Barack Hussein Obama Is the Last American President

[kcwildman]

exactly,, the people were listed as assets in the banks portfolio, and became property of the state. as far as I know it is still listed on the british exchange. prestow, changeow, everyone now needs the approval of the boss to do anything, or go anywhere.. effectively establishing the herd, and erecting the assorted grazing fields. complete with cross fencing and range hands to manage the orderly exchange of assets..

sadly nothing ever changes, all things, are as they always have been.. America, land of the free, home of the brave, is now, and always has been, simply put, (just a dream) in the heart of man.. the carrot dangled in front of the mule to get the field plowed.. just as it is now, it was then, no one leaves the kings land to go anywhere with out a letter of passage bearing the king's seal.

with the illusion of being free the so called pilgrims. who in fact were the property of the king, to be bought, sold, or killed as he saw fit to do. were sent to this piece of dirt for the sole purpose of securing resources to profit the king and his friends. who were very interested in expanding there area of trade and profit margin.

I really don't think more than 5%, well maybe 10% of the people have any clue as to just what is going on..

 

[Sam Slagg]

exactly,, the people were listed as assets in the banks portfolio, and became property of the state. as far as I know it is still listed on the british exchange. prestow, changeow, everyone now needs the approval of the boss to do anything, or go anywhere.. effectively establishing the herd, and erecting the assorted grazing fields. complete with cross fencing and range hands to manage the orderly exchange of assets..

sadly nothing ever changes, all things, are as they always have been.. America, land of the free, home of the brave, is now, and always has been, simply put, (just a dream) in the heart of man.. the carrot dangled in front of the mule to get the field plowed.. just as it is now, it was then, no one leaves the kings land to go anywhere with out a letter of passage bearing the king's seal.

with the illusion of being free the so called pilgrims. who in fact were the property of the king, to be bought, sold, or killed as he saw fit to do. were sent to this piece of dirt for the sole purpose of securing resources to profit the king and his friends. who were very interested in expanding there area of trade and profit margin.

I really don't think more than 5%, well maybe 10% of the people have any clue as to just what is going on..

Absolutely true. The so-called "founding fathers" were nothing of the sort and certainly weren't committing treason against the King of England when they drafted the "Declaration of Independence." A document, by the way, which was written by the ruling elite, for the ruling elite not the general population. That is the reason the word "people" in the first line of the declaration is capitalized. It is specifying a CERTAIN group of people, not just the people in general, complete with the future socialist clause built in. People are always surprised when I point out that not only has the original Republic long since been dissolved but the ruling elite did so with the full authority of the Declaration of Independence itself! This alone tells the truth as to the founding of this country. The fact of the matter is this; The United States was NEVER meant to remain a Republic.

We live in a Democracy plain and simple. I have established this fact from a legal standpoint. A Democracy is socialism, it's fascism, in short it is a communistic dictatorship in which the dictator is not one single person but a small group of people. This creates an extremely ambiguous situation in which the people have no idea at whom they should point the finger. The President is merely the spokesmodel for the Corporation. I laugh at how many people flock to the Statue of Liberty each year believing that it is a symbol for freedom...even the name alone tells you what it actually represents......liberty NOT freedom. It is a symbol of the new government, the Federal Democracy of the Distric of Columbia in which the citizens, now subsidiaries of the Corporation, must contract for liberty. Your driver's license is an example of a common contract for the liberty of driving. How many people have experienced having their driving liberty suspended or revoked without even understanding how that was legally possible? Freedom cannot be taken away, this is the major difference between liberty and freedom but people have been conditioned over the years to use the term freedom in place of liberty, thereby enforcing the lie.

The big problem is that people are ignorant and lazy and confused. They are living, at the sponsorship of the Federal Government (a foreign country to your sovereign state) in a constant mild delusion. When a person believes in something completely, that is, they are willing to fight and even die to preserve that belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary, they are experiencing a mild form of delusion. People do in fact recognize the evidence to the contrary but they are not able to think clearly enough to see that evidence for what it is so often times they latch on to the person most visible, the President. Obama is the best, Obama is the worst, etc., etc., when in fact the policies introduced by the President are not his, but his employers. One woman recently posted on my FB page about how the Pledge of Allegiance has been removed from her public schools and she was upset about it and posted propoganda about how "they" are taking everything away if "we" don't "do something" about it. I asked her when you "Pledge your allegiance," what are you pledging to? She didn't get it so I posted the words up until you get to the part about ..."and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." I explained that since the Republic no longer exists there really is no reason to continue to pledge. Besides, I think legally you *could* be considered treasonous for pledging your allegiance to a government other than the Federal Democracy. I would have to research the legality to be sure. She recognized that the Pledge of Allegiance was being systematically removed from the public school system (a system completely owned by the Federal Democracy) but was unable to see why. It is impossible to answer when you don't even know the question. Worse yet, it is impossible to answer when you don't even know there is a question that needs to be asked! The human race has fallen so far down the rabbit hole that I don't think there will be any coming back. As you said, freedom is and always has been just a dream....

