222 years ago the FIRST corporation that colonial Americans had lived under was 'modified'. That's what it says in the 'Preamble' to the 1787 Constitution. A mere nine years after the founders of the nation had formed a Confederacy, they were forming a 'more perfect' union among the States. That union was ALREADY called The United States of America, according to Article I of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
So . . . what was wrong with the FIRST United States of America?
For one thing, there is no mention of individuals (referred to as 'inhabitants' of the States) having any 'rights'. They are granted 'privileges', but no rights are mentioned except those enjoyed by the States. Nice to see that some of those same men eventually recognized this as lacking in the first contract, and corrected it in the second (only by amendment, as if in hindsight), but that is not the point of this post. The purpose is to point out that BOTH documents were literally articles of INCORPORATION.
Or didn't you get that when you were studying 'government' in high school? Your teachers didn't tell you (probably because they themselves hadn't thought in these terms?) that this was a compact, an agreement, a contract between STATES, and the men who 'belonged' to those States. It was probably not explained to you, nor did you stop to think about it, because your English instructors didn't give you a proper grounding in the language, that (as is so clearly pointed out toward the end of the Preamble to the 1787 Constitution) this new, or modified corporation, was set up for the benefit of THOSE men who signed it and THEIR posterity.
It was not set up for your benefit. It was not set up for the benefit of anybody else living at that time. It was set up for the landed gentry of the day, specifically the ones who actually signed the document, their CHILDREN and descendants (see Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary definition of the word 'posterity', if you don't believe this), anybody who followed them in their offices, of course, and NOBODY else.
So, my question is: why do we keep 'defending' this document with our lives, our children's lives, and our fortunes if the ONLY beneficiaries of the corporation are the wealthy who hold those offices and THEIR children?
Something to think about . . .
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
In the 234th year of our "declared" independence . . .
Thus begins our 234th year of 'declared' independence from the British Crown, our 'perceived' independence from rule by pretenders to the aristocracy. But are we really free of that influence and power?
One might argue that point, as 'The Informer' and James Montgomery do in their writings which can be found on these two websites:
http://www.atgpress.com
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books
When one digests all that is presented there, one sees that we have NEVER been free of control by England or the forces concentrated there - specifically 'The City' of London - and I make the distinction between that global trading arena and the city of London. Look it up. Until one realizes that we are STILL controlled and manipulated by political and economic forces far larger than we can imagine, one is incapable of grasping that we are, quite literally, slaves to one degree or another. Nothing has changed over the centuries. Our forefathers knew that on this day 234 years ago. They knew that something had to be done about their condition, else they would soon become slaves in fact, and not just in theory or through their pocketbooks. They were probably already talking about the "R" word (and the attendant "T" word) in pubs all across New England. How many of them knew, I wonder, that before the year was out, they would see the signing of a document that cemented all their hopes into one idea - that we ARE and do declare our independence from the usurpers of the world.
How many could have even guessed that 234 years AFTER that declaration, we would of necessity be considering the "R" word again, and for much the same reasons? This is likely going to be the year we either resolve to throw off the economic and political chains once again, and perhaps for good this time, or slide down that slippery slope to oblivion.
One might argue that point, as 'The Informer' and James Montgomery do in their writings which can be found on these two websites:
http://www.atgpress.com
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books
When one digests all that is presented there, one sees that we have NEVER been free of control by England or the forces concentrated there - specifically 'The City' of London - and I make the distinction between that global trading arena and the city of London. Look it up. Until one realizes that we are STILL controlled and manipulated by political and economic forces far larger than we can imagine, one is incapable of grasping that we are, quite literally, slaves to one degree or another. Nothing has changed over the centuries. Our forefathers knew that on this day 234 years ago. They knew that something had to be done about their condition, else they would soon become slaves in fact, and not just in theory or through their pocketbooks. They were probably already talking about the "R" word (and the attendant "T" word) in pubs all across New England. How many of them knew, I wonder, that before the year was out, they would see the signing of a document that cemented all their hopes into one idea - that we ARE and do declare our independence from the usurpers of the world.
How many could have even guessed that 234 years AFTER that declaration, we would of necessity be considering the "R" word again, and for much the same reasons? This is likely going to be the year we either resolve to throw off the economic and political chains once again, and perhaps for good this time, or slide down that slippery slope to oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)