Home » » The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, the Revocation of Constitutional Viability, and the Acknowledged Insolvency of America

The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, the Revocation of Constitutional Viability, and the Acknowledged Insolvency of America

Written By Michael Reign on Monday, December 10, 2012 | 8:42 PM


What follows below is the written transcript of the Congressional memoranda of record dated on March 17th, 1993. In the context of this written proclamation the revelation of America’s dissolution via the enactment of the Emergency Banking Relief Act on March 9th of 1933 effects the permanent revocation of its national sovereignty, bequeathing all financial holdings and debt obligations to various internationalist organizations and financial consortiums, most notably the following: the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
In the ratification of such measures, all obligatory responsibility endemic to the public interest is henceforth nullified - meaning that the existence of debt obligation pursuant to the citizens of the United States is a contrived artifice designed to perpetuate an illusion of co-dependency, ensuring the adherence of its residents to the tenets of a blatantly fraudulent enterprise.
It is also important to note that within the contents of this written Congressional article of record that the recognition of the United States as a Constitutional Republic ceases in its scope of validity, thereby granting constituencies present within the Federal Government unfettered authority to circumvent preexisting legislative edict as outlined within the Bill of Rights.

Written Preface by Michael Reign

Subject: The Bankruptcy of The United States

United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (D) (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11... Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Relief Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Statute 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund.

Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:

"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."

 
* LAYMAN’S SYNOPSIS - The Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 completely redefined the system of governance applicable to the United States via its inception, transforming it from the Constitutional Republic for what it was originally intended to represent, into a democratic sociopolitical exemplar. Through this legislative measure the viability of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights were effectively nullified, thus facilitating the preclusion of once guaranteed civil liberties and freedoms as recognized under the aforementioned documentation.

Further information concerning the various nuances governing the ratification of such a measure can be obtained at the following registry link:

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:

The Bankruptcy of the United States

Conclusive Evidence of America’s Dissolution and the Intent of RNC Political Affiliates in Texas to Achieve Resolution with Regard to the Subject of Constitutional Debasement Following the Ratification of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933
 
“…The Republican Party of Texas recognized that acts of the Congressional body and the office of the President of the United States of America created an emergency condition, and that on and after March 6, 1933 and March 9, 1933 the same said Public offices effectively impaired and suspended the Constitution for the United States of America under pretense of these same created emergency conditions, and that the impairments and disabilities yet exist and are in full force and effect throughout the nation… [and] …that the Republican Party of Texas being duly apprised of the continuing emergency declared on March 9, 1933, demands that Gold and Silver Coin be fully reinstated and maintained as the lawful money and tender of payment of debts within the United States of America, and that any and all notes and obligations heretofore or hereinafter issued be brought back to and maintained at par value with the said coin. Be It Further Resolved that the Republican Party of Texas hereby demands the rescinding of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 and all subsequent related acts thereafter and demands the termination of Presidential proclamation thereby returning the United States of America to its original peacetime Constitutional Republic.” [Quoted in Part. Ed.]

Not only has the Republican Party of Texas recognized that the Constitution has been suspended but so did the 1994 Republican Governors Conference and the 1994 California State Republican Assembly. When three separate “professional” entities begin to not merely consider, but endorse, then advocate a theory as extraordinary as Dr. Eugene Schroder’s, the researcher who discovered this, then it becomes imperative that a greater degree of credence should be given with regard to the validity of such assertions.

The following registry links document a portion of these findings by the esteemed physician:


Dr. Eugene Schroder on the Declaration of War and Emergency Powers - (Part 1)
Dr. Eugene Schroder on the Declaration of War and Emergency Powers - (Part 2)

Dr. Schroder made the following statement regarding the declaration of emergency power mandate:

“During times of war or national ‘emergency’ Americans have no rights; instead, the United States government becomes custodian of our rights. Under an emergency government, all rights to due process of law (long process) are suspended, leaving no bar against governmental violations of our rights. The people become mere objects (In rem ˡ) with no unalienable rights to be protected.


ˡ In Rem Jurisdiction - A legal standard referencing the prospect of court authority being exercised over property (either real ² or personal ³) or the designated ‘status’ of an individual over whom the court does not possess “in personam jurisdiction.” Precepts governing the imposition of such mandate assume that the property or court designated status is identified as the principal object of the action in question, it exhibits exclusivity with regard to personal liabilities that may or may not be associated with the property.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction - Purportedly discontinued, defined as a legal standard by which Federal or state government affiliates can exercise power over the principal assets of an individual through the prospect of financial holdings, outstanding debt obligation, stock shares, equity, or land possessing applicable territorial jurisdiction as outlined within the contents of a particular region’s legislative mandate. Quasi In Rem actions are commonly utilized as a means of obtaining jurisdictional authority over individuals whose place of residency rests outside the territorial boundaries of the state.