 

[kcwildman]

it grieves me to know that the asset/ property dispersal for debt. owed.. will not be understood at all, by any of the assets... but all the signs of a bankruptcy are present at this time. it could happen at any time.. it is nearly impossible to explain to some one, they must find it themselves. very few even care to look. whole countries will be sliced up to cover there national debt. populations will be rounded up and shipped off on rail cars to there designated re education /relocation camps/centers determined by the holder of the, in our case treasury bonds.. that make up the lions share of national debt.
the same dozen or so family's have been pulling there strings for close to 1000 yrs, and the chess board is pretty much set for the closing moves in the game

you know I am a paranoid nut case, delusional, and should not be aloud to run lose in public without supervision. I am not someone you want to put on speakerphone.. the nurse will be here soon with my candy...o_0

 

[Justinian]

It always cracks me up when the supposed crack pots of the 70's and 80's, with their wild conspiracy theories, are proved correct. I guess it's like poets and artists. Nobody likes them when they're alive, but after they die their works automatically increase in value.

 

[kcwildman]

ha ha ha it was the late 70's early 80's when I first started to take a hard look at money, and just what was going on.. why I needed a license to get married.. I guess you could say I stuck my head down the rabbit hole, now today, I am still a nut job, and almost no one understands
the things I say. nothing much changes except the size of the cattle pens get smaller. as we are ever more restricted in our day to day affairs.

the money changers are still running a rigged game. soon it will become very clear as to who is going to settle the nat. debt.

 

[Harte]

Think about this. 1864 The District of Columbia was incorporated within the boundaries of the United States. The United States effectively became a corporation and the Republic was dissolved and replaced with a Democracy. People back then had no movies, video games, Hollywood demigods, the internet, smart phones, etc. with which to distract themselves and they still did not know what was happening!

D.C. was "incorporated" like almost every city or town in the U.S. has been 'incorporated."

D.C. was incorporated in response to the wording of the law, just like almost every city or town in the U.S.

D.C. is a place, not a company, and the elected federal officials there have nothing at all to do with the District, it's just where they meet.

The U.S. Government has always been a Democratic Republic. It was never a pure republic.

Your misunderstandings of "incorporation," "republic" and "democracy" as well as the District of Columbia lead you to incorrect conclusions.

They went from being free, that is, they were individual sovereign entities, to being subsidieries of a corporation. Always look to Black's Law Dictionary for definitions. This is the reason that prior to 1864, people could declare war on one another and have a shootout at high noon on the streets and be perfectly within their rights to do so.

As they can even today, though they'd probably get run over.

Any survivor of such a duel could make a legitimate self-defense claim, you know.

We live in a two party state, the problem they are missing is that BOTH parties are employed by the same employer. The Federal Democracy of the Distric of Columbia, NOT the people.

Again, D.C. is a town, not the Federal Government.

As of this writing, I don't believe that the people have any representation in government at all. If people want to make a change, they MUST start there. Having representation is crucial. Without it, they will accomplish nothing. That having been said, I don't believe that the people are prepared or even capable of governing themselves. After more than 150 years, they are hopelessly dependent on the Federal Democracy. They are ignorant and they are lazy.

People governing themselves is a Democracy. Anyone that thinks a country can long exist as a democracy just isn't thinking at all. Regarding your statement that the U.S. has moved to a Democracy from a Republic, the only move the U.S. made toward a more democratic form was in 1913, when the election of Senators was standardized nationwide. Several states had already established their own laws that their Senators be elected prior to that, however.
Originally, Senators were selected by state legislatures.

That's a pretty small shift, but it is toward more democracy and away from a republic.

Harte

 

[Sam Slagg]

Think about this. 1864 The District of Columbia was incorporated within the boundaries of the United States. The United States effectively became a corporation and the Republic was dissolved and replaced with a Democracy. People back then had no movies, video games, Hollywood demigods, the internet, smart phones, etc. with which to distract themselves and they still did not know what was happening!

