The Hemlock Tea Room and Ladies' Emporium: July 2013

Sunday, July 14, 2013

THE TEA ROOM IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED

Saturday, July 13, 2013

HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE U.S.~ MORE SLAVES TODAY THAN IN 1860

MOST AMERICANS HAVE HEARD THE TERM "HUMAN TRAFFICKING" BUT FEW REALIZE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS IN AMERICA AND AROUND THE GLOBE.
NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY CHILDREN WHO ARE KIDNAPPED HERE EACH YEAR WIND UP AS SEX SLAVES IN A VAST NETWORK THAT SELLS OR "RENTS" CHILDREN FOR SEX.
[SEE http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/06/pedophiles-in-bush1-white-house-male.html]
FEW ALSO REALIZE THAT MANY TRAFFICKED PEOPLE HAVE THEIR ORGANS HARVESTED FOR SALE ON THE BLACK MARKET.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIVE AS SLAVES TODAY, EVEN MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF SLAVES IN 1860.
CURRENT FACTS AND STATISTICS FOLLOW THE NEWS ARTICLES ON THE SAUDI 'PRINCESS'.
HERS IS JUST ONE STORY...

Saudi princess Meshael Alayban, one of six wives of Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Nasser bin Abdulaziz al Saud, and her family had crossed the globe in May with an entourage of servants and settled into one of the upscale communities in Orange County.
Early Tuesday, one of the servants darted out of the complex and flagged down a bus. The woman clutched a suitcase and a pamphlet on human trafficking given to her by the American embassy in Saudi Arabia.
Police say the servant is a 30-year-old woman, originally from Kenya, who managed to escape Tuesday. A passenger on the bus helped her contact the Irvine Police Department.
She had been hired by Alayban in Saudi Arabia base on a contract that said she would work five days a week, for eight hours a day, and make $1,600 a month. After three months, she could return home if she was unhappy.
But when she arrived at Alayban's Saudi home, the 'princess' tore up the contract, took away the Kenyan woman's passport, then brought her with her to America.
By that time, the Kenyan maid was working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for only $220 per month.

She was part of a vast domestic workforce in that nation.
Saudi Arabia, with a population of around 28 million and an average household size of 6, employs more than 1 million maids from developing countries...just maids.
Most of them are very poor and their well-being is tied to the whims of their employers.
If the employer abuses them, they have nowhere to turn.
"Even if they get raped and they go to the police and report that, there have been cases where the police simply raped them again, and then they were deported," Antoinette Vlieger, a law professor at the University of Amsterda, said. Vlieger has made a long study of the problems found in Saudi Arabia's treatment of foreign employees, particularly domestic help.
Vlieger said it's likely Alayban doesn't even comprehend that she broke the law, as there are no laws similar to America's in Saudi Arabia.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at UCLA, said servants are treated so poorly for so long "that they become completely docile, the Saudi employer cannot imagine them as anyone who has free will, so they comfortably view them as part of the baggage and bring them to the U.S. or Europe."
"There have been warnings from the Saudi government to wealthy people not to bring their domestic servants when they travel to the U.S. or Europe, for precisely this reason," Abou El Fadl said.

The Kenyan woman continued her work in the four condo units, biding her time to escape, authorities said, until her run for freedom on Tuesday. The prince and princess, their three young children and four other servants from the Philippines also lived at the four-condo complex. The servants' passports had been locked in a bank safe deposit box, said Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who recently announced that he was forming a special unit to deal with human trafficking.
Later that day, authorities searched the princess' condo units and found the other servants. "The detective spoke to them and said, 'Do you want to leave with us?'" Engen said. "And they said, yes."
Alayban was arrested early Wednesday.
In court Thursday, she was in blue prison garb.
Judge Gregg Prickett approved a protective order that would bar her from contacting the Kenyan woman or people close to her. Alayban also surrendered her passports.
On Thursday afternoon, she posted $5 million bail and was freed.
The $5 million bail was paid by the Saudi Arabian consulate, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department said Friday.
AND THAT WILL LIKELY BE THE LAST WE HEAR OF THIS...THE SAUDIS ARE OUR OIL BUDDIES, AFTER ALL, AND WE DARE NOT ANGER THEM.
HEADS WILL PROBABLY ROLL IN ORANGE COUNTY OVER THIS!

HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS A GROWING BUSINESS.
Human trafficking is considered to be one of the fastest growing criminal industries in the world
It is a form of modern-day slavery where people profit from the control and exploitation of others. As defined under U.S. federal law, victims of human trafficking include children involved in the sex trade, adults age 18 or over who are coerced or deceived into commercial sex acts, and anyone forced into different forms of "labor or services," such as domestic workers held in a home, or farm-workers forced to labor against their will.
Those who traffic in human beings also do so to extract vital organs to sell, to extract human ova, or to force women into surrogacy for the purpose of selling the resulting babies.
The factors that each of these situations have in common are elements of force, fraud, or coercion that are used to control people.
In 2008, the United Nations estimated nearly 2.5 million people from 127 different countries are being trafficked into 137 countries around the world.
THAT WAS A VERY LOW ESTIMATE, BUT SINCE U.N. TROOPS ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AT AND A FEW EVEN CHARGED WITH ENGAGING IN HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, RAPES, MURDERS, KIDNAPPINGS, ETC, IT'S LITTLE WONDER THE ABOMINATION THAT IS THE U.N. WOULD UNDERESTIMATE THE FIGURES.
[SEE http://www.un.org/womenwatch/news/documents/DPKOHumanTraffickingPolicy03-2004.pdf
AND ALSO http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8349-un-troops-accused-of-sex-crimes-worldwide]

MORE LIKELY STATISTICS:
In 2008, the U.S. Department of State estimated that 2 million children are exploited by the global commercial sex trade.
In the same year, a study classified 12.3 million individuals worldwide as “forced laborers, bonded laborers or sex-trafficking victims.”
THE PROBLEM WITH ANY AND ALL DATA IS THAT THEY ARE MERE ESTIMATES, NOT BACKED BY FACTS. THE PROBLEM IS LIKELY MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT IS PRESENTED BY THE U.N. OR BY THE WORLD'S MEDIA.
"'...these figures rarely have identifiable sources or transparent methodologies behind them and in most (if not all) instances, they are mere guesses.'"
THE 2008 ESTIMATES HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED IN THE PAST 4 YEARS.
Less than 1 percent of an estimated almost 21 million human trafficking victims worldwide are identified, according to Capitol Hill testimony given in May, 2013, by Bradley Myles, executive director and CEO of Polaris Project, a non-profit that combats human trafficking.
That was just one of several shocking statistics that came up in the hearing held by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which focused on local and private sector initiatives to combat human trafficking.
Chairman Ed Royce said in his opening statement that some estimates put the number of American citizen children who are such victims within U.S. borders at 100,000. [NOTE, THOSE FIGURES DO NOT COUNT INCEST IN AMERICA.]
Another witness at the hearing was Don Knabe, who is the Los Angeles County Supervisor for the Fourth District and has worked extensively on this issue. He talked about the average age of prostitution being between 12-13. He told the story of a probation officer who received word that a 10-year-old girl was taken into custody at 6 pm on a Tuesday for prostitution.
Human trafficking ends up being more lucrative than the trafficking of drugs or guns, and safer—for the criminals.

Legislative hurdles:
A key component revolves around treating children who have been trafficked as victims, rather than criminals because of the acts committed. Myles said certain states are looking at changing laws to do just that, but he believes something such as a Sense of the Congress resolution would help the situation. Another legal hang-up is that prosecutors have to prove the sex trafficker knew the victim was a child.
According to Luis CdeBaca, Ambassador-at-Large in the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, an important first step would be to redefine human trafficking as modern slavery rather than as moving of humans across borders for the purpose of exploitation.
“Once you stop looking at [human trafficking victims] as contraband that’s being moved across international borders," said CdeBaca, "you start to focus on the people as individuals, and…from that flows an urgency of identifying and helping the victims.”
2013 report ranks every country in the world on a scale evaluating, among other things, their anti-human trafficking laws, legal assistance for victims and government-funded shelter and care for victims.
More than 20 countries garnered the lowest ranking this year, including war-torn nations like Syria, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and regional powers like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
The bottom group also includes Mauritania, an arid West African country with a long history of hereditary slavery. According to a CNN special report, the nation only made holding slaves a crime in 2007. While an estimated 20 percent of the population is still enslaved, only one person has been convicted since the 2007 law was passed.