² Real Property - In English Common Law reference concerning the use of such terminology is synonymous with the mention of real estate, realty, or immovable property and is defined as any legally acknowledged subset of land upon which improvements in accordance with the construction or aesthetic appearance of buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. have been effected through course of human intervention.

³ Personal Property - Generally considered private property whose relocation remains possible, as opposed to immovable assets such as land or buildings. Movable property on land, that which was not automatically transferred in deed with the purchase of a plot, articles inclusive of larger livestock such as horses or cattle (wildlife and smaller livestock like chickens, by contrast, were often sold as part of the land) satisfies the necessary conditions associated with this particular distinction.

“Once the government gains ‘emergency’ power, it is reluctant to relinquish that power. During the Wars of 1812, 1847, 1861, 1917 and 1941, the ‘emergency war powers’ were gradually and insidiously defined. However, on March 9, 1933, our government declared a National Emergency and, based on the public’s ignorance and their complacency, took permanent control of the people.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has remained in a continuous state of declared National Emergency. Since that time, the American people have lost their rights to government, and these rights have not been restored. The American government now claims the power of right, and rules the people by Statute – not the Constitution – in all cases. Under emergency powers, government can do whatever it deems ‘necessary.' The courts change from protectors of the people’s unalienable rights to enforcers of the government’s statutes.


However, if the ‘national emergency’ were ended, government abuse and injustice would also end. When the American people demand that congress end the ‘national emergency’ they will restore the U.S. Constitution, and regain their rights, freedom and property…”

Mr. Alfred Adask, a legal expert but non-lawyer who ran for the Texas Supreme Court in 1992 describes in AntiShyster Magazine (vol. 5 #4) the Emergency War Powers Act in America. He says that “during World War I, Congress passed the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act as an ‘emergency’ (unconstitutional) measure to prevent American products from being sold and shipped to our wartime enemies. [Germany became our enemy after Zionist leaders promised Britain they would bring America into WWI in return for a British occupation of Palestine. This they did in 1917. Ed.] In general terms, that 1917 Act granted the Federal Government significant new powers to license, regulate, and tax the business transactions of foreign nationals who lived in the USA but worked as commercial agents for our enemies.

On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our government. Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)…”
Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy. It is also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the American people from the oppression of such powers. The bill was, after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with our enemies or allies of our enemies.

The Emergency Banking Relief Act, passed by Congress in special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed. The modified paragraph reads:


Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any license, order, rule or regulation issued there under, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000.

Following the conclusion of WWI, soldiers returning home found that life had resumed its normal routine in ‘the land of the free’ – except for one, largely unnoticed difference: the 1917 Trading With The Enemy Act, invoked as an ‘emergency’ (unconstitutional) wartime power was not revoked even though the war and the ‘emergency’ had ended - as a result, those ‘emergency war powers’ granted to government remained in effect.

“No matter, they only applied to foreign enemies, so America danced through the Roaring Twenties ‘til she crashed into the depressing 1930’s.” On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany; on March 3, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office as the 32nd President of the United States.


Within days of his inauguration, FDR amended the dormant 1917 Trading with The Enemy Act to include the American People on the list of ‘enemies’ of the United States, declared a ‘national emergency’ (the ‘Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933), and invoked the ‘Emergency War Powers’ of 1917 to rule the United States exactly as if we were at war, i.e. as a dictatorship.

“During the declared ‘emergency,’ the Constitution for the United States of America was suspended as ‘supreme national policy’. During the ‘emergency,’ what was once mandated by law is merely recommended by policy. In other words, as a government agent, if you had the time and inclination, you can follow the precepts of the Constitution: but if you are too busy, too hard pressed by the emergency, screw the Constitution, kick in some doors, start shooting and kill anyone who gets in your way. After all, the law of emergency is no law, only power.”

“In fact, when FDR first asked Congress to ratify his declaration of ‘national emergency’ and grant him the unconstitutional powers of an American dictator, he promised to terminate the ‘emergency’ and restore the constitution before he left office. If FDR ever truly meant to keep that 1933 promise, he apparently changed his mind when WWII broke out, and kept these powers intact until he died [or was murdered by the Illuminati conspiracy which he served. Ed.] in office in 1945.”
 
“Harry Truman took over the presidency dictatorship, and apparently found the emergency powers so helpful in running the United States, he didn’t revoke the emergency either. In fact, in over 62 years [to 1995 Ed.], not one American President-Dictator has even hinted that the ‘emergency’ should be ended, the war powers surrendered, and the Constitution restored as supreme law. Not one.”
 
“The ‘President’s role in ending the national emergency is crucial because, although congressional approval was required to initially grant the emergency powers to the executive, once these those virtually absolute powers were granted, no one but the almighty President Dictator himself could rescind them. In other words, if every representative and senator in Congress voted unanimously to end the national emergency, the vote would carry as much weight as if they had voted to end aging, gravity and death. [The Congress could, however, pass a resolution to end the emergency power and then suggest the President follow their suggestion. Ed.] Just as the people in the Bible once insisted on having a King (and came to regret it), the 1933 Congress also created an American ‘King’. And so long as that ‘King’ rules, we shall regret it because we are all relegated to status somewhat like a POW (Prisoner of War)…”


"End the national emergency and almost every ‘alphabet-agency’ will cease to exist since they have no Constitutional foundation. OSHA, FDA, FCC, CIA, FBI, FTC, NASA, TVA and even the IRS will be gone…”

12 U.S. Code § 95A and 12 U.S. Code § 95B
 
 
At first glance, the actualization of 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B into federal mandate appears as an overtly paranoid gesture taken by the Congressional caucus in response to the prospect of a burgeoning influx of foreign nationals inundating the North American periphery. However, upon closer examination and using the argument that, in today's hostile world, foreign-born immigrants are either real or potential threats to national security, the state’s judiciary could affirm the necessity of 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B being lawfully enacted by Congress pursuant to the authority given it by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution for the United States of America. The aforementioned stipulation, Clause 11 - also known as the War Powers Clause - vests in Congress the power and authority to declare war, as detailed in the following:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

An important term of distinction meriting further clarification is mentioned in passing in the above statement, this being listed accordingly:

Letters of Marque and Reprisal - commissions or warrants licensed by the Federal Government authorizing the use of assembly (commonly referred to as privateers - a term synonymous with the use of ships owned and officered by private individuals holding a government commission and authorized for use in war, especially in the capture of enemy merchant shipping lanes and vessels) in the military engagement and capture of enemy sea liners found to be acting in violation of admiralty/ maritime jurisdiction as determined by the Federal Judiciary - a sequence of events resulting in the condemnation or sale of these foreign articles.


This notion of admiralty/ maritime jurisdictional authority remains the precedent by which the trial based outcome of America’s judicial system is determined, a fact that became evident with the inclusion of gold embroidered fringes along the outer periphery of the U.S. flag - the addition of this symbolic motif examined in detail in the illustrations accompanying this stanza:


 
Figure 1. The 44th elected political representative of the executive branch of governance, Barack Hussein Obama, during one of his many syndicated press conferences - notice how each of the flags situated behind the newly elected executor are adorned with this gold emblazoned regalia

Figure 2. The National Archives and Records Administration Building (NARA), specifically its rotunda, notice also how the inclusion of two flagstaffs at opposite ends of the foyer are also adorned with the same golden hued ornament

First, the money of account of the United States of America belongs to a private corporation called the Federal Reserve and is not, nor based on, gold and silver coin, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 and 6; Article I, Section 10, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, and Amendment 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. The mention of these provisions clarified in detail in the following statements as they are alluded to in the document in question:

U.S. CONSTITUTION | ARTICLE I


Article I elaborates on the design and specifications of the U.S. Government’s legislative directorate - specifically Congress. The separation of powers between branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are codified into federal mandate, and the scope of influence afforded to the Congressional caucus is also established.

U.S. CONSTITUTION | ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSES 5 AND 6 - Fiscal and Monetary Powers of Congress

