Grand Illusion – 5

V

Americans have been told ad-nauseum, that every individual is required to pay a federal municipal-tax on earnings, thus internal “tax” on “personal individual income” from whatever Source via the IRS, which then sends the collected money to the Federal Reserve Board and thus presumably TO the secretary of the treasury, who is oddly enough an acting official of the IMF, which is then presumed to be handing this “purse” back to Congress.

Congress controls the purse of the Federal Government, so it stands to reason that an incomes tax, collected for them by the IRS, while parked in the Federal Reserve Board Bank, has to eventually reach their “purse” to complete the basic requirement of this contrived, convoluted web of deceptions. The assertion that all of these processes of Codes(secrets) are Derived from the Constitution, are of course absolutely false. Why is the original Treasury of the United States  no longer in operation? Whose contractual-debt-money does this country rent and why? Why was the Constitution so easily defeated by usurious principles of private evil intentions?

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes–a large class, no doubt–each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change. “ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: II.

This critical observation by L. Spooner, cannot be ignored in light of the facts, which support the central thesis thus asserted, that the Constitution is indeed supported by a Faith, misplaced or not, by those who must wrestle with their conscience before any belief can be expressed by consent. If the constitutional philosophy is unable to defend its internal propositions equally for all, then its Foundations of Laws are not only suspect, they are defective. The Law of the land is nothing more than a hollow lie.

If the United States is indeed ruled from afar by secret Councils of a Crown, of which no American citizen has ever sworn a Direct allegiance, unless by Title of Nobility, or by religious convictions, a curious result is brought into clear view. Those that know the truth of the real ‘powers’ only pretend, as social customs may dictate, that they are bound to an inferior master, hence, the never-ending discrepancies which arise when such differences of intent cannot be masked by conventional dogmas. This defect of factual understanding permits gross errors of judgment, which would otherwise never arise at all.

Thus, if every man knew the so called ‘federal government’ was nothing, but a mindless, corporate lap-dog of the Crown, he has no delusions about why his rights are fictions of private whimsy. There would be no question in mans minds that the State exists to rule, generate revenue from taxes for the profits of the Creditor class and nothing else. Thus having miss-placed the Trust it is no mystery why the safe-guards are mirages of faith. The Constitution of the federal government was already defective for it allowed a moral absurdity from the beginning: slavery.

Things today are not all that better as wage-tax-slavery affords no genuine wealth accumulation, or relief from the Tension of debts. All men are equal in the eyes of their Creator, but not in the Lenders eyes, to whom men owe their daily rations of debt living. The Federalists, way back in the old days, made no pretensions about their claims of superior class, for them Direct taxation was meant to circumvent the States and reach directly into the pockets of the citizens without being burdened by trivial formalities. As Spooner cynically observed [paraphrasing] a fool will believe anything if the price is right, to pick another mans pockets, to enrich his own.

The never ending demand for money, by the government, is manifest by the demand of taxation upon the property of all “its” citizens. The hollow assertion of Liberty and Justice for all becomes yet another absurdity when a tax can reduce both to meaningless slogans, by a flick of the congressional pen. The false promise of the so-called American dream serves the tax collection purpose with cynical efficiency. The graduated income tax of Marxist tyranny, is but one of many taxes, which assault the property, and the activities of the person, as if being a source for government income, is the sole purpose, of individual existence itself.

The injustice of modern taxation is in the sheer waste, of what is taken, by the government for the benefit of a privileged class of credit money lords, who only gained such a stranglehold, by every rotten trick that a monopoly of implied powers can secure. Giving people only a choice between two evils is hardly fair, but these hypocrites in high places never worry about the complaints of the working man, or the small business classes. The demands of justice only makes authoritarians laugh. The sneering contempt of the merciless agents of the lending powers against the working man is part of a clever ruse to conceal the real objectives: incite civil distrust in all middle and lower classes of people, defeating unity. Otherwise people exercising the Jurist Power, would never convict each other of a Code violation that never applied to any of them in the first place.

The meanings of specific words in the legal, mumbo-jumbo land described as Code, allows the False-Positive Statement in many different forms. People of the union of states are citizens, but are they really federal citizens for tax purposes as well?