IT'S A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS.
http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/organs-kidneys/
~AVERAGE PAID FOR A HUMAN KIDNEY, $150,000 USD.
~AVERAGE ASKING PRICE FOR A HUMAN LUNG TOPPED $312,000 USD.
~IN 2010, THE AVERAGE FOR SALES OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED ORGANS WAS ONE PER HOUR.
~CHINA USES PRISONERS' ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANT, BUT "PROMISES" TO STOP DOING SO BY 2015.
<<An estimated 10,000 organ transplants are believed to take place in China every year, according to various reports. Up to 7,000 organs used in those transplants are taken from executed prisons. China has up to 1.5 million people waiting for an organ donation.>>

http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/human-trafficking-prices/
ON THAT 'PRICE LIST WE READ THINGS LIKE:
~CHILDREN IN INDIA ARE SOLD BY PARENTS FOR AS LITTLE AS $45, WHILE A BUFFALO THERE SELLS FOR $350.
~PEOPLE IN CHINA WILL PAY AN AVERAGE OF $14,473 FOR A MALE CHILD.
~A WOMAN IN PAKISTAN FETCHED ONLY $342 AT AUCTION
~ISLAMISTS IN MALI ARE PAYING AS MUCH AS $600 FOR CHILDREN TO SERVE AS SOLDIERS, AND MEN THERE WILL NOT PAY ABOVE $1000 FOR A "BRIDE".
~YOUNG GIRLS FROM ROMANIA FETCH $3000-$6000 FOR THE SEX SLAVE TRADE
~IN CANADA YOUNG WOMEN FROM QUEBEC CAN BE SOLD IN ONTARIO FOR THE SEX TRADE FOR ABOUT $6000 CANADIAN DOLLARS.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1202987/original.jpg

While slavery is illegal across the globe, the SumAll Foundation has noted, there are 27 million slaves worldwide, more than in 1860, when there were 25 million. Most are held in bonded servitude, particularly after taking loans they could not repay. Slaves cost slightly more now, with a median price of $140, compared with $134 per human in 1860. Debt slaves cost on average $60; trafficked sex slaves cost $1,910.

[CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW TO ENLARGE]

http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sumall-infographic.png?w=1024&h=2040

THE AVERAGE LIFETIME OF A SLAVE, FROM THE TIME OF BEING BOUGHT, IS SIX YEARS.
THEY EITHER ESCAPE, ARE SET FREE BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER 'VALUABLE', OR DIE.

MANY BECOME SLAVES BECAUSE OF POVERTY, FROM TAKING A 'LOAN' FROM THOSE WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
80% OF EARTH'S POPULATION, ROUGHLY 4.3 BILLION PEOPLE, EARN LESS THAN $10 USD PER DAY.
50%, OVER 3 BILLION , LIVE ON LESS THAN $2.50 USD PER DAY.
[http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats]
DESPERATE PEOPLE DO DESPERATE THINGS IN ORDER TO EVEN BARELY SURVIVE.
MOTHERS SELL BABIES, MEN SELL KIDNEYS, PARENTS SELL THEIR YOUNG DAUGHTERS, OR SONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW IT'S FOR SEX...THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPEN EVERY DAY.
80% OF THE HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH ARE PREY FOR THOSE WHO DEAL IN HUMAN SLAVES AND BLACK MARKET BABIES, CHILDREN, AND HUMAN ORGANS.
MAYBE WE SHOULD THINK A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT?
MAYBE WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHO THE REAL "TAKERS" ARE?
<<For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment. [22]
The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. [Source ]>>
While Americans and Europeans spent $17 BILLION on pet food (1998 data), it would have cost only $13 BILLION to assure that every human on earth had proper nutrition and health services, just a very little bit more than what was spent on perfumes here and in Europe in 1998 alone.

WE CAN SIT IN FRONT OF OUR MONITORS AND SAY ALL DAY THAT WE'D NEVER SELL A CHILD, A BODY PART, OR OURSELVES TO PAY OFF A DEBT, BUT WE DON'T LIVE IN NATIONS WHERE SOMEONE WILL KILL OUR ENTIRE FAMILY IF WE DON'T...NOT YET WE DON'T.
IS THAT ANY 'EXCUSE' FOR THOSE WHO PROVIDE MANY OF THE HUMANS FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING?
NO, NO THERE IS NO VALID "EXCUSE", JUST REASONS WHICH SEEM JUSTIFIED TO MANY WHO ARE FACED WITH DEATH OR THE ALTERNATIVES.
SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE.
THERE MUST BE A SOLUTION TO THIS SOMEWHERE...
IF WE LIVED IN A NATION WHERE THERE ARE SIMPLY NO JOBS, OR WHERE JOBS PAID LESS THAN $2 A DAY, IF WE LIVED IN NATIONS WHERE MEN WILL KILL US FOR A DEBT, MAYBE THEN WE'D LOOK HARDER FOR A LASTING SOLUTION, AND FACE REALITY A LITTLE BETTER THAN WE DO NOW?
THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE FOR 80% OF THE WORLD.

AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES HERE, THE PEOPLE OF A NATION ARE NOT ITS GOVERNMENT.
WHILE THE PEOPLE STRUGGLE TO LIVE, GOVERNMENTS STRUGGLE TO MAKE PROFITS AND OFTEN BECOME CORRUPT IN THAT ENDEAVOR.
THE PEOPLE LOSE CONTROL OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS...

http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/poverty/wdi-2008/consumption-inequality-2005-pie.png

SOURCES NOT CITED ABOVE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-saudi-princess-20130712,0,4328859.story

Bialik, Carl, 2010, ‘Suspect Estimates of Sex Trafficking at the World Cup’, The Wall Street Journal, 19 June.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2013/05/09/crimes-in-your-own-backyard-shocking-human-trafficking-statistics-n1590958

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/46000-human-trafficking-victims-identified_n_3467978.html

“Mali Islamists ‘buying child soldiers, imposing Sharia’,” BBC News, October 10, 2012.

“Romanians Replace Bulgarian Prostitutes in Brussels’ ‘Quartier Nord’,” Sofia News Agency, May 26, 2010.
“Sex slaves trafficked from Montreal to Ontario,” Toronto Star, February 10, 2012.

Dan Bilefsky, “European Crisis Bolsters Illegal Sales of Body Parts,” New York Times, June 1, 2012.

Denis Campbell and Nicola Davison, “Illegal kidney trade booms as new organ is ‘sold every hour’,” Guardian, May 27, 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/world/asia/freedom-fighters-stats

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/global-slavery-by-the-numbers/

Thursday, July 11, 2013

POLICE STATE : LINE BLURS BEWTEEN POLICE AND MILITARY

SCENES FROM WATERTOWN, 2013
YES, THESE ARE POLICE, NOT MILITARY.

"STAY INSIDE! DO NOT LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOWS!"

COMPLIANT, OBEDIENT "GOOD" CITIZENS.
THEY'RE UNDER ASSAULT, BUT BLISSFULLY UNAWARE.
"The manner in which authorities hunted the second terrorist suspect in Boston following the attack on the marathon is troubling, if not Constitutionally suspect.Further militarization of police forces will only lead to more uses of such forces, which can only result in future constitutional violations."

NON-COMPLIANT WATERTOWN CITIZEN HAS ASSAULT WEAPON AIMED AT HER/HIM.
THEY SAID DON'T LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW!
(SHOOTER IS SHOWN INSIDE RED CIRCLE)

WHY HAS LAW ENFORCEMENT BECOME MILITARIZED?
WHY DO WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ABSOLUTE PROTECTION OF EITHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY?
WHY HAVE THE TWO MERGED INTO ONE "WARRIOR" ENTITY THAT SEEMS PITTED AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS, THE 'AVERAGE GUY ON THE STREET", WE WHO ARE NOW SEEN AS POTENTIAL TERRORISTS ON THE VERGE OF CIVIL UPRISING?

THIS IS "JUST HOW IT IS", BUT LET IT COMFORT YOU, THOSE WHO MAY YET CLING TO LIBERTY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AS YOU READ ABOUT THE MILITARIZATION OF OUR LOCAL POLICE, THAT WE OUTNUMBER THOSE WHO SEE US AS "TARGETS" FOR OPEN HOSTILITY.

THE DRIVE BY MANY OF OUR "ELECTEDS" TO SUBJECT US, TO DISARM US, TO BRING US UNDER THE BOOT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK SO LONG AS WE, THE ARMED AND LEGAL 'MILITIA', THE TRUE "ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", OUTNUMBER (BY ABOUT 20 TO 1) ALL THOSE WHOM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE 'CORPORATION OF AMERICA', HAS ARRAYED AGAINST US .

TAKE COMFORT IN NUMBERS, BUT LET HISTORY REMIND YOU HOW NUMBERS CAN PROVE USELESS, FOR, LIKE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS CONTINENT WHEN THE SHIPS FIRST CAME, WE ARE THE MAJORITY, BUT WE ARE OUT-GUNNED.