Coinage, Weights, and Measures

The power “to coin money” and “regulate the value thereof” has been broadly construed to authorize regulation of every phase of the subject of currency. Congress may charter banks and endow them with the right to issue circulating notes [McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819)], and it may restrain the circulation of notes not issued under its own authority [Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. (75 U.S.) 533 (1869)]. To this end it may impose a prohibitive tax upon the circulation of the notes of state banks (Id., 548 - also written as Idem 548 in legal documentation) or of municipal corporations [National Bank v. United States, 101 U.S. 1 (1880)]. It may require the surrender of gold coin and of gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold. A plaintiff who sought payment for the gold coin and certificates thus surrendered in an amount measured by the higher market value of gold was denied recovery on the ground that he had not proved that he would suffer any actual loss by being compelled to accept an equivalent amount of other currency [Nortz v. United States, 249 U.S. 317 (1935)]. Inasmuch as “every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power [Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 12 Wall. (79 U.S.) 457, 549 (1871); Legal Tender Cases (Juilliard v. Greenman), 110 U.S. 421, 449 (1884)],” the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to make Treasury notes legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts [Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 12 Wall. (79 U.S.) 457 (1871)] and, many years later, to abrogate the clauses in private contracts calling for payment in gold coin, even though such contracts were executed before the legislation was passed [Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, 294 U.S. 240 (1935)]. The power to coin money also imports authority to maintain such coinage as a medium of exchange at home, and to forbid its diversion to other uses by defacement, melting or exportation [Ling Su Fan v. United States, 218 U.S. 302 (1910)].

Punishment of Counterfeiting*

In its affirmative aspect, this clause has been given a narrow interpretation; it has been held not to cover the circulation of counterfeit coin or the possession of equipment susceptible of use for making counterfeit coin [United States v. Marigold, 9 How. (50 U.S.), 560, 568 (1850)]. At the same time, the Supreme Court has rebuffed attempts to read into this provision a limitation upon either the power of the States or upon the powers of Congress under the preceding clause. It has ruled that a State may punish the issuance of forged coins [Fox v. State of Ohio, 5 How. (46 U.S.) 410 (1847)]. On the ground that the power of Congress to coin money imports “the correspondent and necessary power and obligation to protect and to preserve in its purity this constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation [United States v. Marigold, 9 How. (50 U.S.), 560, 568 (1850)]," it has sustained federal statutes penalizing the importation or circulation of counterfeit coin [Ibid, a Latin equivalent of the term ibidem whose literal interpretation mirrors the use of the following phrase: “in the same place” - a point of reference which may be referring to written portions of United States v. Marigold, 9 How. (50 U.S.), 560, 568 (1850)], or the willing and conscious possession of dies in the likeness of those used for making coins of the United States [Baender v. Barnett, 255 U.S. 224 (1921)]. In short, the above clause is entirely superfluous. Congress would have had the power it purports to confer under the necessary and proper clause; and the same is the case with the other enumerated crimes it is authorized to punish. The enumeration was unnecessary and is not exclusive [Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 122 Wall. (79 U.S.) 457, 536 (1871)].

*WRITTEN ANNOTATION: The use of the counterfeiting terminological designation at the close of Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 - a legislative provision emphasizing the inclusion of trial precedents as a means of allowing for the duplication, manufacture, and eventual distribution of fiat currency under the banner of a foreign entity (Federal Reserve) - the fact that the term ‘superfluous’ is used to describe the aforementioned directive, as well as the mention of the Clause’s ‘absence of exclusivity’ through the addition of written context pertaining to Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 122 Wall. (79 U.S.) 457, 536 (1871), allows for the circumvention of previously enacted mandate by agencies outside the legal spectrum, thereby precipitating the marked devaluation of a nation’s currency through an increase in monetary circulation, which, in turn, hastens the inflationary process.


U.S. CONSTITUTION | ARTICLE I, SECTION 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.


No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded*, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

*WRITTEN ANNOTATION: Article I, Section 10, specifically the written proclamation emphasizing the prospect of foreign invasion found in the third stanza, mitigates the scope of Congressional authority beyond the stated parameters associated with unwarranted military incursion. This important distinction allowing for a separate, autonomous interpretation of the law to permit the financial interests of foreign municipalities to actively engage in the manipulation of a currency’s intrinsic market value, provided such actions are not deemed as an overt threat or provocation of aggression as detailed in the final appendage of the aforementioned directive.