Congress’s silence on the issue of citizenship by birth in the United States caused some confusion and disagreement as to what the appropriate definition was. For example, some persons rejected the idea that English common law provided the proper rule for citizenship by birth in the United States. And until the Civil War, some eminent jurists and legal scholars believed that there was no real citizenship of the United States separate from citizenship in a state; that is, a person was a citizen of a state which was part of the Union, therefore a person was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his citizenship in a state.  [Because of the Supreme Court interpretations of U. S. citizenship laws and constitutional provisions, one could argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to clarify the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”] “This article cites Judge Richard Posner’s concurring opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620-21 (7th Cir. 2003), in which he argues: … Congress should rethink … awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (with a few very minor exceptions, … [citation omitted]), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U. S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children. This rule, though thought by some compelled by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” and in any event codified in 8 U. S. C. § 1401(a), which provides that “the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” makes no sense…. We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U. S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship,…. “A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U. S. citizenship, but I doubt it. [Citation omitted.] The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress does not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.” Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney August 12, 2010

All of this confusion stems from the original defect of the Constitution, which did not recognize all people as equal in voting rights and by allowing slavery made a fool out of the Law, despite the declarations of rights, which asserted otherwise. The Kings ‘United States of America’ was still a corporation, whose authority was still the English Crown. Read the Paris Treaty again. The King made no “declaration” his corporation was no longer under his control, quite the contrary or old Franklin would have never uttered the quip—that it is a Republic if you can keep it... meaning as allowed for now, but perhaps not for as long as you might wish. The Crown conceded no Rights except those already given.

Claiming to be a citizen of the Kings Corporation, known as the United States of America, opens up a can of worms so deep one can readily understand why a certain silence on the matter was shrewd thinking, but still quite dishonest. Considering, that every man who came into this country, was an alien, in relation to the natural natives, nobody started off as a native born citizen. The Settlers were a diverse aggregate of people, many who helped to conquer the lands in the name of the Crown, and to whom said English settlers owed their original citizenship. It is also quite clear why there was so much confusion, as to the proposition of loyalty, during those times. People were still free to choose political standing, but there was a price to be paid for such choices. Demanding loyalty to a state or the federal government by political fiat is absurd as it defeats freedom of choice as determined by ones own conscience. A bad government deserves no loyalty, especially at the end a tax whip.

Those coming to early ‘America’ carried with them the social constructs of which they had learned, as expectations, under social customs determined by their natural born origination. They had to change fundamental qualities of what and how they saw of themselves in relation to… diverse immigrations of other nations people, who may not have spoken the same languages, or had the same loyalties, or half dozen other specific qualities made manifest by their common new grounds.

As the colonies grew both by immigration and natural births, the specific differences were only as sharp as personal relationships demanded in social intercourse in regards to trades, business and civil related duties. There was no such thing as “American people” per se or “United States people” by any traditional blood-kin meaning, except by a geographical generalization. There is no such thing as American Blood or United States blood kin lines in the same quality of reference as “English” or “French” or “African” as each is also a generalization of nationality origination and in the case of blacks; it is even more general, as it only describes a loose reference to an entire continent of very diverse people of complex racial roots.

People had to learn to get along with others from diverse backgrounds, but many were already organized by traditions of religious faith. The ethical beliefs people held had a very strong binding quality on what they chose to believe politically and why.

When slavery was outlawed the defect was not made whole. If anything it made some aspects of the original problems even worse. Cultural beliefs were not going to be changed with a new coat of political paint. The 14th amendment itself was passed under conditions so bizarre, of such anti-constitutional manipulations to the desired end, its passage must be regarded as another example of political violence of principle, born from implied powers. The manipulations themselves are so white-washed out of the history books in general the actual truth is nearly invisible. This amendment, as judged by such manipulations needed for its passage, has never been the law of the land. I also question if it was well intentioned, or even helpful to the plight of freed-slaves at all.