WHAT MATCH IS A HUNTING RIFLE OR SHOTGUN AGAINST STATE OF THE ART WEAPONRY, TANKS, DRONES?

WE ARE RESTRICTED IN OUR PURCHASES OF WEAPONS AND OTHER MEANS OF DEFENSE WHILE OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IS SUBSIDIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE PENTAGON TO ACQUIRE AND STOCKPILE 'BIGGER, BETTER'.

WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE SNAPPING UP, THE FINEST TOOLS FOR KILLING AND CONTROLLING, TO KEEP US ALL IN CHECK.

IF WE WERE SUDDENLY CALLED UPON TO "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE", IF WE WERE TO HAVE TO STEP UP AS "MINUTEMEN" TO FACE AN INVADING FORCE, IF WE HAD TO FACE A SUDDEN BREAKDOWN OF SOCIETY AND HAD TO GUARD OUR OWN HOMES AND FAMILIES, WE'D SURELY BE NO MATCH FOR THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT WHO HAS BETTER WEAPONS, NOR FOR A POLICE FORCE TURNED ROGUE.

WE ARE CONSIDERED TOO ARMED, AND TOO DANGEROUS AS IT STANDS, AND EVEN A HUNTING RIFLE, A SHOTGUN IS CONSIDERED TOO MUCH FOR A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN TO OWN.
MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE WE LOST OUR SOVEREIGNTY?
MAYBE WE WILL NEVER GET IT BACK, BUT WE MUST BE AWARE...

THE POLICE STATE ISN'T COMING, IT'S HERE!

WHERE DID IT BEGIN?
Martial Law was declared by President Abraham Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100. By martial law authority, Congress and the President instituted continuous martial law by ordering the states (we, the people) to either conscribe troops and/or to provide money in support of the North, or be recognized as enemies of the nation.

ENEMIES...
As I have shown in my previous blog, we are still under Martial Law and THAT is what gives U.S. Presidents (with or without Congressional consent) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government. THAT is how the Constitution of the United States is circumscribed. THAT is how a 150-year-old conscription act remains in effect to this very day and THAT is the foundation of UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'Presidential Executive Orders'.

All of this was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year by a conspiratorial Congress which is complicit with the TREASON committed against SOVEREIGN AMERICAN CITIZENS each new day.

Taken together, these "Acts" have made the people of the United States ENEMIES OF THE 'CORPORATE STATE OF AMERICA'.

REMEMBER THE VIDEOS OF THOSE STANDING ON A BALCONY OF THE WALL STREET STOCK EXCHANGE THOSE FIRST FEW DAYS OF THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT, STANDING THERE SIPPING CHAMPAGNE, LAUGHING, TAUNTING THOSE BELOW WHO WERE BEING ARRESTED?

(STARTS AT :54 SECONDS)
I'LL NEVER FORGET THAT.
THAT SHOWED ME WHO HAS THE 'PROTECTION' OF THE POLICE TODAY.

REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT WALL STREET AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAD NETWORKED TOGETHER TO IDENTIFY THE PROTESTERS, TO TRACK THEM DOWN?

<<Newly obtained secret FBI documents show that the Feds treated the Occupy Movement as a criminal terrorist threat even though the movement rejected violence as a tactic, a fact that the FBI acknowledges in the files.>> http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/31/how-fbi-monitored-occupy-movement/

AND THE PENTAGON ENCOURAGES THE MILITARIZATION.
The federal government, through programs established within the Pentagon and various agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, are either donating, funding or otherwise providing a sizable portion of this military-grade gear to local police who are then employing it for use more frequently to carry out routine police duties.
In 2011, a half-billion dollars of surplus military equipment went to police departments
the lines between the two [police and military is starting to blur."

Benjamin Carlson at The Daily reports on a little known endeavor called the “1033 Program” that gave more than $500 million of military gear to U.S. police forces in 2011 alone.
1033 was passed by Congress in 1997 to help law-enforcement fight terrorism and drugs, but despite a 40-year low in violent crime, police are STILL snapping up hardware like never before. While this year’s staggering take topped the charts, next year’s orders are up 400 percent over the same period.
UP 400%.

After the Boston Marathon bombing, the local police locked-down about one million people in the Boston/Watertown area, forced residents to "remain indoors", went into the streets in full battle array, brought out the heaviest equipment they had to track down one 19-year-old man.

What really happened is they tested the waters, they tried the citizens in that area to see if they would ACCEPT door-to-door searches, lock-down, facing the barrels of automatic weapons, submitting to search and "pat-downs", being rounded up and herded.
And they found out what they wanted to know...

YES, YES, citizens will SUBMIT, will OBEY without question or dissent.
YES, WE ARE RIPE FOR THE PICKING, YES!
THE POLICE SAID, "STAY INSIDE!" AND PEOPLE COMPLIED!
THEY SAID, "DO NOT LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOWS!" AND THOSE WHO DID SAW LOADED ASSAULT WEAPONS TRAINED ON THEIR WINDOWS, ON THEM!

In what looked like a military sweep into hostile territory, police marched up and down American streets like an ARMY.

And Americans barely protested, hardly offered any resistance at all to being IMPRISONED IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

HAD THE 'SUSPECT', THE LONE SUSPECT, THE ONE YOUNG MAN NOT BEEN FOUND, HOW LONG WOULD AMERICANS HAVE BEEN POLICE HOSTAGES?
HOW LONG WOULD UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE COWERED AND COMPLIED?

THE SAME THING HAPPENED, BASICALLY, DURING HURRICANE KATRINA, DURING HURRICANE SANDY.

ISN'T IT OBVIOUS TO YOU THAT THESE WERE MERELY "EXERCISES" TO SEE IF WE WOULD COMPLY, TO SEE HOW FAR MARTIAL LAW COULD GO, TO GET US ALL USED TO THE POLICE STATE?

BOTH MILITARY AND LOCAL POLICE WORKED TOGETHER IN NEW ORLEANS.

YESTERDAY NEW ORLEANS...TOMORROW? EVERYONE!

OPERATION URBAN SHIELD LIKELY CAME TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT SOME TIME DURING THE PAST YEAR OR TWO...OR SEVEN, YES URBAN SHIELD HAS BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR AT LEAST 7 YEARS, SINCE 2006...THAT WE KNOW OF.

COLUMNS OF ARMORED VEHICLES, HELICOPTERS OVERHEAD, ARMED RIOT POLICE AND MILITARY WALKING DOWN STREETS OF EVERY MAJOR CITY IN AMERICA, RAPPELLING FROM BUILDINGS, "ARRESTING" SOME, CREATING 'SCENARIOS' WHERE CITIZENS HAVE TO BE 'EVACUATED', FAKE BOMBINGS, 'DISASTERS'.

HAS ANY OF THAT MADE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT BETTER AT THEIR JOBS?
OR HAS IT CREATED A MONSTER?

URBAN SHIELD.... HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT LOVES IT, JUST LOOK AT HOW IT'S GLORIFIED...
http://www.urbanshield.org/
http://firstrespondersnetwork.com/videos/urban-shield-hyper-realistic-training-for-first-responders/

NOTICE THE PHRASE "ADRENALINE RUSH" ...REALLY?
WHY?
THE 'POWER'?
MAYBE FOR L.E.O.s (law enforcement officers) IT'S AN "ADRENALINE RUSH" AND FEELS REALLY GOOD, BUT NOT SO MUCH FOR THE REST OF US.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH GAVE US PROGRAMS OR "OPERATIONS" LIKE URBAN SHIELD IN 2005, WITH HIS "PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE #8", FOUND IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE http://www.ncrhomelandsecurity.org/ncr/downloads/NationalPreparednessGuidance.pdf

BUSH'S little "directive" provided the framework to create the 'Urban Security Areas Initiative' (USAI) dedicated to "support for high-threat, high-density urban areas to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism."

As an agency within FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), USAI is funded by ...who else?...the Department of Homeland Security, good old DHS.

Thanks, Bush2, that's nice...as if the Patriot Act didn't imprint your boot on all our faces...
and behinds.

WHY THE SUDDEN NEED TO DERIDE THE AMERICAN CITIZENS AND GLORIFY THE "SECURITY AGENCIES", THE FBI, THE CIA, AND LOCAL L.E.O.s?

LET US REMEMBER, AND NEVER FORGET...IT WAS A CITIZEN, NOT A "WELL-TRAINED POLICE FORCE" WHO LOCATED THAT 19-YEAR-OLD TERRORIST AFTER HE'D ELUDED EVERYONE ELSE FOR OVER 24 HOURS...A CITIZEN FOUND HIM.

