anglican-Episcopalian. This was one of the universalistic facets of the founding that survived, at least in principle, even after the multicultural compromise of the founding failed, and the North won the Civil War.” MITCHELL HEISMAN— A VENDETTA CALLED REVOLUTION

If the Crown holds allodial Title to all the lands, under the United States of America— his corporation, thus his person, who is the real Master?

Historian George Garnett pointed out that “William the Conqueror’s role as the source of all tenure in conquered England was unique and unprecedented.” The legal innovations of Magna Carta are a direct reaction to some of the legal innovations of the Norman Conquest. After William, everyone was dependent on the king for the lands that they held. This dependency on the king allowed Norman elites to first acquire their lands on the basis on William’s nod. As a precedent, it also made the Norman aristocracy precariously dependent on the king’s nod. The great Norman barons had “no rights” not at the mercy of the king.

As George Garnett observed, “[s]crupulous legalism was based upon a fabricated history, which ultimately legitimated the despoliation of the Conquest.” William’s claim, “confected in Normandy”, established a “fiction of continuity” and the great Charter is actually great evidence of the fictional nature of those claims of continuity. Magna Carta, seen in modern times as a move away from the so-called “feudal” principle of William’s kingly ownership of all the land, was actually an expansion, extension, and ‘liberalization’ of the rights of conquest. This implies that the most influential foundation of modern, universalistic, egalitarian law can be traced to the most outrageous usurping power of a single individual: William the Conqueror.

As historian Reginald Horsman observed: To many Americans the sweeping away of entail and primogeniture after the Revolution eliminated the last remnants of the feudal system and restored the freedoms of the period before 1066. The works of Sir Henry Spelman and Sir John Dalrymple, which were well known in the colonies, depicted Anglo-Saxon England as a land free from the burdens of feudalism.

{“Many of you are aware that the laws of this nation and it’s states, were made to be in compliance and submission to the laws of England, only modified by state and federal law. You will see in this last Chapter state statutes from just a few of the original colonies, that this is the case. Are these what are called ancient statutes? Yes. However, since the king’s Corporation is alive and well as are his heirs, so is his Trust and the law used to create and govern it. The law that governs his Trust can only be amended, no law could be enacted contrary to the king’s will and cestui que trust, the main corporate sole where office is always found, the Crown. The king’s practice of granting lands in this country to those loyal to him continues, along with their land grants being protected by state ancient statutes which are still on the books. 

The pecking Order starting from the top in controlling land are;

1. The Pope

2. The Kings of all lands, but we are talking specifically England here.

3. Knights

4. Lord Proprietors of the King in America

5. Royal Governors of the King, in America

6. Administrative officers of the corporate colonies of America

7. Freeholders/Freemen of granted property in America.

8. The officers of the newly constituted States of America which, gave way to the;

9. Officers of the United States which now reverses 8 and 9 due to the States joining Union.

10. The County officers which are the corporate instrumentalities of the State.

11. Simple man.

[FEE-SIMPLE, a freehold estate of Inheritance, absolute and unqualified : the largest estate one can have in land. 1 i i: TAIL. An estate of Inheritance which descends to certain • of particular heirs, Instead of to heirs generally.]

We are governed by the king’s nobles just as in times of old, England was governed by self-proclaimed nobles, and corporate trusts. They rule this country and the world. The huge corporations have been granted power and liberty not known by the common man. The nobles, real and created, occupy their possessions as fiduciaries and trustees of the king’s grants; so long as they remain loyal to the system, their privilege and life style are their reward.

You will see that the Church of England was granted lands in this country and their lands are protected by corporate privilege, through trusts and fee simple title. As I have stated before, the king receives the gain for his business venture here in the United States, as he does with all his corporations. A portion of the fines and taxes we pay today go right back to the sovereign, the king of England, and his heirs and/or successors as I pointed out in previous chapters of, “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. After reading the evidence presented in this chapter, you will find my conclusion, which the culmination of 10 years of researching this subject, has been based on the historical facts I have shared with you in this Book.” James Franklin Montgomery, THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY.}

{On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U. S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don’t believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person. “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person.” 9 F. Supp 272 “Word “person” does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction. For an in-depth look into the nature of these corporations and to see how you also have been declared a fictional entity. See: AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. VOL. XIII By James De Witt Andrews LL. B. (Albany Law School), LL. D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in detail the nature and purpose of these corporations, you will be stunned at what you read.