To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress. Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern States and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were considered equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers controlling the government had to replace their republican form of government that had existed in the Southern States since they adopted the 1787 Constitution. Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern States. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied States could be seated in Congress until a new Constitution was adopted by each State which would be approved by Congress. The Act further provided that each of the 10 States was required to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in Congress.” Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress figured the Southern States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell short of passing the House and the Senate. The action taken next by the Northern States will go down in history as the most unlawful act ever taken by any government in the world. Since the amendment would not pass lawfully, the Northern States decided to rip the 1787 Constitution up and take over the government. How did they do this? They told the Southern States that refused to vote for the amendment they no longer were members of Congress, denying lawful States suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment through Congress the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from New Jersey to give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention votes in the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the House.HTTP://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/informer/BRITISH%20COLONY3. Pdf A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment” — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification. The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

  1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

  2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.

  3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment.”

  4. Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.

  5. The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to “ratify” under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.

  6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was “inseparable” and “indivisible.” After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be “entitled to representation in Congress.”

  7. Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the “Fourteenth Amendment,” took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

  8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.

  9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various “ratifications” of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification.” He added that the amendment was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.” This was a very big “if.” It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced “ratification” by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

  10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary’s proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the “Fourteenth Amendment” had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the “ratifications” in the Southern States were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void” and that, “until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment.”

What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:

“Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering…. Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment.” David Lawrence U. S. News & World Report September 27, 1957 http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Faced with the positive failure of ratification of the 14th Amendment, both Houses of Congress passed over the veto of the President three Acts known as Reconstruction Acts, between the dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867, especially the third of said Acts, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed illegally to remove with “Military force” the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10 Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. In President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, [Cite 36] he pointed out these unconstitutionalities: If ever the American citizen should be left to the free exercise of his own judgment, it is when he is engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That work is his work, and it cannot properly be taken out of his hands. All this legislation proceeds upon the contrary Assumption that the people of each of these States shall have no constitution, except such as may be arbitrarily dictated by Congress, and formed under the restraint of military rule. A plain statement of facts makes this evident. In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in the accustomed way by the people. Congress, however, declares that these constitutions are not ‘loyal and republican,’ and requires the people to form them anew. What, then, in the opinion of Congress, is necessary to make the constitution of a State ‘loyal and republican?’ The original act answers the question: ‘It is universal negro suffrage, a question which the federal Constitution leaves exclusively to the States themselves. All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other. The existing constitutions of the ten States conform to the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are degrees in republican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now, than when these States – four of which were members of the original thirteen – first became members of the Union.” In President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message on the Reconstruction Act on July 19, 1867, he pointed out various unconstitutionalities as follows: “The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two distinct grounds, the interference of Congress in matters strictly appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and the establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace.”

He understood quite well: that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. To suspend or deny this ‘equal suffrage’ is actually grounds for nullifying the resulting demands or actions so considered. There were better ways to aid the plights of newly freed slaves.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. (Each State is to recognize the public Acts and judicial Proceedings of every other State. This is designed to eliminate a potential confusion over a number of situations.) – Article IV, Section 1, Constitution for the United States of America.

The extreme actions which were taken do not make much sense, logically or lawfully. Truth does not need a gun to make it right. Knowing that the free men were seen as no better then slaves, of no social importance, really begs the question, of why was changing the wrong idea, with an even worse idea, the only one Northern politicians wanted at all? Slavery was already abolished within all Union States. That action proved the viability of the States in question as equal citizens of the Union. If certain States wanted freed slaves to migrate to their States and enjoy the highest ranks and privileges, afforded to its citizens, all they had to do was publish said benefits, spread the word in those regions most afflicted, and shamed other states with their advancements in equality. This would be leadership by example. The argument from such successful actions is quite different then at gun-point.

Emer De Vattel, Law of Nations: Residents as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. (Section 213, 1758.)” “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. —-But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States—- Here is a unique use of a term “male inhabitants” as distinct from citizens of the United States, yet did not use the already established ‘free Persons’ which seems hardly worth notice: “Footnotes: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine islands into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States; but it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of said island to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the United States and the inhabitants of said islands.” Cong. Rec., 55th Cong. 3d Sess. vol. 32, p. 1847. The Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 176 1901

This curious use of the term ‘inhabitants’ as if all males of the States were all in the exact same class of alien residents. The political status of Individuals, in any of the Union States, already had superior Rights, to that of a federal ‘citizen’ distinction, which was inferior due to being a corporational District, not a State of the Union. This co-mingling of political objectives with cultural distinctions was fundamentally absurd to the extreme: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States(there was no such class), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof(ten mile square), are citizens of the United States (now there is such a class) and of the State wherein they reside [Resident alien].

