The Mortgage Fraud

Let me preface this with a quote from Henry Ford: "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Contrary to popular belief, banks do not loan money they receive as deposits. Let me give you a brief synopsis on how our monetary system operates. Carefully read the quote below.

Modern Money Mechanics, page 6, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:

"Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both raise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.”

As stated above, a signed promissory note is an asset that can be exchanged for cash, thereby making it a negotiable instrument. 

Once the bank cashes the note with the Federal Reserve Bank, they then create the borrowers transaction account where the money is deposited, and then “loaned” back to the borrower with interest. The account is addressed to the ALL CAPS artificial person/corporation which is governed by the UCC. 

The bank risked none of it’s own assets in this so-called “loan.” According to the UCC 1-204(24) and 3-104, it was our signature on the note that made it legal tender. This money didn’t exist until you signed the note. Starting to see the deception?

Now let’s briefly address the mortgage fraud.

According to the UCC, there are three reasons why the promissory note is an invalid contract:

1. There is no consideration on behalf of the bank.

2. There is no signature from a banker to enforce it as a valid contract.

3. Failure to disclose.

After the promissory note is signed, it is stamped with the words “pay to the order of without recourse.”  Where else have you seen that? A check! These promissory notes are converted into checks. This explains why a banker is never present to sign the note, as it would invalidate the check.

Now let’s look at the Deed of Trust.

The Borrowers Covenant reads: "The borrower is lawfully seized of the estate, hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and convey the property, and that the property is unencumbered except for encumbrances of record.”

Not only does it state that the property is “unencumbered,” it also states that the borrower has the right to “grant and convey" the property. If you entered into a supposed “loan contract” with the bank, then how is the property unencumbered? What you’re doing by signing the Deed of Trust is granting the property back to the bank after it was initially purchased with the autographed note/check. Now you're on the line to pay off a mortgage with an egregious amount of interest.

Can you see how the property is rightfully yours until you sign the Deed of Trust? This is exactly why the bank has you sign the promissory note (check) before the Deed of Trust. You have to purchase the property before you can convey it.

To further the deception, the banks bundle these notes together and sell them on Wall Street as “Mortgage Backed Securities.” This simply means that the bank doesn’t even have possession of the original “contract." How can they enforce this supposed “contract" if they no longer possess it? 

Never forget that all registered property was seized as booty by the military government on March 9, 1933. This is when FDR passed his Emergency War Powers Act, which “temporarily” suspended the Constitution.

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg. 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933.  "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." (Emphasis added)

Mussolini and the Vatican

The Lateran Treaty was an agreement made between Italy and the Vatican in 1929. This treaty was signed at the Lateran Palace, in Italy by Benito Mussolini and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri. Historian Hubert Wolf rightfully called it a “pact with the devil.” 

This "pact with the devil," officially created the sovereign state of Vatican City, making Catholicism the official religion of Italy. This resulted in a 92 million dollar reparation given to the Vatican by Mussolini.

The Jesuits would then waste little time fomenting the 1929 stock market crash using their Knight of Malta short seller, Joseph Kennedy, thereby allowing the Vatican to use their newly acquired money to buy up the stock market for pennies on the dollar. Knight of Malta John J. Raskob would contribute to this by encouraging farmers to invest in the stock market during the roaring twenties. 

Mussolini was undoubtably a Jesuit coadjutor working for the benefit of the papacy each step of the way. His main objective was to regain Rome for the papacy after Emmanuel II seized it in 1870. Never forget that his advisor and confessor was a Jesuit by the name of Pietro Tacchi Venturi. 

Interview with Drake Shelton on Slavery

                             Interview with Drake Shelton
                                                  by James Reber


 1. Why did the southern states secede from the union?
 
Ans.  To preserve slavery and white supremacy without which competition with the Northern Industrial factories would be impossible. Essentially, they seceded in order to survive. 
Alexander H. Stephens states in his  “Corner Stone” Speech, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861,
“Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood…But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
 
2. Why was the slave trade forced onto the south?
 
Ans. The slave trade was forced onto the South pursuant to the Jesuit counter-reformation.  If you notice it was precisely during the years of the Jesuit suppression, dispersion and then their re-establishment in 1814 that the largest influx of slaves occurred.

