Martial law and you.

Friends, I come to you in mourning... Martial law is here, by definition and in truth. I don't know how much longer I will be allowed to write this blog, it does not really matter. There is a great deal more you need to know.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/

Heretofore, this blog has been a set of observations, each proceeding from things I've seen, things I've understood, dug through, and looked through in history.

Let me elucidate: Under martial law, the constitution is suspended, and you have no rights.

It is equally martial law if they do not call it such. It is equally martial law if they simply take your rights away and never tell you... and we are in a state of war. We are slaves to a tyrannical government, a government that was implemented and designed in the interests of a nation being governed by the people, and that government being limited from restricting the rights of others. Our liberties, our freedoms, all of them were founded prior to the government, and extended throughout that period, with the understanding that said government could not, and had no power to infringe upon those rights, those liberties which they guard, and the freedoms and immunities which pre-existed the government itself. The only means by which the government could assume tyrannical power was by its military, which was to be opposed by the militia. The Federalist 26 directly addressed this subject.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery."

This is, by its very nature, a definition of the right, and the duty, under the Constitution to secede, and/or dissolve the original contract. The rights and immunities under the constitution were not established via the constitution, or the government, they pre-existed the government.

See the Boston Journal of the Times, April 13, 1769

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.^"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-20

If, as the government argues, the second amendment was to preserve the militia to the states, how does it excuse the seizure of the National Guard to the Federal Government's control?

The nation has violated the contract which created it, a civil contract bound in tradition, and common law.

At this date, common law falls... and all men are transformed into slaves.

A strong statement? Perhaps. Look, however, at the definition of slavery in the 1956 anti-slavery compact, signed in 1957 by the US government...

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/slavetrade.htm#wp1034251


Article 1

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

( a ) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

( b ) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

( c ) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

( d ) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.


Article 7

For the purposes of the present Convention:

( a ) "Slavery" means, as defined in the Slavery Convention of 1926, the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status;

( b ) "A person of servile status" means a person in the condition or status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1 of this Convention;


Compare this to the federal reserve, a system of debt bondage by which we, as the American Citizens, are placed in a condition of debt bondage, subject to the seizure of our real property, goods, chattel, and person for the failure to pay a debt created not by our own actions, but by the policies of a government that appears inimical to our national and personal wellbeing. Our capital paid in taxes is not applied to the principle, nor the interest of the debt, but used in the creation of further debt. Should we fail to pay the taxes, paid in company scrip, redeemable only with the company itself, we face prison time and loss of all putative assets.

Is this not slavery? Do we not need a passport to leave our country, and to return? Do we not require, by law, the permission of our nation to leave and return, and our return can be barred for any or no reason, as can our leaving.

We can be transported across the seas for prison or trials, without representation.

At this point, within each and every possible measure, we are slaves, and the Federal government is in violation of every possible section of the Declaration of Independence's grievances.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
And now they move in the troops? Perhaps our nation has forgotten the statements of Patrick Henry:

"Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We are a nation of patriots, a nation of men and women engaged in the most arduous struggle of all, that struggle for liberty, for freedom from the unjust and impositional government that arbitrarily changes the law, changes the punishments of men, and changes and destroys the rule of law in the mindless seeking of power.

If we mean to be free, if we mean to maintain that freedom for which our forefathers fought and died, we must be true patriots. The war is... already begun, a war created against the citizens of the several states, a war fought on the financial front, on the power of a few men choosing to seize and assert control over a nation by deception and fraud.

We are not taught of our freedoms, nor of the foundations. We are not taught to look at those who are most despised to see how they are treated, nor are we shown, by that, what our government's innermost nature is.

The troops are come, and are training to come to your door, and to remove your means of resistance, and we still sit here idle and prattle on about this and that, as though any of it matters without our freedoms and our rights.

Our rights guard our freedoms... if rights are not equal for all, they exist for none. Any class asserted to be 'less worthy of rights' is easily expanded. Any class of persons deemed to be 'problematic' ultimately leads to an 'ultimate solution'.

If we have learned nothing from the past, should we not at least have learned that it is our most despised people that betoken our own ultimate fate?

But then... we would have to look at ourselves... and realize that we too are slaves, and we strike out at the least liked because they are unprotected, using them as the whipping boy of a government gone mad.

Ask yourselves, gentlemen and ladies, whence the powers they seized came? Ask yourselves what it means to be free... and measure it against a world that would throw you aside in an instant for the seeking of power...

