United States Conspiracy

Colonel Philip Reed commanded the Maryland Militia at the battle of “Caulk’s Field”. He was a native of Kent County, Maryland and just 16 at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. He left school to enlist, joining a volunteer company in his county. On July 22nd, 1776, just 16 days after the Decla-ration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia, Col. Wil-liam Henry inspected Reed’s volunteer company and it passed into service in the Continental Army.
Having seen hard service in the Revolutionary War and having risen from private to the rank of captain, at the close of the war Philip Reed returned to his home in Kent, becoming active in his county’s public life. He was a member of the Parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church and attended services in the little brick parish church.
In 1806, he was elected to the United States Senate, serving that time for one year. After that term, he was ree-lected and served until 1813. Also in 1813, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel of the volunteers of the State of Maryland, and, as previously noted, commanded the 21st Mary-land Militia until peace was restored with Great Britain after the War of 1812. Colonel Reed became a charter member of the Maryland Society of Cincinnati and in 1828, and was elected Vice President of the society. He died on November 2nd, 1829, at 69 years of age, and was buried in Christ Church Cemetery. A memorial slab marks the grave of this most distinguished citizen.
So, we can see that he took his service to the country and the ideals of the constitutional republic seriously. In his mind, for a high-ranking American politician to conspire against these beliefs would have amounted to high treason and at that time, loss of citizenship was considered reasonable.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland first proposed the original 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 18, 1810. The first version read as follows: “If any citizen of the United States, shall accept of any title of nobility, from any king, prince or foreign state, such citizen shall thenceforth be incapable of holding any office of honor or profit, under the United States.”
Then, on January 29, 1810, a Revised Version of the proposed amendment, which includes the revocation of citizenship for those who violate the prohibition, is read to the Senate. This would render a convicted citizen ineligible to hold any public office under the United States or any state of the union.
The revised version of the amendment read as follows: “If any citizen of the United States, shall except of any title of nobility, or of any other title of distinction from any emperor, king, prince, potentate, or foreign state, or shall hold the same by descent, or shall intermarry with any descent of any emperor, king, or prince, or with any person of the blood royal, such citizen shall thenceforth, be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states; and shall also be incapable of holding any office of honor, profit or trust under them, or either of them.”
The language of the first and the revised amendment is quite revealing and should be closely examined. The first item that stands out is that Congress plays no part in granting an exception to any part of the prohibition.
The next item that stands out is a prohibition on marriage between a citizen of the United States with any royal blood-line. The last several items of the revised amendment proposed on January 29, 1810, amounts to a loss of citizenship and the ineligibility to hold any office of honor, profit or trust or any combination thereof. On February 13, 1810, the “Titles of Nobility” amendment was recommended for further consideration by a select committee consisting of Senators Philip Reed of Maryland, Michael Leib of Pennsylvania, Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, William H. Crawford of Georgia, and William Branch Giles of Virginia.
On February 15, 1810, an amended version of the “Titles of Nobility” amendment is reported to the Senate which includes the phrase “Title of Distinction”, but the phrase and overall text was too cumbersome in construction and was ultimately stricken from the language of the amendment. The amendment was proposed on February 15, 1810 and read as follows: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign state. And if any citizen of the United States shall accept any title of nobility or any other title of distinction, above or below that of nobility, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign state, or shall hold the same by dissent, such citizens shall henceforth be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states; and shall also be incapable of holding any of office of profit or trust, under them, or either of them.”
This version of the amendment included the phrase “any other title of distinction, above or below that of nobility”. This would have been highly problematic because many Ameri-can politicians were lawyers, and having passed the British bar, held the designation of Esquire which was below the rank of nobility.
April 11, 1810, the committee again reports an amended proposal to the Senate, which read as follows: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim or hold any title of nobility or honor derived from any emperor, king, prince or other foreign power, such person shall thenceforth cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them.”
It’s interesting to note that the permission of Congress was again excluded from this version of the amendment. It seems apparent that they were arguing about including or exempting Congress from the process of the prohibition.
On April 26, 1810, a motion to delay voting on the proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 20 to 8. A proposed amendment was finally agreed upon and on April 27, 1810, the Senate voted 26 to 1 to pass the 13th amendment. The final language of the amendment read as follows: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
The original 13th amendment was then sent to the U.S. House and with considerable support from Federalists in both Massachusetts and New York and Democratic Republi-cans in the South, it was approved of by an 87 to 3 vote.
Eighteen of Virginia’s 21 members voted in favor of the amendment and 17 of Pennsylvania’s 18 members also voted for it. It was then sent out to the states for ratification. At that time, it was determined that 13 of the existing 17 states were required to make it a lawful part of the U.S. Con-stitution.
Researchers and historians have been baffled as to why Senator Reed introduced the original 13th amendment in the first place. Some have held that he may not have had any reason at all which I find ridiculous.
Others hold that it had to do with the marriage of an American citizen to one of Napoleon’s relatives and this may have been in part a consideration due to the intermarry language of one of the amended versions, but I don’t feel that it was the primary reason for introducing the amendment.
I searched through many old historical books trying to find the answer to this puzzle. I finally came across a book, which, in my opinion, held the key as to the primary reason for the amendment’s introduction. The title of the book is the “General Personal Index of the Journals of Congress” from the Ninth to the Sixteenth Congress inclusive, being an index of the personal record of members of Congress from 1805 to 1821.
It was printed in Washington by the government printing office in 1887. On page 129, at the upper part of the right- hand column under Reed, Philip Continued, we see a nota-tion that states; “remarks made by, on Smith, John (Senator from Ohio): Connection with “ Burr’s Conspiracy,” 1807-8, 10. 1, annals 96.”
Before getting into Burr’s Conspiracy, we should delve into Senator Philip Reed’s mindset at the time, so we can better understand the amendment and the reasoning behind its introduction.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