[Image: Robert Fogel, Time on the Cross, page 25.]
Consider the years 1658-1688 A.D.  Protestants in England were persecuted after the death of Oliver Cromwell and many of them left England and came to America. Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné says in his The Protector, pages 84-85,
“The liberties and Protestantism of England were on the verge of shipwreck, when Cromwell intervened; and all his life he upheld in Great Britain religious liberty and the national prosperity.
And what became of the country after his death?—The Stuarts returned; and
“when the rejoicings were over, the illuminations extinct, then punishments followed.”
One hundred corpses were exhumed, among which were the great Oliver, his old and venerable mother, his dearly beloved daughter Bridget Pym, and the famous admiral Blake. Their mouldering bodies were hung on the three corners of the gallows at Tyburn, and the cavaliers found a subject of merriment and pleasantry in this revolting exhibition.
Ears were cut off, noses were slit, and numbers lost their heads on the scaffold. The sentence pronounced against them all was conceived in the following terms:—”You shall be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and there you shall be hanged by the neck; and being alive, you shall be cut down and mutilated; your entrails shall be taken out of your body, and (you living) the same to be burnt before your eyes; and your head to be cut off, and your body to be divided into four quarters.” The Stuarts, as if this were not enough, filled the country with immorality; and an illustrious Royalist of the present day can find no other excuse for Charles II. than by saying that, in propagating this corruption of morals,” it is probable that this prince merely followed the course of his own inclinations and the fickleness of his character.”! Two thousand ministers were driven from their benefices; the churches were oppressed; the noblest hearts of the country were forced to seek a refuge in distant lands; vast colonies in America were peopled by them; and England would have become like Spain, and worse than Spain, had not William III. resumed the task so energetically begun by Cromwell. If, so long after the war, and after a pacific recall to their native land, the Stuarts committed such atrocities, what would they not have dared when men’s passions and animosities were in full vigor?”
Consider also 1685 A.D. and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In 1688, the Jesuit Pere La Chaise, wrote a letter to Jesuit Sir Edward Petre (Catalogue of the Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum: Index, 1896, pg. 274) suggesting that Petre exterminate English Protestants as he had exterminated French Protestants. La Chaise used blackmail to convince Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes. Louis XIV had committed fornication with his daughter-in-law and La Chaise refused to give him absolution unless he revoke the Edict of Nantes. Do we then see the Political and Social evil of the Roman Catholic soteriological system? If Louis XIV had believed in Calvinism La Chaise would have had no power over him. The French Catholics murdered about 500, 000 (Ridpath’s Universal History, John Clark Ridpath, [New York: Merrill & Baker, 1901] Vol. XIV, p. 454) Protestants in France. The French Protestants then fled to North America.
This idea that we were running for our lives from the Roman Catholic Inquisition and its influences in Europe and the British Isles, is not only Protestant perception. Thomas Paine mentions this exact thing in his Common Sense, page 25,
“The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.”
(link)
This coming from the same man who said,
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” (The Age of Reason, page 6)
(link)
In 1772, American colonies beseeched King George to let them outlaw African Slavery. He refused and in so doing showed that he was plotting a race war against the Protestant Colonies to stall any attempt of an Independent Protestant Nation. His new league with the Romanists can be seen in his “Intolerable Acts” of 1774 as described by the Colonialists. The most aggravated offense came with his Quebec Act of 1774. This was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) for the province of Quebec. It established Catholicism in Quebec and made Catholics equals in the British Colonies in America and repealed Protestant legislation in the English Protestant Oath of Allegiance. Blake, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, page 177 says,
“In the year 1772, a disposition favorable to the oppressed Africans became very generally manifest in some of the American Provinces. The house of burgesses of Virginia even presented a petition to the king, beseeching his majesty to remove all those restraints on his governors of that colony, which inhibited their assent to such laws as might check that inhuman and impolitic commerce, the slave-trade: and it is remarkable that the refusal of the British government to permit the colonists to exclude slaves from among them bylaw, was enumerated afterwards among the public reasons for separating from the mother country distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes, committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” (See the fac-simile of this draft in Jefferson’s Correspondence.) But this passage was struck out when the Declaration of Independence was adopted.”
 
3. Was the Civil War really about slavery?
 
Ans. If you are asking me if the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they cared about them, then no. The Yankees viewed the black man as being just as racially inferior as any Southern man did and the Yankee view of black people was and still is far more malicious.
https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-yankee-attitude-towards-the-black-man/
The North invaded the South to eliminate their economic competition, the Southern plantation.
If you are asking me if the South seceded to defend slavery, the answer is two-fold. First, most Southerners did not even own slaves. Even a liberal publication like PBS’s Africans in America admits,
“The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer.”
Second, it is undeniable that Southern statesmen in defense of the Southern Economy seceded to defend slavery as I have already spoken to.
 
4. Was the papacy involved with the slave trade?
 
Ans. Involved is an understatement. Created is more accurate. Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452. This Bull granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to enslave “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. The Roman Church’s approval of the slave trade was reaffirmed and supplemented by Nicholas V’s Bull, Romanus Pontifex of 1455. These bulls served the justification for the subsequent centuries of slave trade and colonialism.
The two countries who first had their hands into the African slave trade were the Roman Catholic Portugal and Spain. Roman Catholic Portugal was the first to start stealing the Negroes with Antonio Gonzalez in 1434 A.D. Gonzalez sold these slaves to Muslims (Prolific African slave traders) in southern Spain. Roman Catholic Spain was the first to become party with the Portuguese in this trade. At the beginning of the 16th century this trade became so large that thousands were taken from Africa annually. When America was discovered in 1492 the Spaniards were the first to colonize it and began to enslave the Native Americans. But they proved too weak to bear up under slave labor. It got so bad that even Roman Catholic clergymen protested it! A stronger slave was needed, and thus the Negro was looked upon as prey. Thus, in 1503 A.D. and 1510 A.D.  the Spaniards began the Negro slave trade to the Americas.
The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, by William O. Blake, 94-96.
 
5. Was the slave trade prevalent in the northern states?
 
Ans. As far as America’s role in the slave trade goes it was exclusively a northern affair. Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866) by George Henry Moore pages 5-6 says,
“A subsequent entry in Winthrop’s Journal gives us another glimpse of the subject, Feb. 26, 1638.
“Mr. Peirce, in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from the West Indies after seven months. He had been at Providence, and brought some cotton, and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence, and salt from Tertugos;” Winthrop, 1., 254. He adds to this account that “Dry fish and strong liquors are the only commodities for those parts. He met there two men-of-war, set forth by the lords, etc., of Providence with letters of mart, who had taken divers prizes from the Spaniard and many negroes.” Long afterwards Dr. Belknap said of the slave-trade, that the rum distilled in Massachusetts was “the mainspring of this traffick.” M. H. S. Coll., i., iv., 197.”
So here we see that it was the New England Colonies who first began the American slave trade, not the Southern Colonies. Not only so, they even passed a law, legalizing it in 1641.  Blake states on page 370 of his work that the 1641 Massachusetts law did not provide an absolute condoning of the slave trade but,
“there shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, nor captivity  among us, unless it be for lawful captives, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel; requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority.”
I think my Southern brethren in their zeal to expose the crimes of the North, step on their own feet just a bit. The New England Puritans, at least the first generation, were our brethren in religion and race. We need not unjustly smear them in our indignation, however justified that indignation may be. However good the intentions of the Puritans may have been, the Yankee industrialists, adamant to make a profit from the slave trade, pushed on with their production of rum to be traded for slaves and goods.
Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, Vol. 6 (1861), pages 380-381 Ed. John Russell Bartlett states,
“This little colony, only, for more than thirty years past, have annually sent about eighteen sail of vessels to the coast, which have carried about eighteen hundred hogsheads of rum, together with a small quantity of provisions and some other articles, which have been sold for slaves, gold dust, elephants’ teeth, camwood…The slaves have been sold in the English islands, in Carolina and Virginia, for bills of exchange, and the other articles have been sent to Europe; and by this trade alone, remittances have been made from this colony to Great Britain, to the value of about £40,000, yearly; and this rum, carried to the coast, is so far from prejudicing the British trade thither, that it may be said rather to promote it; for as soon as our rum vessels arrive, they exchange away some of the rum with the traders from Britain, for a quantity of dry goods, with which each of them sort their cargoes to their mutual advantage… This distillery is the main hinge upon which the trade of the colony turns, and many hundreds of persons depend immediately upon it for a subsistence.”
The United States and Africa: A History pages 68-69 by Peter Duignan states,
“Soon the Yankee trader was a familiar sight from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Guardafui and at Madagascar and the offshore islands. Nathaniel Isaacs, an enterprising Anglo-Jewish trader, explorer, adventurer, and inadvertent empire builder, said in commenting upon a visit to an obscure port in 1831:
The post of Lamoo [Lamy Kenya] is free to all nations, but few have visited it, except the enterprising Americans, whose star-spangled banner may be seen streaming in the wind, where other nations, not even my own country, would not deign to traffic. America is the forerunner of commerce in new countries, and she enjoys the sweets which they afford.”
The American Slave-Trade by John Randolph Spears states,
“This story, sworn to before United States Consul George William Gordon, was repeated by Consul Henry A. Wise (of Virginia) in an official communication to Secretary of State James Buchanan, under date of May 1, 1845. James K. Polk was then President of the United States, and this story and other stories of like character were sent to the Congress of the United States in House Ex. Doc. 61, 30th Congress second session, and Senate Ex. Doc. 28 of the same session.
Said Consul Wise in an official letter dated February 18, 1845:
“I beseech, I implore, the President of the United States to take a decided stand on this subject. You have no conception of the bold effrontery and the flagrant outrages of the African slave-trade, and of the shameless manner in which its worst crimes are licensed here. And every patriot in our land would blush for our country did he know and see, as I do, how our own citizens sail and sell our flag to the uses and abuses of that accursed traffic. We are a ‘by-word among nations’—the only people who can now fetch and carry any and everything for the slave-trade . . . and, because we are the only people who can, are we to allow our proudest privilege to be perverted, and to pervert our own glorious flag into the pirate’s flag?”
Even after the slave trade had been formally abolished Yankees still wanted to profit from it.
House Documents, Thirty-First Congress, First Session, Ex. Doc. No. 5. by the United States Congress, Message from the President of the United States [Zachary Taylor] Dec. 24, 1849, read Dec. 27, 1849 states,
“Your attention is earnestly invited to an amendment of our existing laws relating to the African slave-trade, with a view to the effectual suppression of that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied that this trade is still, in part, carried on by means of vessels built in the United States and owned or navigated by some of our citizens.”
Here we see then that the North American participation with the Slave Trade was a Yankee affair, performed by Yankee vessels flying the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag.
 
6. Who was the first province to abolish the slave trade?
 
Ans. On Oct. 5, 1778, Patrick Henry, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, passed An Act for the Preventing the Farther Importation of Slaves, thus  preventing of the African slave trade. Virginia was then the first province on earth to abolish the African slave trade and make it a penal offence.
William Waller Hening (editor), The Statutes at Large: A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia From the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 , Volume IX (New York: W.G. Bartow, 1823), 471
R.L. Dabney, Defence of Virginia, 49
 
7. Is it true that the southern states were only a small player in the slave trade?
 
Ans. I have only come across one vessel from the South, a Louisiana vessel, that picked up slaves from Africa. It never made it back to America though because it sunk shortly after leaving Africa.
 
8. Why has the white man been taught to be ashamed of his own race?
 
Ans. It is a Psyop invented by the Jesuit order, originally invented to fight against their Portuguese and Spanish rivals in the 18th century.  It is a way to manipulate white Protestants into feeling guilty for spreading the Reformation and the high civilization produced by it. Instead of being praised for giving absolute savage nations civilization we are made to feel guilty for the alleged cruelties of white supremacy and the genocides of Colonialism. 
In essence, the Jesuits lost the counter-reformation to the white Protestants and seeing they could not win the theological, military or cultural battle against the Protestants, they turned to racial Psyops to masquerade the counter-reformation in a garb of racial pity. 
 The Footprints of the Jesuits by R.W. Thompson, 186
 
9. Is racial integration a communist maxim?
 
Ans. Absolutely. It is an application of their view of property.  Engels states in his The Principles of Communism 1847,
“— 22 —What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?
The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
http://www.marxists.org/…/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
 
10. Is racial separation unto nationhood a biblical maxim?
 
Ans. Absolutely. It was ordained when the Bible says that after the flood, yet before the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10:1), the creator divided the earth in the days of Peleg.(Gen.10:25) Thus, the creator’s intention for man to be separate was not a result of the sins at Babel. It was El’s intention all along, just like distinct races were intended by El all along. The dispersion in Gen. 9-11 is an enforcement of commands previously given to disperse throughout the earth.
Yah originally created 70 nations with the dispersion. Jasher Chapter 48,
“44 And it was their custom throughout the land of Egypt, that every man who came to speak to the king, if he was a prince or one that was estimable in the sight of the king, he ascended to the king’s throne as far as the thirty-first step, and the king would descend to the thirty-sixth step, and speak with him.
45 If he was one of the common people, he ascended to the third step, and the king would descend to the fourth and speak to him, and their custom was, moreover, that any man who understood to speak in all the seventy languages, he ascended the seventy steps, and went up and spoke till he reached the king.
46 And any man who could not complete the seventy, he ascended as many steps as the languages which he knew to speak in.
47 And it was customary in those days in Egypt that no one should reign over them, but who understood to speak in the seventy languages.”
These seventy are listed in Genesis 10 and 11.
See also the Jewish Encyclopedia on this issue: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1
The racial differences were probably the result of a spontaneous and special act of the creator.
As a general principle, Israel served as an example of nationhood that the rest of the nations were supposed to emulate.(Deut. 4:5-7) In Deut. 17 rulers were to be chosen among the ethnicity of Israel.  In Deut. 23 we are faced with heavy racial prioritization in Israel’s assemblies.  Non-Israelites were called strangers or sojourners and were to be treated with courtesy and fairness.(Ex. 12:48-49, 22:21, 23:9, Lev 19:10, 19:33-34, Lev 23:22, 24:22, Num 9:14, 15:15-16, 15:29-30)  However, so far from proclaiming the merits of diversity, Yah proclaimed that he would send foreigners to sap the wealth of Israel if they disobeyed him. (Deut. 28:32-36; Is this not exactly what is happening to America?)
The Greek word for nation in both the Tanach and the Renewed Covenant is ethnos. This is at the root of our word ethnicity.  Ethnicity has been the foundational principle upon which all human nationhood has been understood. How else do you define a nation without an ethnic group of people living upon a specific geographical location?
 In Romans 9:3 the apostle Paul proclaims his abiding racialism stating, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”. And again at 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Messiah before me.” And again at 16: 21 “Timothy my fellow worker greets you, and so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.
We read in Rev. 21:24 “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it (heavenly Jerusalem): and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.” Here we have the existence of distinct nations, thus distinct ethnicities in the time of the news heavens and the new earth! Messiah did not come to heal these supposed fractures in humankind. These distinctions are indicative of a Utopia, not of decline. Moreover, if Yah intended for the Renewed Covenant to abrogate the principles of Gen. 9-11, and the people at Pentecost to amalgamate into one body politic, then he would have caused them to start speaking one language, as in the days of  the Tower of Babel. BUT HE DIDN’T!

Martin Luther King Jr. - The Beast as Saint

Emergency War Powers

The United States has been under a declared state of national emergency since March 9, 1933. This did away with de jure constitutional government, and replaced it with a de facto military government.

Let’s observe what Congressman Beck said from the congressional record in 1933:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means it’s death. It is the very doctrine that the German Chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German Chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same."

"But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily, it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."

In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads,

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

It then goes on to say:

"For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

This is now public law found in section 12, USC 95(b):

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)."

Part of FDR’s inaugural address on March 5, 1933 stated:

"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."

During this day on March 4, 1933, FDR was asking Congress for Emergency War Powers.

FDR stacked the Supreme Court with Hugo Black and Stanley Reed, to assure that this act was approved and confirmed on March 9, 1933 with proclamation 2040.

Title 1 section 1 of the act States:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

This act of 1917 is the Trading with the Enemy act.

This act originally applied only to Enemies, not US citizens. Section 5(b) of that act originally stated:

"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States).”

In 1933, this act was revised to apply to public U.S. citizens, and now reads:

"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Remember that the Act states: “During a time of war or any other state of “national emergency”… It didn’t just apply to a time of war, but also during a time of national emergency declared by the President.

Now you know why the Government isn’t acting within the confines of our Protestant Constitution. In order to implement complete dictatorial power, they had to subvert the constitution, and this is how they did it. We’re no longer operating as the sovereign people, but rather as the ALL CAPS artificial PERSON created by this military government. We amalgamated ourselves to this artificial person when we signed up for Social Security benefits. The only way to restore constitutional government is to repeal the Emergency Banking Relief Act, which amended section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy act.

Artificial Person.  “An entity such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. – Also termed fictitious person; juristic person; legal person; moral person." Blacks Law Dictionary

Natural Person. “A human Being, distinguished from an artificial person created by law.” Blacks Law Dictionary

Yes, there is a way to unwed yourself from this artificial person. I will deal with this at a later time.

I recommend reading my blog titled “The Corporate You” for more information on the Birth Certificate process.

The Corporate You

When a child is born, the parents fill out a Certificate of Live Birth with the child's name spelled properly in upper and lower case letters. Upon the filing of that document, the STATE then creates a Birth Certificate with the child’s name in all “capitol letters.” This is not a lawful record of his/her birth, but rather the birth of an all capitol letter corporate fiction, i.e. JOHN SMITH. Since no proper name is written in all capitol letters (grammatically or lawfully), we can deduce that this doesn’t apply to the living being. 

For example, if you look at the U.S. Style’s Manual, it clearly states that anything in all capitol letters is either a corporation, a vessel, or a dead person. 

The STATE issued Birth Certificate is then registered with the Department of Commerce. Once the birth document is registered, the Department of Commerce notifies the U.S. Treasury Department, who takes out a loan from The Federal Reserve Bank. These Birth Certificate bonds are then collateralized by our future labor, and sold on the stock market, guaranteeing the purchasers a lifetime of labor, and tax revenues of every citizen.

This created an Exemption (pre-pay) account, which is identified by your Social Security Number without the dashes. It is your “EIN,” which stands for Exemption Identification Number. The credit borrowed is rightfully yours since you are on the line to pay it back through taxation. 

When the United States declared bankruptcy in 1933, they withdrew (stole) our gold with Executive Order 6102. They remedied this with HJR 192, which states:

That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obliged a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. 

(b) As used in the resolution, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. 

SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled, "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows: 

"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations hereunto and hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, for public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight,” approved June 5,1933, 4:30 p.m.

Since the government eliminated our right to payment, they assumed responsibility for discharging our debts. That is what our exemption accounts were created for. The real crime is that we never received full disclosure!

Since the Government has no jurisdiction over the sovereign people, it had to create corporate fictions (your name in ALL CAPS) which they can regulate and control.  We became surety for these corporations by contractual agreements. This is how the living you become surety for the paper you.

The seizing of these corporations began on March 9, 1933, with the passage of “The Trading With The Enemy Act,” which is still in effect today. This act authorizes the President (commander and chief) to seize all registered property, including the “ALL CAPS” corporate entities created by the United States.  All registered property is deemed enemy property, and you own nothing! Just stop paying your property tax and see what happens.

Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Page 9, Paragraph 2) April 17, 1933.  "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

Fidel Castro works for the Pope

Fidel Castro was born on August 13, 1926 into a very prosperous family in Cuba. Castro was educated by Jesuits in Oriente and Havana, where he would graduate with a law degree. His mentor was a Jesuit named, Armando Llorente, who referred to young Fidel as "motivated, proud, and different from the others."

Shortly after graduating law school, Castro joined the Christian Democratic Party as a young and ambitious lawyer. Don't be deceived into thinking this was a Christian organization; it was without a doubt, a Roman Catholic Party.

Despite trouble with the law, a short jail sentence, and a brief exile to Mexico, Castro, in alliance with the Jesuits, returned to Cuba in 1956 with a new plan to overthrow Batista. 

This came to fruition in 1959 during the Cuban Revolution, when Batista was forced to flee the Country.

After seizing power in Cuba, Castro wasted little time implanting his Marxist-Leninist ideology, driving out a large portion of the countries’ upper and middle class people. Castro's mission to communize and consecrate Cuba was a success. Cuba is now overwhelmingly a Roman Catholic nation.

This is further evidenced by ex-Jesuit, Alberto Rivera, when he exploited Castro as a Jesuit of the Fourth Vow.

We must never separate Jesuitism from Communism. It was the Jesuit’s who perfected the doctrine of communism on their Paraguay Reductions from 1609-1767.  If you want to trace the roots back even further, you can study the ancient Vow of Poverty found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This is really an ancient monastic tradition.

Also note that Karl Marx was tutored by Jesuit General Peter Jan Beckx at the British Museum. He was nothing more than a tool used by the Jesuits to propagate this Doctrine.