U.S. CONSTITUTION | ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 1

POWERS DENIED TO THE STATES

Treaties, Alliances, or Confederations

At the time of the Civil War, this clause was one of the provisions upon which the Court relied in holding that the Confederation formed by the seceding States could not be recognized as having any legal existence [Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 183 (1878)]. Today, its practical significance lies in the limitations which it implies upon the power of the States to deal with matters having a bearing upon international relations. In the early case of Holmes v. Jennison [14 Pet. (39 U.S.) 540 (1840)], Chief Justice Taney invoked it as a reason for holding that a State had no power to deliver up a fugitive from justice to a foreign State. Recently, the kindred idea that the responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the Federal Government prompted the Court to hold that, since the oil under the three mile marginal belt along the California coast might well become the subject of international dispute and since the ocean, including this three mile belt, is of vital consequence to the nation in its desire to engage in commerce and to live in peace with the world, the Federal Government has paramount rights in and power over that belt, including full dominion over the resources of the soil under the water area [United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947)]. In Skiriotes v. Florida [313 U.S. 69 (1941)], the Court, on the other hand, ruled that this clause did not disable Florida from regulating the manner in which its own citizens may engage in sponge fishing outside its territorial waters*. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Hughes declared; “When its action does not conflict with federal legislation, the sovereign authority of the State over the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas is analogous to the sovereign authority of the United States over its citizens in like circumstances (Id., 78–79, Idem 78 and 79).”

*WRITTEN ANNOTATION: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 references the concept of territorial law independent of maritime jurisdiction with regard to the acts of oil excavation and commercial fishing, provided these regulations administered by state legislature do not conflict with federal decree - this stipulation’s importance can’t be overstated as the provisions present within the aforementioned directive are contingent on the right of U.S. citizens to engage in such activities under the guidelines outlined in the contents of official government mandate; and, as such, these findings do not extend beyond what is permitted in accordance with international law.

U.S. CONSTITUTION | AMENDMENT 10 - Defines the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws pertaining to the strip-mining process.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 
Second, the United States of America has been in a State of National Emergency, a legalese term for state of war, since March 9, 1933, this finding examined in greater detail in the following annotation:

Congress, of course, kept secret the fact that the United States of America has been in a state of war. In fact, Congress, in every way imaginable, has tried to disguise and cover up this state of war so that nobody, other than those perpetuating the fraudulent bankruptcy, would be able to figure out that the United States of America is in a state of war. Now, remember that the so called American History teachers and textbooks said that “the United States, prior to about the year 1900, was an isolationist country in that it didn’t get involved in international affairs if it could avoid doing so but that after World War I, the United States got more and more involved in international affairs.

Furthermore, some of these history textbooks referred to the United States as the “world’s policeman” from World War II onward and talked extensively about how “the world was fortunate that the United States got involved in international affairs and became the superpower it did since, after all, the United States is the power behind the free world.” Observe also, that the United States of America, since before 1933, has never been free of one form of crisis or another, to wit the following, in chronological order: (1) the Great Depression; (2) World War II; (3) the Arms Race between the United States and the Soviet Union; (4) the Korean War; (5) the Cuban Missile Crisis; (6) the Vietnam War; (7) Operation Desert Storm; (8) the Bosnian civil war; and (9) the Ukrainian Conflict (2013 - present). Ostensibly, “the United States went through all these crises to protect the free world and to promote human rights,” as stated by more than one United States President including the current one at the time of this article’s initial publication, Bill Clinton.

Now, 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B is no longer the paranoid, but lawful, reaction by Congress to the presence of enemies or potential enemies. It has become the means by which Congress, in violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America, has handed its legislative authority, lock, stock and barrel over to the President. Congress has, in fact, placed the entire People of the United States of America under a total dictatorship ruled over by the President! The presence and implementation of “Executive Orders” confirms it! Why does Congress still continue to maintain a presence and "pass new laws?” To keep secret the fact that the People of the United States of America are under a total dictatorship, that’s why!

Once the total dictatorship created by 12 U.S.C. 95A & 95B was established, our public officials only needed to corrupt the judiciary in order to completely usurp the Constitution for the United States of America and replace it, in secret of course, with the ongoing fraudulent bankruptcy of the United States of America. How did they do it?



On 25 April 1938, the United States Supreme Court, in Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, abandoned the standing precedents of law that had been in place for the 150 years prior to 1938. Specifically, that court stated:

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, and CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW OR a part of the LAW OF TORTS."

The above directive by the United States Supreme Court would seem to indicate that Congress cannot override the law of any State in the Union, in any manner. The above directive would also seem to violate Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, since Article 1, Section 8 of that same Constitution explicitly grants certain powers to Congress. The ostensible reason for the above directive by the United States Supreme Court is to preserve the sovereignty of the several States, an action required by Amendment 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 542, regarding Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, appears to support this conclusion of preserving State sovereignty by stating:

"The landmark case holding that in an action in the Federal Court, except as to matters governed by the U.S. Constitution and Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State in which the Federal Court is situated. 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188. This case overruled Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L. Ed. 865, which held that there was a body of federal common law to be applied in such cases."

There are a number of problems with the above logic whose conclusion is that Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins’ purpose is to preserve State sovereignty.

First, the States today are hardly sovereign. Witness the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a multitude of other so called Federal Agencies and Departments. All of these agencies and departments routinely meddle in and direct the affairs of all of the several States, mostly in a behind the scenes manner so that the average person in the United States of America is ignorant of such activity.
Second, the Constitution for the United States of America does grant Congress authority over the several States in multiple instances. Thus, the States are not sovereign entities in all matters. Examples are Article 1, Section 8; Article 4, Section 4 and Article 6, Section 2. However, Amendment 10 of this same Constitution also limits Congress’ authority to only that which the Constitution explicitly grants in writing in the text of the Constitution itself, thus preserving State sovereignty from intrusions by the Federal government except in specifically defined and limited instances. One of the most important exceptions to State sovereignty is when the Constitution for the United States of America, through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, regarding common defense and general welfare, explicitly instructs Congress to insure that the States do not ever violate any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights (ie. the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). The States are not totally sovereign entities but the People of the United States of America are totally sovereign. Witness the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence and Amendment 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. How funny it is that many States, including California, routinely, under State law, charge and prosecute people, by Information, for capital crimes, instead of by Grand Jury, as required by Amendment 5 of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Third, where Congress has the authority to enact a body of law pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America, the Judicial Branch of the United States of America, under Article 3 of that same Constitution, has the authority to enforce that body of law that Congress enacted. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America distinguishes between the laws of the United States, laws of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and cases affecting ambassadors, consuls and other public ministers. In other words, the Constitution for the United States of America is defining a body of law that was generally known, prior to 1938, as the common law of the United States of America. This body of common law derives its style from the common law of England but its fundamental nature and intent derives from the Declaration of Independence and from the Bill of Rights. It was to establish this body of common law within the United States of America that the Founding Fathers fought the American Revolutionary War for in 1776. Prior to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Judicial Branch of the United States of America, pursuant to explicit instructions given in Swift v. Tyson, faithfully enforced the common law of the United States of America. Furthermore, any matter brought into a Federal court that fell outside the bounds of that common law was simply dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Amendment 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America (Stephen, A., Treaties on the Principles of Pleading, Introduction, page 23; Hemmingway, History of Common Law Pleading as Evidence of the Growth of Individual Liberty and Power of the Courts; and 5 Alabama Law Journal 1).

The United States Supreme Court, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, abandoned the common law of the United States of America. Why? And what did they replace it with? First, understand that a Federal court ruling, pursuant to Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America takes precedence over a State court ruling. Then, reexamine the quote from Black’s Law Dictionary stated above or, more specifically, the part about Federal courts applying State law. Then, understand that the United States Supreme Court, in Cheek v. United States, 112 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1991), page 622 states: “The United States Supreme Court, where possible, interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions.” Then, remember that Congress, just 5 years prior to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, had enacted 12 U.S.C. 95A and 95B and had insured that all of the People of the United States of America came under the provisions of the same (ie. under a dictatorship). Then, look at how deeply all levels of government intrude into the everyday lives of each and every person in the United States of America, in particular by creating a long list of “victimless crimes” and by requiring this or that license to do just about anything, including driving or even riding a bicycle! Finally, understand the nature of the courts in the United States of America today by reading about the various State Bar Associations and about the American Bar Association.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is the vehicle that our public officials used to apply 12 U.S.C. 95A and 95B and completely usurp the Constitution for the United States of America. By having the Federal courts rule on State law, these traitors extended their reach into the State courts as well and annihilated the sovereignty the States are supposed to have together with the protections State sovereignty is supposed to give the People from a central government removed from the People. Now, the People of the United States of America are under a total dictatorship controlled by the owners and stockholders of the Federal Reserve, by and through their agents who are posing as our public officials. There is no Congress, nor any President. Both of these entities became fraudulently bankrupt and vanished on March 9, 1933 with the advent of 12 U.S.C. 95A and 95B. Once Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was established, the same thing happened to the Judicial Branch of the United States of America and to all of the States.

The only reason that Congress, the President, and the Federal courts still continue to maintain a presence is to mislead the People of the United States of America. No doubt these traitors’ masters, the owners and stockholders of the Federal Reserve, warned their servants to keep secret the fraudulent bankruptcy of the United States of America, until they could enslave the People of the United States of America in their diabolical New World Order.

The owners and stockholders of the Federal Reserve knew that if the People of the United States of America ever got wise to the fraudulent bankruptcy of their country, they would seek recourse. This fraudulent bankruptcy has even corrupted the police and military who are enforcing it with loaded guns and the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) edict. Witness the presence of the bailiff with loaded gun in any courtroom ready to kidnap anyone who refuses to go along with the court’s decision.