A political citizen has only the rights so afforded, by municipal legislation, which is exactly the very meaning created. No consideration is made for the cultural heritage, of which non-slave Individuals had in the Union states, nor for the salient fact the black slaves were severed from such cultural qualities in a foreign country hostile to them. The 14th amendment was a political gambit resting on a shallow premise… that a federal-district citizen inclusion was actually solving a hereditary-class exclusion by implied powers of civil authority. Where exactly were these political citizens living? The term reside is quite weak as opposed to domiciled.

Naturally, this distinction of what domicile really means is avoided for obvious reasons. How exactly is a person born by residing? Do we say my wife just had a new person as resided? Does saying a baby was born in a domicile of Alabama, mean less politically, then saying a person naturalized by residing? The flaw here is easy to spot…. are we not speaking of black mankind directly by explicit meaning?

Then the law only had to say, All Black people are hereby recognized, as equal individuals of the same constitutional people, in every Union State. Since all Union States are citizens of the Federal government no further distinction must be made. Where people(mankind) includes all known races of men, all native inhabitants are also recognized, if they choose to be, for the purpose of inclusion in the Union States. Since mankind is made of both males and females no natural person is left out. Either the declaration is for all or it is political dust blowing in the wind.

The absurdity of giving inferior rights to an artificial body of political citizens, was taken one step further by the U. S. Supreme Court, not long after-wards.

“The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves) [3]] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of “persons.” Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on “equal terms” with neighborhood businesses and individuals. “There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view,” Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote 60 years later. [4] Under the form of ownership, known to us today as “the corporation,” the legal act of incorporation creates a ‘person’ or ‘corpus’. For over the past 100 years these legal entities have been exercising more and more of their powers to recreate the circumstances of their own existence. This is exactly what the first citizens of this country feared the most, and attempted to prevent the occurrence of by defining the subordinate nature of such legal fictitious entities to that of flesh-and-blood human beings. They implemented this through the legal mechanism of charters — the certificates of incorporation.” HTTP://www.ratical.org /corporations/

The 14th amendment did not state “individuals” or people because there was no intention of changing the fundamental recognition of the black race, but instead to change the meaning of slavery by a thin coat of federal paint. The federal-District citizen classification is a misnomer of fatal pretensions to the contrary of constitutional intent. Citizens of the federal government are only representatives of the Union states from which they are elected period. There is no other class of persons, which is why there is no mention of a federal citizen except in determining eligibility of office. The crown corporation U. S. has only corporations in its pool of citizens. As artificial persons of the King, they pay a tax to their Crown master as taxpayers.

Placing black people in an inferior citizen class, for political control of their person-hood, had to be enforced with duplicity of meaning upon citizen. This also begs the question of why is such a interpretation is possible. An insult to the ignorant. Did these black slaves even understand the sly manipulations of words to describe their new found status as “citizens” of the Kings U. S. corporation? Not very likely. White people considered black people inferior by cultural heritage, but what black people thought seemed not to matter. They had no choice at all. How about no representation still equals no respect? Telling the rest of the people that these are now a ‘protected’ people only sets up further discrimination’s, which are rightfully perceived as weakness. The 14th amendment was not an attempt of genuine kindness, or genuine equality of rights, but only a thin assertion of delegated political rights of citizenship.

The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United States Code, at §1981: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction’s of every kind, and to no other.

The original defect was brought here by the Kings commerce. Without the Kings blessing no black slaves could have ever reached the shores. Slavery was a significant part of the labor force which produced the very goods the Kings corporations sold for profitable purpose.