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.” Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property!} See APFN web page HTTP:// htm The Ultimate Delusion By: Stephen Ames

In dealing with the law issues surrounding the 16th Amendment, people claim they just want the facts, but the truth is in the details and the real problem is in the fuzzy pattern, lurking like a shadow where few dare to tread. If the Land is the basis of the Law, he who holds the supreme title of the lands is already its Master. The lands now compromising the union States were for the most part conquered. The native Inhabitants upon them were defeated in bloody battles. To ignore the facts, is to live in a fiction of them, which unfortunately, seems just fine for most. However, the dirt under that carpet still shines a dull red.

The violence of the civil war only re-enforced the defects which were already present in the law. Something was quite wrong in America and the glaring quality of that wrong is right there in plain site. People say I am an American, very few say, I am a United Corporation Statesmen. How about, I am a Union Corporation Federalist American. Sounds rather ambiguous. Cultural ties between people define their sense of community, and thus identity, of the political person, in favor of the cultural distinction.

Without a choice of such affiliations, a forced consensus can only produce abnormal results of artificial loyalty. People who are forced by political decree to identify themselves as required, have every right to say no, or the very essence of freedom itself—the right to say yes is gone. A political slave is no better off then a physical one. The deeper foulness which pervades America is the hidden elements which remain clouded by deliberate miss-conceptions of what the original founding parties were really establishing and why.

“When Liberty has reached her Golden Goal, to whom shall Freedom pay his Toll?” I penned this line in a short sci-fi story, concerning a mad scientist taking over the world. He was referring to himself as the new world Dictator, thus naming himself, by answering his own question. A king and a dictator are never more then two words apart. I say — you do. In today’s world there are many types of tyranny. Why are people still fighting over who controls their Wills and thus the determinations of their Individual Freedoms? The Constitution, for those not of Noble birth, is indeed a double-edged sword, which asserts, “A Bill of Rights” is Vested in the Law by virtue of the People, but apparently only for a selected class of the whole. Unless of course, the Declaration itself was merely a political philosophy of limited inclusion. A simple crucial fact dispels the fog surrounding the issue. Ownership of the land determined the rights of the Vote for which it stood. This franchise defined the who of that vested class of persons, that is those who were to enjoy the deeper quality of sovereigns upon their own lands. Which is Absolute control of land upon which they stand.

Duke University professor Alexander Keyssar wrote in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States: At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word “democracy” had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation’s inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land. 

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans: Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1774 instructions to the Virginia delegation to the Continental Congress, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” went even further, linking the colonists’ allodial titles to Americans’ “Saxon ancestors” who had held their land “in absolute dominion . . . disencumbered with any superior.” For Jefferson and many others, the Norman Conquest had produced only a temporary exception to the English tradition of liberty and allodial ownership rather than a permanent reduction in rights.”

George Washington was of the Nobility, he was at that time one of the largest landowners of the Colonies. He was an aristocrat born and raised. He did not give slaves the same rights of himself, but he did release them upon his death. In this regard, he was quite different then the other Founders of the country who owned slaves. The rules of those times did not grant commoners, freemen, or slaves the same land ownership Voting Privileges also known as Franchises. The assertions of the Declarations were ringing hollow, thus the Rights had to be inserted, or the whole scheme was doomed to failure. These Rights sadly, have never fulfilled the central premise of freedom itself. To self-govern on ones own land and to live in peace, upon ones land. When was the last time America even flew a flag of Peace?

The deeper question is: Why did those Founding guys allow slavery of other human beings at all period?

