The Obama Deception: Alex Jones
- Thread starter LightBearer
- Start date
Wasn't the Gulf War before 9/11? He could quite easily have gone in there just to try and finish what daddy didn't. Iraq wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors anyways so that in itself would have done it. Even without 9/11 they would have gone in there sooner or later.
Since there was supposedly only one video footage (maybe there's a second one, but it looks even faker than the other) when the first tower got striked, I really don't know what to make about it.
However, the '2nd plane' that plunged into the second tower never appeared in at least one live news footage while unexpectedly capturing the 2nd explosion (which conveniently was never shown on TV again). And on one other live news footage from a helicopter, you can see the nose of the airplane exited the building on the other side before any explosion. The image of the airplane was overlayed onto the news feed. So, regarding the argument of a suicidal airplane with its jet fuel, was there even one? Shaped charges and control demolition sound very plausible (near free fall collapse suggests the floors offered no or very low resistance when crushed down).
But jet fuel? No way. The amount of jet fuel couldn't have heated the steel to the critical temperature fast enough to weaken it. Even if the steel core was weakened, it was inplausible that the building would collapse straight down in a nearly perfect fashion. Even if it did collapse straight down, how did all the concrete turn into dust? Neither ordinary demolition nor any gravity-induced collapse contained that much energy (thus the theory of advanced localized micro hydrogen bomb being deployed).
In the end, though, does it matter how it could have happened (since it's likely we will never know)? On a personal scale, yes, it changed me and opened my eyes to the real world. On a grander scale, probably no, because nothing can be done about it. It's great to disseminate information, but it will never gain the necessary critical mass to engender any meaningful change since powers that be will make sure 'troublemakers' are promptly removed. The fact they are allowing information to run rampant says much--they are in control and don't really care about a relatively small number of individuals opposing 'official stories'. That's the way the world was, is, and will be.
Present information for those who seek to augment their knowledge. It might also trigger an interest for those who are ready or open-minded to receive it. However, it's always a losing battle to try to force it down the throats of those who don't care or have the desire to know or are comfortable with what they know and not about to change that.
However, the '2nd plane' that plunged into the second tower never appeared in at least one live news footage while unexpectedly capturing the 2nd explosion (which conveniently was never shown on TV again). And on one other live news footage from a helicopter, you can see the nose of the airplane exited the building on the other side before any explosion. The image of the airplane was overlayed onto the news feed. So, regarding the argument of a suicidal airplane with its jet fuel, was there even one? Shaped charges and control demolition sound very plausible (near free fall collapse suggests the floors offered no or very low resistance when crushed down).
But jet fuel? No way. The amount of jet fuel couldn't have heated the steel to the critical temperature fast enough to weaken it. Even if the steel core was weakened, it was inplausible that the building would collapse straight down in a nearly perfect fashion. Even if it did collapse straight down, how did all the concrete turn into dust? Neither ordinary demolition nor any gravity-induced collapse contained that much energy (thus the theory of advanced localized micro hydrogen bomb being deployed).
In the end, though, does it matter how it could have happened (since it's likely we will never know)? On a personal scale, yes, it changed me and opened my eyes to the real world. On a grander scale, probably no, because nothing can be done about it. It's great to disseminate information, but it will never gain the necessary critical mass to engender any meaningful change since powers that be will make sure 'troublemakers' are promptly removed. The fact they are allowing information to run rampant says much--they are in control and don't really care about a relatively small number of individuals opposing 'official stories'. That's the way the world was, is, and will be.
Present information for those who seek to augment their knowledge. It might also trigger an interest for those who are ready or open-minded to receive it. However, it's always a losing battle to try to force it down the throats of those who don't care or have the desire to know or are comfortable with what they know and not about to change that.
We seem to forget that those were real human beings, with real families that lost their lives that day. If it was somebody from my family, I would be moving heaven and earth to find out the truth. It is almost sacrilegious to even ask any bloody questions about that day. Why? If the official story is so blatantly obvious then why are the people who believe in it not willing to defend their position.
Last edited:
The reason the nose came out other side before explosion is because fuel is in the wings, far behind the nose.
And there is plenty we can do. If all the "trouble makers" were being taken care of then what about David Icke,Jordan Maxwell,Alex Jones etc...
Waking people up is the best thing to do since you can't fight an enemy if you don't even know you're under attack.
You need to look at the big picture and understand that the US has real enemies and does not need to create fake ones.
Are you suggesting that because you have this imaginary thought of yourself taking the temperature of the steel on the WTC with a thermometer that you think the US has no real enemies ?
Is the steel temperature in the WTC your evidence that the US has no real enemies ?
I never said the USA has no real enemies. But you never understand what I say so what's the point. When will you understand that the "terrorists" are puppets? Maybe these guys thought it was hallowe'en?You need to look at the big picture and understand that the US has real enemies and does not need to create fake ones.
