If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact. That is what I asked for. Until you prove your position, your claim is simply a claim.Originally Posted by Black Flag
My claim is that banks took over our government in a coup in 1861. I provided a link for documentation. The bankers did indeed subvert the constitution to gain control in 1861. They completed their coup in 1913.
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Precisely the opposite.
Law = Violence.
When a law is created, it is an act of or threat of an act of violence to enforce an edict.
The massive amount of law that is created is an enforcement of an edict on non-violent people.
To apply violence on non-violent people increases the violence within society - it does not reduce it.
You do not reduce violence by making more of it.
Government claims the monopoly on creating violence on the non-violent, it is the single greatest source of the increase in violence within society.
One need only to think of "war" as an example - it is bizarre to believe that war is the consequence of a lack of government....
I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.
The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem
Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.
It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.
The banker do not have guns.
They buy the guns of the provider of violence.
The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
They sell their services to the highest bidder.
Understanding this is key, I believe.
I do not agree that law equals violence. But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?
Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons. Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.
Last edited by Travlyr; 03-07-2012 at 12:53 PM.
The bankers instigated the war by funding the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's terrorist activities. All other countries ended slavery without war. The bankers saw the opportunity to take control of the United States by usurping the constitution, funding a war, and establishing themselves as rulers. Look at the 14th Amendment which was not lawfully ratified.See how the bankers did that? Shall not be questioned. And the amendment was never properly ratified. They funded the war with paper and got paid back in gold. It was very clever. Debasement of currency was a capital crime at the time that Jay Cooke and Salmon P. Chase started printing money. It was not the Federal government that expanded. It was the bankers who took control of the government because they knew the power of printing money. The bankers committed fraud at the risk of getting beheaded to take control of our republic. They legitimized that control in 1913, but it is still in direct violation of the constitution.Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.
Disobey a law, and review the consequences...
No, I do not agree.But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?
I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.
I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.
The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.
Sorry, it's not for me.
All true, and I completely agree here.Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons.
All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:
To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.
It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.
The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.
"True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.
It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.
As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.
That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.
There is a law on the books that states that I get my day in court if accused of a crime. That law comes from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that people can ignore that law is the problem. Since that law can be ignored, then I can be assassinated. Obeying the rule of law is the solution.
Personally, I prefer a lawful society to a lawless one.Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh [Amendment V]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth [Amendment VI]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Thank you.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul
Brother Jonathan
I don't think politicians need much prodding to start a war.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote