See other National News Articles
Title: Thomas Massie Meme on the Debt
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://x.com/Rothmus/status/1898554964399833509/photo/1
Published: Mar 9, 2025
Author: Horse
Post Date: 2025-03-09 10:18:21 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 806
Comments: 14
Millions of Vaxxed Women Infertile Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#4. To: Horse (#0)
Odious Debt by Washington's Blog www.informationclearinghouse.info/, February 12, 2010 There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government's debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people. These "odious debts" are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country's debt. Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle: In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion..."
What if these debts were incurred by the supposed lawfully elected officials of a given nation? There is a lot of evidence that Joe Biden was not lawfully elected. And we are lucky as pigs in shit that Hildabeast was beaten by Trump in 2016 or we would all be up shits creek. She was selected to finish what Obummer failed to do, bring down America. Seth Rich gave his life in an effort to expose Hillary's cheating at the polls. Even his parents said he was the leaker. ;)
maybe "supposedly" is the key word. what if the people were tricked into believing the government itself was "lawful" lawful is not "legal" which is the code these people rule by. This government is not "lawful"...it is not the original government set up (which according to Lysander Spooner, should have died with the signers anyway, and that's another story)...it is a private CORPORATION. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A COUNTRY; IT'S A CORPORATION "...The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America. The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner: "The Constitution for the united states of America". The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not. Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment. Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution. Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution. ..."
I need to take a nap. Went to anna von reitz's site (she has claimed to have dumped the British Corporation known as the UNITED STATES in favor of the Republic)...to see what was new. saw this which i only started skimming: International Public Notice: The States of the Union and Our Admiralty Claim By Anna Von Reitz annavonreitz.com/ouradmiraltyclaim.pdf first she was talking about the "States" confusion...and then.... "...The way in which our free, sovereign, and independent estates were bound and misrepresented are as follows: An American baby born in one of our Union States/States of the Union is seized upon in "port" -- a hospital operating as a British Crown Corporation franchise -- and misidentified as a British Territorial U.S. Citizen. This creates in one stroke, an intestate American Infant Decedent Estate without the knowledge of the victim, the baby, still in their cradle, and a British Territorial Estate operating as a Legal Person Franchise Corporation of the United States of America, Incorporated, a British Crown Corporation. This Legal Person is subsequently listed as "missing, whereabouts unknown, presumed lost at sea" --- which again, in one stroke, creates an intestate British Territorial Seaman's Estate under Admiralty Law, and an intestate Municipal Cestui Que Vie ESTATE operated in the name of the victim of all this constructive fraud..." This ties in with what I was saying over here: comments #1-3
well darn...that's a HUGE topic, but wanted to post this the other day: The Official State “OFFICE OF THE PERSON” www.thelibertybeacon.com/office-of-the-person/ and darn, that's a lot bigger than I remember, and I'll have to find some time to refresh my memory, but skimming it, I see it mentions some of the legal "terms"/"words of art"/legalese they use to confuse and ensare us. by the way, if you look up the executive order to confiscate the gold in 1933, it doesn't talk about flesh and blood men and women giving up their gold, it talks about "persons" and/or "individuals" if I remember correctly (persons and individuals being legal terms which I think mean about the same thing). need a nap.
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#4)
These "odious debts" are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country's debt.
#8. To: BTP Holdings (#6)
What if these debts were incurred by the supposed lawfully elected officials of a given nation?
#10. To: BTP Holdings (#8)
#12. To: BTP Holdings (#10)
This Legal Person
Replies to Comment # 12.