Are you suggesting that because you have this imaginary thought of yourself taking the temperature of the steel on the WTC with a thermometer that you think the US has no real enemies ?
Is the steel temperature in the WTC your evidence that the US has no real enemies ?[/IMG]
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/basra_uk_special_forces_staged_terror.htm
Theres even a picture of them.....
British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested
Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005
In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.
What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.
The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.
This has all the indications of a frame up.
This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives.
Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.
The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."
And are fake bushy black wigs and turbans standard kit for the SAS?
What happened to the early reports of explosives? Why has the media relentlessly reported on the subsequent rescue effort and failed to address these key questions?
The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.
The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops as was depicted in this dramatic Reuters photo.
As the SAS were being rescued 150 prisoners escaped from the jail. Was this intentional or just a result of another botched black op?
From this point on media coverage was monopolized by accounts of the rescue and the giant marauding pink elephant in the living room, namely why the soldiers were arrested in the first place, was routinely ignored.
The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."
Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,
“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.
“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners”.
“If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.
That explanation has a lot of currency amongst ordinary Iraqis who have been direct witnesses to these bombings.
In the past we’ve asked questions about why so-called car bombings leave giant craters, in addition with eyewitness reports that helicopters were carrying out the attacks.
Throughout history we see the tactic of divide and conquer being used to enslave populations and swallow formerly sovereign countries by piecemeal. From the British stirring up aggression between different Indian tribes in order to foment division, to modern day Yugoslavia where the country was rejecting the IMF and world bank takeover before the Globalists broke it up and took the country piece by piece by arming and empowering extremists.
And so to Iraq, New York Times November 25th 2003, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations writes,
"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."
Gelb argues for allowing the rebellion to escalate in order to create a divided Iraq.
And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? President Bush's slip of the tongue when he stated, "it'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" seems less farcical in this light.
Plans for 4,000 NATO troops to replace US troops in Afghanistan will likely be mirrored in Iraq and the country will be used as a launch pad for the coming invasions of Syria and Iran.
It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.
The Pentagon admitted before the war that independent journalists would be military targets and since then we've seen more journalists killed in Iraq over two and a half years than the entire seven year stretch of US involvement in Vietnam.
In many cases, such as that of Mazen Dana, an acclaimed hero who was killed after filming secret US mass graves, journalists are hunted down and executed because they record something that the occupational government doesn't want to reach the wider world.
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was fired upon and an Italian secret service agent killed after Sgrena was told by the group that kidnapped her that a threat to kill her if Italian troops didn't pull out of Iraq wasn't made by them. This means that Rumsfeld's Ministry of Truth in Iraq is putting out false statements by fake Jihad groups to try and maintain the facade that the resistance is run by brutal terrorists under the direction of Al-Qaeda/Iran/Syria or whoever else they want to bomb next.
Every high profile kidnapping brings with it eyewitness reports of white men in suits and police carrying out the abductions.
Many will find it hard to believe that ordinary soldiers would have it in them to carry out such brutal atrocities. The people carrying out these acts are not ordinary soldiers, they are SAS thugs who have been told that they have to be 'more evil than the terrorists' to defeat the terrorists. This is how they morally justify to themselves engaging in this criminal behavior.
We will update this story as and when new developments take place
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested
Paul Joseph Watson | September 20 2005
In another example of how the Iraqi quagmire is deliberately designed to degenerate into a chaotic abyss, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack and the media have dutifully shut up about the real questions surrounding the incident.
What is admitted is that two British soldiers in Arab garb and head dress drove a car towards a group of Iraq police and began firing. According to the Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili, one policeman was shot dead and another was injured. Pictured below are the wigs and clothing that the soldiers were wearing.
The Arab garb is obviously undeniable proof that the operation, whatever its ultimate intention, was staged so that any eyewitnesses would believe it had been carried out by Iraqis.
This has all the indications of a frame up.
This is made all the more interesting by the fact that early reports cited as originating from BBC World Service radio stated that the car used contained explosives.
Was this another staged car bombing intended to keep tensions high? As you will discover later, the plan to keep Iraq divided and in turmoil is an actual policy directive that spans back over two decades.
The BBC reports that the car did contain, "assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and medical kit. This is thought to be standard kit for the SAS operating in such a theatre of operations."
And are fake bushy black wigs and turbans standard kit for the SAS?
What happened to the early reports of explosives? Why has the media relentlessly reported on the subsequent rescue effort and failed to address these key questions?
The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.
The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops as was depicted in this dramatic Reuters photo.
As the SAS were being rescued 150 prisoners escaped from the jail. Was this intentional or just a result of another botched black op?
From this point on media coverage was monopolized by accounts of the rescue and the giant marauding pink elephant in the living room, namely why the soldiers were arrested in the first place, was routinely ignored.
The only outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."
Iran's top military commander Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr pointed the finger at the occupational government last week by publicly stating,
“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.
“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners”.
“If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.
That explanation has a lot of currency amongst ordinary Iraqis who have been direct witnesses to these bombings.
In the past we’ve asked questions about why so-called car bombings leave giant craters, in addition with eyewitness reports that helicopters were carrying out the attacks.
Throughout history we see the tactic of divide and conquer being used to enslave populations and swallow formerly sovereign countries by piecemeal. From the British stirring up aggression between different Indian tribes in order to foment division, to modern day Yugoslavia where the country was rejecting the IMF and world bank takeover before the Globalists broke it up and took the country piece by piece by arming and empowering extremists.
And so to Iraq, New York Times November 25th 2003, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations writes,
"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."
Gelb argues for allowing the rebellion to escalate in order to create a divided Iraq.
And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? President Bush's slip of the tongue when he stated, "it'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" seems less farcical in this light.
Plans for 4,000 NATO troops to replace US troops in Afghanistan will likely be mirrored in Iraq and the country will be used as a launch pad for the coming invasions of Syria and Iran.
It is certain that any reports coming out of Iraq accusing occupational forces of being behind car bombings will be brutally censored.
The Pentagon admitted before the war that independent journalists would be military targets and since then we've seen more journalists killed in Iraq over two and a half years than the entire seven year stretch of US involvement in Vietnam.
In many cases, such as that of Mazen Dana, an acclaimed hero who was killed after filming secret US mass graves, journalists are hunted down and executed because they record something that the occupational government doesn't want to reach the wider world.
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was fired upon and an Italian secret service agent killed after Sgrena was told by the group that kidnapped her that a threat to kill her if Italian troops didn't pull out of Iraq wasn't made by them. This means that Rumsfeld's Ministry of Truth in Iraq is putting out false statements by fake Jihad groups to try and maintain the facade that the resistance is run by brutal terrorists under the direction of Al-Qaeda/Iran/Syria or whoever else they want to bomb next.
Every high profile kidnapping brings with it eyewitness reports of white men in suits and police carrying out the abductions.
Many will find it hard to believe that ordinary soldiers would have it in them to carry out such brutal atrocities. The people carrying out these acts are not ordinary soldiers, they are SAS thugs who have been told that they have to be 'more evil than the terrorists' to defeat the terrorists. This is how they morally justify to themselves engaging in this criminal behavior.
We will update this story as and when new developments take place
If you haven't watched 911 TV fakery clips, I recommend them. They can be found on YouTube.
Have you seen something like this: http://tinyurl.com/dajqbv
Not everyone is ready for the truth (or at least be open-minded) because it might not what they want to hear. When faced with truth, they must do something about it because they can no longer pretend everything is fine and the government is not what it makes out to be.
I was simply investigating the possible cause of the building collapse, and I made no implication to who did it or why it was done as they have nothing to do with the collapse. The U.S. has made enemies over the years. That you made an association between the temperature and the fact that the U.S. has no real enemies is non sequitur.
Uh just so you know all videos that are put out saying no planes hit the towers are all disinfo meant to hurt the 9/11 Truth movement, they have all been discredited by eyewitness testimony and common sense.
But the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 is real and true. That is what must be exposed.
You are trying to prove to me that 9/11 was an inside job.
In other words you are also trying to prove that there was no enemies behind the attack on 9/11.
So who is an enemy of the US then ?
Its been hijacked by foreign bankers, mainly British. They couldn't beat America on the field of battle so they bought it up and made them all slaves via the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Then in 1933 Roosevelt says USA is bankrupt. Fedreal Reserve comes in and says ok USA what can you pledge as collateral on the debt you owe us? 1936 Social Security system was installed and the American people, there children and there childrens children were pledged as collateral. That is why an American can enter there birth certificate number into the stock market. There body has value. SLAVES!!!!!!
Folks, I think lighthead has finally lost it completely. I am almost speechless.
Do you even know what that pie chart means? How does that dis prove my last post....hahaha.
Chapter 15
FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF SLAVES
The Thirteenth Amendment did away with involuntary servitude. Voluntary servitude remains entirely Constitutional. Ownership of slaves remains with us today. By volunteering to be resident on the feudal manor you become subject to the lord of the manor, to whom you owe absolute allegiance. Your lord has the right to use whatever force is necessary to assure compliance. This is perfectly Biblical. It is voluntary servitude because you volunteered. Even the Supreme Court (92 US 551) said: "The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government."
Can you be a slave and not know it? I'll give you a few hints:
Compton's Encyclopedia article Slavery and Serfdom: "Other forms of servitude related to slavery, and sometimes indistinguishable from it, are serfdom, debt bondage, indentured service, peonage, and corvee (statute labor)."
Elwell Evangelical Dictionary: "Roman laws were passed to protect slaves and to allow rights, even of private possessions ..."
Civil Rights Lawyer, Gerry Spence: "People have not yet discovered they have been disenfranchised. Even lawyers can't stand to admit it."