IT WAS CITIZENS WHO "CAUGHT" OTHER TERRORISTS, LIKE THE PHOTO SHOP CLERK WHO FOILED SIX ISLAMIC RADICALS AND STOPPED AN ATTACK ON FORT DIX, PASSENGERS/CITIZENS WHO JUMPED THAT "UNDERWEAR BOMBER" FROM NIGERIA, OTHER PASSENGERS/CITIZENS WHO SUBDUED THAT "SHOE BOMBER" BETWEEN PARIS AND MIAMI, THE TWO STREET VENDORS, CITIZENS, WHO DISCOVERED THE TIMES SQUARE BOMBERS ATTEMPT, CITIZENS ALL...CITIZENS, NOT POLICE, NOT FEDERAL AGENTS, JUST CITIZENS!
THE COUNT FOR ULTRA-SURVEILLANCE STOPPING SUCH THINGS?
ZERO, NONE, ZIP!

WE CAN TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN PRIVATE AND LOCAL "HOMELANDS" IF ATTACKED, THANKS, AND HAVE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

WE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF "EMERGENCY RESPONSE" BECAUSE MOST OF US LEARNED TO BE WATCHFUL AND PREPARED AS WE GREW UP.

IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST NOR A STORM TROOPER TO HANDLE A BAD SITUATION, BUT A WEAPON, WHEN WE KNOW WE'RE FACING CRIMINALS WITH WEAPONS, WOULD HELP US PROTECT THE "HOMELAND", OUR HOMES, OUR LANDS, A LITTLE BETTER, YES?

URBAN SHIELD...ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, GREGG AHERN , WHO IS SO IN LOVE WITH URBAN SHIELD AND DRONES THAT HE ALMOST SWALLOWS HIS TONGUE WHEN SPEAKING OF EITHER, TOUTS THE 'PROGRAM' AS A FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY TO TRAIN FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS.

BELOW IS ONE OF THE VIDEOS PRODUCED BY/WITH HIS "DEDICATED STAFF'S" FULL COOPERATION (AND ABSOLUTE GLEE).
NOTICE HOW THEY REMIND AMERICANS ABOUT THAT TERRIFYING DAY, 09/11/01...

FEAR, FEAR, BE AFRAID!!!!
THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING, STILL COMING, ALMOST HERE!
THEN...BAM!...WE SEE THEM "TRAINING"!
THEY'RE MERELY PRACTICING, PEOPLE, PRACTICING FOR THE DAY IT'S YOU AND ME THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

I HAVE TO ADMIT, THAT'S A GREAT LITTLE PROPAGANDA FILM.
THE MUSIC, THE DRAMA, BUT MOST OF ALL, THE FEAR IT TRIES TO INVOKE.

SHOCK AND AWE, RIGHT?
ARE YOU IMPRESSED?

PARAMILITARY TRAINING...WE HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT...BUT JUST FOR US WHO ARE "NORMAL CITIZENS", IT'S A NO FOR US!

Prohibiting of paramilitary training - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5515

SINCE 1982, PARAMILITARY TRAINING IS A HUGE NO-NO.
WHO KNEW, RIGHT?

REALLY READ THIS CAREFULLY, PLEASE.

(b) Prohibited training.--
(1) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or
death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or
intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in,

(2) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the
or in furtherance of, a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor
of the first degree.
purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed
person intending to employ unlawfully the same for use in or
in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or
technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, said
in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.

(c) Exemptions.--Nothing contained in this section shall
make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is
performed in the lawful performance of his official duties.

(d) Excluded activities.--Nothing contained in this section
shall make unlawful any activity of the Game Commission, Fish
and Boat Commission, or any law enforcement agency, or any
teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment or
hunting club, rifle club, rifle range, pistol range, shooting
range or other program or individual instruction intended to
sports or other lawful activities.
other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful activities.

(June 11, 1982, P.L.476, No.138, eff. 180 days; Mar. 19, 1992,

P.L.18, No.7, eff. imd.)

FEEL FREE TO GO HAVE A READ OF THAT GEM IN ITS ENTIRETY:
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.055.015.000.html

HOW INTERESTING, ISN'T IT?

AMERICA CAN SEND "ADVISERS" TO FOREIGN NATIONS TO TRAIN THEM IN KILLING, PROVIDE THEM WITH WEAPONS TO DO SO, ALL IN THE NAME OF HELPING THEM WIN THEIR FREEDOM OR PROTECT THEIR HOMES AND LIVES, BUT J.Q. AMERICAN CITIZEN HAD BLOODY WELL NOT GET IT IN HIS HEAD THAT HE CAN OR SHOULD BE TRAINED TO PROTECT HIS HOME, HIS LIFE, HIS FAMILY, HIS LAND.
LET THAT SINK IN.
THINK.

WHAT, OH WHAT, IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US NEEDING TO PROTECT AND DEFEND HERE IN AMERICA, AND SOME SYRIAN, OR SOME EGYPTIAN, OR SOME LIBYAN OR JORDANIAN GETTING ALL THE HELP THEY WANT TO DO THE SAME IN THEIR LANDS?

IT JUST DOES NOT "COMPUTE", DOES IT?

WE SEND THEM FIGHTER JETS AND MISSILE SYSTEMS WHILE, RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA, WE CAN GET OUR HEADS BASHED IN FOR OWNING A HANDGUN!

BACK TO OUR PROBLEM ...THE BLURRING OF THE LINE BETWEEN MILITARY AND POLICE, THE CREATION OF A WARRIOR-AGAINST-FOE MENTALITY WHEREBY WE ARE THE FOE...

An Oakland Tribune reporter recently wrote:
"War on terror money funding drones, surveillance in the Bay Area"

HERE'S THAT LINK:
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_22971059/war-terror-money-funding-drones-surveillance-bay-area

<<The drone requests slipped by even the staunchest opponents because they would have been paid for with federal funds channeled to cities the Department of Homeland Security considers at high risk for a terror attack. In this case, the money [for a drone for the San Mateo County's Office of Emergency Services] came from a $26 million Urban Areas Security Initiative grant meant to help local law enforcement expand arsenals of anti-terrorism combat and surveillance equipment assembled since 9/11:
night vision goggles, remote robots, surveillance cameras, license plate readers and armored vehicles that amount to unarmed tanks.

Seven years ago San Jose police Chief Joseph McNamara publicized the trend to militarized police, becoming one of the first to sound the alarm and to relate his discomfort with the trend.

“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” he wrote in an article for The Wall Street Journal. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.”

The problem is being exacerbated by some top civilian law enforcement officials, like Alameda County, California, Sheriff Greg Ahern. Training for his deputies includes the annual “Urban Shield” exercise, a county readiness event that very much resembles a military training evolution.

San Mateo's requests also included a license plate reader to be mounted along U.S. 101 to feed information to a massive database at the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, commonly known as a fusion center. San Mateo County also requested a system to destroy improvised explosive devices, better known as IEDs, from their use by insurgents in Iraq.>>

DRONES....DRONES TO DO WHAT?
DRONES TO WATCH WHOM?
DRONES TO STRIKE...WHERE?

IF YOU MISSED MY BLOG ON THAT, YOU MAY WANT TO READ A BIT OF IT NOW.
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/03/drones-across-america-rise-of-cyborgs.html

ALMOST EVERY STATE IN THE UNION IS JUMPING ON THE DRONE BANDWAGON!
SOME REFER TO THEM AS "UAVs", "UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES", BUT THEY'RE DRONES!

WHEN DID IT ALL CHANGE?
WHEN DID WE LOSE THE "GOOD COP" WE COUNTED ON?

<<American police forces have undergone some substantial changes. Most notable among these is the ascent of the SWAT team. Once limited to large cities and reserved for emergency situations like hostage takings, active shooters, or escaped fugitives, SWAT teams today are primarily used to serve warrants on people suspected of nonviolent, consensual drug crimes.

The numbers are staggering.
In the early 1980s, there were about 3,000 SWAT "call-outs" per year across the entire country. By 2005, there were an estimated 50,000. In New York City alone, there were 1,447 drug raids 1994. By 2002, eight years later, there were 5,117 -- a 350 percent increase. In 1984, about a fourth of towns between 25,000-50,000 people had a SWAT team. By 2005, it was 80 percent.

Today, the use of this sort of force is in too many jurisdictions the first option for serving search warrants instead of the last. SWAT teams today are used to break up poker games and massage parlors, for immigration enforcement, even to perform regulatory inspections.

Troubling as all of this is, the problem goes beyond SWAT teams. Too many police departments today are infused with a more general militaristic culture. Cops today are too often told that they're soldiers fighting a war, be it a war on crime, on drugs, on terrorism, or whatever other recent gremlin politicians have chosen as the enemy. Cops today tend to be isolated from the communities they serve, both physically (by their patrol cars) and psychologically, by an us and them mentality that sees the public not as citizens police officers are to serve and protect, but as a collection of potential threats.>>

[From an article titled "Too Many Cops Are Told They’re Soldiers Fighting a War. How Did We Get Here?" by Radley Balko, senior writer, investigative reporter, Huffington Post , and author of the new book, RISE OF THE WARRIOR COP : The Militarization of America's Police Forces.]

