Saturday, November 3, 2018
Analysis of FDR's First Inaugural Speech - Why No American Should Vote Democrat. Ever.
By Anna Von Reitz
For
you --- the First Inaugural Speech of FDR, which is the only one that
truly counts, de-constructed with all key legal terms of art in purple.
These are all terms that a person with a normal 7th or 8th grade
education (the standard for law written at this time) could not possibly
be expected to know as legal terms apart from their common meaning.
Please note that two days later on March 6, 1933, FDR addressed The
Conference of Governors (private, Territorial) and secured the "pledge"
of "their states" and "citizenry thereof"---- which could only and
exclusively mean the British Territorial United States and the
Territorial States of States put in place during the Reconstruction Era:
SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1933
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.
Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States--a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.
In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others-- the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.
Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for un-delayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.
We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stem performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.
In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.
______________________________________________________
Comment: each and every single one of the words appearing in purple are special legal terms and words of art having particular meanings and implications that no eighth grader on Earth could be expected to know.
What he basically said in "Federal-ese" is that he was going to conscript everyone, seize upon their lives and property as "gifts", "pledge" it all to royal and religious institutional creditors (primarily the Holy See), regulate everything especially labor and utilities to high Hell for government profits, re-distribute wealth and displace populations, impose gag orders on the media, and prey upon the actual American People for the "good" of the "democracy" of the "United States" ----which virtually everyone in that audience interpreted as meaning The United States and as America, not the separate foreign hegemony of the deceptively similarly-named British Territorial United States.
Anyone still want to claim that it was "our fault" and that we '"voluntarily" "consented" to all of this crap and that we were given "full disclosure" of what FDR set in motion and all the false claims in commerce and the false conscriptions and confiscations that he and his pals in the Democratic Party pulled against the innocent American States and People?
Friday, November 2, 2018
Dual Versus Singular Citizenship
By Anna Von Reitz
One
of the things that sets "U.S. Citizenship" apart from American State
Citizenship is duality. The Federales --- from their standpoint anyway
--- are content to let you keep your "state citizenship" intact and
still also be considered a "U.S. Citizen". As it says in their 14th
Amendment --- "citizen of the United States" and "the state in which
they reside".
[Please
note --- it's their 14th Amendment, not ours, and it's an "Amendment"
to their corporation's Articles of Incorporation disguised as "a"
Constitution. And you are right, their 14th Amendment was never ratified
by the States of the Union, for the simple reason that amending the
By-Laws of a Scottish commercial corporation only requires approval by
the Board of Directors --- in this case, the Territorial United States
Congress.]
The problem is that the Federales can't alter the rules that the States adopted, which require a single State Citizenship.
The actual States don't recognize Dual Citizenship. You are either a Minnesotan or you are not.
It
doesn't matter to them if you came from Germany or Zimbabwe. You have
the option once you have immigrated through the U.S. and established
your new permanent domicile on the land of Minnesota to declare yourself
a Minnesotan.
When
you do, you have to leave all other claims of foreign allegiance and
nationality behind. The Founders considered Dual Citizenship to be
"serving two Masters" and an inherent "conflict of interest" that could
not be condoned.
So, if you wish to retain your identity as a Wisconsinite, you have to go whole hog or none.
Wisconsin
will not recognize you as one of its own if you voluntarily retain any
other political allegiance, including any allegiance to the Territorial
State of Wisconsin or the Municipal STATE OF WISCONSIN. You have to
cleave to the actual State and not merely "reside" there on a temporary
basis, if you want to be recognized as an American State Citizen.
Throughout
most of our history this was clearly understood and it was also
understood that our people sometimes migrated back and forth between
their State Citizenship and "United States Citizenship". Men who served
in the military were considered to be on a temporary "loan" to the
United States and to be "residing" in Federal jurisdiction during their
period of service obligation, but returned home upon discharge from the
service. Same thing with Congressional Delegates, who did their business
in the District of Columbia, and then returned home to their home
States.