Clark's Summary of American Law index entry for "Employees" is "see Master and Servant"
When there were seven years of famine under Pharaoh, people who wanted to live sold all their land, their cattle and all their possessions to Pharaoh in exchange for food. The next year they had nothing, so they sold themselves into slavery. In Genesis 47:23-26 SLAVES OWNED BY PHARAOH HAD A 20% INCOME TAX and were allowed to keep 80%. IF YOU PAY MORE THAN 20% TAX, THEN YOU ARE WORSE OFF THAN A SLAVE. Today's expenditure of federal, state and local governments is 50% of the gross national product. If you think you are below the 50% tax bracket, you didn't add all the hidden taxes and your share of the increase in the national debt.
Notice that from the Compton's Encyclopedia article cited above, debt bondage is sometimes indistinguishable from slavery. I have an honest question. At what point did you agree to pay your share of the National Debt?
The writers of your Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, delegated to their servants the authority to borrow money; therefore they were liable for the debts that their servants incurred on their behalf. They knew that they owed the debt and that their property was the collateral. At what point did you become liable for your share? Was it by being born? Was it by registering to vote? By voluntarily paying a tax? Or was it by agreeing to be a ward on the federal plantation? Your share of the National Debt is now $73,000 per family. This is far more than the net worth of all private property. How do you intend to pay this obligation? Answer: You agreed that you are the collateral! The Social Security Act, Section 801 makes you liable for Social Security Tax and other taxes.
Before I continue, you need to understand some basics about what government is, what a republic is and what an all capitalized "PERSON" is. Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. Your legitimate government went bankrupt in 1933, and was substituted with a multinational bankruptcy receivership. Details are covered in depth elsewhere. Here are the basics:
Original State Governments Bankrupt federal Government as turned over to creditors
Republic (=free from things Public), private Public
Proper noun State = original government set up by Christians as a Church. Instituted among men to secure those rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All capitalized STATE = name of a foreign corporation run by military democracy. Their state is still their church, it enforces their rituals, such as oath swearing. There is however, separation of your church from their state. You consented to be governed.
The Constitution was written to control government. We the People are masters of the state civil servants. Federal Servants of your state servants are now forced to obey their creditors.
Judicial power can not enforce legislated laws: 1- Because servants do not write laws to control their masters (legislated laws do not apply to the common man) and 2- because there must be a separation of powers between the legislative and judicial. There is no Judicial power. Courts obey their chain of command: must enforce legislated laws
people cease to be private if they register as Public, or profit from things public. Government can only do business with registered PERSONS (as articles in commerce). This is why they ask for ID identification proof that you are government property. They cannot spend appropriated funds, including their labor, dealing with non-government (private, non-public) people.
Private people cannot receive public credit or pay interest or receive interest public PERSONS can receive interest as a public "right"
Can protect society by hanging a murderer without appeal. Must respect your right to duel to the death (because servants cannot settle their masters' disputes). Everything must be done in commerce. Only the all capitalized PERSONS can be charged with a crime.
Wages are taxable only by apportionment. Article 1, Section 2 of your U.S. Constitution. National debt is secured by all future wages. Wage tax pays the interest first.
Only available to unregistered people. The moment someone accepts a public benefit, their benefactor protects them from their original church government. Protection requires subjection.
Perhaps you now have a hint that you voluntarily subjected yourself to (are under a legal incapacity to) foreign creditors.
Now, imagine a legal system so diabolical that:
A doctor, by signing a birth certificate, pledges the future earnings of the baby as collateral for the national debt. This is also a financing statement pursuant to UCC 9-302.
A couple, by getting a marriage certificate from their owner, agree that their vows to the state god can be cancelled by their owner's divorce court, and agree that their babies belong to their owner.
Only the all capitalized names that you see on government IDs can open a bank account or drive or cash a check or pay a utility bill or travel by airline. On the other hand, only the all capitalized name can be accused of a crime, or pay a tax or be drafted.
Where people could cancel the obligations of their contracts (bankruptcy).
Where "your" assets are returned to their rightful owner upon death, by probate.
Where the payment of a tax not owed creates an obligation to make future payments.
Where the US Supreme Court in US v. Kozminski, 487 US 931, has recently confirmed that it is perfectly lawful to hold slaves to unpaid forced labor by the use of psychological coercion, threatened physical force, or threatened legal process. Because it is voluntary.
Where the Supreme Court determined in Briscoe v. Lahue that police cannot be punished for giving perjured testimony that convicts someone.
Where the head of the Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz, testifies to Congress that there is overwhelming evidence that police and prosecutors perjure themselves regularly in order to convict the innocent. http://www.house.gov/judiciary/101308.htm.
Where "Federal prosecutors were clearly entitled to immunity for initiating prosecution, whether or not charges were false, and whether or not prosecutors knew charges were false ..." (Martinez v. Winner, 771 F2d 424).