2013...U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM STEPS UP TO KNOCK DOWN "INALIENABLE RIGHTS".THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED REMAINING SILENT CAN CONVICT YOU.
The case is Salinas v. Texas, 12-246.

[SEE: http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/06/premiranda-silence-used-against-you.html ]

The Supreme Court says prosecutors can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent.

The 5-4 ruling comes in the case of Genovevo Salinas, who was convicted of a 1992 murder. During police questioning, and before he was arrested or read his Miranda rights, Salinas answered some questions but did not answer when asked if a shotgun he had access to would match up with the murder weapon.

Prosecutors in Texas used his silence on that question in convicting him of murder, saying it helped demonstrate his guilt. Salinas appealed, saying his Fifth Amendment rights to stay silent should have kept lawyers from using his silence against him in court. Texas courts disagreed, saying pre-Miranda silence is not protected by the Constitution.

The high court upheld that decision.

I HAVE TO WONDER IF TODAY'S "SUPREME COURT" WOULD RECOGNIZE THE ORIGINAL/ORGANIC U.S. CONSTITUTION IF IT SLAPPED THEM IN THE FACE.

I DON'T KNOW, NOR DO I CARE, HONESTLY, HOW YOU FELT ABOUT HOW THE POLICE BEHAVED DURING THE STUDENT PROTESTS OR OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTS, BUT I HAD TO ASK MYSELF, WHAT DID THESE PEOPLE DO TO WARRANT BEATINGS, OR ANYTHING ELSE WE SEE GOING ON IN THIS VIDEO...DOESN'T THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE US THE RIGHT TO PROTEST, TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO SPEAK AGAINST, THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE?

WHAT DID THESE PEOPLE DO THAT PROVOKED ATTACK?

WHAT HAPPENED TO 'CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE' BEING EXPECTED OF TRUE PATRIOTS WHEN FACED WITH UNJUST LAWS OR TYRANNY?

I WELL RECALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN WHEN THE TIDE TURNED FOREVER AGAINST CITIZENS, WHEN PROTESTS BECAME SOMETHING THAT WARRANTED POLICE BRUTALITY, UNCUT RAGE.
WATCHING THE POLICE RESPONSE TO STUDENTS AND 'OWS' GROUPS ACROSS THE NATION BROUGHT BACK SOME VERY BAD MEMORIES OF THE 1960s.

THE WAY "CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES" (CPS) USES SWAT TEAMS TO TAKE CHILDREN FROM PARENTS...DOES THAT BOTHER YOU?

WHAT HAPPENED TO "PROTECT AND SERVE"?
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO US?
HAVE WE SIMPLY COME TO ACCEPT POLICE AS "WARRIORS", IN A WAR WITH CITIZENS, AS MILITARIZED POLICE WITH BODY ARMOR, DRONES, TANKS, ASSAULT WEAPONS, "CROWD DISRUPTORS"...?

THE NOVEL 1984...AND 2013...NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IS THERE?

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

U.S.A. BECAME A "CORPORATION" IN 1871. NO MORE CONSTITUTION

*** UPDATED AUGUST 25, 2013...BEGINS AT THE TRIPLE ASTERISKS BELOW ***

The "Federal" Government, "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (all caps) created illegally in 1871, is a separate entity from "'the united States of America'", a SOVEREIGN NATION, which was created by our original (organic) Constitution, and the 1871-created new government should be called "the United States, Incorporated".

[SEE Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62, http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/struggle/territorial_legislation_1871.pdf]

"'CHAPTER LXII -

AN ACT TO PROVIDE A GOVERNMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.'"ESTABLISHING THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS A BODY CORPORATE, CAN HAVE A SEAL, CAN CONTRACT AND BE CONTRACTED WITH, AND EXERCISE ALL OTHER POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.

A corporation is simply an entity which makes its own rules for its own employees and for its own structural operation.

The "U.S. government", which exists ONLY on a ten acre parcel of property in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia), IS OUTSIDE the CONSTITUTIONALLY NAMED "'united States of America'", IS a CORPORATION that has taken on the role of a quasi-government, but which has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, i.e., NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, TO DO SO, BUT IT DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER THE ORIGINAL/ORGANIC CONSTITUTION EXCEPT FOR THE ILLUSION OF THE 'SUPREME COURT'.

DO YOU THINK THIS IS HORSE-COOKIES?
DO YOU THINK THIS IS 'CONSPIRACY THEORY'?
This is something many Americans have known for over 100 years, something my father taught us as children, something we were told we could change, if enough of us WOULD.
IF YOU THINK THIS IS "BS", SIMPLY GO READ THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS, THEN SEE WHAT YOU THINK.

THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES", ACCORDING TO U.S. CODE:
28 USC § 3002 - Definitions (15):

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

"A FEDERAL CORPORATION"...SINCE 1871.

THE POWER GIVEN TO THIS CORPORATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL "'united States of America'".
THE GOVERNOR OF THIS NEW CORPORATION WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ALL LAWS PASSED BY DELEGATES WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION.

DOWNLOAD THE PDF, SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES.
http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/struggle/territorial_legislation_1871.pdf

THIS NEW, "SECOND NATION" WAS FORMED BY CHANGING THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION BY ONE WORD AND EXCHANGING CAPITAL LETTER FOR LOWER CASE.

<<We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.>>
BECAME INSTEAD
<<We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution OF the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.>>

IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT TO TRANSFORM A NATION INTO A CORPORATION!
IT WAS ALL ACCOMPLISHED BY "LEGALESE", THE JARGON OF THE LAWYER, A 'LANGUAGE' VERY FEW AMERICANS ARE EVEN AWARE OF.

HAVE YOU NEVER NOTICED THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 'COMMUNICATES' WITH US, OUR NAMES ARE IN ALL-CAPS?
THERE IS A LEGAL REASON FOR THAT AND THAT REASON IS LINKED TO THE ALL-CAPS SPELLING OF THE "CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES", AS OPPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL "united States of America".

HERE'S ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO:
This Federal government (aka, CORPORATION) sees itself as a DEMOCRACY, whereas the original states of the Union were a REPUBLIC.

The Republic is no longer recognized by the "democracy" known as "'the United States of America'".
WHY DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
As I've stated before many times, you should understand that "democracy" essentially is majority rule, or what some call "mob rule," and a Republic is a system of government that is focused on the right of EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL, NO MATTER THEIR STATION IN LIFE, THEIR RACE, OR THEIR BELIEFS, all laws pertaining to ALL citizens equally, with no one exempt from the ORGANIC laws laid down in the ORIGINAL Constitution.

The REPUBLIC created by the Constitution intended to protect the rights of the individuals, not so much the mob or the majority, but of the individuals that make up the whole...EACH individual, ALL individuals equally.
THE ACT OF 1871 CHANGED ALL THAT, AS DID THE NEVER-RATIFIED BY 3/4 MAJORITY 14th AMENDMENT.
[SEE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE 14th at ** far below & how this is a PROVEN fact in the 08/25/2013 update.]

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States THEN in the Union, AS MANDATED BY LAW, and therefore was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union AT THAT TIME as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

You must understand that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate.(THOSE FROM STATES THAT HAD SECEDED FROM THE "UNION", i.e., "Confederate States"), in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment.
This is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by 10 DISSENTING State Legislatures. It's HISTORY, read it sometimes.

WHO WAS ALLOWED TO 'RATIFY' THE 14th AMENDMENT?
ONLY STATES THAT HAD REMAINED IN THE UNION DURING THE CIVIL WAR.

IT PASSED BY WHAT IS CALLED A "RUMP" CONGRESS COMPOSED OF IRATE REPUBLICANS WHO WANTED TO GRIND THINGS INTO THE FACES OF THE CIVIL WAR "REBELS".

HOW THEY MANAGED TO DO THIS WAS 'SLICK', BUT COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL...WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, CALLED THE "ORGANIC" CONSTITUTION WAS REPLACED BY THE NEW ONE THAT FORMED THE FEDERAL CORPORATION.

[NOTE: There is a discussion about this which you may find interesting, here:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/powers13th14th15th.htm

ABOUT THAT EXCLUSION OF THE SOUTHERN SENATORS FROM THE SENATE VOTE ON THE 14th AMENDMENT:Tulane Law Review vol. 28 1953, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment,

by Walter J. Suthon, Jr.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony32.html

"How remote was this Hamiltonian concept from the events of 1867 and 1888, when a "rump" Congress arrogated [claimed without justification] to itself the power to force ratification of a rejected amendment, coercing ratifications by several of the rejecting States." (pg. 26)
"This submission was by a two-thirds vote of the quorum present in each House of Congress, and in that sense it complied with Article V of the Constitution.

