90 years ago, today. FDR took office and started making executive orders to shut down the Federal Reserve and close all banks.
Title 12, U.S. Code, chapter 2, subchapter IV, section § 95b. Ratification of acts of President and Secretary:
“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the [executive orders of the] President of the United States or the [unelected] Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, … are [pre]approved” by congress in 1933.
Without any debate or congress even being told about them.
HINT: On 27 April, 1961, JFK warned us about a ruthless conspiracy.
There might just be a continuing conspiracy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Freemason. Less than two weeks later, March 23, 1933, the German parliament gave Hitler complete authority to make laws without them. (During World War 1, the head of the Federal Reserve bank was Paul Warburg, while his brother Max Warburg was head of the German central bank.) In a famous 1939 movie, Toto pulls back the curtain and Oz tells Dorothy to ignore the man behind the curtain.
Barack Obama’s speech at Brussels, Belgium, March 26, 2014, announces a new world order. He was comparing the traditional U.S. values with traditional European values. He said that European hierarchy considers that
“ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.”
Whereas U.S. values consider that all men are created equal with unalienable rights.
He did not directly announce what side he was on, but he did say:
“And for the international order that we have worked for generations to build …
Obama’s goal that took Generations to build… sounds just like the Fabian Society 1928 goal
“The immediate task before all people, a planned World State, is appearing at a thousand points of light [but]…generations of propaganda and education may have to precede it.”
Which seems like the same global domination that ruled millennia ago.
And the same battle continues throughout the world today, as it did 4000 years ago. The New world order IS the old world order.
“Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world.”
— Cecil B. DeMille’s prologue to the 1956 Movie The Ten Commandments
The Globalist agenda uses symbols to boldly proclaim that you are back under the bondage of Pharoah.
But this time it is much worse. Slaves under Pharaoh had a 20% income tax during a time of national emergency (Genesis 47:26). The other 80% was their living allowance. How does this compare to your take-home allowance? God himself considered 20% income tax to be slavery, and provided 10 plagues to free his people.
Free yourself, or pay Pharaoh his tale of bricks. (the terminology Tale of bricks is from Genesis 5:18).
Russia suspends nuclear treaty
Russia to resume nuclear tests
Putin orders nuclear forces to combat duty
China President to visit Russia soon
UK Nuclear Alert Drill
China ready to join forces with Russia
Moldova War imminent
Serbian President “Everyone’s preparing for war”
Russia summons U.S. Ambassador
Belarus to enter war
China and Russia conduct war drills near South Africa
Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Globalists must use fear to coerce you into their trap of a worldwide government.
Their Central Bank Digital Currency will roll out, in a country near you, to control your buying and selling — which is the ultimate blacklist. You will be powerless to stop it. Evasion is the only way out.
While it is still legal, gather together in your local community to barter without the globalist currency. Find people who know farming, blacksmith skills, medicinal herbs, mining, construction, leatherworking, alternative medicine, cabinet making, alternative fuels, cordage and weaving, etc.
The Constitution and Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. Article 6, second paragraph.
People keep trying to tell me that the Constitution has changed, or that government does not obey the Constitution, or that it is a living document that can be interpreted to mean whatever we want. Or that documents from 1787 have nothing to do with life today. Or that congress represents us, so they can write whatever laws they want. But, the U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document.
“We The People” now means nothing to the civil servants who swore oaths to obey our Constitution
US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421:
“there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. … congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”
In a 2014 speech entitled “Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court,” Justice Scalia said this: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
— Justice Scalia: ‘Constitution Is Not a Living Organism’, (March 15, 2014)
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823, (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 7, Cambridge Library Collection, page 296):
“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now…”
In the 1966 famous case of Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court said of our rights:
“And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured “for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,” (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 in 1821).
The 1901 Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwill, 182 U.S. 244, ruled:
“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 at page 418:
“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) repeating their earlier decision in Boyd:
“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
The U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, Headliner note to Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264:
“The Supreme Court will construe provisions of Constitution which appear to be repugnant, so as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the Constitution…”
The U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, Page 635
“illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 page 442:
“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 page 491:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US 137: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Maxim of law:
Non accipi debent berba in demonstrationem falsam, quae competunt in limitationem veram. Words ought not to be accepted to import a false description when they are consistent with a true definition.
U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471:
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
“To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment… there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.”
— Ayn Rand essay “Man’s Rights”, April 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter
To understand why we don’t have rights anymore, you need to understand basic law. You waived your rights to legalities that you didn’t understand.
Every class will include this agenda.
Toto pulls back the curtain to expose who is ruling America
3 topics
Enslaved
3 topics
Constitutional concerns
3 topics
Welfare
3 topics
Featured presentation, with today’s Secret decoder sheet
Tax Tips
Matrix red pill
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
— James Madison, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788
“We The People” now means nothing to the civil servants who swore oaths to obey our Constitution
Is voting a right or an obligation?
by Steven Miller
Neither.
The Supreme Court said “the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one”. (Minor v. Happersett and in US v. Cruikshank). People like me are disenfranchised and not represented in Congress. We are not even allowed to vote unless we change our citizenship from State to federal US citizenship (supposedly to qualify me to vote for president, even though the Electoral College elects the president).
Those who register to vote have agreed to the outcome, no matter how abhorrent. For example: if an election contains a bond issue that passes, every registered voter becomes surety until it is paid off. Your forced labor is collateral for the debt for the entire term (30 years).
A native American, Mr. John Elk, who owed no allegiance to a state or federal government, wanted to register to vote and pay taxes. But the voter registration officer Wilkins would not let him register. Mr. Elk knew enough of our laws to take his case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94) ruled in 1884 (16 years after the fourteenth amendment said that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens thereof, and 14 years after the fifteenth amendment said that the right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be abridged on account of race.) that Native American Mr. Elk was not subject to federal laws. They would not let him pay taxes or vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 U.S. 94):
“The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Read that again: “because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government”. HINT: your natural birth did not submit yourself to government.
You consented to be governed when you register to vote, or when you accept benefits, or when you swear oaths.