Where "Judicial immunity is not waived even though actions on part of judge were grievously erroneous or prompted by malice or corruption" (Patterson v. Aiken, 628 FSupp 1068).
Where "Judge is immune from civil damage suits ... immunity extends even to malicious or corrupt acts." (Bryant v. O'Connor, 671 FSupp 1279).
Where "Absolute immunity shelters prosecutors even when they act maliciously, wantonly, or negligently." (Rykers v. Alford, 832 F2d 895).
Where the Supreme Court in 1972 Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225, 242 ruled that a citizen injured by a government officer and seeking injunctive relief needed an act of Congress.
(Aside: I can go on and on, but you get the picture. Your servants are now out of your control. We have gone from a nation that must punish corrupt officials, to one that must not punish corrupt officials. In fact, up until the early 1900's there was a judicial doctrine that "Unclean hands shall never touch the pure fountain of justice." As for myself, the troublesome part is where the Hebrew word "gods" that is in the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." refers to judges or magistrates. I'm beginning to think that legitimate government is the restrainer in 2nd Thessalonians 2:7 that has been taken out of the way. This might just reveal ourselves to be the man of lawlessness. The word "man" in the phrase "man of lawlessness" is the Greek "anthropos," from which we get our word anthropology, meaning mankind. It is not the Greek word "aner" which is used for an individual.)
The doctrine of immunity also protects bureaucrats who deny you your rights for failing to disclose your Social Security Number. Even though you have a clearly established right to refuse to disclose a number, bureaucrats cannot be punished unless they are aware of this right. Doyle v. Wilson, 529 FSupp 1343. Mr. Doyle could not get his money refunded by a clerk unless he gave a SSN. The bureaucrats could keep his money until he gave a number, because they did not know he had a right to refuse to give a number. Theft became legal. You now have to prove to bureaucrats that you have a right to refuse disclosure, and you have to do this before they punish you!
ATTORNEYS ARE NOT LAWYERS. An attorney is one who entraps slaves for his master. An attorney has the duty to turn your allegiance over to his lord. The word attorney comes from the word "attornment" which means to twist (no surprise here) or to turn over. This originally referred to the transfer of feudal land where the attorney is hired to make sure that all serfs turn over to the new owner and none were freed. This is the same today. Again: Ownership of slaves remains with us today. Later, I will prove that you have already been turned over to the new owners of the federal government.
Oxford English Dictionary 1999, ATTORN: "Turn over to another; transfer, assign ... Transfer one's tenancy or ... homage or allegiance to another; formally acknowledge such transfer."
Webster's 1828 Dictionary: ATTORNMENT: "The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service."
I'll start out with examples of legal incapacity. Being under incapacity, you cannot speak for yourself in any legal sense and must be represented, in much the same way that parents must ratify a child's contract (more about this later). In much the same way that an attorney must represent corporations.
Your government has distinct definitions for different categories of people. Example: The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: "... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
If you are confused by the above quoted terms, then its time to study their deceptive vocabulary.
Some people have direct allegiance similar to any enlisted military person.
Others have signed a contract that subjects them to punishment by their masters.
Still others are responsible for using a government granted status, which subjects them to an in rem jurisdiction.
Paupers (those supported at public expense), children, mentally incompetent.
Those who have sworn a vow of poverty.
At what point does ownership of a slave begin and waiver of rights end? It is a very vague distinction. Somewhere in the gray area, you must mark your line in the sand. At what point will you divide asunder civic duty from duty to a master? At what point will you confess that you are a slave? Let's take a closer look.
NON-PERSONS
First, a simple definition so that you may understand your chain of command.
Law: The expressed will of the sovereign.
There is only one Sovereign, and He will judge you on the judgement day. But, from the government's point of view, those who created government, and their posterity, are their sovereigns. Civil servants must do two things: obey their masters and control their subjects. Your government only writes laws for their subjects. They call their subjects by the term "persons". Government does not write laws to control their masters. Your government calls their masters non-persons. "Persons" are people who are under the government. "Non-persons" are people who are above the laws of their servants. They are above the government they control. LAW COMES FROM NON-PERSONS. Read Appendix D now.
The Lord is the Christian's lawgiver (James 4:12, Isa 33:22). Christian's founded this country. Christians created Christian State governments, not pagan state governments. The Original State is the Church. An association of representatives of Christian States in a convention created your federal government. Congress could only assemble for the 17 reasons mentioned in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The Untied States was at one time subordinate to the representatives of your Christian States' civil servants.
In Appendix D I have cited many proofs that non-persons exist and have rights. You are under the Almighty Sovereign's chain of command and He expects you to properly represent this authority.
According to Daniel Garcia's Law Brief, a Sovereign person retains all liberties. He is not part of a nation or state. Garcia claims that Alexander Hamilton was a sovereign non-Citizen. I have no reason to doubt it. Alexander Hamilton was never president. He was the first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he could not have been a citizen. His duties are to the Arch-treasurer of the United States (presuming, of course, that the United States has a right to exist). The borrower is a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).