Then ask yourselves what you can do about it. It is laid out in law, in tradition, and in the very arguments used to pass the Constitution, and enforcing the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Then ask yourselves if you can still sit idle, and allow those rights to be torn away from others. it matters not who they are torn from, we are as evil for sitting idly by and doing nothing as for doing the tearing ourselves.

And then look deep into your heart and ask yourself if your comfortable conditions are really comfortable, or just an illusion.

All of your stuff, all of your money, everything... is a sham. It's smoke and mirrors, created by a press and political system.. that intends, and has the power to take it away from you at a whim, and on suspicion, not via due process, not via trial by jury, but on suspicion without any possibility of court action or representation.

Is it so comfortable now?
Read more!

Do you really want to read this?

By reading this, your world may change irrevocably. By sitting down, researching, and attempting to understand the views herein posted, your nation may cease to be quite what you think it is, and become something that you would not recognize. If you are not prepared for what is herein written, not prepared to see your world, your hopes crumble... leave now. This is not a place for you. You are welcome to question, welcome to research, welcome to delve into the archives, but you must enter with both an open mind, and are likely to leave with a heart filled with anger.

I am writing about a problem that came to my attention some time ago, a problem of massive proportions, one of incredible scope. The problem is a simple one, on the face of it, but far more complex in practice. This is a problem of monies and economies. Our nation claims that the free market system has failed.. and much as I hate to say this, it has. To help you understand this, I need to delve back into the past, into a time that seems far simpler.

Money, once, was recognizable symbols of wealth, from the cow to the stone ring, to the gold and precious stones. Money was tangible, capable of being held in the hands, used to turn into jewelry, in the case of barter, eaten, or used for other things. We came forward with gold and silver as a recognizable currency, items of value torn from the earth and value-enforced by their scarcity.

There was a rate of trade, determined by supply and demand, for the value of these things in comparison to the value of goods and each other. Gold and silver, for their scarcity and purity, were valued at specific rates. Eventually, money-changers came on the scene in order to convert one money into another. For a very long time, it was unlawful for one group to charge another for changing their money, so often the coins would be shaved, the weights altered. This led to myriad schemes for detection of such chicanery, for instance, the raised rings around coins, the serrated edges, and faces placed upon the ingots.

Now we move forward... to the creation of banks. Banks were instituted to store, and hold money, in means 'safer' than hiding it in one's own home. Part of this was to prevent the theft of the money, and the threat to the home by burglars and highwaymen. Eventually, bankers discovered a great deal of the bulk of that gold never left their vaults, small amounts would shift, but rarely was there a shift of the bulk of the money. They started giving out paper certificates in place of the money, guaranteeing the money to be delivered to other banks, or private individuals. After a time, the slips were doubled in number, then increased tenfold. At a 10:1 ratio of paper money to gold reserves, the runs on the banks were inevitable. The 'real money' to balance the debt (a bill of credit from the bank) did not exist. These events were just before the creation of our Constitution, a financial collapse created by the banks' failed policies, which then lead to the backers of those banks seizing assets from those who were granted 'loans' from those banks.

In order to combat this, the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, or making anything but gold and silver legal tender. The congress was established with the power to set the weights and measures of gold coin, silver coin, and the people were allowed to determine what that tender was worth.

These were tangible assets, with a tangible exchange rate, and the value was determined by both buyer and seller. If the buyer felt that he could get a better deal elsewhere, he went elsewhere to get it. If a seller felt that the buyer was offering too little, he did not have to sell.

Another financial panic, nearly two centuries later, ended this system. Paper monies (bills of credit) were again being issued by the Bank of England, and a crash in this system created a financial panic, a fairly minor one, by the measure of what was to come. The federal reserve was instituted during this panic, in 1913, by congressmen desperate to save jobs, and thereby lives, and their country.

Paper money was legal, and a corporation was instituted to oversee it. This corporation is, and was, the federal reserve. The central 'federal reserve' is a government institution. The subsidiaries are not. There are twelve member banks, which control the Federal Reserve, which are private. These federal reserve banks help appoint the board of the federal reserve itself. They are under the control of the regulatory body which they appoint... to regulate them.

A system more designed for corruption is difficult to imagine, but let us explore it further. These member banks required outside loans in order to be instituted, and monies to drive the system. The federal reserve printed paper money, with specific backing in gold and silver. The right to turn in these bills of credit for the gold or silver was not denied. This kept the paper bills, in theory, in line with the amounts of monetization behind it. Meanwhile, speculative investment in stocks and bonds was being emplaced, and the government was encouraged to borrow monies, invested in that Federal Reserve, backed by the loans of the federal reserve. Those loans were placed by selling 'stock' at a later 'repurchase price' at a specific date, thereby 'ensuring' that the federal reserve had, at least in paper, a massive flow of funds.

Meanwhile, the world was changing, by accident, or by design. The increases in loans, in credit, resulted in boom times. A low interest rate was instituted, and political pressure was brought to bear upon the Congress, to create taxable income to help support the reserve, and their own projects. The sales of further bonds to outside entities was encouraged. Sales of monetizing loans to external nations, including the Middle East, were done via the Federal Reserve's banking system.

Eventually, the Great Depression hit, with a boost in the remonetization rate (an interest rate hike) the boom times came to an end. The cheap, and easy credit backing the boom died right alongside a massive drought that swept the bread basket states, (the dust bowl) , resulting in the asset foreclosure of a lot of homes, properties, and materials by the lending banks. This was further compounded with the amount of assets invested in that stock market that were backed by loans, by the encouragement of the banks themselves. "Have a dollar? invest in the stock market. Don't have a dollar? Call the bank and borrow one! Don't have a dime to call the bank, borrow one, the stock market is going up and up!"

The boom times fell into ash alongside the hopes and dreams of millions. It was in this financial climate that FDR instituted a new policy in the Federal Reserve, in order to remonetize the financial system to return the money to solvency. The War Powers act of 1917 gave him authorization, as the Farm Bill of 1933 declared a state of emergency.

Under Executive order 6012 declared that all gold, gold bullion, gold coins, and gold jewelry, was to be delivered within three days to the Federal Reserve, to be exchanged for legal tender, the bills of credit, or the Dollar Bill.

This state of emergency has never ended. Tracking the information of our economy, in each boom time, the interest rates were lowered, then raised, causing a recession or depression. In each case, the banks became more powerful.

It is in the interest of a bank to create a recession or depression for the following reasons:

1: The Federal Reserve is the monetizing source for the entire country. It cannot be allowed to fail, or the government itself falls.

2: The Federal reserve member banks end up with guaranteed asset forfeiture on properties with outstanding loans, due to lack of capability of payment, for the 'cost' of the bills of credit.

3: The seizure and subsequent resale of these seized assets drive further monetization of the Federal Reserve system.

4: They can blame it on failed policies of other individuals, even though the Federal Reserve system has control over other banks, and FDIC insured lendors. This perpetuates the process.

5: It can be used to implement sweeping financial changes to their advantage, by the simple claim that something was overlooked by their predecessors. The claim can be made that the changes are needed as an emergency measure, and will be only temporary.. and are later enshrined into tradition.

How many people today realize that the federal land was limited to a maximum of ten square miles under the Constitution? How much 'federal' land is there today? The Federal Government had the power to use tracts of land for military installations and bases, but there was to be only ten square miles of 'federal' land for the creation of a neutral federal capital.

This was Washington DC.

My question: Is it in the interests of the people, and the states, of the United States, to have a federal reserve system monetizing in the same method that has instituted myriad crashes, economic destruction, and ruin for millions over the centuries... and to have no oversight by the people themselves?

Is it just, or good, that the people, and the states, cannot look into the finances and systems which make our country run?

Is it just, or good, that the assets of the people can be seized, without due process of law, on suspicion by the Federal Reserve collections agency (the IRS) with no recourse to the court, no rule of law, no defenses, and are guilty until proven innocent?

And can we really blame the politicians for following the advice of the bankers, or simply blame them for being utterly ignorant about basic economic principles, and being too arrogant to ask?

As you look into your dwindling retirement, your bank account, your savings, your bonds, can you really say that anything you have has been yours? You're part of the company now, an employee, paid in company scrip. That scrip is exchangeable for food, for clothing, for rent... but is any of it yours? You live in the company compound, my friends, and that company has nothing for you but contempt.

Look at the statement of Woodrow Wilson, the signer of the Federal Reserve act...

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."


The statement of the Senator Lindberg, father of the aviator who was the first to cross the Atlantic solo in a single flight:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."

"To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."


These were the men who discussed the act, who supported it and later opposed it.

Are we really in control of our nation, or is the money that supports the government.. in control, and taking advantage of the situation? Are we still citizens of our state, or employees, unpaid employees, of the Federal reserve, living on company land, in debt slavery?

Are we really so different from the company stores, promising we can pay our way out, make a living, and then finding out that the money we were paid is worthless everyone else? Is the company scrip of actual value?

Or are we declaring ourselves to be slaves to our economic masters, even as we complain about the fact that they are our masters, bowing down to them?
Read more!