However, the submission was by a "rump" Congress.

Using the constitutional provision that "Each House shall be the judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." each House had excluded all persons appearing with credentials as Senators or Representatives from the ten Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.
This exclusion, through the exercise of an unreviewable constitutional prerogative, constituted a gross violation of the essence of two other constitutional provisions, both intended to protect the rights of the States to representation in Congress." (pg. 28)

"Had these ten Southern States not been summarily denied their constitutional rights of representation in Congress, through the ruthless use of the power of each House to pass on the election and qualifications of its members, this amendment proposal would doubtless have died a-borning.
It obviously would have been impossible to secure a two-thirds vote for the submission of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, particularly in the Senate, if the excluded members had been permitted to enter and to vote. Of course, that was one of the motives and reasons for this policy of ruthless exclusion." (pg. 28)

ACTUALLY, WORSE THAN THAT HAPPENED A BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, AGAIN SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TURNED ON OTHER MEMBERS AND RAMMED A LOT OF THINGS DOWN 'SOUTHERN THROATS'.LET US REMEMBER THAT AFTER EVERY WAR, THE WINNER WRITES THE LAW AND DICTATES POLICY.

Most of the laws of the Federal government, "CORPORATE AMERICA", are essentially PURELY corporate rules and corporate laws CREATED TO CONTROL sovereign states and sovereign citizens as Congress sees fit.

The states who have become associated with the Federal government, who have given there allegiance or otherwise bought into the Federal government in Washington, D.C., a corporation, have entered into an ILLEGAL contract.

The government in Washington, D.C. is not set up to represent the states, but to control the states, as though they were subordinate corporations to this greater corporation.
The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866.
Johnson and a few others saw what was happening, that the banking cartel was establishing a "nation within a nation", was setting up a giant corporation in the District of Columbia, which is not a part of the nation founded by the Declaration of Independence or by the Original Constitution of that original nation.
Other presidents have also seen this, but too late...

Wilson, Eisenhower, Kennedy perhaps cried out the loudest, but only after they, too, had been duped.

[SEE http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html FOR AN IN-DEPTH ACCOUNTING OF THIS MESS WE FACE. One can find the points made on that website all over the internet, often on government websites. The information is valid.]

LET US THINK, BEFORE THAT BECOMES ILLEGAL!
LET US SEE PAST THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS, PULL BACK THE DUSTY CURTAIN AND SEE WHO RUNS THIS "OZ"!

EXECUTIVE ORDERS...DECREES OF THE KING
"The President is acting as a king -- issuing "decrees" called Executive Orders -- which we are to believe overrides the Constitution for the United States of America, bypassing the system of checks and balances.
Corrupt courts prosecute on false charges, ignoring the right to due process.
To what may we attribute the impending death of our once great nation and the slave status of once-free Americans?
Who is to blame for her state of bankruptcy and vulnerability?
We are, by our silence.
Our lack of involvement is our acquiescence." ~ Jackie Patru, sweetliberty.org

Because the U.S. government is situated in the District of Columbia, which is NOT part of the United States, it is essentially, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a different nation entirely.

It is a Federal Nation, which rules over the District of Colombia.
It has no real jurisdiction over the rest of the United States in a technical sense, and for this CORPORATION, located OUTSIDE the U.S.A., to pass laws, tax another country such as "'the united States of America'" is technically and legally a brazen scam, a snow-job.

The Constitution was a compact BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL STATES, giving the federal government/congress/the president/Supreme Court LIMITED powers.

The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as FURTHER LIMITATIONS on the federal government.

Our founders saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution.

To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added.

Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, quoting the 10th Amendment...

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The ORIGINALLY created 'united States government' cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people.

WE WERE SOVEREIGN ENTITIES, ALL, NOT SUBJECTS OF A KING!

THE 3 TYPES OF LAW FEW CITIZENS KNOW EXIST...
Three forms of law were granted according to the Constitution; common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose.

COMMON LAW IS A THING OF THE PAST, ADMIRALTY LAW REIGNS AND WE HAVE FALLEN PREY TO A CORPORATION (contract law).

WE ARE UNDER THE LAW OF THE SEA, NOT THE LAND, UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW, NOT COMMON LAW AS WE SHOULD BE, COMMON LAW BEING THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE NEW NATION THE FOUNDERS CREATED AS A REPUBLIC.

How can we know that?

ONE way is to look at the FLAG in courtrooms and other places of "government".

Let me explain...

The appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Of course when new states are admitted, new stars are added.)

A footnote was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

"Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
The president AS MILITARY COMMANDER can add a yellow fringe to our flag.

When would this be done?

During a time of WAR.

Why?

A flag with a fringe is an ENSIGN, A MILITARY FLAG!

The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration.

NO, THE FRINGED FLAG SHOWS WE ARE UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW!

The law changed from Common Law (what the Constitution calls "God's Law") to Admiralty Law (the kings law) and your status also changed from sovereign to subject, from being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land).

If you think you own your property, just stop paying taxes, see how quickly it will be taken under the prize law.

ONLY MARITIME/ADMIRALTY LAW ALLOWS FOR THE TAKING OF LAND AS A "PRIZE"!
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." - Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.

When you walk into a court and see this FRINGED flag you are, in essence, put on notice that you are in an Admiralty Court and that the KING is in control.

BUT UNDERSTAND THIS, if there is a king, the people are no longer sovereign.

THE ACT OF 1871 REWORDED THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, FORMING A 2nd ENTITY WITHIN OUR BORDERS, A CORPORATION, A CORPORATION THAT RULES BY THE "LAW OF THE SEA".

THERE IS A VIDEO OF SOME LENGTH <HERE> THAT WILL EXPLAIN ADMIRALTY LAW IN DEPTH . YOU WILL BE AMAZED BY IT.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a NEW constitution for "the government of the District of Columbia", an INCORPORATED government.

This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

How many LEGAL minds were tapped to accomplish this we may never know, but it was certainly a slick piece of legal maneuvering.

YOU SEE, WHEN THIS WAS DONE, AMERICA WAS COMPLETELY PENNILESS, BANKRUPT, OWED FOREIGN NATIONS ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN HAD DECLARED MARTIAL LAW DURING THE CIVIL WAR, THEN WAS ASSASSINATED, AND NO ONE THOUGHT TO UN-DECLARE THAT MARTIAL LAW!

SOMEONE WITH A LOT OF LEGAL GENIUS PICKED UP ON THIS, SAW THE WAY TO CREATE A CORPORATION TO PAY OFF THE HUGE DEBT, MADE US ALL SUBJECTS OF THE CORPORATION, AND MADE US ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT... FOREVER!
FOREVER!

AND WE ARE STILL UNDER MARTIAL LAW!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO UNDO THAT, BUT SINCE 1933 WE HAVE ALSO BEEN UNDER A CONSTANT STATE OF "NATIONAL EMERGENCY"!

WITH NATIONAL EMERGENCY COME "EMERGENCY ACTS" WHICH SET ASIDE LAWS DURING THE "EMERGENCY", BUT OUR EMERGENCY HAS NEVER ENDED, NOT SINCE 1933!

WE HAVE HAD MARTIAL LAW SINCE APRIL 15, 1861.

WE HAVE HAD A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" SINCE 1933 AND EACH PRESIDENT SINCE THEN HAS MADE SURE WE CONTINUE THAT 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY'. IT'S ALL ON RECORD, ALL AVAILABLE ONLINE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WEBSITES... EVERY PRESIDENT SIMPLY CARRIES OVER A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY"...WHICH LLOWS HIM TO CALL FOR MARTIAL LAW.

In fact, there are now in effect EVEN MORE 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...IT'S A NEVER-ENDING STORY!

EACH PRESIDENT HAS EASILY FOUND A REASON TO DECLARE EMERGENCY!

Obama extends post-9/11 state of national emergency for 16th year
BUT...WE HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LAW OF THE SEA, ADMIRALTY LAW, MILITARY LAW, SINCE THE 28th CONGRESS IN 1845.
In 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land.

The bill may be traced in Congressional Globe, 28th Congress, 2d. Session 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported.

Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say, "NO MORE! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended!" But no, the courts began a long train of abuses.

THOSE ABUSES, AS ANYONE CAN SEE, CONTINUE TODAY!
Most Americans think the judicial system is there to protect their rights according to the Constitution, the law of the land, the Bill of Rights and so forth, but they are really there to keep a false sense of order in society, to keep people from learning the truth and panicking or rioting to restore Common Law and the ORIGINAL Constitution, and they are also there to protect those who have the REAL power and the REAL WEALTH (since America itself has been BANKRUPT for so long) and to assure that no one disturbs the infrastructure of the CORPORATION being promoted or the "STATE" rules and those that are promoted by the courts as MILITARY organizations.

IF EVERYONE KNEW WE ARE STILL UNDER MARTIAL AND MARITIME LAW, IF EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEING THE CURRENT RULING ENTITY, AND IF ALL AMERICANS KNEW THEY WERE WORKING EACH DAY MERELY TO PAY OFF THE DEBTS OF THEIR EMPLOYER, THIS CORPORATION IN D.C., THEN ALL HELL MIGHT BREAK LOOSE AND THE MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZENS JUST MIGHT USE THOSE ARMS TO START A NEW REVOLUTION!

BEFORE THE NOOSE CAN BE TIGHTENED ENOUGH TO HANG US ALL, THE CORPORATION WILL FIRST HAVE TO DISARM THE CITIZENRY, SO NOW YOU CAN SEE WHAT GUN CONTROL IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!

GIVE UP YOUR GUNS, FACE COMPLETE MARTIAL LAW!

WE CAN JUST SAY NO....NO, BECAUSE OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EXISTENCE!
The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871.
It is still intact to this day.
This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion:
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
The dissent written by Justice Harlan held that the U.S. Congress was always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
In it, he said,

"This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place."

He held that the Congress had no existence, and therefore had no authority, outside of the U.S. Constitution.

TODAY, NOW...

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges.

One example is the Sovereign Citizen's RIGHT to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed.
PLEASE, GO AHEAD, GO LOOK BACK IN OUR HISTORY AND SEE HOW MANY LONG YEARS AMERICANS WENT WHERE THEY PLEASED, IN THE MANNER THEY PLEASED WITHOUT A "LICENSE", OR A "LICENSE PLATE".

WE NOW HAVE TO APPLY FOR LICENSES FOR EVERYTHING FROM DRIVING TO GETTING MARRIED, TO BURNING TRASH, TO KEEPING A DOG, TO CARRYING A FIREARM ON OUR PERSON IN PUBLIC, OR TO HUNT OR FISH ON "PUBLICLY OWNED" LAND.

THESE LICENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY UNACCEPTABLE TO LATE 18th CENTURY TO EARLY 19th CENTURY CITIZENS, BUT A CAUSE FOR RIDICULE THAT ANYONE WOULD BE DUMB ENOUGH TO FALL FOR THIS!
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WAS FRESH IN THEIR MINDS. THEY KNEW THEIR GUARANTEED RIGHTS!

THEY WERE UNDER COMMON LAW.
WE ARE UNDER MILITARY-ADMIRALTY LAW.

THOSE CITIZENS KNEW THEIR RIGHTS AND SILLY LICENSES WERE NOT THE ORDER OF THE DAY BACK THEN, SO IF ANYONE HAD TRIED THIS RUSE ON THEM, THEY'D HAVE SIMPLY LOCKED AND LOADED AND PUT AN END TO THE THING.

EVEN IN MODERN TIMES, A FEW SENATORS AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SEEN AND TRIED TO WARN US ALL OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED.
WHY HAVEN'T MORE OF US LISTENED?

HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS USURPED BY THE CORPORATION

"The corporate interest does not benefit the people but uses the people and their labor to make profit for the corporation. This corporation is in concert with the corporate courts and banks to accomplish the theft of the people’s wealth.

The unlawful transfer of the Constitutional money authority over to a private foreign bank (Federal Reserve) has completely devastated all of our lives.

[MY NOTE: I GOT A WARNING FROM FIREFOX NOT TO OPEN THAT LINK. I DID. PROCEED WITH CAUTION, OR CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. IT'S A NICE LITTLE ARTICLE.]

This crime of taking the money authority away from “We the People” must be corrected and restored back to the Constitutional Republican form of governance.

This is the only way our country can become prosperous once again."

U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS DISSOLVED!
From a very powerful speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states:

“…It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m 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…

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title.
The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit “money substitute” it needed.
Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt.

They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”

By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

The problem is that those operating in the District of Columbia, OUTSIDE THE U.S.A., EMPLOYEES OF 'AMERICA, INC.', cannot be tried for treason.
AND THEY WELL KNOW THAT!

BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE, BY YEAR-AFTER-YEAR KEEPING US IN THE DARK, PASSING NEW AND EVERMORE STRANGLING LAWS, OUR "FEDERAL CORPORATE GOVERNMENT" LOCKS US INTO CONTINUED SERVITUDE, TO PLEDGING OUR ALLEGIANCE TO A NEW CONSTITUTION THAT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE ORIGINAL, TO "SELLING OUR SOULS TO THE CORPORATION STORE", AND WE ARE JUST NOW BEGINNING TO REALIZE THAT!

SOME ARE...A FEW...BUT IT'S A START, ISN'T IT?

IT'S A START TO HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US, TO SEE WHAT'S BEEN DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THE NUMBER OF ARMED CITIZENS FAR OUTNUMBER THE NUMBER OF MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT COMBINED...WE OUTNUMBER THEM ABOUT 20 TO 1.

WE MUST KEEP THOSE ODDS!

WE MUST DEMAND AN END TO MARTIAL LAW, TO "NATIONAL EMERGENCY", AND OUT THIS REGIME THAT HAS SOLD US TO FOREIGN DEBT COLLECTORS!

WE ARE PAYING FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

WE ARE TAXED WITHOUT ONE REAL SHRED OF REPRESENTATION BECAUSE OUR "ELECTEDS" WORK FOR THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOT US.

THEY EVEN WORK OUTSIDE THE ACTUAL NATION OF AMERICA, IN THAT SAFE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The Residence Act of 1790, officially titled "An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States", is the United States federal law that settled the question of locating the capital of the United States, selecting a site along the Potomac River.

The federal government, PRIOR TO THIS ACT, was located in New York City at the time the bill was passed and had previously been located in Philadelphia, Annapolis and several other settlements.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WAS THAT ALL STATES HAD AGREED TO AND HAD RATIFIED THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, COMMON LAW, THE LAW OF THE LAND.

THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT HAD TO BE MOVED TO A PLACE THAT WAS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.

THOSE WHO HAD FINANCED OUR REVOLUTION (AND LATER OUR CIVIL WAR, INDEED ALL OUR WARS), THOSE WHO HAD GOTTEN A FOOTHOLD IN THE NEW WORLD HAD TO HAVE ROOM TO MANEUVER US INTO SUBJECTION.

NOW WE KNOW!

WHAT NOW?

http://youtu.be/ktelD4gxyAA

ENTIRE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL 14th AMENDMENT
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.

***BEGIN UPDATE OF AUG.25, 2013 ***
The so-called 14th Amendment applies to the actions of all state and local officials, but not to those of private parties, and Section 1 of that thing is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution.

The first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.

The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, PLEASE.
The PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES clause states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.."

.Congressman John Bingham of Ohio authored this clause, patterning it after the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution.

His draft read, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states...."
On February 28, 1866, Bingham expressed his opinion that this draft language would give Congress power to "secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States", and he added that, "The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress…with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. It hath that extent—no more…If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution”

On April 28, 1866, the Joint Committee of Fifteen voted in favor of a SECOND draft proposed by Congressman Bingham, which would ultimately be adopted into the Constitution.

The Joint Committee no longer tracked the existing language in Article Four as the Committee had previously done.
On May 10, 1866, in the closing debate on the House floor, Bingham explained:

" [M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever.

Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none."

Congress gave final approval to the Privileges or Immunities Clause when the House proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the states for ratification on June 13, 1866. It became part of the Constitution in July 1868.

A November 15, 1866 pseudonymous letter published in the New York Times:
"[N]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

This is intended for the enforcement of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States."

On January 30, 1871, the House Judiciary Committee, led by John Bingham, released a House Report No. 22, INTERPRETING the Fourteenth’s privileges or immunities this way:

The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two.

The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned', but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an EXPRESS LIMITATION ON THE POWERS OF THE STATES.

It had been JUDICIALLY determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were NOT limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.

Shortly thereafter, on March 31, 1871, Bingham elaborated:

" I hope the gentleman now knows why I CHANGED the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the LIMITATIONS imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of A State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

THAT'S WHEN THE REAL TROUBLE STARTED.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read OUT of the Constitution in a 5–4 decision of the Supreme Court in the 'Slaughter-House Cases' of 1873.
In the Slaughter-House Cases the court recognized TWO TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP, TWO, NOT ONE.
The rights which citizens have by being citizens of the United States (UNITED STATES, NOT united States because that "all-caps" makes the difference) are covered under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the never-ratified 14th Amendment, while the rights citizens have by being citizens of A STATE fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four.

