Archive for the ‘politics’ Category
Cornel West, activist and professor at Union Theological Seminary, ripped Barack Obama’s “Wall Street presidency,” calling him another neoliberal “counterfeit” after posing as a progressive in his initial campaign for the White House in 2008.
“We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency,” West told Salon.com’s Thomas Frank.
“The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neoliberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair.”
Public intellectual West lamented Obama’s failure – or refusal – to attempt a revival of democratic principles at a time of “an empire in decline.”
“Our culture is in increasing decay. Our school systems are in deep trouble. Our political system is dysfunctional. Our leaders are more and more bought off with legalized bribery and normalized corruption in Congress and too much of our civil life. You would think that we needed somebody—a Lincoln-like figure who could revive some democratic spirit and democratic possibility.”
West said at a time of deep need for solutions, for a change of culture in the gilded halls of Washington, Obama was another “opportunist.”
“It’s like you’re looking for John Coltrane and you get Kenny G in brown skin.”
Looking back, West said he believes Obama’s “motus operandi” has always consisted of seeking to placate the powers-that-be and to occupy the “middle ground,” even though he acted the part of a transcendent figure during his campaign 2008, the year that saw the beginning of the Great Recession.
“And so what did he do? Every time you’re headed toward middle ground what do you do? You go straight to the establishment and reassure them that you’re not too radical, and try to convince them that you are very much one of them so you end up with a John Brennan, architect of torture [as CIA Director]. Torturers go free but they’re real patriots so we can let them go free. The rule of law doesn’t mean anything.”
West also chided US Attorney General Eric Holder for his cozy relationship with Wall Street.
“Eric Holder won’t touch the Wall Street executives; they’re his friends. He might charge them some money. They want to celebrate. This money is just a tax write-off for these people. There’s no accountability. No answerability. No responsibility that these people have to take at all.”
Acting as if there are no divisions in the US, that there is one “American family,” as Obama has said, is part of the President’s “temperament,” West said.
“You don’t try to act as if we have no divisions and we’re just an American family, with the poor getting treated in disgraceful ways and the rich walking off sipping tea, with no accountability at all, and your foreign policy is running amok with Israelis committing war crimes against precious Palestinians and you won’t say a mumbling word about the Palestinian children. What is history going to say about you? Counterfeit! That’s what they’ll say, counterfeit. Not the real thing.”
Obama and Holder, both black men, were “completely silent,” West said, following the police killing of unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson. The incident was emblematic of “arbitrary police power” that is often trained on communities of color, he added.
West said Holder will likely step down by the end of the year, as he is “concerned about his legacy as if he’s somehow been swinging for black folk ever since he’s been in there. That’s a lie. He’s been silent, too. He’s been relatively silent. He’s made a couple of gestures in regards to the New Jim Crow and the prison-industrial complex, but that’s just lately, on his way out. He was there for six years and didn’t do nothing.”
The post-Obama era will be “an America in post-traumatic depression,” West said, and the likely successor in the White House, “neo-liberal opportunist par excellence” Hillary Clinton, will be “much worse.”
“Hillary Clinton is an extension of Obama’s Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, national surveillance, national security presidency. She’d be more hawkish than he is, and yet she’s got that strange smile that somehow titillates liberals and neo-liberals and scares Republicans. But at that point it’s even too hard to contemplate.”
‘From times immemorial, the top down authority imposition has been the rule. This system of control is the reason why excrement discharge flows downhill. The feudal model works well for the lords who sit atop the pyramid. Essentially the New World Order is the supreme evolution of the subjugation of the serf class. In spite of this fact, what keeps this inequitable delineation between the dominant and the spineless? Pure power and malicious behavior achieves the perfection of perdition, in this hierarchal slave gulag. Because it can be done and no force can stop the captivity is the cause of the suffering.
The manipulating influence behind the Anglo-American hegemony and hyper-power governance is the “Crown”. The Crown as defined by NESARA INTERNATIONAL may seem bizarre to the casual spectator. However, the secrets of the international banksters, wholly exposed after the global financial meltdown, are undeniable. If this is not the ultimate extortion by the global gangsters, what could top this rush into thralldom?’
No troops to Iraq, but other options are being considered.
That was President Barack Obama’s message Friday in response to the lightning advance by Sunni militant fighters in Iraq that could threaten the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
In a statement delivered from the White House South Lawn, Obama said the United States “will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq,” but that he would be reviewing a range of other options in coming days.
The House overwhelmingly passed a resolution Friday that would bar President Barack Obama from sending forces to Iraq in a “sustained combat role” without congressional approval, a bill with greater symbolic than legal effect.
WASHINGTON (AP) — US officials: Military weighs plan to send a small number of additional troops to Iraq.
* * *
So BOOTS WILL BE ON THE GROUND – just as President Obama had told the American people they would not be…
Of course we assume these are humanitarian assassination advising troops…
* * *
In addition to the fact that President Obama has basically declared war on ISIS… this just happened…
- *SEPARATISTS SHOOT DOWN UKRAINE SU-25 FIGHTER PLANE: REUTERS
- *ISRAEL WILL HIT HAMAS INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMANDERS: NETANYAHU
So – all war, all the time…
Posted in economics, government, history, law, politics, tagged Billy Hoyle, Ezra Turner, Larry Flynt, Mickey Knox, politicians, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Woody Boyd on August 20, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Woodrow Tracy “Woody” Harrelson (born July 23, 1961) is an American actor and activist. His breakout role came in the television sitcom Cheers as bartender Woody Boyd. Some notable film characters include basketball hustler Billy Hoyle in White Men Can’t Jump, a crippled bowler in Kingpin, serial killer Mickey Knox in Natural Born Killers, magazine publisher Larry Flynt in The People vs. Larry Flynt, country singer Dusty in A Prairie Home Companion, bounty hunter Carson Wells in No Country for Old Men, zombie killer Tallahassee in Zombieland, blind piano player/meat salesman Ezra Turner in Seven Pounds, conspiracy nut Charlie Frost in 2012, a delusional man who believes he is a superhero named Defendor in Defendor, Cpt. Tony Stone in The Messenger, Haymitch Abernathy in The Hunger Games, and Merritt McKinney in Now You See Me. For The People vs. Larry Flynt and The Messenger, Harrelson earned Academy Award nominations for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively. He is currently a co-star in the 2014 HBO crime drama True Detective, along with Matthew McConaughey.
Support us, Help Cover Equipment and Hosting Costs. We accept donations of any amount through PayPal. Our competition is the major mainstream media giants.
Ferguson is not just about systemic racism — it’s about class warfare and how America’s poor are held back, says Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
You probably have heard of the Kent State shootings: on May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on student protesters at Kent State University. During those 13 seconds of gunfire, four students were killed and nine were wounded, one of whom was permanently paralyzed. The shock and outcry resulted in a nationwide strike of 4 million students that closed more than 450 campuses. Five days after the shooting, 100,000 protestors gathered in Washington, D.C. And the nation’s youth was energetically mobilized to end the Vietnam War, racism, sexism, and mindless faith in the political establishment.
You probably haven’t heard of the Jackson State shootings.
On May 14th, 10 days after Kent State ignited the nation, at the predominantly black Jackson State University in Mississippi, police killed two black students (one a high school senior, the other the father of an 18-month-old baby) with shotguns and wounded twelve others.
There was no national outcry. The nation was not mobilized to do anything. That heartless leviathan we call History swallowed that event whole, erasing it from the national memory.
And, unless we want the Ferguson atrocity to also be swallowed and become nothing more than an intestinal irritant to history, we have to address the situation not just as another act of systemic racism, but as what else it is: class warfare.
“My administration has been closely monitoring the situation in Egypt, and I know that we will be learning more tomorrow when day breaks. As the situation continues to unfold, our first concern is preventing injury or loss of life. So I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors.
The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere.”
- U.S. President Barack Obama, January 28, 2011
The events in Ferguson, Missouri went from what could have been just another all too common and tragic incident in which an unarmed black man is killed by an overly aggressive and unprofessional police force, to what may be a historically significant event in American history. So how did this transformation occur and what does it mean going forward? Those are the two questions I intend to address in this post.
There are two primary factors that have collided to create the current out of control situation in a suburb roughly 15 miles northwest of St. Louis, which before this past weekend, almost no one had ever heard of. The first factor is the underlying tension in American society that I have been writing about for several years now. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the minority majority inner cities or their outskirts. Being a privileged person, I have thankfully never experienced the dehumanization and oppression felt by so many in these disenfranchised communities, but I can still understand the fact that these neighborhoods are ground zero in the civil unrest that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
The second factor is the entirely inappropriate and dangerous militarization of police forces throughout these United States. While extreme tension between impoverished communities and the police has been well documented for decades and expressed through music and movies (I grew up with NWA’s Fuck Tha Police and Colors), the cops were generally speaking merely men and women driving around in patrol cars with guns and batons. Not to dismiss the violence that can and has been inflicted through those means, but the police in recent years have taken things to a whole new frightening level: Total Militarization.
I consider this trend to be such an existential threat to freedom and civil liberties that I have expended a considerable deal of time and energy over the past several years highlighting it. I have covered the topic too many times to list here (I will provide a compilation at the end of this post), but there is one in particular I want to mention. The post was published two months ago and was titled: The Militarization of Police Continues…Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Silencers and More. In it I quoted the following from a New York Times article:
During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.
The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”
I then concluded the post with the following observation:
Of all the bad ideas currently being implemented in these United States, turning the police into soldiers is certainly near the top of the list
13 Aug 2014 Here’s the transcript of how it all went down: Adam Sharp: “Reverend Sharpton, the term ‘Snitches Get Stitches’ was spray painted on the burned out QuikTrip. Since you are a federal snitch, sir, do you fear for your life?” Al Sharpton: “I’m not a snitch. (Not true.) But today I want to tell the feds about a cop that needs to go to jail.” [See: The Problem With Al Sharpton (The Black Commentator) “Roger Stone, a millionaire political consultant who began his career as a 19-year-old Watergate dirty trickster, virtually took over the [Rev. Al] Sharpton campaign in the last quarter of 2003, according to reports in the New York Times (January 25), Salon (“A GOP Trickster Rents Sharpton,” February 3) and New York’s Village Voice (“Sleeping with the GOP,” February 3). …Roger Stone is the Hard Right storm trooper whose goons bum-rushed the Miami-Dade elections offices in 2000, shutting down the recount and setting the stage for George Bush’s “selection.”]
Support us, Help Cover Equipment and Hosting Costs. We accept donations of any amount through PayPal. Our competition is the major mainstream media giants.
Posted in death, foreign policy, government, health, history, law, military, politics, religion, tagged Central African Republic, Kofi Annan, nIGERIA, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, world events on August 14, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Reflecting on the responses to the number of man-made emergencies detonating or still smouldering around the world earlier this year, from Syria to Ukraine and from Nigeria and South Sudan to Central African Republic (CAR), Kofi Annan appeared uncharacteristically weary.
“You sometimes have a feeling that the global community – and even the big powers – can only focus on one crisis at a time,” the former UN secretary general said.
“We’ve moved from Syria to Ukraine. Look at how the focus on Ukraine has eclipsed what is going on in Syria and in other places. The only crisis that has got a bit of attention and been able to break through the Ukrainian dominance is [Boko Haram’s kidnapping of] the girls of Nigeria.”
An excerpt from, “The Templars’ last crusade for the Yezidis” by Wayne Purdin, Examiner.com, August 1, 2009:
Mark and the Gnostic Templars have undertaken a final crusade to spread the teachings of gnosis and how it forms the basis of all religions. A key element of this crusade is the preservation of the religion traditions of the Yezidis. Mark is making people aware of the genocide that the Yezidis are suffering and the truths about their religion through his website yezidiruth.org. He is also helping to establish a Yezidi center in Lincoln, Nebraska and an international shrine in Sri Lanka. There is already a shrine there which links to Peacock Angel to Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, but Mark wants all religions to be represented there.
I asked Mark a few questions about the Yezidis recently:
Q. Why have you taken upon yourself the task of helping the Yezidis by exposing through http://www.yeziditruth.org the genocide they are suffering at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists?
A. One of our goals in the IOGT is to revive the world’s religions by revealing their common roots. The Yezidis are important in this work because they possess one of the oldest religious traditions on Earth, and one that is the foundation of many others. The Yezidis came to the Middle East from India around 2000 B.C. and helped found the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian civilizations. So they were instrumental in forming those ancient cultures. But even before that time there is reason to believe that the Yezidis were involved in the most ancient culture on Lemuria. Thus, if we lose the Yezidi tradition we have lost an essential key to understanding humanity’s religious history.
Q. How many Yezidis have been killed and how many are left?
A. According to the Yezidis, they have lost 20 million people over the years. There are less than half a million left.
Continued. . .
Visit www.yeziditruth.org for more information.
I wish I had a silver dollar for every time I’ve heard the phrase “It is human nature……” or some such derivative or derivation. Alan Greenspan recently popped to the surface of his personal cesspool to proclaim it is human nature to create financial bubbles, thus absolving himself of any blame for a runaway fiat candy machine. His exact words were “Bubbles are functions of unchangeable human nature.”
I will stifle the urge to flush Greenspan back down the commode where he belongs and instead focus upon the mistaken belief we can actually determine exactly what is ‘human nature’ after hundreds if not thousands of years of social conditioning and manipulation.
Our fragile egos, both personally and as a collective, have a difficult enough time accepting “We the People” are effectively influenced by ‘popular culture’, let alone that we would seriously entertain the idea we are thoroughly conditioned humans from birth. But considering we are born the purest of individual humans and spend the rest of our lives attempting to be just like everyone else speaks volumes to the idea we are the sum total not only of our lifelong conditioning, but of multi generational conditioning as well.
Where exactly is the demarcation line between ‘human nature’ and the passively conditioned consumer we have all become to some degree or another? If generation after generation of “We the Consumer” suffer under the influence of cultural, social, institutional, religious and governmental manipulative programming and outright propaganda, how exactly could we ever be fully aware of the sum total of these influences nor what humans would be like if the manipulation were removed or never there in the first place?
Humans are highly adaptive creatures and incredibly ingenious when it comes to modifying our behavior in the face of externally or internally applied pressure and circumstance. ‘Normal’ is a relative term, not some static measurement, and both the body and mind quickly becomes accustomed to the ‘new’ normal when choices appear to be limited and the herd moves to a new grazing field. But this doesn’t mean the results of social pressures and generational conditioning are dictated by human nature or that human nature guides human behavior under these extraordinarily distorted circumstances.
I remember visiting an indoor zoo several decades ago with my young son. At one exhibit there was a young man seated in a chair intently watching the caged animals, in this case squirrels if I remember correctly. A sign posted behind him informed the curious he was conducting a behavioral study and to please do not disturb. At regular intervals he would look down at his clipboard and make a notation, then return his gaze to the animals in front of him. I was fascinated not in the animals he was watching, but in what he was doing and why.
Stealing a look at the clipboard there were several vertical columns for various behaviors such as grooming, feeding, mating etc and horizontal markings indicating 30 second intervals. It appeared he was following one particular squirrel and noting what it was doing at specific points in time. It was then I realized there was a very large clock with a sweeping second hand hanging on the cage in the person’s line of sight. I supposed this data would all be crunched down later into thesis graphs and tables.
Outside the exhibit I found an employee and asked him a few questions about the young man inside. He explained that the local university regularly sent over students to conduct behavioral studies of various animals in the zoo. This data would then be compared to results of studies done in the wild in order to measure the effects of captivity and domestication. I remember saying to him, “Too bad we can’t do this with humans.” He was startled by my comment and clearly at a loss for words. I left him to stew on my thought as my son dragged me on to the next exhibit.
If the only substantial population of squirrels left in the world are all safely caged and on exhibit, with only a smattering of squirrels remaining in the wild, would this ‘condition’ eventually become the basis for a new ‘normal’? Would the caged animals be considered the norm and the few remaining left in the wild considered outliers and abnormal?
Now move this thought experiment forward a thousand years or more and imagine there are only caged squirrels left in the world, and even the institutional memory of their wild origins is lost or severely obscured. How exactly would these animals be perceived when there remained no basis for comparison? I propose that at this point any observed repetitive or predictable ‘behavior’ would be considered ‘squirrel nature’ and just the way it is.
In recent years the publicly promoted illusion of happy, well adjusted zoo animals has slowly dissolved into dust as report after report indicates many animals in captivity exhibit clear and disturbing signs of depression, neurosis and self destructive behavior. Assuming after a thousand years the captive squirrels have not committed ritual collective suicide I suspect their observed behavior would border on the bizarre and nonsensical. Yet with no basis for comparison their aberrant manner would continue to be explained away as simply squirrel nature.
While I suspect I shall assault the sensibilities and egos of many of my readers by immediately switching the squirrel analogy to that of the present day human, the similarities are too striking to ignore. How exactly are we to successfully and correctly examine ourselves when the only ‘normal’ we know is found in the boiling pot of water we presently occupy?
With no basis for comparison and any cultural or institutional memory long since lost to time or never established in the first place, combined with the deliberate and malicious distortion or outright falsification of the history of the human race in order to muddy the waters and control “We the Conditioned”, how is a person or any “author-ity” able to say with any degree of confidence that a particular observed human behavior is solely and exclusively ‘human nature’? The single minded arrogance displayed by such certainty of knowledge of the ‘self’ approaches pathological self deception.
That caged gorilla obsessively pacing inside his cage is seen as abnormal simply because we can view other gorillas in the wild and not witness comparable behavior. Similarly the obese obsessive compulsive eater shopping at Sam’s Club for a bigger bang for their food buck is seen as abnormal solely because there are other non obese humans available for comparison. As well, this specific abnormal self destructive human behavior is so relatively new that institutional memory of what is ‘normal’ has not been lost or deliberately obscured. Yet we hurry to blame the individual person for their apparent suicidal behavior and rarely look beyond the trees to see the cultural forest.
For thousands of years psychopaths have ruled the human race utilizing various psychologically damaging methods and techniques, all with the ultimate purpose of control and exploitation. The very institutions and governments we allow to exist are there solely to herd and control the masses for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. In so many ways caged from birth, is it any wonder we exhibit clear and disturbing signs of depression, neurosis and self destructive behavior?
I suspect if it weren’t for our flexible intellect and protective ego, combined with a monumental arrogance, long ago we would have participated in ritual collective suicide. It could be argued our near constant state of war is designed to ‘play’ at or ‘practice’ mass suicide in order to act as a safety valve and relieve some of the socially self destructive pressures.
While there are certainly many ‘benefits’ of war enjoyed by the minority psychopath controllers, such as economic enrichment, power enhancement and more social control, a seriously dysfunctional and neurotic population must be managed in the same way unstable chemical compounds are. Occasionally dangerous pressures must be carefully vented away or burned off lest the volatile concoction self destruct and take the psychopaths with it.
For those among us who claim that humans who are removed from these pressures still exhibit the same behavior, thus confirming the presence of human nature, I simply respond that deep conditioning can last a lifetime even after it is recognized as conditioning. It takes generational change to effectively begin the removal and rebalancing process and many generations for it to be removed completely. Ironically the psychopaths claim this very fact justifies their continued intervention and control since a domesticated animal let loose in the wild cannot fend for itself, a self serving point of view if ever I heard one.
Induced insanity is the perfect mental/spiritual illness from a social control point of view because it is self perpetuating, self affirming and can exist in isolation since it is its own energy source. The social/cultural control systems used by the psychopaths encourages mass mental illness in order to divide and conquer. It is the most effective method by which the few may dominate the many.
If this is the case, and I suspect this to be so, how exactly are “We the Insane” able to perceive anything about ourselves with any semblance of balance and objectivity. How are we able to determine what is ‘human nature’ and not just run-of-the-mill insanity? The insane nearly always believe themselves to be sane and healthy, and all others to be off their rockers. How apropos then that nearly every one of us believes we can clearly see the insanity and it is they, those, and them over there who are the problem, not me, myself or I.
Welcome to the Insane Asylum…..or as we like to say these days the ‘new’ normal.
Posted in government, history, law, media, politics, tagged Common Law, Continental United States, equity, Federal United States, law, Legislative Article I Court, Supreme court, United States on August 10, 2014 | 4 Comments »
by Howard Freeman
The information is this article is not intended in any manner to replace qualified legal advice.
Our forefathers, weary of the oppressive measures that King George III’s government forced upon them, in common declared their independence from England in 1776. They were not expected to be successful in that resistance. The moneyed people had backed England for two major reasons. First, our forefathers wanted a rigid, written Constitution “set in concrete.” They were familiar with the so-called Constitution of England which consisted largely of customs, precedents, traditions, and understandings, often vague and always flexible. They wanted the principle of English common law, that an act done by any official person or lawmaking body beyond his or its legal competence was simply void. Second, the thirteen little colonies desired to base their union on substance (gold and silver) — real money. They well knew how the despotic governments of Europe were mortgaged to the hilt — lock, stock, and barrel, the land, the people, everything — to certain wealthy men who controlled the banks, the currency, and all credit, who lent credit but did not loan gold and silver!
The United States of America was made up of a union of what is now fifty sovereign States, a three-branch (legislative, executive, and judicial) Republic known as The United States of America, or as termed in this article, the Continental United States. Its citizenry live in one of the fifty States, and its laws are based on the Constitution, which is based on Common Law. It has become an administrative (bureaucratic) legislative democracy via the obligation of contract being extended by duplicity and deception.
Less than one hundred years after we became a nation, a loophole was discovered in the Constitution by cunning lawyers in league with the international bankers. They realized that a separate nation existed, by the same name, that Congress had created in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. This “United States” is a Legislative Democracy within the Constitutional Republic, and is known as the Federal United States. It has exclusive, unlimited rule over its Citizenry, the residents of the District of Colombia, the territories and enclaves (Guam, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc.), and anyone who is a Citizen by way of the 14th Amendment (naturalized Citizens).
Both United States have the same Congress that rules in both nations. One “United States,” the Republic of fifty States, has the “stars and stripes” as its flag, but without any fringe on it. The Federal United States’ flag is the stars and stripes with a yellow fringe, seen in all the courts. The abbreviations of the States of the Continental United States are, with or without the zip codes, Ala., Alas., Ariz., Ark., Cal., etc. The abbreviations of the States under the jurisdiction of the Federal United States, the Legislative Democracy, are AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, etc. (without any periods).
Under the Constitution, based on Common Law, the Republic of the Continental United States provides for legal cases
(l) Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the will of the majority, the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces, to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Law allows you to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. Law does not compel performance. Today’s so-called laws (ordinances, statutes, acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etc.) are often erroneously perceived as law, but just because something is called a “law” does not necessarily make it a law. [There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Anything the government does is legal, but it may not be lawful.]
(2) Equity is the jurisdiction of compelled performance (for any contract you are a party to) and is based on what is fair in a particular situation. The term “equity” denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. You have no rights other than what is specified in your contract. Equity has no criminal aspects to it.
(3) Admiralty is compelled performance plus a criminal penalty, a civil contract with a criminal penalty.
By 1938 the gradual merger procedurally between law and equity actions (i.e., the same court has jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters) was recognized. The nation was bankrupt and was owned by its creditors (the international bankers) who now owned everything — the Congress, the Executive, the courts, all the States and their legislatures and executives, all the land, and all the people. Everything was mortgaged in the national debt. We had gone from being sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments to discharge our debts with limited liability, instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.
The remainder of this article explains how this happened, where we are today, and what remedy we have to protect ourselves from this system.
Our Present Commercial System of “Law” and the REMEDY Provided for Our Protection
The present commercial system of “law” has replaced the old and familiar Common Law upon which our nation was founded. The following is the legal thread which brought us from sovereigns over government to subjects under government, through the use of negotiable instruments (Federal Reserve Notes) to discharge our debts with limited liability instead of paying our debts at common law with gold or silver coin.
The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.
Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument’s Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which “United States” has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the “United States,” which is the Union of the fifty States).
In offering grants of negotiable paper (Federal Reserve Notes) which the Congress gave to the fifty States of the Union for education, highways, health, and other purposes, Congress bound all the States of the Union into a commercial agreement with the Federal United States (as distinguished from the Continental United States). The fifty States accepted the “benefits” offered by the Federal United States as the consideration of a commercial agreement between the Federal United States and each of the corporate States. The corporate States were then obligated to obey the Congress of the Federal United States and also to assume their portion of the equitable debts of the Federal United States to the international banking houses, for the credit loaned. The credit which each State received, in the form of federal grants, was predicated upon equitable paper.
This system of negotiable paper binds all corporate entities of government together in a vast system of commercial agreements and is what has altered our court system from one under the Common Law to a Legislative Article I Court, or Tribunal, system of commercial law. Those persons brought before this court are held to the letter of every statute of government on the federal, state, county, or municipal levels unless they have exercised the REMEDY provided for them within that system of Commercial Law whereby, when forced to use a so-called “benefit” offered, or available, to them, from government, they may reserve their former right, under the Common Law guarantee of same, not to be bound by any contract, or commercial agreement, that they did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
This is exactly how the corporate entities of state, county, and municipal governments got entangled with the Legislative Democracy, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and called here The Federal United States, to distinguish it from the Continental United States, whose origin was in the Union of the Sovereign States.
The same national Congress rules the Continental United States pursuant to Constitutional limits upon its authority, while it enjoys exclusive rule, with no Constitutional limitations, as it legislates for the Federal United States.
With the above information, we may ask: “How did we, the free Preamble citizenry of the Sovereign States, lose our guaranteed unalienable rights and be forced into acceptance of the equitable debt obligations of the Federal United States, and also become subject to that entity of government, and divorced from our Sovereign States in the Republic, which we call here the Continental United States?” We do not reside, work, or have income from any territory subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Federal United States. These are questions that have troubled sincere, patriotic Americans for many years. Our lack of knowledge concerning the cunning of the legal profession is the cause of that divorce, but a knowledge of the truth concerning the legal thread, which caught us in its net, will restore our former status as a free Preamble citizen of the Republic.
The answer follows:
Our national Congress works for two nations foreign to each other, and by legal cunning both are called The United States. One is the Union of Sovereign States, under the Constitution, termed in this article the Continental United States. The other is a Legislative Democracy which has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, here termed the Federal United States. Very few people, when they see some “law” passed by Congress, ask themselves, “Which nation was Congress working for when it passed this or that so-called law?” Or, few ask, “Does this particular law apply to the Continental citizenry of the Republic, or does this particular law apply only to residents of the District of Columbia and other named enclaves, or territories, of the Democracy called the Federal United States?”
Since these questions are seldom asked by the uninformed citizenry of the Republic, it was an open invitation for “cunning” political leadership to seek more power and authority over the entire citizenry of the Republic through the medium of “legalese.” Congress deliberately failed in its duty to provide a medium of exchange for the citizenry of the Republic, in harmony with its Constitutional mandate. Instead, it created an abundance of commercial credit money for the Legislative Democracy, where it was not bound by Constitutional limitations. Then, after having created an emergency situation, and a tremendous depression in the Republic, Congress used its emergency authority to remove the remaining substance (gold and silver) from the medium of exchange belonging to the Republic, and made the negotiable instrument paper of the Legislative Democracy (Federal United States) a legal tender for Continental United States citizenry to use in the discharge of debts.
At the same time, Congress granted the entire citizenry of the two nations the “benefit” of limited liability in the discharge of all debts by telling the citizenry that the gold and silver coins of the Republic were out of date and cumbersome. The citizens were told that gold and silver (substance) was no longer needed to pay their debts, that they were now “privileged” to discharge debt with this more “convenient” currency, issued by the Federal United States. Consequently, everyone was forced to “go modern,” and to turn in their gold as a patriotic gesture. The entire news media complex went along with the scam and declared it to be a forward step for our democracy, no longer referring to America as a Republic.
From that time on, it was a falling light for the Republic of 1776, and a rising light for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Democracy, which overcame the depression, which was caused by a created shortage of real money. There was created an abundance of debt paper money, so-called, in the form of interest-bearing negotiable instrument paper called Federal Reserve Notes, and other forms of paperwork credit instruments.
Since all contracts since Roosevelt’s time have the colorable consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]
Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction, which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent, rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of contracts under the Common Law.
All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-called “statutes” of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not “statutes” passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as “commercial obligations” to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the “benefit,” or “privilege,” of discharging his debts with the limited liability “benefit” offered to him by the Federal United States … EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 207.
When used in conjunction with one’s signature, a stamp stating “Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207″ is sufficient to indicate to the magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called “courts”) that the signer of the document has reserved his Common Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case in any Common Law contract.
Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law. He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Republic, while those about him “curse the darkness” of Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States, even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.
Editor’s note: the following excerpts are from letters in which Mr. Freeman further clarifies the REMEDY, as given to us in UCC 1-207, and the distinctions between Public Policy and Public Law:
“There is an important “right” available to you. The name of the right is “Allocution”. It is presumed to have been waived if it is not requested! The purpose in demanding it is to preserve the “legal issues” brought up in the case, and overruled by the trial court. Otherwise, one’s appeal from a criminal conviction to a higher Court will only be a review of the “Fact Issues” decided in the lower Court, the Law Issues of the case are presumed to have been waived by the accused, unless those issues have been preserved though the right of “allocution.”
There is more that can follow one’s exercise of that right, and I will cover that, but first, let me explain what allocution is.
Once the Court, or a Jury, has found you guilty of disobedience to a commercial statute demanding, or prohibiting, performance in a specified manner, you, the accused, have the right of “Allocution”, which right, consists of having the Court (Judge) ask you on the record of the case (be sure that the Court Reporter is including this in the case transcript) “Is there any reason why this Court should not sentence you at this time?”
Being asked that question by the Court, in the Court Record is all there is to your right of Allocution, but a proper response upon the Court Record by the accused shows that same has not waived dispute upon the legal issues of the case, which were overruled by the trial Court, and now those issues may be brought up on appeal. The proper response of the accused upon being confronted with this question from the Judge, which allocution requires of him, is “Your Honor, the accused, in this criminal case, coming as it does from a colorable jurisdiction over his person and property, does object to being sentenced by this court at this time, because conviction in this case has been base upon The Facts of the case, while the Law Issues are still in dispute – namely – the Courts’ Colorable Jurisdiction in this Criminal charge, which lacks the essence of a substantial claim by a damaged party.”
At this point, your right of Allocution has preserved for you your right to bring Law Issues into your Appeal. Now, I will bring to your attention an additional benefit of exercising your right of Allocution, which I alluded to earlier in this letter: After you have placed the above response to the Judge’s question in the record, I would suggest that you continue on in the following manner: “Your Honor, the accused in this case would like to put this Court ON NOTICE, that if it DOES pronounce sentence at this time, over the OBJECTIONS of the accused, that the accused will formulate his objection, before a higher Court, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR (see Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th Law Dictionary).”
The reason for the remark above is that the Court will tell you that WRITS OF ERROR have been done away with in modern Courts. In that situation, point out to the Judge that you do NOT intend to file a GENUINE WRIT OF ERROR, which is not recognized in colorable Jurisdictions, but that you stated on the record of the court that your OBJECTION to being sentenced at this time on FACT ISSUES while the LAW ISSUES of the case are still in dispute would be: IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF ERROR which is a Colorable Objection recognized under the name of Supervisory Control in Black’s 5th.
The advantage of an objection in the nature of a writ of error is that the Judge (not you) must bring forth the Transcript, or Record, of the case to the higher panel of Judges, and, the burden of proof is upon that Judge to show that the Jurisdiction that he exercised over your person and property existed AS A FACT OF LAW, and further, he must show the legal basis for EACH RULING ON ISSUES OF LAW that the Transcript shows that an objection thereto was made by the accused.
Now you know the benefit of stating your objection in the nature of a Writ of Error, over making an appeal, wherein the expense of bringing forth the transcript is on you, as well as, the burden of proof on all the law issues in dispute.”
“What has public policy to do with Commercial Law? To grasp that you must understand that the US Constitution being based upon the Common Law and the Common Law being based upon substance (silver & gold) made it impossible for Congress when working for the 3-branch government created by the Union of States to borrow anything but silver or gold for what I will call the Continental United States , but Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gave the same Congress exclusive rule of the District of Columbia and other territories and enclaves mentioned in Clause 17. This entity I will call for our purposes here Federal United States. With that exclusive rule of that legislative democracy, called here Federal United States, Congress was able to borrow non-substance (bank credit) from International Banking Houses in the name of Federal United States which loans began in Civil War times and continues today to the point that the paper debt exceeds 3 Trillion in loans of bank credit. Federal United States was long ago a bankrupt nation so it no longer legislated “public law” pursuant to the interests of the people it served, but since 1938 it legislates “public policy” in the interests of the nation’s creditors. It is not in the interest of the people for Congress to give billions to Russia or Israel so that becomes “public policy” in the interest of the nation’s creditors. Now the Commercial Code comes into play when the Congress of the bankrupt Federal United States, in its duty to pass public policy statutes in the interest of the creditors of Federal United States, failed in its duty to coin gold or silver as a medium of exchange for Continental United States creating a depression therein, through a shortage of real money (genuine dollars). Then Franklin Roosevelt declared gold a barbaric metal, and with emergency powers given to him, brought America “up to date” by making colorable Federal Reserve Notes legal tender throughout Continental United States. Since colorable dollars, based upon the debt obligations of Federal United States, are now employed as a medium of exchange for Continental United States through the neglect of Congress in its duty to Continental United States, and the so called “blessings” of executive orders of FDR under his emergency powers, Continental United States is in a contract relationship with Federal United States and the debts of Federal United States are now equally, the debts of Continental United States and all of the inhabitants thereof UNLESS the inhabitants thereof in doing business in colorable dollars (commercial paper) reserve their Common Law Rights under the REMEDY provided for them in that system of Commercial Law called: The Uniform Commercial Code. I hope this brief summary of events answers your questions.
Most cordially yours,
U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of all our rights.”
The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be “express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.
The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.” ….
U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ….
U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date ….
U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in force except where displaced by the Code ….
A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law…. “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”
Your Honor, my use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207″ above my signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Section 207, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government — national, state and local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.
Three years after the fall of the dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is a country ravaged by violence and chaos. Armed militias, Islamists and others are battling for control. Can anything stop Libya falling apart? And how effective – or how damaging – are military interventions of the kind that took place there?