The written context associated with these stipulations is presented, in its entirety, in the following appendage:

U.S. Code
Title 12
Chapter 2
Subchapter IV
§ 95A - Regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold and silver; property transfers; vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.

(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this section or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this section, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.

(3) As used in this subdivision the term “United States” means the United States and any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; Provided, however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this subdivision the term “person” means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.

(4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 2404 of title 50, Appendix, or under section 2405 of title 50, Appendix to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18.

U.S. Code
Title 12
Chapter 2
Subchapter IV
§ 95B - Ratification of acts of President and Secretary of the Treasury

The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 95A of this title, are approved and confirmed.

SENATE REPORT No. 93-549 | EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency 



Issued on November 19, 1973, by the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 9, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, this 627 page stipulative provision codified the Federal Government’s own admission regarding the imposition of emergency powers statutes since March 9, 1933 - a fact evident in the following passages of the aforementioned document:

The foreword or introductory stanza of the document in question:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.


From the introduction of Senate Report 93-549, Section A - A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS OF EMERGENCY POWERS NOW IN FORCE:

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency . . . in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have — from, at least, the Civil War — in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

The outlined passages, upon further examination, are indicative of a troubling development with regard to the Executive Branch of governance’s heightened scope of influence - effectively conferring an illegitimately contrived authoritarian presidership over every conceivable aspect of the nation’s economy and infrastructure to the president under the pretense of fiscal calamity.



This engineered monetary crisis made possible through the actualization of the Emergency Banking Relief Act, a legislative provision signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) on March 9, 1933 - a fiscally motivated endeavor allowing for the declaration of a four-day furlough in financial transactions whereby banking institutions, acting in collusion with the Federal Government, could engineer the confiscation of America’s wealth beneath the semblance of economic sustainability in the wake of the Great Depression.

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:


The War Powers of Governance and the Origins of Executive Authoritarianism

Additional Notes:

(1) Regarding:

Observe also, that the United States of America, since before 1933, has never been free of one form of crisis or another, to wit the following, in chronological order: (1) the Great Depression; (2) World War 2; (3) the Arms Race between the United States and the Soviet Union; (4) the Korean War; (5) the Cuban Missile Crisis; (6) the Vietnam War; (7) Operation Desert Storm; (8) the Bosnian civil war; and (9) the Ukrainian Conflict (2013 - present). Ostensibly, “the United States went through all these crises to protect the free world and to promote human rights,” as stated by more than one United States President including the current one at the time of this article’s initial publication, Bill Clinton.

Evidence from (classified) documents suggests that most of the above “crises” were deliberately created by our so called public officials. For example, someone warned Roosevelt of the possibility of Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt had that person put under house arrest. Regarding the so called Arms Race, see “Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein's Outrageous Legacy” by Kip S. Thorne (page 225).


(2) Regarding:

On 25 April 1938, the United States Supreme Court, in Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, abandoned the standing precedents of law that had been in place for the 150 years prior to 1938. Specifically, that court stated:

“THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, and CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW OR a part of the LAW OF TORTS.”

It is curious to note that Roosevelt attempted to pack the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before that "landmark decision."

(3) For additional background documentation:

(A) Cathay Bank at Hawthorne and Lomita Boulevards (Southeast Corner) has foreign (Chinese or Japanese) markings.


Figure 3. Cathay Bank, in El Monte, California - notice the Chinese and Japanese language characters included in its corporate logotype.

(B) BAD, or, the Dumbing of America, by Paul Fussell, in particular, page 193 where it is stated that the United States is the murder capital of the world.

(C) The John F. Kennedy murder and the subsequent cover-up by the so called Warren Commission.

SOURCE ARTICLES/ REGISTRY LINKS:

The U.S. Constitution Has Been Suspended Since 1933 Through Federal Mandate by Jaro
The Day Our Constitution Was Nullified by Senator Charles R. Duke
THE FRAUDULENT AND TREASONOUS BANKRUPTCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


CONCLUSION/ CRITICAL ANALYSIS by Michael Reign: The presence of legal ambiguities in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 and 6, in Article I, Section 10, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, has allowed for reinterpretation of the legislative standard by unscrupulous elements within the Federal Government, corporate interest groups and organizations, global finance, etc. who actively exploit these perceptions of inconsistency for material gain. Roosevelt’s introduction of Executive Order 6102 into law on April 5, 1933, effectively nullified the stipulative protections present within the written contents of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, criminalizing the possession of monetary assets in the form of gold by individuals, entrepreneurial partnerships, associations, and corporations. The written context of the document in question providing prospective viewing audiences a greater degree of clarity:

Executive Order 6102 - Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government

By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled “An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes,” in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of this order:

Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term “hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:

(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.

(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.

(c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign Government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements.

(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and bullion imported for reexport or held pending action on applications for export licenses.

Section 3. Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall, within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Section 2; or unless such gold coin or gold bullion is held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon.

Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Sections 2 or 3, the Federal Reserve Bank or member bank will pay therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States.

Section 5. Member banks shall deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the Federal Reserve Banks of their respective districts and receive credit or payment therefor.

Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President by Section 501 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to a member bank or Federal Reserve Bank in accordance with Section 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured from Federal Reserve Banks.

Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates by the owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under oath, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal Reserve Bank. Each application must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location of the gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty.

Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this order and to issue licenses thereunder, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, including licenses permitting the Federal Reserve Banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust gold coin and bullion to or for persons showing the need for the same for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations.

Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.

This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any time.

The close of the aforementioned decree perhaps the most telling aspect of its actualization into Federal mandate, as the order, as well as its correspondent regulatory policies, may be modified or revoked at the Judiciaries leisure. The fact that such measures were ever introduced into law - illustrating a transfer of wealth, and therefore monetary influence, to a foreign entity, in this particular instance the Federal Reserve - is, quite possibly, one of the most treasonous and perfidious manipulations of legal precedent by an elected official in the history of the United States. These directives, when taken in concurrence, facilitated the reclassification of America’s Executive Branch of Governance into one mirroring Ancient Egypt’s tendency toward Pharaonic despotism - whereby the president is able to act with impunity, commandeer industry at will, covertly orchestrate the installation of openly Communist methodologies into the framework of its foreign and domestic policy in accordance with the promise and vision of the UN’s (United Nations) founders - the text of which was stated during a nationally televised State of the Union Address by then acting President George H. W. Bush:

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance of this New World Order. An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.

All of these developments, when taken into consideration, have precipitated a series of events, which, had such measures not been instituted into law, may never have occurred:


1) The Bureau of Land Management’s attempted seizure of publicly owned land and title, where Federal agents were photographed on numerous occasions positioning sniper rifles and assault weapons in the general vicinity of unarmed civilians in Nevada at the behest of foreign interest groups and organizations loyal to the Chinese government, specifically ENN Energy Holdings Limited, a corporate subsidiary of ENN Group Co., Ltd., a privately owned firm based in China touting the benefits of solar power as means of emission reduction, renewable energy, and environmental conservation - these lands, which by a certificate of ownership, as well as a title of record, have belonged to the family and ancestors of Cliven Bundy for generations were to be auctioned off to the Chinese government as a means of remuneration for debts incurred during the administrative tenure of George W. Bush.
 
2) The Obama Administration’s use of executive mandate to engineer a mass exodus of illegal immigrants from portions of Central and South America into the American southwest independent of Congressional oversight, the unlawful expropriation of taxpayer subsidies to support the journey and eventual recolonization of disputed territories along the aforementioned geographical periphery by foreign elements, and the endowment of privilege reserved exclusively for citizens upon assemblies whose place of birth rests beyond the acknowledged boundaries of the continental United States.

3) The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians through the use of automated weapons systems technologies (drones, unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles) without the consultation of Congressional representatives.

4) The levying of financial stimulus packages in excess of $800 billion to banking institutions and corporate conglomerates at the expense of the public trust.

5) The institution of law - specifically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), also known as ‘Obamacare’ - without the benefit of Congressional oversight, as witnessed by Nancy Pelosi’s - then recognized as the 60th Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives - asinine proclamation that the passage of the prior stated legislative mandate was necessary in order to find out the contents and scope of influence afforded to the insurance industry and corporate constituencies within the Federal Government through the provision’s implementation.

The United States of America, for all intents and purposes, was transformed into an autocratic system of governance through the realization of several disparate, yet equally destructive motions - all of this beneath the watchful eye of a political electorate spanning generations who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and preserve the Bill of Rights.
Share this article :

0 comments:

Speak your mind and let your voice be heard.

This is a censorship free discussion area.

 
Support: Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Ωmnibus ™ and © Michael Reign. All Rights Reserved.
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Site modifications and enhancements by Michael Reign c/o Legerdemain Technologies