President of the United States Conrol the Internet?

Started by rcallicotte, August 31, 2009, 03:19:16 pm

Previous topic - Next topic


October 17, 2009, 09:04:56 pm #15 Last Edit: October 17, 2009, 09:16:05 pm by efflux
The American Civil War 1861-1865. Both sides backed by the British. The idea being that the North would win so larger collateral to then set the US up as a corporation to handle the huge debts to the British Empire. The actual Act Of 1871:

The District of Colombia is part of the British Crown as is the City Of London. Obama doesn't even answer to the American people at all. His job is to carry on this lie. You are not "citizens" of the United States Corporation at all. You were roped into this right at birth registration. You are Americans. Same situation in the UK. Under Common Law Of The Land the deceptive registration as citizen can not even be judged as lawful. The reason Great Britain, it's Commonwealth countries and the US have been free from tyranny is due to Common Law. Common Law came from Christianity. The idea that no human could be a slave. There is a whole history to this but I'm not starting out on that. These corporations do not operate under Common Law but the jurisdiction is still there. Corporations are run under Admiralty Law (British Empire). Try forcing a judge to swear oath to Common Law - They have to act differently or are at least then under oath to do so. The Queen is also under oath to uphold this law as are our politicians but then the Queen clearly believes she has divine right to be head of state. Under Common Law both parties must be able to know what the contract means. It is unlawful for a corporate state to force people into contract with it otherwise the state is simply admitting that the people are not free and the government is not of and for the people. This would be the essence of fascism. Common Law was decided by the people not bureaucrats. It operates under a very simple principle. People are free and do not harm others. The judgement of this must be made by a jury who should then set precedents for future cases. Interestingly, juries in the UK are now told they can only judge whether someone has broken the law not whether the law is just. This is a total corruption of the Common Law. Notice how Tony Blair wanted to do away with juries for many situations. Tony Blair is the ultimate corrupt politician hence why he is loved by the elites who now want him as president of the EU which he would accept without a single vote being cast by the people of Europe. Very few people actually break this Common Law except the people in control. They break the Common Law of the land on a daily basis. Like the police for example who have no more powers than anyone else in a Common Law country. This is why you can make what is called a citizen's arrest for example.


October 17, 2009, 11:11:14 pm #16 Last Edit: October 17, 2009, 11:23:45 pm by efflux
Many people talk of Communism. This is slightly misleading in terms of what most people think Communism is. It is more like a rule of fascist bankers but communism for the people which is more or less what Communism was set up to be anyway. Feudalism is probably a more correct correlation in terms of the final idea. Communists or Socialists are mere tools of the "Change". It is the "third Way" as often mentioned by Tony Blair. If you read my previous messages you will see that people already have no property. Your house is not yours and this will become obvious once it is eventually declared to not be up to carbon emission standards and you are then illegal occupants. The "Climate Change" bills are already passed for this.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

  "At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.

   I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" - because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

   How many of you think that the word "election" or "democracy" or "vote" or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it - Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign it. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he'll sign it.


   And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can't resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties - And because you'll be the biggest paying country, they're not going to let you out of it.

   So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I've read the treaty. I've seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

   But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire - it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

   So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

   Sail on, O Ship of State!

   Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

   Humanity with all its fears,

   With all the hopes of future years,

   Is hanging breathless on thy fate!"

Henry Blewer
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T


Borders are like sieves - they used to be sieves for people and for money, but I would argue that they no longer serve as a control for money flow.  So the fact that money is so difficult to track, the nation states are more difficult to define.

Anyway, in grand terms, the game seems to be about money - who gets it and how much, 1) how much money does he get (income, job, subsidy, services).  2)  how much money does he keep (expenses, taxes, etc).  With the excess, an individual can buy his toys.  Certain toys cost more than others and have greater intrinsic value.  Many of our toys we buy and then we throw away.  The very valuable toys (like property), you (as a little guy) can't really own, because they are taxed.  You need income of some sort to be able these taxes.  So... to remove your property from you, all that needs to be done is end up on a fixed income in a world of inflation and soon you are not being able to pay the taxes.  And ultimately, property taxed that isn't paid for ends up being lost. 

So it is my belief that social constructs exist to force you to contribute to certain functions at certain rates.  When we get to the point that the typical middle-class no longer has property, and all of his income is no longer his (in that the owner of the income no longer gets to choose how to spend it), then to your point, you are no longer free, but you are a serf.  To me, the definition of free is "I can spend what I have on what I want".  When that is no longer so... 

The only point where you and I differ is that you feel this process is scripted and tightly controlled by a very few.  I feel that there are many, many players, but that their goal is the same.  To take from you everything that they can and to make you their serf.  The rich wish to have only the rich and the poor.  Actually I think they don't care about you or I, they care only to accrue more wealth.  The tug is about what determines the middle class and how much freedom the middle class is allowed to have.  The only vote anyone truly has is where he spends his dollar.  When that choice is no longer yours, the game is over.


Yes. Good points. This is good quote. It really sums up the whole problem:

"The few who could understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild

The Rothchilds are one of the largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve.

Rothcschild funded Cecil Rhodes. From the Wiki:

"Rhodes wanted to expand the British Empire because he believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness. In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the British, "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." He wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the white countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included Americans in the Rhodes scholarships and said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the USA rejoin the British Empire. Rhodes also respected the Germans and admired the Kaiser, and allowed Germans to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually Great Britain, the USA and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure peace together."


October 23, 2009, 06:16:43 am #20 Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 06:19:08 am by efflux
This is the best series of videos to watch. You need to watch all of these and then understand why America must return to what it was founded on as enemy of the British Empire monetary system. These videos are from 1994!:


Thanks Guys , nice readings and links here. Wish i could contribute.
Efflux , i begun to watch the first part of the youtube link and could not stop.