In the Transatlantic Slave Trade, triangle ships never sailed empty and some people made enormous profits. This Slave Trade was the richest part of Britain’s trade in the 18th century. James Houston, who worked for a firm of 18th-century slave merchants, wrote, “What a glorious and advantageous trade this is… It is the hinge on which all the trade of this globe moves.”

Between 1750 and 1780, about 70% of the government’s total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies. The money made on the Transatlantic Slave Trade triangle was vast and poured into Britain and other European countries involved in slavery, changing their landscapes forever. In Britain, those who had made much of their wealth from the trade built fine mansions, established banks such as the Bank of England and funded new industries.

  The pro-slavery lobby put forward a number of arguments to defend the trade and show how important it was to Britain: The trade was necessary to the success and wealth of Britain. The merchants and planters warned that abolition would mean ruin for Britain, as the whole economy would collapse. This argument was put forward many times, for example, in 1749, when a pamphlet was written outlining these arguments.

Two thirds of the enslaved Africans, taken to the Americas, ended up on sugar plantations. Sugar was used to sweeten another crop harvested by enslaved Africans in the West Indies – coffee.

With the money made from the sale of enslaved Africans, goods such as sugar, coffee and tobacco were bought and carried back to Britain for sale. The ships were loaded with produce from the plantations for the voyage home. Millions of Africans were enslaved and forced across the Atlantic, to labour in plantations in the Caribbean and America. Slavery changed when Europeans became involved, as it led to generation after generation of peoples being taken from their homelands and enslaved forever. It led to people being legally defined as chattel slaves.

A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children’s children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete, property to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs. This type of enslavement was practiced in European colonies from the sixteenth century onwards. Europeans wanted lots of slaves, so people were captured to be made slaves. Enslaved Africans were transported huge distances to work. They had no chance of returning home. Children whose parents were enslaved became slaves as well.http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_42.html

A political slave by any color of law, is still a slave for without such a class reserved for such persons they cease to exist at all. Where there is no choice there is no freedom. He who makes the choice decides the freedom. Who made the choice for the freed slaves? That would be their federal Master.

The tragedy of slavery is the acceptance of its evil quality as normal. Human slavery is an evil going so far back into the past people might well conclude it is an inherent right of the superior, to enslave the inferior, by the standards of conquest. The human race has deformed itself so violently in so many ways it is laughable to even suggest Congress, can legislate away a thousand years of moral injustices by changing the meaning of the word citizen, simply by creating another Class inferior to the first.

Citizen is a word which has very different meanings in the eyes and hearts who see that word as a relationship bound in specific duties, or loyalties. Today, in America, the word suggests a mindless fool grazing as a sheep in the fields of its masters, who seize their ‘citizens’ at their leisure for what-ever purpose seen fit for duty. Need some fools for war— off go the citizens to die for the authorities who no longer spend a single second on the battle fields of which they reap a bloody dollar of profit. Pay your taxes you duty bound citizens or off to the prison to be tortured for years on end as such conditions may persist. A citizen is like a throw-away serf who can do nothing, of his own volition, but what his higher-ranked political Master demands. If a citizen has no equal power to say no to the rank, foul demands of evil men wearing coats, hats or badges of authority, then equality of Law is an absurdity; a Lie so grotesque it belongs in Hell right along with Satan himself. For he indeed must be the Master of its rotten purpose.

In regards to persons as corporate citizens: if no corporation has to fight for its freedom, shed a single drop of warm blood in defense of a life not its own, then it has nothing to claim over those that do, as Life is a liability that no corporation has ever possessed. The rule of the ‘hand of the dead’ must come to an end, or slavery will persist in banal formality of civil obligations. For living people, civil responsibilities aka obligations, have become a cruel joke when the federal government is a stinking cesspool of authoritarian, pseudo-religious clap-trap. The pretense of powers for which the fascists play lord and master, over their phony empire, which they mindlessly play in like a damn sand box.

The banality of evil has reduced the leaders of the Washington district into a horde of cowardly psychopaths, who demand everything they desire of the humbled citizens, while giving back only an illusion of security. A false security of which authority is used as an excuse for every form of deprivation known to mankind.