In the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that THE FRAMERS INTENDED the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Article 4) to apply the Bill of Rights AGAINST the states. Black argued that the framers' intent SHOULD control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from John Bingham's congressional statements.

TOO LATE! Black's position on the Privileges or Immunities Clause fell one vote short of a majority in the Adamson case.

What was previously forbidden ONLY TO CONGRESS to do was, by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, MADE EQUALLY FORBIDDEN TO ANY STATE, ANY SOVEREIGN STATE, LET US ADD.

If a citizen of Washington, D.C., for example, has a particular constitutional immunity, then, according to William Van Alstyne, among the top 40 legal scholars in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment extends that immunity to all citizens of all the states.

In Gordon Epperly et. al. v. United States, judicial decision (not merely dicta) in the Epperly case said that the validity of the 14th Amendment's ratification was a "political question", and not a "judicial question" -- hence, the Court didn't have the power to decide whether it was properly ratified or not.

The Epperly case cites Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), where the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision in regard to the non-ratification of the proposed Child Labor Amendment (which had been proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress in June 1924 but just barely seemed to miss ratification by the States).

This, too, was deemed to be a political question "not subject to judicial review".

Epperly also cites U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), a Federal Circuit court case. In Stahl, the Federal Courts declared that the decision as to whether the amendment was properly ratified was a political question, not a judicial question, and thus the Courts had no say in the matter.

It seems pretty obvious that the Federal courts have not, and will not, say anything one way or the other as to the validity of the 14th Amendment's ratification.

IF THEY CALL IT AS IT IS, THE PEOPLE AND STATES ARE FREE AGAIN, SO THEY REFUSE TO CALL IT!

Dyett v. Turner. [http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Dyett.htm].
Apparently, the case dealt with a criminal who had to be released because the lower court didn't explicitly tell him that he was entitled to free legal counsel; the Utah Supreme Court judge who delivered the Opinion for the case thought this was a rather stupid reason to let somebody go. It was in this context that the whole issue of the questionable ratification of the 14th Amendment was presented.

Judicial opinion cited above is real, and can be found in the Pacific Reporter 2d . The Utah Supreme Court was the only court to cite Dyett, and it did so around ten times in various majority and dissenting opinions up through the late-70s/early-80s. Not much to those cases, other than that it was pretty obvious a few of the judges on the court had, shall we say, a few objections to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

The somewhat intemperate and UNjudicial tone of the opinion is perfectly consistent with the hostility toward the Warren Court in the 1960s. The US Supreme Court made a number of rulings that simply infuriated the more conservative elements in legislatures, police departments, prosecutors' offices and judges' chambers.

On 14th Amendment grounds, the US 'Supremes' said that the States had to provide attorneys for defendants, had to tell the defendant the he could have a lawyer at public expense, could not question a prisoner until the lawyer got there if the prisoner asked for a lawyer, had to stop questioning a prisoner if the prisoner did not want to talk, tell a prisoner that he did not have to answer questions and could not at trial argue that because the defendant did not talk he must be hiding something.

The outrage about these decisions was something wonderful to behold. "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards appeared all over. Politicians ran for State and national office on a platform of overturning the Warren Court 14th Amendment.

Because the Public Accommodation cases were starting to come in then, there was a political alliance of Southern segregationists, States Righters, and Get-tough-on -crime types.

In a fair number of State Courts there was considerable resentment over the Federal Courts dictating how the State must do things. The Utah decision is probably the consequence of all those resentments in a State that has always been a little spooky about the Supremacy Clause.

The conditions placed by a Republican rump Congress on the admission of Southern senators and representatives and the creation of military districts in the former Confederacy, the insistence that Southern states HAD to ratify the 14th to get back their old status, wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t fair play, but looks like it worked.

Since it happened almost 135 years ago, since the Federal Courts have repeatedly stated they will not consider the question,, even though the 14th has become a foundation of our jurisprudence, the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment is questionable, to say the least, and blatantly NOT TRUE by the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION'S STANDARD.

The FORCED-to-comply Southern states that "took back their vote in favor of ratification", that said NO to it being ratified, did so BEFORE the Amendment had passed, nor did a 3/4ths majority of states (AT THE TIME IT WAS VOTED ON) ratify it.

Under the rules established during the Civil War, as a war measure, only people who had taken an oath of allegiance to the US were permitted to vote and no State government was recognized until 10% of the number of people who voted in the 1860 election had taken the oath.

In general the 10% requirement was met by signing up former slaves who under the Emancipation Proclamation were free men.

The result of this was a series of Republican dominated rump State legislatures which were elected without the participation of the vast number of White voters.

These were the Southern state legislatures that ratified the Reconstruction Amendments.
Since the rump legislatures did what the national government and Congress wanted, no one was inclined to ask too many questions.

AND THAT, CADETS, IS HOW YOU CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO SUIT YOUR PARTY, TO MAKE THINGS TURN OUT EXACTLY AS YOU WANT THEM.
THAT IS ALSO WHAT ALL THIS "VOTER REFORM" IS ABOUT, SAME THING, DIFFERENT CENTURIES.
FORCED COMPLIANCE, DOMINANCE, THE WIN, NO MATTER WHO IT SCREWS.
TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY TO VOTE AND YOU GET TO RUN THE ASYLUM ANY WAY YOU PLEASE...ETC, AD NAUSEUM.

Short and sweet, Congress was plenty pissed-off that its powers were LIMITED by the Constitution and it moved to EMPOWER ITSELF. That this came in the SAME time frame as the legislation making the Federal Government a CORPORATION should scream "FOUL !" to all who delve into this.

#14 is the primary means through which the Federal government has legislative and regulatory power over state governments and governance. It isn't the only one (see the commerce and "necessary and proper" clauses, for instance), but the 14th is one of the few/maybe the only "big stick(s)" that the Federal Government can wield over the states.

TAKE THAT AWAY AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE?
SOVEREIGN STATES, MAYBE?
SOVEREIGN CITIZENS?
A CONGRESS THAT HAS LIMITS AND MUST UPHOLD THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF THE united States of America, NOT the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES?
TRY TO IMAGINE THAT....NICE, ISN'T IT?
PLEASE DO WATCH THE VIDEOS BELOW MY LIST OF SOURCES IF THIS IS ALL NEW TO YOU. THEY EXPLAIN MUCH IN QUITE SIMPLE TERMS AND GIVE US A FOUNDATION TO WORK FROM AS WE FACE THE DECISION OF WHAT TO DO TO 'UNCREATE' AMERICA, INCORPORATED. .

___________________________________

OTHER SOURCES:

[Some Information from the Lisa Guliani's article, www.babelmagazine.com, 'The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials',
and from barefootsweb.net's article, 'Treason in Government, Admiralty on Land'.]
http://research.archives.gov/description/299948

Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1st Session. p. 563, House Journal p. 889.

House Journal 1868, pp. 578-584 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 471.

House Journal 1866, p. 68 -- Senate Journal 1886, p. 72

House Journal 1866, p. 76 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.

House Journal l866, pp. 210-213 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 183.

House Journal 1866-1867. p. 183 -- Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138.

House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.

House Journal 1866, p. 284 -- Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.

House Journal 1867, p. 60 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.

House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108 -- Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101.

McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452.

House Journal 1867, p. 223 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 176.

House Journal 1867, p. 1141 -- Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.

McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.

House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 -- Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.

Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743---Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.

House Journal, 80th Congress, 2nd Session. p. 563 etc.

Presidential Proclamation No. 153, General Record of the United States, G.S.A., National Archives and Records Service. 30 14 Stat. p. 814.

ETC, ETC, ETC

Invisible Empire, The Act Of 1871

The above video is no-frills, straight to the point....but these videos have a way of being deleted, so here are a few more...just in case...
PLEASE, ALWAYS LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND AN EXPIRED VIDEO OR A BROKEN LINK. THANKS.

The "longer version" and we all need this to fully understand what happened...or to begin to understand.

THE LANGUAGE OF LAW...HOW MARITIME LAW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND HOW EASILY WE WERE DUPED BY "LEGALESE".
From the video:Our society is run by lawyers, our politicians are lawyers, they write our laws. Our judges are lawyers, our presidents are lawyers. They who consider themselves "above" us, do you suppose they want us 'common citizens' to understand the law?
"These are the witch doctors of the current age, ruling over us with their lawyer speak that we could never understand.
We do understand though that this requires sacrificing the individual for the "system".
In order to understand how to resist what is being forced upon us I think it is imperative that we educate ourselves to the multi-faceted system that is the source of our oppression.
So many things we sign, and by doing so waive our rights as natural persons and willingly submit ourselves to this admiralty law. Do you think the lawyers with the contracts and the power over us are going to let us know that? "

//WW