D.C. was "incorporated" like almost every city or town in the U.S. has been 'incorporated."

D.C. was incorporated in response to the wording of the law, just like almost every city or town in the U.S.

D.C. is a place, not a company, and the elected federal officials there have nothing at all to do with the District, it's just where they meet.

The U.S. Government has always been a Democratic Republic. It was never a pure republic.

Your misunderstandings of "incorporation," "republic" and "democracy" as well as the District of Columbia lead you to incorrect conclusions.

They went from being free, that is, they were individual sovereign entities, to being subsidieries of a corporation. Always look to Black's Law Dictionary for definitions. This is the reason that prior to 1864, people could declare war on one another and have a shootout at high noon on the streets and be perfectly within their rights to do so.

As they can even today, though they'd probably get run over.

Any survivor of such a duel could make a legitimate self-defense claim, you know.

We live in a two party state, the problem they are missing is that BOTH parties are employed by the same employer. The Federal Democracy of the Distric of Columbia, NOT the people.

Again, D.C. is a town, not the Federal Government.

As of this writing, I don't believe that the people have any representation in government at all. If people want to make a change, they MUST start there. Having representation is crucial. Without it, they will accomplish nothing. That having been said, I don't believe that the people are prepared or even capable of governing themselves. After more than 150 years, they are hopelessly dependent on the Federal Democracy. They are ignorant and they are lazy.

People governing themselves is a Democracy. Anyone that thinks a country can long exist as a democracy just isn't thinking at all. Regarding your statement that the U.S. has moved to a Democracy from a Republic, the only move the U.S. made toward a more democratic form was in 1913, when the election of Senators was standardized nationwide. Several states had already established their own laws that their Senators be elected prior to that, however.
Originally, Senators were selected by state legislatures.

That's a pretty small shift, but it is toward more democracy and away from a republic.

Harte

Thank you for your perception. It is interesting to say the least.

Washington DC is not part of the USA. District of Columbia is located on 10sq miles of land. DC has its own flag and own independent constitution. This constitution operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex Fori. DC constitution has nothing to do with the American Constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. Thus DC acts as a Corporation through the Act. The flag of Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars (the 3 stars denoting DC, Vatican City and City of London).

This IS NOT THE SAME THING as "any other city in America." Though I appreciate your perspective, it is incorrect nonetheless.

A look at the various Treaties raises the question of whether US remains a British Crown colony. The basis of this goes back to the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 that granted Britain the right to colonize America and gave the British King/Queen to hold sovereign authority over colonized America and its citizens. Colonized America was created after stealing America from the Native Indians. If America was colonized with British subjects these people are subjects of the British Government.
To negate this was the Treaty of 1783 declaring independence from Great Britain. However, this Treaty identifies the King/Queen of England as the Prince of the United States. (please refer www.treatyofparis.com) Nevertheless, according to the Bouviers Law dictionary in ‘monarchicial governments’ a subject owes permanent allegiance to the monarch in which case the British subjects in colonized America owed permanent allegiance to the monarch.
The reverse is applicable under Constitutional law where allegiance is owed to the sovereign and to the laws of a sovereign government and natives are both subjects and citizens.
The issue is if a war was fought in 1781 and America became victor why would Britain need to sign a Treaty in 1783? When US has won a war, America should not require the British monarch to cede land and refer to himself as Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States? There is also the issue of the use of the term ‘Esquire’ given that it is a title of nobility again showing allegiance to the Queen/King and when Benjamin Franklin, John Jay Esquire and John Adams signing on behalf of the US use the name ‘Esquire’ it is raising the question of how valid the 1783 Treaty is. John Jay went on to sign the 1794 Treaty between England and US raising again why 13 years after the Paris Treaty the US needs to sign a Treaty with England if US was really ‘independent’.
What needs to be further investigated is why US still continues to pay tax to the City if it is a free nation?
The 1794 Treaty signed between England and the US was negotiated by John Jay Esquire who negotiated the 1783 Treaty. The question is why would US need to sign Treaty’s with England 13 years after the Paris Treaty of 1783 declaring US independent? Why would Article 6 and Article 12 continue to dictate terms to an ‘independent’ America?
Further reading of US history would reveal what happened to America when it cancelled the Charter of the First National Bank in 1811 and immediately afterwards 4500 British troops arrived and burnt down the White House, both Houses of Congress, the War Office, the US State Department and Treasury and destroyed the ratification records (signed by 12 US states) of the US Constitution wherein the 13thAmendment was to stop anyone receiving a Title of nobility or honor from serving the US Government. The 1812 war lasted 3 years and the Bank Charter was re-established in 1816 after the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815. Note: 13th amendment which was ratified in 1810 no longer appears in current copies of the U.S. constitution.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was passed by US Congress handing over America’s gold and silver reserves and total control of America’s economy to the Rothschild banksters. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking system that does not belong to America or Americans.
It is no better a time to question whether US is a country or a corporation and the US President and officials at the Congress are working for that Corporation and not for the American people. It appears that the US Corporation is owned by the same country that owns Canada, Australia and New Zealand whose leaders are all serving the Queen in her Crown Land and US too has been and remains a crown colony that belong to the Empire of the 3 City States – City of London, Vatican City and Washington DC. The US president is nothing more than a figurehead for the central bankers and the transnational corporations - both of which are controlled by High Ecclesiastic Freemasonry from the City of London the home of the global financial system.

As for the "small shift of power" you are way off on your date. The orignal Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson included a list of grievences against the King and it was THIS Declaration that was ratified in 1776. The Declaration of Independence you are most familiar with was written in 1787 and the original was scrapped. This is where the shift in power occured NOT in the 1900's. It is this Declaration which established the Central Government, it was NOT written for the people. Twelve amendments were proposed in an effort to curtail the massive power grab and eventually 10 were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. This is your "Constitution."

The fact of the matter is this; the United States of America was never intended to be a free Republic. It was settled by the British for commerce and nothing more. The entire system is a complicated system of systems for the sole purpose of commerce. I have no misunderstandings at all but again, I thank you for your perceptions.

 

[Sam Slagg]

Some of America's founders believe that the Articles of Confederation are too weak for the government to survive. For this reason, the Continental Congress approves the US Constitution in 1787, in Philadelphia. Months of contentious debate follow before the States ratify the Constitution, the framework of the US Government.

The checks and balances built into the Constitution establish 3 branches of government, and limit the power of each. George Washington will be chosen as the first US President. The document also limits the power of the masses of people.
.
The founders know that "democracy” results in mob rule, in which a "majority" of people can be manipulated into voting themselves the wealth of the productive people. Under the Constitution, taxes and state spending are minimal, and only gold and silver coins are recognized as currency. There is no authorization for income taxes, central banking, and social welfare schemes.
.
The Constitution and its original 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) serve as a leash on government growth and power, and a guarantor of personal liberties, such as the right to free political speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures.
.
The United States is founded as a constitutional republic (rule of law), and NOT a socialist "democracy" (rule of the manipulated majority).

It is government propoganda, what the government calls "Strategic Perception Management" that encourages people to use the word "democracy" with "freedom" and they prefer that you forget the word "Republic" altogether.

 

[Harte]

Washington DC is not part of the USA. District of Columbia is located on 10sq miles of land. DC has its own flag and own independent constitution. This constitution operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex Fori. DC constitution has nothing to do with the American Constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. Thus DC acts as a Corporation through the Act. The flag of Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars (the 3 stars denoting DC, Vatican City and City of London).

Nah.
Link

This IS NOT THE SAME THING as "any other city in America." Though I appreciate your perspective, it is incorrect nonetheless.

It is exactly the same thing. The act created what's known as a "municiple corporation," which is the sort of incorporation all those other cities and towns have gone through.

Your act created a government for D.C. It had no effect at all on the Federal Government, other than affirming its locality in the District of Columbia. The act actually affirms that the "territory" of D.C. (it was a U.S. territory under the law prior to the act) is entirely within and part of the United States.
Text of the Act in question.

Harte

 

[Sam Slagg]

Nah.
Link

The Constitution of 1787 created the central government, not the Act. It was the only purpose for scrapping the original constitution in the first place. It is this document that laid the foundation for the centralization of power and shifted that power from the people to the central government. Simply saying "nah" is not an arguement. What's next, "nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo?"

If my interpretations are wrong and yours are correct, one question must be answered; why are we living under an Oligarchy today? Such government structure is not established overnight. Rome was not built in a day. Food for thought...

As long as government propoganda and "Strategic Perception Management" are accepted and indeed perpetuated by the governed, real change for the good of all is impossible.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, they are much appreciated.