The endless manipulations of terrorism as a tool for invading the privacy, as well as, the decency of Americans, especially traveling by air; has reached such a sickening level of contempt, for even a basic standard of moral conscience, that is revolting both to logic and justice. Treating innocent children to the ridiculous mandates of pat-downs and x-rays for the safety of the State is so beyond the pale of stupid, gutless rotten behavior that every politician who had a hand in its implementations and monetary rewards, needs to spend the rest of their lives in prison. Children are not suspects and neither are grandparents, mom or dads, but when the word citizen is used as a control function people might want to re-examine why it is the feds which always want, thus demand, their ‘identification of ‘you’ to be something that you have never been, or ever will be, in any sense of genuine truth. The right to name a thing is to have the power over the thing as named.

Thus the ugly truth laid bare: a federal-district citizen is still a slave. The Norman aristocrats saw nothing wrong with owning slaves and their English slaves saw nothing wrong with owning indentured servants. Both were exploiting human beings for financial gain by separate systems equally as ripe for abuse. The civil war was a political battle over grievances UN-settled and hatred unbound. The slaves were just political prisoners being cast off one owner and displaced into another by default. The southern states were destroyed economically and knocked down politically to an inferior position or the 14th amendment would have never passed period. The answer to the problem was right there in the sovereign declaration, but people had to recognize that truth for themselves, or it means nothing at all. The meaning of citizen was political not national and except as a geographical reference the word itself is of no legal purpose. Which is why it was used to IMPLY a purpose never stated.

The federal citizen is a ghost compared to the citizen of the Union state. The implied power that the federal governments has a preexisting superior right to decide national citizenship is based on fabrications of political hype. But once again the defect allowed circumvention of Principle to political demands. The States had every Right to deny political policy where it defeated Constitutional sovereignty. The states of the Union had absolute jurisdiction over their lands, none of which were subject to the jurisdictions thereof—of a political demand. The federal government carved out a meaning where there was no such meaning and was now going to decide who was a citizen, by what criteria, no matter how absurd the consequences. This in turn opened the door even wider for mass immigrations of men with murky obligations with a strong emphasis on political favoritism and manipulations of economies by labor force expansions. Every federal citizen had a unique quality… just like a bright, red bulls-eye on their back… a protected class was ripe for exploitation for an income tax upon the privilege(franchise) of being a federal citizen now able to vote AS IF equality had been solved.

Since equality was never based on the meaning of citizen of a national distinction this resulted in the absurdity that a national citizen was a blood-kin relationship to a fictional entity. Why of course black people are related to the federal person by naturalization within the political state, which includes the several States. This only introduces a double-absurdity where none ever existed prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. There was no equality of blood-lines by political fiat and to assert there was such a condition is tantamount to stating the Unions states were never anything, but political subjects of the very thing they created.

No wonder people can’t make heads or tails of what the term citizen really means; as it was split in half and the federal half was morphed into something so peculiar to its proper quality nobody can define the term by simple reasoning alone. A federal citizen wears three hats atop the other and never bothers to ask why he needs a hat at all. Without federal citizenship to politically correct a defect in the constitutional declarations the whole scheme falls dead to the ground. Spooner saw this defect so clearly he refuted the very claim of obligation to the constitution itself. Dead men have no claims over the living and neither do their worm, eaten contracts. Jefferson was right again, but the out-of-control authoritarians stamping franchise obligations onto new federal citizens backs didn’t give a damn about such distinctions of principle.  With all that tax money flowing in they didn’t need to care about anything but getting their upper-cut of the bonanza.

Citizens are also corporations, who we are told with fierce assurance, that such a taking of their property is the right thing to do, a fair share of the burdens and justified by the 14th and 16th amendments lawful application of Congressional authority. If you are a living man this is where the next parade of artful assertions begin. A domestic corporation is a citizen of the United States of America and is a taxpayer. A taxpayer is a federal person, whose income is derived from sources within or without of the federal jurisdiction zone.

Now the reference to corporation is once removed.