A sovereign may be a non-Citizen or a state Citizen. Let's examine both:
A non-citizen, such as Alexander Hamilton, keeps all his natural rights, but has no political rights. He is above man's government. A congressman does not represent him. A non-citizen cannot pay taxes or vote (as in the Supreme Court's Elk v. Wilkins case concerning a native American Indian). I repeat: A NON-CITIZEN HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN A CITIZEN.
A sovereign state citizen gives up some natural rights in exchange for political privileges. I'll discuss citizenship below, and in Appendix D. Only sovereigns (which include state citizens and non-citizens, but excludes federal citizens) can have access to the state's judicial powers, but this is almost extinct because there are so few left of this dwindling remnant still qualified to exercise this right.
there is no such thing as a sovereign US citizen. As you will see, a US citizen is not above government, he is of [of = belonging to] government. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383). For further proof, read your Constitution. Only state citizens can become President. No one from Washington DC can become President. No one from Washington DC can have political rights.
If you understand this logic so far, you now understand why a non-citizen cannot have a right to work in the US. A non-citizen has more rights than a citizen of any state, but no one has a right to work within the Federal US government. The right to work in the US government is a government granted privilege. Any form that asks if you work in the US, such as an employer's I-9 form, is asking if you are working within the US government. Federal Congress makes laws for federal persons, they do not make laws for state citizens.
RESIDENT
Black's Law Dictionary, first edition (published in 1891 long after the 13th Amendment) cites the definition of "Resident:"
"RESIDENT: A tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not depart from the same, a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. 9 Wend. 11.
That's right! A resident is a slave on the plantation and is not allowed to leave.
A Resident has no Personal liberty. Black's Law Dictionary, first edition gives us the definition of personal liberty:
"Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 134"
As you can see, A RESIDENT IS SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LIBERTY.
Caution: only a resident can get a driver's license. If you apply for a license, you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. Further Proof: the Supreme Court keeps saying that states cannot regulate the right to travel by automobile. Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 in 1969 and in US v. Wheeler 254 US 281, 293 in 1920 and in US v. Guest 383 US 745 in 1966. The right to travel is so basic that it is not even mentioned in your Constitution. If your right to travel is regulated, it is probably because you asked for permission to travel. There are hundreds of cases that prove this. I recommend the book "The Right to Travel" by Charles Weisman. If you want a simple 12 page brief on the subject, I recommend you buy a copy of the "Aid and Abet" newsletter for lawmen, issue No. 11 entitled "U.S. Courts Confirm Driving a Motor Vehicle is a Right Not Government Privilege." (Available from Aid and Abet, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona 85066).
You are the one that has to decide whether you want to live in a nation that protects your right to travel, or one that resorts to brutal force to regulate your travel. If they can regulate such a basic right, they can easily regulate buying and selling. If you actually WANT them to regulate travel, then I remind you "he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." If you are bold enough to believe, as does the Supreme Court, that your Creator endows you with an inalienable right to travel, then you will constantly be put in jail by a confederation of beast powers. If this is enough to wear out the saints, then you cannot dismiss this evidence.
Caution: only a resident can register to vote. If you register to vote you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. If this sounds like you are the secured collateral for a bond issue, there is a reason for this.
Caution: Before you go claiming that you are an inhabitant, know that the modern legal definition of inhabitant implies "a more fixed and permanent abode" than a resident. This is contrary to the use of this word in both the Articles of Confederation and in your Constitution. It is contrary to the use of the term "inhabitants" that is inscribed on the Liberty Bell. More about this, later. According to your Constitution, Presidents must be residents of their state, whereas Congressmen must be inhabitants of their state.
The definition of resident may also imply that there is an in rem duty to manage something belonging to the government. More about this when we study the Constitutions use of the term "resident."
CITIZEN
Basic citizenship, non-citizenship, and forced citizenship:
Citizens are those who enter into a political society. They voluntarily give up some of their natural liberties in exchange for political privileges. They become subject to private law enforcement. They can be forced into court to settle disputes. They agree to a lien on their property to pay for any damages they cause. They agree to accept service of legal process.
A non-citizen has not entered into a political society. Like Alexander Hamilton, they must resort to "on-street remedies" to settle disputes.
Citizenship by birth forces, involuntarily, someone into a political society. If this sounds too Catholic to you, there is probably a reason.
If you live in one of the 20 states that still has your state borders defined by your state constitution [yes, there is a plot to systematically eliminate all states], then you will notice that your state constitution gives the judicial power of your state the authority to naturalize citizens. This is how naturalization happened for the first 100 years of your once great nation. Yet you cannot get your judicial courts to recognize this duty today. Apparently real state governments do not exist today, they were replaces by federal corporations masquerading as states.
There are two types of citizenship, state and federal:
Representatives of State Citizens created your federal government, and they are responsible for controlling their creature. State Citizens are above your federal government. They are the masters of your federal government. Your federal government must obey its masters. State Citizens are the lords of their public servants. A representative takes an oath of office as worship to his lords. This is why your federal government has been systematically eliminating their masters. [There is interesting evidence that the original lordship still exists: the Mace of the United States must be present whenever Congress is in session. The Mace is an ornamented rack with 13 sticks, by which you could whip your insubordinate representatives.]
US citizens, give up all natural rights in exchange for "civil" rights. All political authority is relinquished to politicians who will regulate citizens' travel, marriage, banking, medications, housing, occupations, guns, education, commerce, etc.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no such thing as a federal citizen.
In Appendix C, I show that 14th Amendment citizenship in your Federal government is not the same as state citizenship. According to the Supreme Court, federal citizens cannot have protections from the first eight amendments. And I repeat: no one from Washington DC can have political rights or even run for President. Are you from Washington DC? You are if you checked a "US citizen" box on any form, or if you are a resident with a federal zip code address.
At the end of the Civil War a lawful method had to be created in order to care for the four million freed slaves who needed a way to survive. Since your Constitution has never allowed the government to give entitlements to people, Federal ownership was just one of the alternatives being considered for the "freed" slaves. Another alternative was a treaty whereby freed slaves would live in America as citizens of Liberia. Five hundred black families moved to Africa and established the country of Liberia, with the assurance of making a treaty with the US so that everyone could live free. Their constitution is almost identical to yours, except that only blacks can become citizens. They even named their Capital after an American president. In this ultimate battle between good and evil, the treaty never happened and Federal ownership is what we ended up with, where eventually no one could live free. Did your government school teach you this?
NON-PERSONS
First, a simple definition so that you may understand your chain of command.
Law: The expressed will of the sovereign.
There is only one Sovereign, and He will judge you on the judgement day. But, from the government's point of view, those who created government, and their posterity, are their sovereigns. Civil servants must do two things: obey their masters and control their subjects. Your government only writes laws for their subjects. They call their subjects by the term "persons". Government does not write laws to control their masters. Your government calls their masters non-persons. "Persons" are people who are under the government. "Non-persons" are people who are above the laws of their servants. They are above the government they control. LAW COMES FROM NON-PERSONS. Read Appendix D now.
The Lord is the Christian's lawgiver (James 4:12, Isa 33:22). Christian's founded this country. Christians created Christian State governments, not pagan state governments. The Original State is the Church. An association of representatives of Christian States in a convention created your federal government. Congress could only assemble for the 17 reasons mentioned in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The Untied States was at one time subordinate to the representatives of your Christian States' civil servants.
In Appendix D I have cited many proofs that non-persons exist and have rights. You are under the Almighty Sovereign's chain of command and He expects you to properly represent this authority.
According to Daniel Garcia's Law Brief, a Sovereign person retains all liberties. He is not part of a nation or state. Garcia claims that Alexander Hamilton was a sovereign non-Citizen. I have no reason to doubt it. Alexander Hamilton was never president. He was the first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he could not have been a citizen. His duties are to the Arch-treasurer of the United States (presuming, of course, that the United States has a right to exist). The borrower is a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).
A sovereign may be a non-Citizen or a state Citizen. Let's examine both:
A non-citizen, such as Alexander Hamilton, keeps all his natural rights, but has no political rights. He is above man's government. A congressman does not represent him. A non-citizen cannot pay taxes or vote (as in the Supreme Court's Elk v. Wilkins case concerning a native American Indian). I repeat: A NON-CITIZEN HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN A CITIZEN.
A sovereign state citizen gives up some natural rights in exchange for political privileges. I'll discuss citizenship below, and in Appendix D. Only sovereigns (which include state citizens and non-citizens, but excludes federal citizens) can have access to the state's judicial powers, but this is almost extinct because there are so few left of this dwindling remnant still qualified to exercise this right.
there is no such thing as a sovereign US citizen. As you will see, a US citizen is not above government, he is of [of = belonging to] government. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383). For further proof, read your Constitution. Only state citizens can become President. No one from Washington DC can become President. No one from Washington DC can have political rights.
If you understand this logic so far, you now understand why a non-citizen cannot have a right to work in the US. A non-citizen has more rights than a citizen of any state, but no one has a right to work within the Federal US government. The right to work in the US government is a government granted privilege. Any form that asks if you work in the US, such as an employer's I-9 form, is asking if you are working within the US government. Federal Congress makes laws for federal persons, they do not make laws for state citizens.
RESIDENT
Black's Law Dictionary, first edition (published in 1891 long after the 13th Amendment) cites the definition of "Resident:"
"RESIDENT: A tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not depart from the same, a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. 9 Wend. 11.
That's right! A resident is a slave on the plantation and is not allowed to leave.
A Resident has no Personal liberty. Black's Law Dictionary, first edition gives us the definition of personal liberty:
"Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 134"
As you can see, A RESIDENT IS SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LIBERTY.
Caution: only a resident can get a driver's license. If you apply for a license, you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. Further Proof: the Supreme Court keeps saying that states cannot regulate the right to travel by automobile. Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 in 1969 and in US v. Wheeler 254 US 281, 293 in 1920 and in US v. Guest 383 US 745 in 1966. The right to travel is so basic that it is not even mentioned in your Constitution. If your right to travel is regulated, it is probably because you asked for permission to travel. There are hundreds of cases that prove this. I recommend the book "The Right to Travel" by Charles Weisman. If you want a simple 12 page brief on the subject, I recommend you buy a copy of the "Aid and Abet" newsletter for lawmen, issue No. 11 entitled "U.S. Courts Confirm Driving a Motor Vehicle is a Right Not Government Privilege." (Available from Aid and Abet, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona 85066).
You are the one that has to decide whether you want to live in a nation that protects your right to travel, or one that resorts to brutal force to regulate your travel. If they can regulate such a basic right, they can easily regulate buying and selling. If you actually WANT them to regulate travel, then I remind you "he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." If you are bold enough to believe, as does the Supreme Court, that your Creator endows you with an inalienable right to travel, then you will constantly be put in jail by a confederation of beast powers. If this is enough to wear out the saints, then you cannot dismiss this evidence.
Caution: only a resident can register to vote. If you register to vote you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. If this sounds like you are the secured collateral for a bond issue, there is a reason for this.
Caution: Before you go claiming that you are an inhabitant, know that the modern legal definition of inhabitant implies "a more fixed and permanent abode" than a resident. This is contrary to the use of this word in both the Articles of Confederation and in your Constitution. It is contrary to the use of the term "inhabitants" that is inscribed on the Liberty Bell. More about this, later. According to your Constitution, Presidents must be residents of their state, whereas Congressmen must be inhabitants of their state.
The definition of resident may also imply that there is an in rem duty to manage something belonging to the government. More about this when we study the Constitutions use of the term "resident."
CITIZEN
Basic citizenship, non-citizenship, and forced citizenship:
Citizens are those who enter into a political society. They voluntarily give up some of their natural liberties in exchange for political privileges. They become subject to private law enforcement. They can be forced into court to settle disputes. They agree to a lien on their property to pay for any damages they cause. They agree to accept service of legal process.
A non-citizen has not entered into a political society. Like Alexander Hamilton, they must resort to "on-street remedies" to settle disputes.
Citizenship by birth forces, involuntarily, someone into a political society. If this sounds too Catholic to you, there is probably a reason.
If you live in one of the 20 states that still has your state borders defined by your state constitution [yes, there is a plot to systematically eliminate all states], then you will notice that your state constitution gives the judicial power of your state the authority to naturalize citizens. This is how naturalization happened for the first 100 years of your once great nation. Yet you cannot get your judicial courts to recognize this duty today. Apparently real state governments do not exist today, they were replaces by federal corporations masquerading as states.
There are two types of citizenship, state and federal:
Representatives of State Citizens created your federal government, and they are responsible for controlling their creature. State Citizens are above your federal government. They are the masters of your federal government. Your federal government must obey its masters. State Citizens are the lords of their public servants. A representative takes an oath of office as worship to his lords. This is why your federal government has been systematically eliminating their masters. [There is interesting evidence that the original lordship still exists: the Mace of the United States must be present whenever Congress is in session. The Mace is an ornamented rack with 13 sticks, by which you could whip your insubordinate representatives.]
US citizens, give up all natural rights in exchange for "civil" rights. All political authority is relinquished to politicians who will regulate citizens' travel, marriage, banking, medications, housing, occupations, guns, education, commerce, etc.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no such thing as a federal citizen.
In Appendix C, I show that 14th Amendment citizenship in your Federal government is not the same as state citizenship. According to the Supreme Court, federal citizens cannot have protections from the first eight amendments. And I repeat: no one from Washington DC can have political rights or even run for President. Are you from Washington DC? You are if you checked a "US citizen" box on any form, or if you are a resident with a federal zip code address.
At the end of the Civil War a lawful method had to be created in order to care for the four million freed slaves who needed a way to survive. Since your Constitution has never allowed the government to give entitlements to people, Federal ownership was just one of the alternatives being considered for the "freed" slaves. Another alternative was a treaty whereby freed slaves would live in America as citizens of Liberia. Five hundred black families moved to Africa and established the country of Liberia, with the assurance of making a treaty with the US so that everyone could live free. Their constitution is almost identical to yours, except that only blacks can become citizens. They even named their Capital after an American president. In this ultimate battle between good and evil, the treaty never happened and Federal ownership is what we ended up with, where eventually no one could live free. Did your government school teach you this?