Aristotle sums up the Greek view, “From the moment of birth some are marked to rule and some for subdication” and Plato’s Republic arrives at the perfect society, which contains slaves in a proportion to free men, as did T. More in the UK 16th Century in his Utopia with the same object in mind as Plato, society according to natural law had to contain slaves to function, in the US J Locke who came up with unalienable rights for men, also owned slaves and founded the African Coy for the UK to import slaves to the new Colony of SC, which Locke wrote most of its state charter, and believed that slavery was naturally correct.” Hanny, Aug 9, 2006 HTTP:// /why-did-slave-holders-in-the-south-comply-with-the-emancipation.6636/page-4

Critics point out that John Locke invested in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company. Also, Locke helped draft the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas, which created a feudal aristocracy and left slaves under the complete control of their masters. Beyond that, some people believe that Locke’s statements regarding unenclosed property helped justify the Native American displacement. These critics often accuse him of hypocrisy, since his major writings oppose slavery and aristocracy.” HTTP:// php]

While a consensus developed that allocation of taxes among the states should follow wealth, and that population would sufficiently measure the relative wealth of the states, there was no consensus on how to count slaves. In July of 1776, when the Articles of Confederation were first being considered, the South wanted slaves to be excluded entirely from the computation of taxes. Samuel Chase of Maryland, speaking for the South, argued that including slaves in the formula for state quotas was double counting, taxing the Southern states “according to their numbers [and] their wealth conjunctly.” 45 When a Northern farmer achieved a surplus, Chase argued, he would invest in cattle and horses; a Southern farmer, with the same surplus, would invest in slaves.46 Slaves should not be counted in the population, Chase said, any more than cattle. 47 Northern delegates, by contrast, argued that slaves should be included in the census for establishing the tax quotas because slaves were like peasants, or freemen. In some countries, John Adams argued, the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves, but the difference was imaginary only. Ten laborers added as much wealth annually to a state whether they were freemen or slaves, Adams asserted. 48

James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, similarly, that farmers in the Southern colonies ordinarily paid poll taxes upon each of their laborers, whether free or slave: “Dismiss your slaves [and] freemen will take their places.”49 Slaves were even more valuable, Wilson claimed, because non-slave women generally were exempted from labor, but slave women were not.50 The first proposed compromise between the slave and non-slave states, offered in 1776, proposed including one-half of all slaves in the count for tax quotas. Benjamin Harrison of Virginia argued for the compromise because of the relative price of labor in the North and South: the cost of a laborer in the Southern colonies was between eight and twelve pounds per year, while in the Northern colonies the cost was about twenty-four pounds per year.51

The North rejected the compromise in 1776, 52 and the Articles 45 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes of Proceedings in Congress (Samuel Chase, Md.), July 30,1776, in 4 LETTERS, supra note 23, at 439. See also John Adams, Notes of Debate (Thomas Lynch, S. C.), July 30, 1776, in 4 LETTERS, supra note 23, at 568-69 (arguing that slaves should not be taxed any more than sheep and horses).” Calvin H. Johnson

There is a significant piece of the social puzzle missing from the standard view of ‘citizens’ as defined today, from the historical record, from which the social importance of class distinctions, based on land ownership, arose in the first place:

In all the colonies there were well-drawn social lines; birth and pedigree counted for more than in the free America of today. The lowest stratum of society was composed of African slaves. Slavery existed in all the thirteen colonies, but the great bulk of the slaves, perhaps four fifths of them, were in the South. The institution did not pay at the North, and it never became an important social factor in that section. Few were the rights of the slaves before the law in any of the colonies; but with regard to their condition they may be divided into three classes. Those in New England and the middle colonies were for the most part domestic servants, and they usually received mild and humane treatment, were instructed in religion and morals, and were not infrequently admitted to the family circle. In Virginia and Maryland, where all social life centered round the owners of the great plantations, the slave was a body-servant to his master, or more frequently a plantation laborer, living a life of ignorance and contentment in his rude hut with his family. At certain seasons of the year his labor was arduous, but, on the whole, his condition was a happy one. Among this class we find mechanics and artisans, trained for the various duties about the plantation. A severer form of slavery marked the third class, which was found farther south, where the blacks were brought from Africa or the West Indies in great numbers, and where, under the lash of the taskmaster, they wore away their lives in the rice swamps with unrequited toil.

