Category Archives: History

Barack Obama CEO of the United States of America, the corporation


This is another link regarding the U.S. as a corporation, being changed from a constitutional republic to a corporation.   If this is true, then the constitution means nothing, and the president can pretty much do as he wishes, which explains Obama.   Congress would be a board…….our votes really mean nothing.   The corporation is a foreign entity.   Illuminati?

IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT A CORPORATION? 

IF TRUE, SO WHAT?
© 2007 by G. Edward Griffin. Revised 2007 December 17.

A common assertion made by those who are unhappy with the declining state of freedom in America is that this can be traced to an 1871 act of Congress that established Washington DC and, at the same time, converted the United States from a constitutional republic to a corporation. Secondary claims attached to this hypothesis are that this is the reason the official wording was changed from Constitutionfor The United States of America to Constitution of The United States of America and also why all capital letters are used in the name instead of upper and lower case letters. They claim that this Act of 1871 abolished the original constitutional government and created a legal fiction that became financially indebted to and controlled by international bankers. A forceful example of this view can be found on the Internet at www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm.

A CHARTER FOR CITY GOVERNMENT
My own analysis is different. While it is true that Washington DC was created by the Act of 1871, its territory was limited to the District of Columbia and it was defined as a municipal corporation, which means it was limited to the affairs of city government. Three years later, on June 20, 1874, a new Act was passed by Congress that abolished the original city government and replaced it with a three-man commission, appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Its scope as a municipality did not change. A third Act of Congress, dated June 11, 1878, clarified the powers of the Commission but retained all the essential features of the previous Act, especially those that defined the nature of the District of Columbia as a municipal administrative unit. The following overview, taken from a Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U.S. 453 (1901) 181 U.S. 453) describes this evolution:

The 1st section of the act ‘to provide a government for the District of Columbia,’ approved February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. [181 U.S. 453, 458] 419, chap. 62), provided: ‘That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.’

A governor and legislature were created; also a board of public works, to which was given the control and repair of the streets, avenues, alleys, and sewers of the city of Washington, and all other works which might be intrusted to their charge by either the legislative assembly or Congress. They were empowered to disburse the moneys received for the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys, sewers, roads, and bridges, and to assess upon adjoining property specially benefited thereby a reasonable proportion of the cost, not exceeding one third.

June 20, 1874, an act was passed entitled ‘An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for Other Purposes.’ 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337. By this act the government established by the act of 1871 was abolished and the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate was authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and authority vested in the governor and the board of public works, except as afterwards limited by the act.

By a subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District (brought forward from the act of 1871), and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the act of 1874.

Advertisements

Why the Right to Vote in the United States is a Fraud


Why the Right to Vote in the United States is a Fraud.

I’m looking into this deeper, I knew part of it to be true, some I had not heard before.  At any rate, a very interesting read.  Made me feel a bit more enslaved.

Kardashian’s, George Clooney, Tom Brady and the U.S. Military


The Kardashian’s, George Clooney and Tom Brady are only a few examples of celebrities we show more interests in than those in the military.  Why do we place celebs on such a high pedestal, but we know very few of the names of those serving in our armed forces.

Celebs are entertainers, the military protects all those entertaining and entertained, but we only know the names of those in the military who are our friends or family.   Most military personnel do not seek out fame for what they do….they don’t do it for that, they just do it for love of country.

Why do we care so much about what the stars are doing?   We need to show the same interests in the direction of this country.

A salute to the United States Armed Forces!

ARLIN REPORT QUOTE OF THE DAY


Special thanks to all those who have served and are serving in our military on this Memorial Day weekend.   To all their families, thank you.   Remember those who gave their lives for our freedom.   We, more than ever, need to protect this nation and the constitution so their sacrifices were not in vain.

HILLARY, THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND THE TPP, WHAT A TEAM


Hillary Clinton isn’t saying much about anything just yet.   She is specifically staying away from the topic of “trade agreements”.   However, while Hillary was Secretary of State she referred to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, still being negotiated, as the “gold standard of free trade agreements”.

It must be a bit uncomfortable for Hillary to discuss a trade agreement with other nations and corporations, some from those same nations as a candidate for President of the United States.   It might have been more comfortable while she was Secretary of State, while accepting donations from some of those same corporations.

Hillary, whether she wants to answer to it or not, has an interest in the TPP on 3 levels:  1) As Secretary of State, 2) The Clinton Foundation and their acceptance of donations, 3) As a candidate for the presidency of the United States.  As Secretary of State, Hillary was all for the TPP, now as a candidate she isn’t committing yet.   Is she afraid it will further expose the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations, and the influence it has on Hillary and her influence on the Trade Agreement?

Who has the most to gain from the TPP agreement; could it be the Clinton’s?   Has the TPP and the countries involved crossed the same path as the Clinton Foundation?   Yes they have!    Corporations who support the TPP have donated at least $21 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.   Coincidence?  Not likely.      Oh and by the way, Bill gets major bucks for his speeches from these same corporations.   The Clinton’s owe these nations and corporations a lot.  The Clinton’s have made huge profits, they’ve sold us out.

See the information below from The Washington Beacon

BY:

April 9, 2015 5:12 pm

QUOTE

“Companies who have signed on to the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP have donated a minimum of $21 million to the Clinton Foundation. The actual number is likely much higher than that because donations are disclosed in wide ranges. Major Clinton Foundation donors supporting the TPP include:

  • Coca Cola ($5,000,000—$10,000,000)
  • Wal-Mart ($2,000,000—$10,000,000)
  • Citigroup ($1,500,000—$6,000,000)
  • Dow Chemical ($1,025,000—$5,050,000)
  • Boeing ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • Exxon Mobile ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • Microsoft ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • Procter & Gamble ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • Pfizer ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • Toyota ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
  • General Electric ($500,000—$1,000,000)
  • Monsanto ($500,000—$1,000,000)
  • Nike ($500,000—$1,000,000)
  • Visa ($500,000—$1,000,000)
  • Morgan Stanley ($360,000—$775,000)
  • Goldman Sachs ($250,000—$500,000)

A number of foreign governments involved in the TPP negotiations have also donated money to the foundation:

  • Australia ($5,000,000—$10,000,000)
  • Brunei ($1,000,000—$5,000,000)
    • Canada ($250,000—$500,000 ”                                                                        UNQUOTE