All Persons, that are liable as individuals, are thus required to pay a federal income tax. The IRS makes very strong, seemingly perfect assertions that persons, are individuals and individuals are citizens of the United States and are also state citizens simultaneously, thus all persons, are the individuals, who are citizens, thus liable for federal income taxation. Also take notice of the fact that the re-status of slaves are the “citizens” of intent, whereby the brush of federal paint over the rest of the Union peoples is a farce of federal contrivance to mask the real purpose of such damn evil schemes. The truth is quite ugly when it is laid bare which is why it is festering with violence even today. Political equality is a cruel hoax for all people so described and it is all about the money, who receives first rights and who doesn’t.

So what to make of this: Mr. Justice Miller observed: ‘It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided.’ And he said the question was put at rest by the amendment(14th), and the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state was clearly recognized and established. ‘Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.’ Due to the above definitions of ‘citizen’ the term national must be included as well: Under U. S. law the term “national” is inclusive of citizens but “citizen” is not inclusive of nationals. All U. S. citizens are U. S. nationals. Section 101(a)(22) INA (8 U. S. C. 1101(a)(22)) provides that the term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. “[I]n common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)

When attempting to understand the confusing web of meanings found in the IRS Codes it is not surprising that ‘omission’ is how the game is played. A statutory U. S. citizen is referenced throughout the Code, as a person, without distinction from a Sovereign person. The IRS goes to great lengths to obscure the difference, downplay its importance, refuses to recognize good faith attempts to express the fundamental quality(many people have a difficult time of defending themselves while under the gun) and simply leave out any reference of positive affirmation. This is a form of mental torture–aka psychotronic warfare and it works. Since when do people receive training in protecting their Sovereign Rights? Schools do not teach anything in this important area at all period.

The federal government has been peddling private law via the legislative authority of Congress in direct contravention of separation of powers, by establishment of the franchise as the subject of its authority; thereby entrapping unwary citizens of the union States, in a web of deliberate deceptions, for the expressed purpose of depriving them of their unalienable property, expressly for its own enrichment.

The very language of the 16th amendment is nearly identical to that of the Franchise, whose purpose is to change the status of ownership of property from private to public and of a public office. Ownership is either absolute or qualified. Participation in all Franchises causes the domicile of the “res” as in ‘resident’ as created by the Franchise, the privilege named as a ‘trade or business’, to become located on Federal territory, not in the actual Sovereign State of which the real domicile is located, where-in which the “res” consists of a ‘public office’ hence the person, or employee, of the federal office, as identified by the IRS, is liable as the taxpayer in question. The trick is to allow the sovereign to make the voluntary leap into the required “state” of contract without realizing they have become a federal employee whose qualified property is subject to private, municipal law of communistic intentions.

In the following, which class of ‘person’ is Chief Justice Taney referring to: “Chief Justice Taney: ‘The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the states, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by states. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the states, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers.’ Now… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words–too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Chief Justice wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” (In fact, some states did recognize free blacks as taxpayers and citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted).” The Dred Scott Decision.

This court opinion laid bare the original defect of the Constitution, that of slavery itself, but emphasized that a citizen of the Union States had absolute control of their person and property. The Court held that the black man in question was not to be regarded as equal to that of the white man and was not a person recognized by the Constitution, thus not a citizen afforded of its Rights. As a mere article of property he had no rights unalienable or otherwise. Here was a man who was clearly placed on this earth by his Creator, in no less sense then any other, save for the Biblical assertions which cannot be used as generalized abstractions, thus are of no meaning in the Constitution. The fallacy upon which slavery existed was politically justified, as no other justification was excusable from a moral conscience. Even if one was to proceed on the inferior claim, in itself a gross generalization, any man of a different race, than those in power, might as well be considered inferior for the same purpose of slavery and thus deemed acceptable for its purpose.

The notorious practices of slavery and indentured servitude was a fact of life back then, but no less reprehensible for the same reasons as held today. What made hypocrites of the men of that time was the arrogance they held quite proper for themselves as Noble men, as superior to those of low or common birth. These upper class men were special by birthright alone and thus a preferential lawful status was conferred upon them, to possess such rights, those of an inferior class, had no such claims. Which is why the very men who penned the Constitution never considered the “exclusion” of other races of mankind from said unalienable rights, as a defective and fatal flaw to the rule of Law itself.