The
First Naturalization Act passed by the United States Congress described
a lengthy process by which an American State Citizen could transition
to permanent United States Citizenship, if they wished to do so. It
required posting Notices over time and supporting oneself without public
assistance and committing no felonies, etc., There is no doubt that
adopting "United States Citizenship" versus birthright citizenship as a
Citizen of Maine, was a sober, deliberate, and lengthy process.
Also,
all new immigrants had to pass through "United States Citizenship"
before adopting a final State Citizenship, and again, the decision to
adopt State Citizenship required deliberate action on the part of each
one.
Say
that you came from Germany originally. You would first pass through the
Naturalization process and become a "United States Citizen". You were
then free to move about the country and not subject to the INS anymore,
no green cards, no quasi-parole status as a visitor--- but you were not a
State Citizen.
In
order to become a State Citizen, you had to (and still have to) meet
other requirements and make the deliberate choice to "declare" your
intention and publish it and establish a home in the State of your
choice and stay there for a stipulated period of time (usually a year)
without committing any felonies or making use of public assistance.
There is a famous case from Minnesota (Rheume) that discusses the necessity of immigrants declaring their State Citizenship.
The
fundamental difference is that "U.S. Citizens" occupy the Federal
jurisdiction within a State and "reside" in the federated "States of
States", whereas State Citizens live in their State of the Union.
Example:
An active duty Lieutenant in the US Air Force lives in the State of
South Dakota, but my friend Anne lives in South Dakota "proper".
Think
in terms of Army bases like Fort Hood, for example, which exists within
the borders of Texas. You have people from every State who live within
the confines of Fort Hood which is Federal Territory within Texas and
for the term of their service obligation, all those active duty
personnel are "U.S. Citizens" living in the "State of Texas" even though
they may have been born in Texas and have their natural birthright
nationality and citizenship as Texans.
When
they leave active duty and inform the General Staff of the Army that
they are returning home to Texas and their birthright political status,
they pop back into view as Texans and as State Citizens of Texas.
The
British Territorial United States and the Municipal United States
oligarchy run by the members of the Territorial Congress have long
sought to keep everyone in the status of "U.S. Citizen" because that
allows them to tax and control and make claims against the assets of the
people involved. It is that monetary self-interest that has led to most
of the abuses we now suffer and also to the corruption of the courts
and the obfuscation of the facts about State Citizenship.
They
don't want you to know that you can adopt your lawful State Citizenship
and enjoy your freedoms and the guarantees of the Constitutions,
because they lose money and control when you renounce "U.S. Citizenship"
in favor of, for example, Texas Citizenship.
Nonetheless
it is your birthright as an American, and so long as you are not a
federal employee, dependent, or "voluntarily" operating as a U.S.
corporation, THEY have nothing to say about it, except, "Yes, Sir!"
----------------------------
See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
----------------------------
See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
Activists Won the UK’s First Court Case Against 5G, Removing the Gag from an Engineer Who Warned of Its Dangers
G. Griffin report
Engineer Mark Steele
UK: Mark Steele, an engineer on EMF and GSM technologies and
an activist against 5G wireless technology, campaigned against the dangers of a
secret 5G rollout by Gateshead Council where residents are complained of
increased illness and cancer in the affected area. Evidence shows the new smart
5G devices on the top of new LED street lights emit Class 1 Radiation
frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the public. Gateshead Council responded with a campaign
on social media and printing leaflets that falsely claimed that the street
lamps were safe. In addition, a police
gag was placed on Mr Steele! However,
Steele won his court case and the judge removed the gag order, setting a
precedent allowing other activists to challenge their local Councils. Many Councils welcomed 5g and the promise of
increasing taxes due to the “benefits” of 5G that may include 24/7 police
surveillance, the ability to see through walls, 4k live streaming on the move,
driverless vehicles, mobile virtual reality, and a fast connection for a brain
implant, Neuralink, giving people the Internet inside their mind. 5G is a battlefield weapon...Continue article here
Who are the Bush family really? According to Otto Skorzeny, pictured is the Scherff family and a few friends (circa 1938).....
Deathbed confessions
photos support claims that George H. Scherf(f), Jr.,
was the 41st U.S. president
According to Otto Skorzeny, pictured is the Scherff family and a few friends (circa 1938). Holding "Mother" Scherff's hand at left is Martin Bormann. In front is Reinhardt Gehlen. In back is Joseph Mengele and to his right is Skorzeny as a young man.At center right (in the German navy uniform) is George H. Scherff, Jr. and his father George H. Scherff, Sr. Bormann became Hitler's second in command. Reinhardt Gehlen was a chief SS officer and assassin who was smuggled out of Germany under Operation Paperclip.Skorzeny was Hitler's bodyguard and SS spy/assassin who came to the U.S. after the war under Project Paperclip. Skorzeny and GHW Bush were instrumental in merging Nazi (SS) intelligence with the OSI to form the CIA with "Wild Bill" Donovan and Allen Dulles.These guys were also part of CIA mind control experiments such as MK-ULTRA. SS officer and physician Joseph Mengele, the notoriously sadistic "Angel of Death" of Auschwitz, escaped Germany to South America after the war. George H. Scherff, Jr., became the 41st President of the United States as GHW Bush and George H. Scherff, Sr., was Nicola Tesla's "trusted assistant."
What you are about to read is another step beyond research pioneered in the early 90s by author/historian Webster Tarpley based largely on deathbed "clues" provided by former Hitler bodyguard Otto Skorzeny and his box of photographs. Since Skorzeny's death in 1999, the various leads he provided have been followed up and tend to support what, at first blush, would appear to be the unbelievable rantings of an embittered old man.
.
What remains constant as we pore through publicly available official records, private correspondence, memoirs, newspaper articles, photos and other "clues" is that Bush family records (the ones that exist) are a puzzle palace of inconsistencies and curiosities.
Since it is a congressionally established fact that Prescott Bush was in business with the Nazis during WWII, we can safely say that the Bush/Nazi connection existed.
The answers are not as literal as we would like them to be. But we have the testimony of Otto Skorzeny and his photos - especially the one above. So, here we go - the first installment of an investigation that points to a curious conclusion:
The "Bush" familywas created to destroy America.
Zimbabwe Reports Discovery of Oil, Gas Deposits
HARARE, ZIMBABWE —
Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa said Thursday that an Australian company had discovered oil deposits on Zimbabwe's border with Mozambique.
Economists, however, said It was far too early for the fuel-challenged country to start popping champagne corks.
Mnangagwa said at an emergency press briefing that he had "important news for Zimbabwe."...Continue article here
'Migrant Caravan' Members Sue Trump Over 'Shockingly Unconstitutional' Asylum Crackdown
Global Genius Trust http://www.ggtrust.com
'Migrant Caravan' Members Sue Trump Over 'Shockingly Unconstitutional' Asylum Crackdown FACT: The "mockingbird press" wants us to pretend that our U.S. Constitutional rights extend TO THE ENTIRE WORLD. That is FALLACIOUS REASONING at its best. Stop it now. Share the following information. If you do not accept the responsibility for protecting your own rights... nobody else will do it. QUOTE: We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
FACT: Most of us living in the USA are not migrants. We were born here. We are the citizens of the USA and we are legally protected by our constitutional rights. ILLEGAL ALIENS and those OUTSIDE OF OUR BORDERS are not. FACT: The U.S. Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (aka 1-10 Amendments) as well as the Bill of Rights voted into every state constitution, apply to those who are LEGAL citizens... natural born and naturalized. They do NOT apply to illegals anywhere. FACT: Americans have been taught FALSE information since the end of WW-1... so go figure... they have no clue the legal definition of "Constitutional Rights"... and even the liberalized judges with perks have no clue. HUGE NEWS: The Federal Republic for the United States was reinstated via the International legal institution called The Hague in 2012... and copies of the documents have been widely disseminated... which MEANS.... THAT OUR ORIGINAL RIGHTS ARE RESTORED and the liberal Progressive "ca-ca" has been removed.
KNOWLEDGE:
Constitutional Rights - Legal Dictionary | Law.com https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=314 constitutional rights. n. rights given or reserved to the people by the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). These rights ...
CALL THE PRESIDENT and your reps... tell them.... shut the border, shoot invaders, and use the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution which states: FIRST PARAGRAPH of U.S. Constitution: 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, 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.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: From the Trenches World Report <donotreply@wordpress.com> Date: Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:47 AM Subject: [New post] Migrants traveling to US sue Trump, government; claim violation of constitutional rights
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/migrants-traveling-to-us-sue-trump-government-claim-violation-of-constitutional-rights/235800
++++++
SECOND SOURCE 'Migrant Caravan' Members Sue Trump Over 'Shockingly Unconstitutional' Asylum Crackdown
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-02/migrant-caravan-members-sue-trump-over-shockingly-unconstitutional-border-policies
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/02/2018 - 09:15
President Trump's rhetoric about the organized 'caravans' of migrants plodding toward the US border has been nothing short of incendiary, as the president has threatened to send as many as 15,000 troops to the border to stop the mobs of "dangerous people" from entering the country. Among other claims, Trump hinted that he might ask soldiers to fire on the migrants if they start pelting border agents with rocks, and that he would be building "massive cities of tents" to house the would-be asylum seekers as they await their hearings in an effort to end the "abuse" of the US asylum seekers.
Well, apparently these remarks haven't sat well with members of the caravan and their shadowy financial backers, because a group of 12 migrants, six of them children, have filed a lawsuit against Trump, claiming his efforts to beef up security along the border, and threats to deprive them of asylum, represent "shockingly unconstitutional" attacks on their rights, according to Fox News.
The Fifth Amendment stipulates that "no person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." And ironically, none other than former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia helped cement these protections by ruling in a 1993 case that "it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in a deportation proceeding."
Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit alleges that it is widely known that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are enmeshed in an "undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis." Furthermore, the suit claims that Trump cannot stop migrants from entering the US when they have a credible claim of asylum, according to the Washington Examiner.
Here's more from Fox:
The lawsuit points to Trump's claim that he will prevent the caravan from entering the U.S. It claims that the president cannot stop asylum-seekers by employing the military - when they have a fair claim. The suit criticized the president's attempt at stoking "fear and hysteria," by claiming that criminals and gang members have joined the caravan.
The suit cited a Trump interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where the president laid out plans to build tent cities to house migrants. The suit questioned the functionality of such a project, and asked if these living quarters would qualify under the Flores Agreement of 1997. The agreement protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.
Earlier this summer, a federal judge in California rejected a request by the administration to modify Flores to allow for longer family detention. Administration officials say they have the authority to terminate the agreement, but that is likely to be tested in court.
The suit also alleges that the US can't send troops across the US-Mexico border to stop migrants from entering the US. It also argues that Trump can't demand that asylum seekers present themselves at lawful border-crossing points, as US law states that an asylum seeker can declare their intention to seek asylum anywhere (the president said last week that he intends to issue an executive order declaring that asylum seekers declare at lawful border checkpoints).
Nexus Services Inc. is funding the lawsuits through a civil rights law firm called Nexus Derechos Humanos (Human Rights) Attorneys Inc.
"Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States. President Trump and his administration have used ‘increased enforcement,’ like separating families and lengthening detention to violate migrant rights," Mike Donovan, president of Nexus Services, said in the release.
There is another legal issue at stake, according to the lawsuit. The U.S. cannot send troops into Mexico to cut off the caravan from crossing the border. Even with the National Guard at the border, once an immigrant indicates an intention to apply for asylum, the process has begun.
The White House, Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security were all named as defendants in the suit. The lawsuit is seeking an immediate judgment for the plaintiffs and a court declaration that Trump's border plan is unconstitutional.
END QUOTE
Tucker Carlson: Illegal Immigration: It's About Power
PragerU
Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