There was a Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, U.S. History and the Constitution which was compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, to teach our young men in the military services the fundamental principles upon which our Government was founded.
The precise and scholarly definitions presented through-out the manual were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definitions take precedence over any definitions that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries, which have suffered periodic modification to please the powers in office.
Shortly after the “bank holiday” in 1933, orders from the FDR White House suddenly demanded without explana-tion that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed. So began the demagogic de-scent of the United States and the subversion of the Constitution into Americanized National Socialism, bankruptcy and the continued state of national emergency that we have experienced as a nation for the past 76 years. I submit that none of this would have come about if the original 13th amendment had not been illegally removed.
Today, there is a great deal of reference by the media and sadly, even by many of our elected officials to “our democracy” or “this democracy” when referring to our govern-ment.
The Founding Fathers of our Nation wisely established a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy, and there are many important differences. The differences can be debated and argued in many ways, but the best and simplest definitions are printed in this Training Manual. It can be found by Googling “TM 2000-25.” What little remained of our Constitutional Republic after the Civil War, was crushed and replaced with a Na-tional Socialist Democracy. Here is an extract of the first part of that book.

TRAINING MANUAL } WAR DEPARTMENT,
No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928.

CITIZENSHIP

Prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training

The use of the publication “The Constitution of the United States,” by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

The source of other references is shown in the bibliography.

PART I — GENERAL

SECTION Paragraphs
I. Introduction 1-7
II. Mission of Course 8-11
III. Time Allotted 12
IV. Method of Instruction 13-20

SECTION I INTRODUCTION Paragraph
National defense 1
Citizenship training 2
Individual initiative 3
Foundation of citizenship 4
Social phase of citizenship 5
Economic phase of citizenship 6
Philosophy of American Government 7
1. National defense. — Under the national defense act as amended in 1920, the War Department, among its many other duties, is charged with the task of recruiting and training the young men of our Nation through enlistments in the Regular Army, voluntary enlistment in the Reserve Officers Training Corps of high schools, colleges, universities, and in the 30-day training period in citizens’ military training camps throughout the nine corps areas of the United States. The combined aver-age yearly strength of these various units approximates some 260,000 young men between the ages of 16 and 25 years, the most critical period in the determination of their real value as citizens of our country.
It is therefore, essential that the training of these young men embody, with their instruction in military science, at least a basic course in the science of government and the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the individual citizen, in order that they may be re-turned to civilian life better equipped as the defenders of the institutions of our Government in time of peace as well as in time of war.
2. Citizenship training. — Training in citizenship is the most vital of all subjects to that nation whose system of government, security of property, and full power to express individual initiative are based upon the intelli-gence, education, and character of each individual citi-zen.
3. Individual initiative. — Individual initiative is the product of slow progress in the development of the idea and ideals of self-goveinment. It was cherished in the minds of the early Germanic tribes, transmitted by them in the fifth century to the conquered British Isles, there developed and finally transferred in principle to the shores of America 300 years ago.
From the landing of the first settlers through the slow and perilous years of colonial development, the strug-gles of the Revolutionary days, the hardships and privations following the adoption of our Constitution, the winning of the Great West, the fight to save our Union, and the tremendous accomplishments in the development of agricultural and industrial resources, individual initiative, coupled with community cooperation, has been a determining factor, a spur to our achievements, and a guaranty to our national security.
The protest of the Colonies against usurpation of the rights of citizens, the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the writing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States. and the ever-increasing development in population, industry, wealth, and security, denoting the achievements of the United States, would not have been possible lacking the spirit of individual initiative and the talent for self-government. The United States worked out its own destiny by the simple process of hard labor inspired with the knowledge of full opportunity in the exercise of individual ability, and sure reward and protection in the possession of the fruits of their labor.
4. Foundation of citizenship. — In any instruction in citi-zenship productive of lasting results, there must be woven into the study the story of the faith, sacrifice, service, and achievements of the pioneers of America from the landing of the Pilgrims to the settlement of the Great West and the development of our vast national resources. This story, pregnant with hope, faith, courage, and the will to work is the rock foundation upon which to build the structure of citizenship in the youth of today that the future may be assured in perpetuity of the institutions, principles, ideals, and traditions the development of which has made the United States great among the nations of the world.
A study of the census reports of the United States, particularly during the past 50 years, reveals a condition that to every thinking man and woman is fraught with grave danger to the continuation and maintenance of our constitutional form of government and the blessings of liberty which we enjoy. We must be prepared to recognize this situation and find the solution of the problem.
6. Social phase of citizenship. — As the result of the changing life stream of America, there has arisen one of the greatest problems of our national life. Up to 30 years ago approximately 90 per cent of all immigration to America was of Anglo-Saxon origin, that race of people which has been working out the problem of self-government for nearly 2,000 years. Due to the re-markable impetus given to industrial development following 1890, opportunity for employment was offered and every inducement made to secure the immigration of European common labor, resulting in an immediate change in the type of immigration to America, by which central. eastern, and southern Europe increased their totals by over fifty times in the 50 years from 1870 to 1920.
The history of the nations from which this later immi-gration originated is that of large cultural advantages in art. literature, and science, enjoyed by the ruling and favored minority, while oppression, privation, and suf-fering were endured by the great majority of their sub-jects.
This latter class, without knowledge of self-government, denied the opportunity for self-development, eagerly responding to the call of Ameri-can opportunity, emigrated to our shores, here to enjoy full participation in the rights of American citizenship without a proper understanding of the meaning of liberty or the nature and value of our free institutions, the very foundation of which is laid in intelligent and active participation in government by our individual citizens.
A course of instruction in citizenship to be effective must develop the social phase of citizenship and be particularly directed to the native and foreign-born youth, setting up a clear understanding of this great problem of assimilation and amalgamation of the bloods of all nations into the virile life stream of America.
6. Economic phase of citizenship. — The industrial achievements of America have become the marvel of the world. Therefore the economic phase of citizenship must be developed with careful study and with all the wisdom we possess that we may assure continued progress to the welfare, tranquillity, and enrichment of our own citizens and at the same time steer a safe course for our ship of state in the maelstrom of world envy engendered by a knowledge of our wealth and power.
In the accomplishment of our industrial achievements the United States has reinvested its profits in the development of horsepower, automatic machinery, labor-saving devices, transportation, communication, or-ganization, administration, and, since the World War, has given further impetus to its accomplishments by sharing more and more the fruit of her industries with the wage-earning class. In the progress thus made the demand for brains to replace brawn has been an ever-increasing factor in the production of our goods as to quantity and quality in order to maintain our sense of well-being, high standards of living, and to meet the competition of the world at large.
A course of instruction in citizenship must emphasize the necessity of the education of our masses as an economic measure in supplying the great need of modern industry.
7. Philosophy of American Government. — The philosophy of government, as set up under our Constitution, finds its keynote in individualism as opposed to that misguided philosophy of government, collectivism, which makes the State paramount in its demands over the inalienable rights of its individual citizens. Incomprehensible as it may seem, the political problems of America and of the world at large are embodied in this question of individualism as opposed to collectivism as the philosophy of government for the future develop-ment and welfare of nations.
Emphasis must be laid upon the benefits and advantages accruing to each individual citizen of our country under the form of government set up as the supreme law of the land in the Constitution of the United States of America.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

One of the primary objectives of those who truly control this country is to take away our right to own weapons; that is, to abrogate the Second Amendment. However, they know this cannot be done directly. So, they do it in small steps. I believe it was Adolph Hitler who said something to the effect that you could make a people or a nation do anything you wanted so long as you spoon-fed it to them over a long pe-riod of time in small installments. And that’s exactly how these forces work, from within our government and from without.
These forces have been trying to pass a law in one of the states wherein you must have a owner’s registration card in order to own a firearm, but to get the gun owner registration card you must show that you have no less than $1 million dollars of insurance on each firearm. Now, how many people can afford $1 million dollars of insurance on each firearm?
Where in the Constitution does it say that this is a requirement? You see, the federal government isn’t saying that you don’t have the right to bear and keep arms, it’s simply passing laws that make it extremely difficult if not virtually impossible for you to legally do so. If this law catches on in this one state, the federal government will try it in another and another until such time as it seems to have set a legal precedent. From there the government may try to pass a federal law that all states must adhere to this type of law.
Bingo! You now have the right to keep and bear arms so long as you can afford it and as we can see from the ecocomic circumstances of today, they’re doing everything they can to steal every scrap of economic vitality that the people of this nation still possess.
The framers of the Constitution held that any law that was contrary to the Constitution or in other words unconstitutional had no force on the states or the people. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution originally had a comma between the two sentences, which left it abundantly clear that the people of this nation have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is silent on any additional requirements such as waiting periods, background checks, or fully automatic assault weapons.
In the early 1930’s, you could walk into a hardware store and buy a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun with an 80-round barrel clip, purchase all the ammunition you could carry and it was perfectly legal.
The Thompson submachine gun was also one of the favorite weapons mobsters used at that time, and based on this concern, Congress passed a law that stopped the sale of these weapons. We the people are constantly being victimized by the actions of a few. The intent of the Second Amendment was not only to afford the individual the ability to defend his or herself from others who might mug, rob, or otherwise harm them, but also to afford people the ability to defend themselves from a central government gone nuts!
Government, through the secret societies and over many decades, has continuously chipped away at our Constitutional Republic to the point that today, it exists in namesake only for the convenience of projecting something we’re not. Without exception, every branch of our government has been infected by this pollution.
The Supreme Court continues to render decisions based not solely on constitutional law but on international law as well. It also contends that eminent domain is constitutional. Yet I find nothing in the Constitution for the United States or the Federalist Papers that supports this position. Apparently, the same is true for many cities and counties across the United States as they have been passing laws and ordinances declaring that they will not adhere to, utilize, or recognize the Supreme Court’s ruling having to do with eminent domain.
Although I do not always agree with the determinations of Justice Antonin Scalia (U.S. Supreme Court), I do agree with his interpretational status of the Constitution in that: “It is a dead document. It means what it meant at the time it was written.”
It took me quite some time and additional learning before I clearly understood his position on this matter. Without a doubt, there are some parts of the Constitution that are no longer applicable to our world today. The circumstances that caused the specific inclusions of terms or provisions no longer exist. However, it is equally true that the core ele-ments of this document, including the original 13th amendment, up to the onset of the Civil War are, for the most part, timeless. So long as there are governments and citizens, there will be a need for justice and equality.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

In 1833, when President Andrew Jackson started removing U.S. government deposits from the Rothschild-controlled Second Bank of the United States, the Rothschilds panicked and fought back by constricting the money supply, which caused a depression. President Jackson knew what was happening and later commented that “You’re a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to route you out, and by the eter-nal god, I will route you out.”
Then, on January 30, 1835, an alleged agent of the Rothschilds was sent to assassinate President Jackson but found that both of his pistols misfired. President Jackson later claimed that he knew the Rothschilds were responsible for the attempted assassination. Richard Lawrence who was the intended assassin was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He later bragged that powerful people in Europe had hired him and promised to protect him if he were caught.
It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up a third central bank in the United States called the Federal Reserve. But, this time, to insure that no mis-takes were made, they would put one of their own bloodline in charge of the project.
In 1840, the Rothschilds set up agencies in California and Australia. In 1841, President John Tyler vetoed the act to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States. He would receive hundreds of letters threatening his assassina-tion because of his courage.
The British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, published “Coningsby” and in it, he characterized Nathan Mayer Roth-schild as “the lord and master of the money markets of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of everything else. He literally held the revenues of southern Italy in his palm, and monarchs and ministers of all countries courted his advice, inwardly guided by his suggestions.”
Mayer Amschel Rothchild’s wife, Gutle Schnaper, died in 1849. Before dying she would state, “If my son did not want wars there would be none.”
In 1852, Nathan Mayer Rothschild & Son begin refining gold and silver for the Royal Mint, the Bank of England and other international customers. In 1861, President Lincoln ap-proached the big banks in New York to obtain loans in sup-port of the ongoing American Civil War.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

The U.S. government pledged everything from 1933 forward as collateral for its loans. You, your children, your home, property, savings, pensions, businesses, corporations, and virtually everything else you can imagine.
The laws and acts passed, such as income tax, and social security, were designed to control the states and their citizens under a “federal veil” of the U.S. government by contract. This was done to execute the terms of the bankruptcy.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear allodial title to property which was free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the “Federal Reserve Act” was passed in 1913.
They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, U.S. national parks, forests, birth certificates, and non-profit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All of these things have already been transferred as payment to the international bankers under the hypothecated scheme.
The Federal Reserve System agreed to extend to the federal United States “Corporation” all the credit “money substitute” it needed in exchange for total ownership of the United States.
General Cornwallis’ declaration to George Washington over 200 years ago has come true. But, if this wasn’t bad enough, those of us who uphold and defend the Constitution in an effort to restrain and push back the unwarranted, and unconstitutional intrusions of the federal government and the United Nations upon the States, are now considered ene-mies of the State.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

In the first paragraph of the Paris Treaty of 1783, we see that the King of England declared himself to be the “Prince Elector” of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States of America! Electors were among the princes of the empire, but they had privileges in addition to their electoral ones, which were not given to their non-electoral brethren. The dignity of electors was extremely prestigious, and second only to the king or emperor. It far exceeded such offices as count, duke, and archduke. The king simply extended and his royal title to cover his electorate over the United States of America.
As rulers of states of the empire, they enjoyed all the privileges of the other princes, including the right to enter into alliances, but especially in relation to dynastic affairs and precedence over other subjects.
However, the Golden Bull recognized certain additional rights belonging to these electors. For instance, electors were granted a monopoly over all gold and silver mines and other metals within their territories, to tax Jews, to collect polls and to mint money.
Electors could appear in person or could appoint another elector as their proxy and most often an electoral suite or embassy was sent to cast the vote. In short, the king simply extended his title and declared his ownership of all gold, silver, copper, toll collections, mines, taxation of Jews, and the right to mint money in the Treaty of 1783 and our elected Representatives signed it!
The U.S. Constitution holds that any treaties entered into by the National government is binding on the states and the people of the several states. The monarchy was well aware that by retaining control of the nation’s money, it could control the nation, and eventually regain all the property and control over the inhabitants by indirect and concealed usurpation of powers back to the Crown of England via American citizens and politicians acting as agents for the monarchy.
All that our elected Representatives did was to end the hostilities and gain status and privileges granted by the king, and insure the subjugation of unwitting future generations of American citizens.
They sold out those that had given their lives and property for a chance to be free. In the Treaty of 1783, the king granted Americans the right to fish in the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article IV of the treaty, the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts.
According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820), vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American Revolution. The Senate ratified the Treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Act (1798) so that federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government.
If the war was over in 1781, and we clearly defeated England, why would the king be granting us rights in the treaty and why would our Representatives sign such an agreement when they knew it would void any sovereignty we had gained with the “Declaration of Independence” and the Revolutionary War.
When General Cornewallis surrendered to Washington, he surrendered the battle, but not the war. Cornewallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that; “ A holy war will now begin on America, and when it’s ended, America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the crown …in less than 200 years the whole nation will be working for the divine world government.”
Over the past several decades we have referred to this divine world government as the New World Order, but more recently it has changed its name to the Global Union. Many Americans today laugh at the continuing accusations of a global conspiracy against the United States. Yet, we have been reminded countless times of its reality by some of our greatest leaders.
Most recently a courageous President who was assassinated, put it in clear and plain language that every American can understand. “ We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infil-tration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas at night, instead of armies by day. It is a system, which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that com-bines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried not headline. Its dissenters are silenced not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” – President John F. Kennedy
The President was referring to such groups and organizations as the Federal Reserve, Council on Foreign Rela-tions, Skull & Bones, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, just to mention a few.
If you follow the money trail of the Federal Reserve you will find that it leads back to the Rothschild family and the Bank of England, leaving no doubt that our monetary system has been owned and controlled by Great Britain and other organizations and banks that have been set up and spon-sored by the Rothschild family.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

For God’s sake, get a clue. Please read these footnotes of history and learn that freedom is YOUR responsibility!!

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

– James Madison

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

– Alexander Hamilton

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

– Mohandas Gandhi

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”

– Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

– From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

– Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendmen

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

– “Political Disquisitions”, a British republican tract of 1774-177

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

– Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…

– Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

– Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”, 1792-93

Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’

– Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

– Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”, 1942

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

– Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

– Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

Let us hope our weapons are never needed –but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government — and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

– Edward Abbey, “Abbey’s Road”, 1979

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

– Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.

– Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.

– Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993

The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.

– James Earl Jones

Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun control] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist.

– Robert Anson Heinlein, 1949

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

– Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.

– Noah Webster

“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.”

–Aristotle

During waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all concealed-handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where concealed permit holders have saved lives.

– John R. Lott

“Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.”

– U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999).

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post