The inexcusable absurdity of defining a Bill of Rights, which proudly asserts ‘a principle of self-evidence’ then asserting its morally repugnant opposite in the next, reduces the law to a mere political trick, whose substance is in the nature of profit. Or why allow slavery? When the federal government finally decided to rectify the defect of slavery, the damage was done and the inherent contradictions were no longer politically correctable. The upper class regarded freemen as no better then slaves. The ending of slavery did not end the cultural bias already present, nor end the social stratification’s this Nations poor people already endured.

The granting of the right to self-determination had to be enforced, thus a new kind of federal citizen had to be imposed to defend and protect the new state of ‘citizens’ (thereby proving inferior status) from the persistence of cultural bias already ingrained by the original defect. The duplicities which arose soon thereafter, as a direct result of trying to fix the defect, only served to confuse the meaning of citizens as intended by subtle deceptions in regards to the federal franchise.

The federal government is not a State, but now it has to be re-cast from its original meaning to include freed slaves, and by false political extension every one else. This is an absurd result. If the framers had never allowed any slavery period, there was no reason to pass the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, thus no change in what a citizen means by Constitutional terms. The IRS with perfect circular reasoning denies any importance to this fact, but that does not make the truth go away to fulfill a political convenience. Had there been no slavery the apportionment clause may have never been included as a restriction on direct taxes. Maybe a different quality of restriction might have arisen which excluded all forms of Direct taxation period as repugnant to sovereign property rights. That is the deeper problem of the defect itself, as it cannot be erased from history when its dead hand still plagues the property rights of Citizens of the Union States, which by Constitutional restrictions on Congressional powers, were never the Subjects of its very limited jurisdictions within Sovereign Union lands.

The individual income tax is more then a direct tax, it goes well beyond the simple idea of taking of a share of profit. The income tax places every federal citizen on a false alter of money, that Congress has no authority to even ask for, much less demand. Congress, has over-stepped the powers enumerated like a mad-man drunk on power, who does not care of principles, much less unalienable rights. The IRS is its vicious little side-kick, who concocts a perfect lie knowing the bullies in Congress will never change the bigger lie from which it sprang its own.

Federational slavery to feed the monster of debt is what the fuss is all about, people on a wage know the system sucks, businessmen suffer from its draconian demands upon them and corporations on the top-end just roll over the IRS like it was play-dough. Slavery was a defect to a free country like a bullet is a defect to a plane of glass. The injustices suffered by the original inhabitants, who did not consent to being conquered, or slaughtered for their lands, only adds to the dismal picture of why the invading Europeans had little or no moral conscience from which to speak. However, not all settlers were blood-thirsty, land thieving hypocrites and not all natives were UN-civilized, savage heathens.

If the people of this Nation had not been drawn into a war on false pretenses the general dismantling of slavery would have proceeded on its own accord. As men recognized each other as sovereign individuals with a degree of social respect other defects in social mores would have come under ever greater scrutiny. People simply needed a bit more time to work out the differences false social standing tend to preserve. Instead, the war ushered in a gross imbalance between those in political power and those who simply agreed to the terms they were given as if no other choice was possible. The gross injustices were never allowed to heal properly or gain an acceptable balance where slavery was never practiced.

People in slave-free states did not necessarily allow the free blacks to enter into their communities as respected equals, but forcing a new quality of citizenship on everyone was not the answer to solve long standing differences in perceived cultural bias. Cultural integration is not a new problem it is as old as mankind itself. Sweeping declarations do little to change the inertia of cultural inheritance. Exploiting the inherent differences for the purpose of increasing tax revenue while undermining the actual powers of the Voting Franchise, as a means to dilute the popular will was quite effective.  The real powers had already abandoned the arena. The Supreme court decision was the only clue as what was really being planned. Without the 14th amendment giving a corporation the same rights as a Person, the next step would have been impossible. The creation of a new superior citizen quite divorced from the rules which governed everybody else.

Page – 6 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4F

Back to page – 4  http://wp.me/P3eWa2-4m

Back to page – 3 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-49

Back to page – 2 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-3X2

Back to page – 1 http://wp.me/P3eWa2-3u

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: