.*$)/g, "")) }); G2_cardManager._setDoneUrl("/group/brainwashington/topics"); _MR_Message._COMPOSING_TITLE_COLOR = "#c3d9ff"; var MSG_USENET_POSTING_WARNING = document.getElementById("upw").innerHTML; var MSG_ACTIVE_REPLY_WARNING = document.getElementById("arw").innerHTML; var MSG_POST_SUCCESSFUL = document.getElementById("psw").innerHTML; window.onbeforeunload = G2_cardManager._anyCardsComposing.bind(G2_cardManager); } //-->

GuerrillaVille View profile More options Aug 24 2007, 1:42 pm From: GuerrillaVille ...@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:42:47 -0600 Local: Fri, Aug 24 2007 1:42 pm Subject: There is no Constitution--The Crown Still Rules America Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author This final draft has much additional material missing in the last draft. If you are interested in the constitution or constitutional rights, this article raises some vital questions about who is really in control of the political system. http://www.brainwashington.info/urls/no_const.asp According to Richard Gould: The constitution contains a "trojan horse clause" which was a Crown device to keep America under the Crown rule. America and much of the world still is under Crown rule. No one out of hundreds who have read this has been able to refute it. They have thrown ad-hominems, "crack-pot" remarks, etc. but have not rebutted a single statement in the essay. What could have some people so hot under the collar yet so unable to make a coherent rebuttal? http://www.brainwashington.info/urls/no_const.asp Enjoy the cogitation! I welcome your discussion. Berkano Saxon P.S. The full text of the article is below; however the PDF link above is easier to read and print. ------------------------------------------------------------ There is no Constitution, Part I by Richard Gould Introduction This is the final version of this paper. It was released in a limited fashion before that it could be checked for errors by numerous people. That has been done, and the additional information that has been added is a result of the comments that were returned to me. It should be noted here that while there were more than a few complaints about the information contained herein, there were no factual errors detected. This paper is now ready for general distribution. In the comments that were made, I admit to being shocked that most of them concerned the Masons, the Thirteenth Tribe, and, even more so, how few people understood/understand what constitutes the Empire; i.e., England. To clear up some of the misunderstandings, the information that has been added herein is about these three subjects. And my apologies; my original intent was to write an educational paper that was about ten pages long. Unfortunately, this intent was overshadowed by the needs expressed by those who first read my efforts. THE CITY When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,' 'The Crown,' 'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City of London,' and 'British Empire' come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur. They are generally looked upon as synonymous, as being representative of the same basic system. During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in England (London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms. When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or Queen; when they hear of 'London' or the 'The City' they instantly think of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official residence. To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our terms: When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million. The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world. The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britian's great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds. TWO MONARCHS The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much." It certainly is and certainly does ! When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city. The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject! The monarch always leads the way. The subject always stays a pace or two behind! The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So you see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233). This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will [back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. "The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden... launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard" (p. 18). History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centered in the City. The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite. HISTORY of the 'CITY' From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law. They truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word. As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the City also grew - only at a faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways of William III. The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used William Paterson as a 'front.' The names of the founders have never been made public. It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and control the affairs of Britain. Their influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed. "The Illustrated Universal History," 1878, records that "Great Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national glory. Her Empire was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased... But with all this national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle of the previous twenty years. It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through their other branches, control of the other European nations. Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches of the globe. Having been thrown out of the Western Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing additional possessions elsewhere. During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business on the high seas. During these years 'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through the domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time. TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire. All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire. All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Sinapore, Hong Kong and Gilbraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them. They were privately owned and ruled by a private club in London, England known as the Crown. The Crown's representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death over all the people under his juristiction. There were no courts and no method of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown. Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was subject to the Crown law. He couldn't appeal to British law as it didn't apply. As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown. (My Note; does anyone detect a faint hint of present day military conflicts here?) The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were part of the 'City' machine accumulated vast fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and standing in British Society. Had the wealth been spread out among all the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I am not suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited should never have occured to begin with - ralph]. In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British people were barely making ends meet. (My Note; Ummm, sound familiar?) Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The poor British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action. Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers' attention to the "total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy" towards the British people. He also asked, "What part do the colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights" (pp. 114,115) [we all know the difference between democracy and republics I hope - ralph] David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its total contempt for the "wretches" who were not part of the 'club.' In a 1910 speech he stated: "We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international trade - probably ten times more - than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've heard a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more... We get the foreigner in four ways by that. The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild..." ("Better Times", published 1910). About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that "...financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but soley in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich... This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public interest to divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65). All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of "Pan Germanism," written in 1913: "The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million dollars actual value..." The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world's enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still wealthier." In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and outwaited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them well, have also profited well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p. 65). END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin You have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin. There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion, Part I It is difficult to begin a subject such as this, simple because it flies in the FACE of what we have all been raised to ‘believe.’ But then, perhaps understanding ‘belief’ is a place to start. In Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, we are told that ‘belief’ is opposed to knowledge and science. Perhaps it is with that thought that we should continue. After all, we ‘believe’ that which we have been told, BUT, how many of us have bothered to check the public record in order to confirm those beliefs? And that, my friends, is exactly what we are about to do. What we believe, because we have been told/taught this, is that we live in a Constitutional Republic, where certain ‘natural rights’ are acknowledged to exist. This is an important distinction that exists nowhere else on earth, this acknowledgment of ‘natural rights.’ In all other nations of the earth, all so-called rights are granted by all-powerful governments as privileges, i.e., as civil rights, which is why the word ‘right’ is modified by the adjective, ‘civil.’ That which governments grant can and often are taken away. This can not be done with natural rights, and this put America instantly at odds with all of the other powers of this earth, and especially with kings, such as the King of England, who supposedly rule by divine right. I would think that would be better stated as ‘divine privilege.’ And the people of that time, around 1780-1795, understood these principles much better than the average American of today. This is why, when the Constitution was written, it focused on RESTRICTIONS on the powers granted (i.e., privileges granted) to the government to be formed according to the Constitution. However, the Constitution was written in secret. There was no open debate about it, and, if you understand that the majority of the writers/framers of the Constitution were Masons, then some things become clearer as we go along. Especially if you understand that one of these Masons, Benjamin Franklin, also printed a book on Masonic Constitutions; http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html “… in 1734 … he (Franklin) ushered into print the first Freemasonic book to be published in America, and edition of Anderson's Constitutions...the Bible for English Freemasonry. …” A copy of this book, Anderson’s Constitutions, is available in the Library of Congress. In addition to this foundation of Masonic connections to the Constitution and to the men who wrote the Constitution, you can take the Masonic influences as far as you wish, always, in totally different manners than what we have been taught to ‘believe.’ And for those of you who have doubts about the Masonic connections and what they mean; "Weishaupt aimed at nothing less than the complete overthrow of authority, nationality, and the whole social system, in a word, the suppression of property...As to his principle, it was absolute and blind obedience, universal espionage, the end justifies the means. This system of conspiracy so strongly organized which would have upheaved the world, spread through Germany, where it seized almost all the Masonic Lodges. Weishaupt sent to France Joseph Balsamo, so-called Comte Cagliostro, to illuminize French Masonry. Finally he assembled a Congress at Wilhelmsbad in 1782, to which he convoked all German and foreign lodges... (Masonic report, l'Ordre de Nantes, April 23, 1883; Marie-Antionette et le Complot Maçonnique (1910), Louis Dasté; The Rôle of Freemasonry in the XVIIIth Century, F ... Brunelière; The Trail of the Serpent, Miss Stoddard, p. 70-71). France has known, and she has not forgotten the rule of the Masonic Terror. She will know, and the world will know with her the rule of the Jewish terror." (Copin Albancelli, La conjuration juive contre les peuples. E. Vitte, Lyon, 1909, p. 450; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 14549;147) B'Nai B'Brith and Program statement of Trotsky. Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (Trotsky), 187949;1940, is one of the most accomplished and significant destroyers of Russia. In that he is equal to Lenin himself. In the wake of his activities he left deep and bloody tracks in the living body of Russia. On the tablet of history Trotsky would stay branded forever as a political criminal 49; a Zionist...During the years of Trotsky's second emigration H.G. Rakovskiy recruited him into Austrian Intelligence. There he served as a secrete agent from 1911 through 1917 but from 1917 through 1918 he was also known as a German agent. He became a member of Masonic and Zionists organizations of Europe (Lodge of "Misraim49;Memphis") and of the USA (B'Nai Brit" on January 1917). (Secrete Forces in History of Russia. U.K. Begunov 1995, pp 138,139) "The Jews should welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 148). "But whence comes this sinister marvel (the progressive Judaic Power)? It comes from the failing of the Christian faith...from the progress of secret societies, filled with apostate Christians who desire what the Jew desires; that is to say, Judaic civilization s given to us by our teacher and master the philosophic Jew, the Jew of the 'Alliance universelle.'" (des Mousseaux; The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard, p. 93). Now to continue, as a for instance, at the same site as noted above; http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html “The 13 arrows in the left claw of the Eagle represent the 13 tribes of Israel fomenting wars and revolutions throughout the world. In its right claw, the Eagle carries an Olive Branch which has 13 leaves. The Olive Tree represents the House of Israel and House of Judah (Is. 17:6, 23:14, Jer.11:16, Rom. 11). The 13 leaves represent the 13 tribes of Israel and Judah. The above has given some people trouble because they do not understand the reference to 13 tribes; The Thirteenth Tribe; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry. . . +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Mr Benjamin Freedman, a Jewish industrialist born in New York, wrote in the Economic Council Letter published there of October 15 1947: "These Eastern European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their ancestors were not inhabitants of the Promised Land. They are the direct descendants of the people of the Khazar Kingdom.. The Khazars were a non49;Semitic, Turko49;Mongolian tribe.." Mr Freedman was challenged, unwisely, by a Zionist objector...he invited his challenger to go with him to the Jewish room of the New York Public Library. There they could together examine the Jewish Encyclopedia volume I pp. 149;12, and the published works of Graetz, Dubnow, Friedlander, Raisin and many other noted Jewish historians, which, as well as other non49;Jewish authorities, "establish the fact beyond all possible doubt".’ (Somewhere South of Suez (1950) pp34949;350)." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, page 179,[GCP pg 68]: "ASHKENAZI, ASHKENAZIM...constituted before 1963 some nine49;tenths of the Jewish people (about 15,000,000 out of 16,5000,000)[ As of 1968 it is believed by some Jewish authorities to be closer to 100%]" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And given how the so-called ‘Jews’ were regarded in much of the World, and still are today, for that matter, how, exactly, did George Washington and his brethren treat them? From the Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0915/p12s01-lire.html “George Washington's lasting gift to generations of Jews. … After centuries of persecution in Europe, Jews welcomed Washington's message of equality, which set the stage for the US to become home to the largest, most prosperous Jewish community in the world. …” ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I should not need to discuss the First Bank of the United States, the Bank of England and the Rochechilds here, so I will not. There is no question about the money power that controlled/controls England, and the deeper we look, the more we find the evidence of this within the United States as well. For instance, George Washington’s great gift to the Jews was given in 1790. Here is a contemporary quote from the time period; MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 49; 1789): "Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money49;lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible." Can we take this another step forward on this subject, as we attempt to achieve better understanding as to why we have arrived at where we are? I think so. Please examine this flag (http://www.bookrags.com/British_East_India_Company); The above was the flag of the British East Indies Company from about 1707 onward. I am not sure just when they stopped using it (after 1800, I think), however, each of us needs to be aware that the British East Indies Company was a British Crown Company; that is to say, it did not belong to the King of England, but to the members of the committee that controlled the London financial district. In other words, the international bankers, who were and still are the power behind the throne of the King/Queen of England. And, the British colonies in America were Crown Colonies; not colonies of England. There are other locations where you can find information similar to this, but it is only now, after the fruit of the Constitution and of the United States has become clearer, that we begin to look for answers. Now, to continue with information about the ties to the Masons; http://watch.pair.com/GW.html “…Washington's close ties to Freemasonry, but his position as Grand Master of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 of Virginia. …” http://bessel.org/bkrevs.htm Masonic Book Reviews (This is a Masonic site, with an internet copy of Anderson’s Constitutions.) Of course, anyone can find the Masonic layout of Washington, DC. Just type that into any search engine and you will find all of the information that you could wish to pursue. Such as the following. http://freemasonrywatch.org/washington.html Freemasonry and Washington D.C.'s Street Layout http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/dc_symbolism/index.htm Masonic and Kabbalistic Symbols In the Washington D.C. Map (This one is quite interesting.) http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1040.html MASONIC SYMBOLS OF POWER IN THEIR SEAT OF POWER -- WASHINGTON, D.C. What, exactly, does all of this mean? Simply put, that WE were not there when the Constitution was written, the flag(s) were adopted and the United States formed, nor have we the opportunity to personally visit with men who were there. That leaves us only the option of examining the papers relevant to the Constitution and the United States that we may learn the Truth of what occurred. Actually, if we wish to understand what has happened to our country, we have no choice but to undertake this endeavor. Where do we begin with this search? With the Constitution, of course. Here is an Internet copy of the Original Constitution; http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constit... I will be using this when I/we quote from the Constitution. I do this for a very good reason. If you will check this copy of the Constitution from the government archives, you will probably find that the copies of what you were told is the Constitution, both in school books and in reference books, are not verifiable copies; they probably are different. In what I am going to tell you, we are going to find that there was a Trojan horse put into the Constitution. That Trojan horse is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-“ In the above, the operative phrase is; exclusive Legislation, which means exclusive jurisdiction. And, which, as it turns out, means that the Constitution DOES NOT apply to Washington, DC, EXCEPT as Congress decides that it does. Of course, that means that the RESTRICTIONS of the Constitution do not apply to Washington, DC, because those restrictions on the power of the government built into the Constitution and that we spoke of before do not apply to the Congress when the Congress legislates for the District of Columbia. AND, when the Congress legislates for the territories of the United States as well. THIS is the Trojan horse that was introduced into the governing law of the United States. Deliberately, as we shall learn. Now, I have had enough discussions with different men to know that this is going to cause a difference of opinion with many of them. Especially with those men who state that the Constitution irrevocably attached to the District of Columbia once the Constitution was adopted because the district was a part of a state at that time. And, without the specific consent of the state(s) which gifted the land to create the district, to all intents and purposes, this clause in the Constitution does not affect the restrictions. All of that is well and good, until we examine what happened with the gifting of the land, and, this illustrates why it is so necessary to examine all of the paperwork that comprises the foundation of the United States if we truly wish to find the Truth. As it turns out, the only state which actually finalized the gift of the land for the District of Columbia was Maryland. The gift of the land from Virginia was never consummated, and the land was returned to Virginia in the 1840s. I had trouble finding the information for Maryland, but it finally turned up in a Supreme Court case; U.S. Supreme Court BEATTY'S ADM'RS v. BURNES' ADM'RS, 12 U.S. 98 (1814) Md Laws Nov. 1791, ch. 45, Sec. 2 'Be it enacted,' &c. 'that all that part of the said territory, called Columbia, which lies within the limits of this state, shall be, and the same is hereby acknowledged to be, forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as of persons residing, or to reside, thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eight section of the first article of the constitution of government of the United States; provided that nothing herein contained shall be so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States; and provided also that the jurisdiction of the laws of this state, over the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease or determine until congress shall by law provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner provided by the article of the constitution before recited.' Note this; “…forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction …” By this clause, Maryland confirmed that Congress held the District of Columbia in Exclusive Jurisdiction. We find, with further research, that this is confirmed by the federal judiciary, which, I am sure, has never had any doubt about the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction of the Congress over the District of Columbia; United States v. More 3 Cranch 159 1805 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...s/a3_2_2s8.html “Mason.--When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution. If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same observation will also apply to Louisiana.” NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution.... Now, let us take a close look at another case from 1819; http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s16.html United States v. Cornell 25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819 … It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia … Story, Circuit Justice, in summing up to the jury, said: “The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound, and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction …” The above makes it pretty clear that Congress does have Exclusive Jurisdiction over the district of Columbia, but we do have other evidence, because this is confirmed in other cases as well. The most important (in my opinion) being DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). In this case, we find; “…In one of those opinions it is said that 'the Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states;' also, that 'we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them.' …” We will find later that this reference to the territorial clause of the Constitution is very important. In addition, in Downes v. Bidwell, in the Dissent of Justice Harlan; “…that as the states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory, and therefore none to delegate in that connection, the logical inference is that 'if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions;' that if 'we assume that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions;' and that 'the execuive and legislative departments of the government have for more than a century interpreted this silence as precluding the idea that the Constitution attached to these territories as soon as acquired.' These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. Although from the foundation of the government this court has held steadily to the view that the government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326, 331, 4 L. ed. 102, 104) we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new er- [182 U.S. 244, 380] ritory, acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. … The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. …” Overall, Mr. Justice Harlan is a very competent Justice, but he was speaking of something that had become engrained within the laws of the United States; the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Congress over the territories of the United States and over Washington, DC. If you wish, look up Downes v. Bidwell and enjoy, but, I warn you, it is a very dry read filled with self-justifications for what they were doing. And this brings us to the question as to exactly what the men who wrote the Constitution understood about what it was that they had created. For this, I think it best to first turn to a very famous quote; "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?" "Madam, we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it!" – Benjamin Franklin (1787) Think about this quote and what was not said; Franklin DID NOT say, ‘WE have created a Republic if WE can keep it.’ He said; ‘WE have given YOU a Republic, if YOU can keep it!’ Given the observable results of the Constitution, as we see them in operation today, I do not think that there is any doubt about what he meant when he used the royal we. However, is there any other information from the same time period that we can use to ascertain if the people responsible for the Constitution really understood that the restrictions within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC? Why, yes, there is. On the internet, at 'http://civil-liberties.com', is a very interesting on-line book previously mentioned titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a summary section in which I found the following information: "In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-1897, I discovered the following: Gentlemen of the Senate: Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely: The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99). In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further: "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States..." This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of... . This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of..., but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory. Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution. A simple reading of the Constitution will reveal that there is no authority/privilege granted either to Congress or to the President of the United States to create anything overlaying the union states of the Republic. From this, it is not difficult to determine that the then President of the Untied States understood very well that the restrictions on powers within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC. A study of this time period also reveals that Washington created this overlay of the several states in order to permit the First Bank of the United States (basically, the Rothechilds) to operate within the several states under the flag of the federal district and prey upon the people of the nation. To complete this study, is there yet another indication that we can find in the history of the beginning of the United States that would reinforce what we are finding? Yes, there is. And it offers what is unquestionably the strongest evidence of all that everything we have been taught about the Constitution is nothing but a smoke screen. A smoke screen to hide the real nature of the United States government. And this strong evidence is the so-called Supreme Court. See; http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/45.html SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES ..Part VIII. Disposition of Cases Rule 45. Process; Mandates 1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States. http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/resources/lp_today_choosingjusti... The Judiciary Act of 1789 September 24, 1789. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist… Now, we need to look at the Constitution; Article 3, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, …” Since Congress was ordered to establish and clearly did establish the supreme court of the United States, as an inferior court, BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS NOT COMMANDED TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER COURT, the Supreme Court is an inferior court to the one supreme Court established by the Constitution. That court, the one supreme Court, has never sat. It is also important, and interesting, to note the close similarity of the names of the two courts – supreme court & one supreme Court. It is difficult for me to separate such deceptive practices out of my considerations about who is behind such things when I also know the names of the privately owned Bank of England and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Clearly, the Senate and the Congress established the so-called Supreme Court of the United States, and what they create, they control. It should also be noted that the process of this court issues in the name of the President of the United States, rather than under it’s own authority, and this is because this court has no authority on it’s own; it is not the court detailed in Article 3 of the Constitution. It is an administrative court created by Congress. Do we have further proof of this? Yes, we do. For various reasons, what are called the SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES are considered to be important cases. Part of this is because they were some of the first, if not the very first cases, called before the Supreme Court, which addressed the issue of citizenship after the so-called passage of the 13th & 14th Amendments (more on this later). These cases, Slaughter-House Cases, (1873), are important, but what is more important are the U.S. Supreme Court -- IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 77 U.S. 273 (1869), where it was determined if the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to hear the cases. Here, we find; “7. What power, then, has the Supreme Court of the United States in the premises?“ “2. The power given to this court by the Act of 1789 …” “…Controversies determined in a State court which are subject to re- examination in this court, are such, and such only as involve some one or more of the questions enumerated and described in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act …” “…and the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act provides to the effect that …” “…complied in each case with all the conditions prescribed in the act of Congress …” And why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case? “…. But it is equally competent for this court, in the furtherance of justice, to do the same …” The entirety of this case IN RE is an admission that the Supreme Court only has the jurisdiction and power given to it from the Congress, and that it’s power does not flow from the Constitution. And, with this case, we can take things even further forward. For instance, if you want a further shock, try these; “Independent of statutory regulations, the term supersedeas has little or no application in equity suits, as the rule is well settled in the English courts that an appeal in chancery does not stop the proceedings …” “3d. That the judgment of the court remits the practice on this subject substantially back to the practice of the English courts of equity, …” “Footnote 9 See General Order in House of Lords in 1807, …” The above is added in here just in case you are in doubt as to who was behind the Constitution and the establishment of the courts of the United States. If you understand what was being said, this decision of the Supreme Court is using a decision made in an English court in order to affirm what the United States court has decided to do. Before we move on, I want to bring out a couple of cases that are important. For instance; “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable. [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]” The above case is particularly important because it falls after 1938. A little later on you will understand that reference. The following is also important, and comes from an unpublished memorandum for this case. “Knox v. U.S., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case #SA-89-CA-1308 This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the United States belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 (EXHIBIT #4) where that Court affirmed that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union at page 305 quoting Downes, supra and De Lima, supra. That under Article IV, section 3 the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and their citizens of the "United States" residing therein. …” When you read papers such as this, you must always keep in mind the extension of the federal districts by George Washington over the several states, thus extending federal jurisdiction well beyond any intent written into the delegated powers described within the Constitution. Before we go on to something else, we need to look at what had happened, and what the only possible result could be. In the book, The Cure for All Diseases, by Hulga Clark, we are told how parasites invade and attack the weakest of the organs in our bodies. Always, the weakest. In the plant kingdom, this is also how insects and disease chose which plants to attack; always the weakest. Either plants which were damaged by wind or hail, too much sun, not enough water, some poison, cold, or any reason that put the plant in distress. This is a general rule of nature, in that the weakest is always the first to be attacked, and, it is something that all of us basically understand. We just do not like to think about it very much because it violates our sense of fair play. Fair play or not, what was necessary for America is that the center of the power in America, the United States government, HAD to be where the strongest chains were placed on the powers exercised by that government…… or…… that is where the parasites would congregate and attack the principles that stood between them and the fortunes that were to be had by the control of that power. I do not believe that there is anyone who will read this who does not understand that this is exactly what has happened. Stay tuned. Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power: Benito Mussolini NEXT; There is no Constitution Part II The Civil War