Next above the slaves, and not far above them, stood the indentured white servants. Many of these were criminals, who, being thrust upon the colonies by the mother country, escaped imprisonment or death by a long term of servitude in America. Others were waifs from the streets of London, sold by their inhuman parents, or kidnapped by cruel traders and sold into servitude across the sea. Still others, known as redemptioners or free-willers, voluntarily sold their services for a term of years, not usually more than five, in order to pay their passage across the sea. The majority of the redemptioners, after serving their time, merged into the great middle class and became substantial citizens. Many left the scenes of their servitude and pushed out to the frontier, hewed their homes out of the frowning forest, and led a quiet, industrious life. Of the convict class, few were reformed by their service; the majority continued shiftless and worthless, and constituted, especially at the South, the most undesirable element of society. The indentured servants, like the slaves, were far more numerous in the South than in the North, but in no place were they socially or politically of much importance.

The next higher class, the most numerous of all, comprised the traders, shop-keepers, and small farmers — the rank and file, the bone and sinew of the land. Especially was this true of the northern and middle colonies. To this class belonged the great mass of the people, and they were for the most part prosperous, contented, and moderately educated, but not highly cultured.

At the top of the social scale stood the ruling class, composed in New England of the clergy, magistrates, college professors, and other professional men; in New York of these classes, and, above all, of the great landholders along the Hudson; while in the South the proprietors of the great plantations were uppermost in society, and near them stood the professional men. In all the colonies social lines were distinctly drawn, more so than in our own times. The style of dress was, in some colonies, regulated by law, and no one was permitted to dress “above his degree.” Worshipers in church and students in college were obliged to occupy seats according to their social standing.

The upper class made much of birth and ancestry; and, whatever our prejudices against rank, it is significant that from this class came many of the leading statesmen and generals of the Revolution.” HTTP:// HTML

The importance of the social order, was reflected both by the culture and the law which governed the respect of citizens to one another. With rank came privilege and thus liberties:

One might ask how such a tyrannical society could have produced some of the greatest champions of republicanism, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison. The answer is that Tidewater’s gentry embraced classical republicanism, meaning a republic modeled after those of ancient Greece and Rome. They emulated the learned, slave holding elite of ancient Athens, basing their enlightened political philosophies around the ancient Latin concept of libertas, or liberty. This was a fundamentally different notion from the Germanic concept of Freiheit, or freedom, which informed the political thought of Yankeedom and the Midlands. Understanding the distinction is essential to comprehending the fundamental disagreements that still plague relations between Tidewater, the Deep South, and New Spain on one hand and Yankeedom and the Midlands on the other. The Greek and Roman political philosophy embraced by Tidewater gentry assumed the opposite: most humans were born into bondage.

Liberty was something that was granted and was thus a privilege, not a right. Some people were permitted many liberties, others had very few, and many had none at all. The Roman Republic was one in which only a handful of people had the full privileges of speech (senators, magistrates), a minority had the right to vote on what their superiors had decided (citizens), and most people had no say at all (slaves).

Liberties were valuable because most people did not have them and were thought meaningless without the presence of a hierarchy. For the Greeks and Romans there was no contradiction between republicanism and slavery, liberty and bondage. This was the political philosophy embraced and jealously guarded by Tidewater’s leaders, whose highborn families saw themselves as descendants not of the “common” Anglo-Saxons, but rather of their aristocratic Norman conquerors. It was a philosophical divide with racial overtones and one that would later drive America’s nations into all-out war with one another.” Hunter Wallace

Here too is a social Tension, which operates on the level of class status. There is the implied assertion that one segment of the social order has the absolute right to enforce upon the other the necessity of its support without the equal qualities, which can only be attained by order from heritage. This “class superiority” is the missing parameter from which social matrix’s are actually operating. The lowest class has no means to defend itself from the predatory demands of the superior, political class. The Tension Function of money is at work here as well.

As James Madison sardonically pointed out, Alexander Hamilton’s vision for America was that of a *Mercantilist state “woven together by tax collectors.” His program envisioned creating an alliance between the central government and the bond-holding class, which would create a permanent constituency for ever-higher taxes and ever-increasing government. (In recent decades, unionized government employees have become a huge and powerful element of that constituency as well.)

[*Mercantilism lasted from the creation of strong central governments in the 15th century until the 19th century, however, mercantilist policies continue to be followed today. Some believe that the American revolution was an outgrowth of conflict between the colonies and England brought about by England’s mercantilist policies. Mercantilism was at its height in the 17th and 18th centuries. Although the economic policies adopted in the nations of Europe were not identical, they shared sufficient common characteristics to consider each country’s economic system as being of the same type. The objective of these policies was to maximize the nation’s wealth. Wealth was defined in terms of gold; not the way Adam Smith defined it, which is the nation’s ability to produce. Gold could be acquired either through a trade surplus or the obtaining of gold-bearing territory. Mercantilism involved the using the power of the state throughout the economy to enrich the state. Therefore, a mercantilist economy is a managed economy.” Carole E. Scott]

Hamilton’s scheme required the imposition of various excise taxes on the productive population. This in turn led to the rebellion of farmers in western Pennsylvania, who used whiskey as a form of currency. They quite sensibly refused to pay the tax. When Washington dispatched tax collectors to the region, the rebels quite helpfully outfitted them in appropriate couture – hot tar and goose feathers. A little more than a decade after Yorktown, George Washington assembled an army to set down the rebellion. 

As Thomas DiLorenzo observes in his valuable book Hamilton’s Curse: “The rank-and-file soldiers may have been mostly conscripts, but many of the officers who accompanied Hamilton and Washington to Pennsylvania were from the ranks of the creditor aristocracy in the seaboard cities…. These officers were eager to enforce collection of the whiskey tax so that the value of their government bond holdings could be enhanced and secured.” William Norman Grigg, When Tax-Feeders Revolt.

If only Washington had listened to Jefferson instead, he might have realized why people were relieving the [Tension] forced upon them by revolting against the “imposition” of yet another tax. This fundamental dis-connection officials have from the reality, of which the imposition is to be placed, reveals itself in the anger expended by the segments of the population which rightly perceive taxation as a form of general punishment for a purpose of no discernible relief, to any guilt, so imposed. The deeper defect of all taxing powers is also right there in plain sight.

These farmers were using whiskey as a local exchange equal to government money or perhaps even superior. The creditor class had no inherent right to demand a monetary return on any product of which their Bonds had no direct relationship. Taxing power now looks just like a fishing expedition to find the productive people who have something that can be taxed just to satisfy the demands of the Bond holders. Once the Tension was placed upon the farmers who realized this demand was not on anyone else, they had every Right to say no. Perhaps, a more sensible idea might have been to take the matter directly to the State-House and then demand the redress of the wrong. The unresolved Tension here is between classes of people, each asserting a social power, which identifies the defect of all governments, acting on behalf of the creditors, thereby, demonstrating who they are really depending upon for their authority. Washington, did not follow the right path to resolve the actual problem: the Bond holders themselves. Washington failed to recognize he was dealing with a very different kind of problem, which required a very different solution.

In Hamilton’s Curse, author Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo traces the roots of America’s economic and political systems to the first secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. We are truly living in “Hamilton’s Republic,” says Dr. DiLorenzo — but this is far from a good thing. While it is Thomas Jefferson’s face that graces Mount Rushmore, and tremendous lip service is paid to his greatness as a political thinker and president, in reality, Jefferson’s ideas have been entirely marginalized, while those of his arch rival Hamilton now form the backbone of the American political establishment.

The Revolution of 1776 was a Jeffersonian Revolution to throw off the yoke of British mercantilist imperialism and install it its place a voluntary union of free and independent states. Hamilton and his acolytes, however — no matter how bravely and earnestly they fought against the Red Coats — wanted to import British mercantilism to America with the U. S. aristocracy (Hamilton and his Federalist buddies) on the receiving end of the mercantilist spoils system. In fact, DiLorenzo argues that the Constitution itself was a virtual coup against the free republic of the Articles of Confederation for the purpose of increasing the authority of the central government — key to Hamilton’s plans. But Hamilton couldn’t create the unitary nationalist government in one fell swoop. Indeed, his plans to install a permanent president – an American king — with the power to appoint state governors and veto state legislation failed miserably. But as soon as the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton (who argued the pseudo-Jeffersonian case for its ratification in the Federalist Papers) set about subverting it. It was Hamilton who invented the concept of “implied powers.”

Hamilton had George Washington’s ear, and while historians act as if our first president was an “independent,” the fact is that he almost(?) exclusively appointed Federalists — meaning men who supported ratification of the Constitution — to the bench. These were by and large men who simply wanted to increase the federal government’s power over the states, and thus America was on the wrong path from the onset of the first presidency. The Federalist near-monopoly on the judicial system gave Hamiltonianism a foothold even as it suffered electoral defeat after electoral defeat — starting with the election of Hamilton’s arch rival Thomas Jefferson to the White House. 

Indeed, it wasn’t until the War Between the States, as DiLorenzo calls it, that Hamiltonianism — which had lost on the battlefield of ideas — was installed on the actual battlefield, by brute military force. Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican, and the Whigs were the ideological descendants of Hamilton’s Federalists. With Lincoln as their standard bearer, the new Republican Party had a full-fledged Hamiltonian agenda consisting of protectionism, high taxation, national centralism, corporate welfare, militarism, and national banking. These were the true issues over which the “Civil War” was fought, says DiLorenzo.

The Hamiltonian Republicans reigned over America almost uninterrupted for the next 52 years, until Woodrow Wilson — a Hamiltonian of the Left — was elected. Under Wilson, Hamiltonianism reached its zenith (or nadir), as the income tax, direct election of senators, and Federal Reserve all came into existence. Entirely gone was the Jeffersonian republic of “state’s rights.” DiLorenzo also says that the American “Progressives” who brought about these horrors were directly influenced by the German Historical School — which itself was strongly influenced by Hamilton. Thus, things came full circle.

DiLorenzo concludes this wonderful book with a road-map to ending the curse. Unfortunately, I have virtually zero faith that Americans are ever going to wake up and reassert Jeffersonian principles. As DiLorenzo explains, we now have several generations who have been taught Hamiltonian/Lincolnian myths in institutionalized schooling to the point that both the Left and the Right view Hamilton as a great hero. In reality, he was perhaps the greatest scoundrel in American history.” Jason Seagraves

Here is the explanation for how America went from the land of the free to the land of the government-dominated. Here is a thorough explanation how the Federal Government went from a minimalist government with scant intrusion into the lives of its people, to the modern day Leviathan which consumes 1/3 of every dollar we earn and gives us endless regulation and grief. Here is the seed of the welfare state, the precursor to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and Johnson’s “Great Society” – and the beginning of the end of the Constitution. Lincoln locked up thousands of those who disagreed with him. He cared not at all about slavery as a moral issue. He created the sort of Federal spending on programs that were previously successful private ventures, and which, as government programs, have put us trillions of dollars in debt. He destroyed the sovereignty of the states and laid the groundwork for George Bush to imprison people without charges, without access to counsel, without the right to confront accusers and ultimately without right to trial.” K. Amesbury

Once a pattern of action had been put into place like a river course now controlled by canals and dams, the implied powers became a source of UN-Constitutional, external powers of authority never granted by Consent. Such powers are strictly dictatorial upon those who are forced to obey. The Supreme Court has allowed this injustice with high-sounding arguments, which while quite stout both in reasoning and logical assertion are still dead wrong for the same reason. There are NO such implied powers. Just as fools gold is never gold so are “implied powers” never enumerated powers. Congress has no moral imperative gained by false authority to turn the People into bond slaves and it is really quite evil to imply otherwise.

Madison was shocked at how fast the Federalists, led by President Washington’s Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, expanded central government power beyond the limits he helped set up. As early as November 1789, Madison expressed opposition to Hamilton’s recommendation that the self-interest of wealthy investors should be linked to the central government by issuing bonds—running up a big national debt. 

Madison, incredibly, insisted that to be legitimate, a government must coerce people. “A sanction is essential to the idea of law, as coercion is to that of Government,” he wrote in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787). The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.” Madison called the lack of coercion “a fatal omission” in the Confederation.” Jim Powell James Madison-Checks and Balances to Limit Government Power http://www.thefreemanonline. org/features/james-madison-checks-and-balances-to-limit-government-power/

So in less than two years, Madison realized that his original position, a legitimate government needed coercion to achieve its goals, when coupled with Hamilton’s assertions of implied powers, was actually false. He realized too late how easily implied powers circumvented the principles of checks and balances, when the self-interests of wealthy investors become the only power that no amount of ‘implied powers’ can trump in any meaningful manner.

Madison rejected the doctrine of implied powers which he had previously advocated during his campaign for central government. Implied powers, he declared, struck “at the very essence of the Government as composed of limited and enumerated powers.

Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall (U. S.) 419, 456-480 (1793) (p.470) All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately from that crown. All the people of this country were then, subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; . . . From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; . . . Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; . . . 

(p.471) At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. 

(p.458) But in the case of the King, the sovereignty had a double operation. While it vested him with jurisdiction over others, it excluded all others from jurisdiction over him. The law, says Sir William Blackstone, ascribes to the King the attribute of sovereignty: he is sovereign and independent within his own dominions; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the King, even in civil matters; because no court can have jurisdiction over him:for all jurisdiction implies superiority of power.The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior.

(p.455) As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence. By a State I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person.It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: And it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members: It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out the private fortunes of individuals.

(p. 456) The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, it that he binds himself. Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorized by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do likewise? . . . In one sense, the term sovereignty has for its correlative, subject. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States,. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.

The Federal government claims it has superior sovereign authority every time it reaches for a citizens wallet. Such is the incredible expansion of taxation into every nook-and-cranny of the peoples lives it is no joke upon the living every action is a taxable event. The odious intentions of a worm-eaten bank have crept into every facet of modern living with the blessing of the federal charlatans demanding felicity to their new-world order religion. A religion which reduces free men back to nothing better than chattel slaves to pay the never-ending debt which compounds into infinity as if nothing else even mattered. To earn the token to pay the toll places  man against the grind-stone of poverty to exact a measure of flesh as proof he is worthy of another day of life. The false-hoods which abound in the immoral declarations of federal authority have no limitations save for the impossibility of their execution. Man having lost his moral compass has no measure to give him guidance through the fetid waters of his own ignorance.

Liberty is a forsaken promise which yields no joy or hope for salvation to the downtrodden masses, who must endure the never ending impositions of this new brand of servitude, dressed in pompous platitudes, while delivering another hand of death to any who oppose its master. The galling deceit of “implied powers” lies in its presumptions that civil servants having afforded themselves a place of greater purpose, are indeed wiser, then those they crush under their heels. Despotism has no constraints when it is fueled by a never-ending supply of debt-money to further its selfish goals and to aid its wretched excesses of immoral desires. The world was not created by crowned fools or their sleazy bankers, a fact these authoritarians have dispersed from their carnal minds, with no more thought then they give to any other born of their demented claims, so wrought from disingenuous interpretations of material reality and fact.

The pompous and the fools alike who serve them will all suffer the same fate of ignominious defeat. For having sworn upon a false principle they have already decided to curse the very land they trod upon. There is no Wisdom in their hearts and in its absence they have only themselves to blame for the choices which rendered their eyes blind to the omnipotent truth. They have no Authority over the Living. Which is why the original action of consent was a necessity and not a foregone conclusion. Having no more authority over their fellow man, then any other flea on a dogs ass, a house of lies has been erected and as they stand upon its perch lost in the illusions of their own false grandeur they will suffer the fall back to the ground like a worm tossed to the mud.

In the end there is no Authority that can save them from themselves.

Page – 4

Page – 5

Page – 6

Back to page -2

Back to page -1


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: