The Evil Amongst U.S. By Patrick Michael
Part 1
Historically there seems to be time tested mechanisms used to enslave large groups of people, but none more dangerous than the practice of usury through a controlled central banking system of a nation. We know through studying our recorded history, there is a "group" of people who have refused to stop this horrible and evil practice of putting their fellow man/woman into bondage through predatory usury lending by the utilization a controlled centralized banking system. I do not think it wise to name them with any general title for they appear to have taken the names of others whenever it suited their needs or ambitions throughout history. For anyone wanting a good book on the subject of central banking and usury, I highly recommend ‘The Enslavement of Mankind, A History Of Money Lending & Central Banking’ by Stephen Mittford Goodson. The actions of this “group” appear to be the impetus behind Hitler's rise to power as Germans were feeling the full weight of these international financiers, much like Russia and the United States in their past. We are currently learning firsthand what happens to a country, their principles, morals, ethics and their culture when the "State" becomes the master in contrast to the servant of the individuals of a Nation. This is known as Collectivism in contrast to Individualism. These contradictory systems are both in operation within the United States of America and it is due to the scheming plots of this wicked “group” and the useful idiots they employ.
The people that fought for the creation and sovereignty of the States in America set a new international precedent that threatened the hegemony of the ruling elites behind the Crown of Britain, the Church, and other international entities. I believe this is why our country has been under eternal threat and involved in continuous war since the Declaration of Independence. That was a document of sound logic, justice, and fundamental truth built upon the concept of individualism and Natural Law. Its aim was to free mankind from the oppression and abuses of arbitrary centralized power. It seems as though few have learned the true value of the great works put forth by these enlightened few that were behind the formation of the States of America and their perpetual Union, but I guess we could go all the way back to Plato and his renowned writing the Republic as well. Humanity seems to be stuck in the proverbial hamster wheel. It is likely that our own civil war, during the Lincoln administration was instigated by this "group" just as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. President Kennedy himself spoke of this "group" and their practices in his speech on April 27, 1961. You can listen to it here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jb8KqaerhQ.
We have been infiltrated and manipulated, this is without question due to our current state of suffering, corruption, and criminality. It seems no one has an answer or solution to stop this increasingly oppressive nightmare. Many claim violent revolution is our only recourse, or civil disobedience, or marching in protest. Some actually still believe they can alter our current reality through voting in the election of puppets, who appear to be nothing more than useful idiots at this point. It seems most are unable to recognize the source of our suffering. Have we always been this way? Has there ever been a time of peace and prosperity? A time of justice according to logic and commonsense? If so, how and why did we lose our freedoms and our logical rational aim? Maybe a better question would be when did we lose our principles, our ethics, our sense of justice and equality? I believe after reading and studying our history, the answers to these questions are available to those willing to look. It would appear we have lost our way due to our own ignorance and apathy, it happened when we abandoned our responsibilities in favor of placing them in the hands of others, worst of all, a government. It's not an easy thing to admit and it seems ignorance often leads to a victim mentality that dis-empowers the individual into an apathetic state of hopelessness and inaction. We are also confronted with the effects of cognitive dissonance and Stockholm syndrome; human behavior is an interesting thing that few seem to adequately understand. To avoid the evils within we must be vigilant in our studies and always seek the truth ourselves, there are no gurus.
Let’s start with a basic understanding of a creation of early civilization, a ‘State’ or ‘Nation’. A "State” is said to be the most universal and most powerful of all social institutions. Aristotle said man is a social animal and by nature, he is a political being. To him, to live in the state and to be a man were identical. Although I tend to agree with this description, it is important to understand that a State is nothing more than a fictional extension of the individuals that compose it. The “Law of Nations”, written by Emerich de Vattel, was built upon the law of nature of individuals, with some alterations. The State is organized and identified by their mutual beliefs, traditions, and principles. Every State inevitably creates some form of government. I believe there are two main philosophies of government throughout the history of civilization, Individualism and Collectivism. It would seem self-evident the founders of the United States of America believed in the promise of individualism since they built a system where "sovereignty" was shared among the people that comprised the State, its citizens. Washington wrote about the concept as "popular sovereignty" and our early courts used the analogy of “Kings without subjects". Our fundamental law, our Constitutions here in the United States of America, are built upon Individualism, not Collectivism. The government established in the U.S.A. is the most recent and largest iteration in recorded history of the experiment of self-government. The early judicial courts fully supported this as it was fundamental to our structure of government as written in our Constitutions which were called the supreme law of the land. We have lost our way though. We have a State within our Country that appears to have no limitations upon its power, operates under the philosophy of Collectivism, and continues to use its power to control, oppress and manipulate individuals. Its aim has been to enslave and corrupt. It is without doubt an evil within our Country, but, at the end of the day, it is still just a fiction in law and thus bound by the rules of our fundamental law. We now have the benefit of hindsight, of standing upon the established principles of law we can find in our treaties, constitutions, case cites, etc. One of these principles is the invalidity of compulsory citizenship into a State. Freewill comes with many blessings and gifts, but from my experience, it also demands responsibility and full accountability. Ignorance is no excuse and the concept of victimhood offers no value to people who yearn and strive to be self-governing as a free man/woman.
It is in our laws where I believe to have found a verifiable solution to our current suffering of Collectivism. Frederic Bastiat wrote in his book ‘The Law’, “Law is Force”. If law has been perverted to enforce ideologies contradictory to our fundamental principles then it only seems logical that we can use our law to correct the error. Law is just a tool, we need to raise our level of knowledge and learn how to use this tool of force. It is the Law which was written and expounded upon by many great thinkers throughout our history, it has steered society and our current civilization. Our judicial systems have had the task of taking on every challenge that has resulted from our seemingly unending spirit of exploration and adventure, of our evolution as creators and builders, as cultivators and pioneers. As we evolved, law was written and recorded to afford mankind a system of fixed principles upon which they could rely, much like we rely upon the sun to rise every day, the seasons to change, and nature to go on in perpetuity providing us with all the necessities to sustain life. From my perspective, law is built upon observation, understanding, justice, logic/rationality, tolerance and patience. It is objective not emotional, though one of our systems of law known as Equity, is very much predicated on our individual and independent ability to assess value in a very unique nature, such as personal property which may have 'sentimental value' and thus is monetarily irreplaceable. I would like to add, this is my perspective of the evolution of the common law from Europe and from our own common law in the United States of America. There are some "groups" which rely on religious beliefs and dogma as the foundation of their laws. The multitude of religious beliefs in the world have created many problems in civilization, especially as we began to travel and explore on a much larger scale, which led to numerous interactions including commercial intercourse. From what I've read, this was the reasoning, necessity, and benefit behind the addition of a body of law called "Conflict of Laws" or "Private International Law". (I highly recommend, for those interested in learning, reading a book by Francis Wharton called 'A Treatise on Private International Law', it can be found here for free https://archive.org/search.php?query=Francis%20Wharton%20Treatise%20on%20Private%20International%20Law)
And yet, it is this great body of knowledge which has been gutted, almost wholly vacated from our education. Twelve years of government run education without a single class on law, the closest I can remember touching on law was ‘American government’ or ‘social studies’. I graduated in 2002, I am always intrigued by the thought of what kids and young adults were reading and studying back in 1900 or prior to government intrusion into education. I can only imagine what type of information is currently being put in front of people going to universities, to "law" schools. The importance of education was well within the awareness of the founders of the United States of America, but it is safe to say they would never have trusted it in the hands of a government. I think it has become apparent, they would have been in all likelihood justified in their fears.
We have in our founding documents a set standard of operating according to sound money principles. This would be my number one evidence of why law is so important. The money used within a nation is very much determined by its fundamental law, money follows law. The founders were well aware of the dangers that banking and money systems played toward the sovereignty of a Nation. In support of this I share a writing from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor,
"The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life… And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
From the position of attempting to de-construct the key events that led to the here and now, it seems apparent that this "group" had to find a way to get around our fundamental law, our Constitutions. I believe this was the hidden agenda behind the instigation of the Civil War which led to the 14th amendment. Most do not understand how federalism operates and fewer still probably lack a general working knowledge of the Law of Nations otherwise called International Law. The 14th amendment created a new political body within our "Nation". The term Nation becomes a tricky word when venturing into International Law and federated states. There are a few key words which these infiltrators like to use in multiple ways, it creates confusion, which is how they are able to manipulate and deceive. I like the written definitions of Nation and Country from the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union, they make the distinction easier to see. In that document these two terms are defined as this at 1.1;
Nation would signify a homogenous political entity
Country would signify heterogeneous political entities
The United States of America is a country composed of many different nations according to these definitions. We start to have problems in the proper application of law when there is a lack of understanding the multiple layers that exist in a federated country built upon Individualism and self-government. All of the states of the Union are independent Nations. We have a government system known as ‘Dual Federalism’. Here is a good article on the subject, https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D9338%26context%3Dylj&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9722f292b3094cea196008d78b0bfc2e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637130755895724389&sdata=GGM2%2FOZQwhSK6scUMjs7UhDXMeyXn%2F7kJB%2Fc4I2Uqb8%3D&reserved=0
With the legislation of the 14th amendment, the United States is also a distinct Nation, since it now had its own citizens, though this Nation is not incorporated into the Union. This created a division within our 'general' or 'federal' government. This also created two distinct forms of citizenship within our country, one status being under the protections of our Constitutions (Federal and State), the other without any guaranteed written Constitutional protections. Prior to the 14th, U.S. citizenship or "national" (country) citizenship was based solely on state citizenship, there was no federal (U.S.) political body. The federal government only had the delegated enumerated powers of the Constitution which included exclusive jurisdiction over federal territory and the 10 square miles of the seat of government named District of Columbia. The 14th amendment granted the United States government political powers over people with the political status of U.S. citizen. This did not replace or alter state political citizenship as it already existed and was enjoyed by the people of the states, it would violate international law and our Constitutional law(amendment 9 and 10) for them to alter the status of a people wholly outside their defined exclusive territorial jurisdiction and delegated powers, I have court cites to validate this but I’m not including everything here since I'm just trying to explain a general outline of something that took years for myself to comprehend, it is a rather difficult chain of events to explain to everyday people with little legal or historical knowledge. Citations can be provided, please reach out if you are interested in learning more or take the time to study the topic yourself to increase your knowledge through self-education.
The 14th amendment was only an extension of federal citizenship to protect the civil rights of individuals within the United States of America(country) who were not granted the rights of state citizenship, most notably, slaves and their children that were now free due to the civil war and the 13th amendment. I could spend more time on this but I'm trying to keep it as condensed as possible without losing the substance. The 14th amendment by itself did not enslave the people of the United States of America, it only created a chink in the armor so to speak. The 14th amendment from my perspective opened Pandora’s box, since previous to this amendment the Federal government had very few contact points with individuals, they thus lacked any capacity or necessity to write legislation that could be confused as applying to individuals living in the states under their state governments. They had their limited enumerated powers, that was it. With their own citizens they now had the legal capacity to write legislation of all sorts. I will share a dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan from Downes v. Bidwell (1901), I would again recommend anyone interested in learning about what has happened to read his whole opinion provided in the link below;
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments -- one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. "To what purpose," Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison,1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 1§76, "are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."
The wise men who framed the Constitution and the patriotic people who adopted it were unwilling to depend for their safety upon what, in the opinion referred to, is described as “certain principles of natural justice inherent in Anglo-Saxon character which need no expression in constitutions or statutes to give them effect or to secure dependencies against legislation manifestly hostile to their real interests." They proceeded upon the theory -- the wisdom of which experience has vindicated -- that the only safe guaranty against governmental oppression was to withhold or restrict the power to oppress. They well remembered that Anglo-Saxons across the ocean had attempted, in defiance of law and justice, to trample upon the rights of Anglo-Saxons on this continent, and had sought, by military force, to establish a government that could at will destroy the privileges that inhere in liberty. They believed that the establishment here of a government that could administer public affairs according to its will, unrestrained by any fundamental law and without regard to the inherent rights of freemen, would be ruinous to the liberties of the people by exposing them to the oppressions of arbitrary power. Hence the Constitution enumerates the powers which Congress and the other departments may exercise -- leaving unimpaired, to the states or the People, the powers not delegated to the national government nor prohibited to the states. That instrument so expressly declares in the Tenth Article of Amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/
There is more to come, stay tuned for part 2.
This is an opinion piece based upon years of persistent research as my time has allowed. If you are aware of any errors I would be grateful for considerate corrections with supporting evidence/documentation. It is not my intent to mislead or spread incorrect information, the integrity of this information is of the utmost priority. If you are aware of information/evidence which supports these claims, I would likewise be appreciative of those willing to share.
Written by Patrick Michael