It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:38 AM
That was one great presentiation. I am moved, saddened and troubled by it.

If I might be allowed to speculate as to why we are allowed any freedoms.

The illusion of freedom is more powerfull than all the guns in the world. All the guns cannot convince a man to volunteer his life eagerly in defense of tyranny.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:01 AM
Excellent read!
Well done on a factual post.

I love the assassination tie in, reminded me of Star Wars EP1-3...scary art imitatin life on that one and the public not even seeing it.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:45 AM
The Constitution does seem to be disappearing. Popular belief is that this is a deliberate, malicious attempt by the elite to steal all power. But... just but... what if they're testing you, the American people?

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Skipper1975
it seems to me that once they got rid of the brits they started skeeming for power and evil creeped in and made it so.

brits have controlled this country ever since....look at the bloodlines/presidents.

look at the illuma-naughty who run the show..

these days they dont even hide it..they are going balls to the wall evil mode..why choose that path? that path sucks imo

doesnt it feel better to help humanity?

Read this thread - and especially the Papers themselves - to understand better:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:01 AM
I would like to congratulate you. I hold my flags to be very precious, as such I do not give them out hardly at all. Giving a flag to a thread in my opinion is like saying, Yes I agree with this, and I feel everybody should read and learn from this. This said, you thread is the first that I have flagged. I have been a member for over a year, and until this day I always found reason not to flag a thread. I agree whole heartedly with your wording and your sumations.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:39 PM
This is a copy of some things that I wrote on another thread about the same thing, people will try to ignore this because it does not meld with the 1933 EPACT, but it is suspendid and does not hold any power over us, Of course the Federal Government has been giving into coorperations and that is a serious problem that we have in this Country, but the thing is we need to be paying attention to what IS going on in the Supreme Court, they are debating what certain amendments to the Constitution mean......Now if the Constitution was suspendid why would they be trying to see exactly what they mean. I will Tell you why Jack, because the Constitution is not suspendid and they are trying to pull the animal farm shuffle on us, by redetermining what it is that each article and amend means, the reason that they are doing this is because they have no Constitutional authority over the laws themselves, so they cannot repeal them, so they will try to redefine what they mean....... I cannot agree with all of your assertions....below is the suspension of the 1933 and other EPACTS.

As enacted, the National Emergencies Act consisted of five titles. The first of these generally returned all standby statutory delegations of emergency power, activated by an outstanding declaration of national emergency, to a dormant state two years after the statute’s approval. However, the act did not cancel the 1933, 1950, 1970, and 1971 national emergency proclamations because these were issued by the
President pursuant to his Article II constitutional authority. Nevertheless, it did render them ineffective by returning to dormancy the statutory authorities they had had activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory emergency authorities.

First of all our rights are present, they are God given or if you do not like that term your birthright as an American. I have heard the 1933 argument before and it is false. People like to sight the fact that they were never officialy terminated which was pursuant to Article II Constitutional authority and with out a new martial law declaration they were suspenidid by the National Emergencies Act, while your doing your research you should find that too.

If all our Rights (which is what they are) were reduced to privelages there would be no recourse ( I am sure you will tell me there is not) My mother recently fought a land grab by a Hospital in her County wishing to take a portion of her land for their betterment...she won, and there are many other cases that have been won and lost ( Do I think it is a sad situation, and do I think Corporations and Governments would like us to believe we as the people do not have a hope) this goes to prove that they are rights and are not priveleges, because if they were just privelages there would be no chance for recourse, or redress it would just be over before it began and courts would not even allow a course of action against these wrongs.

Now I do not disagreewith your thoughts or perceptions about what is happening in this world, I agree whole heartedly that it is a grab for our freedoms, but you cannot take something you do not have control over. I notice there are numerous qoutes from Thomas Jefferson lately,instead of people just regurgitating his qoutes they need to read a book or look into what his beliefs were and see that the Constitution is a Rock.

What we need to do as a people is to make a law (which is stupid because it already underlyingly exists) to hold our reprenstatives accountable for their Constitutional oaths (start small at the district level and work up, taking a little at a time just like they do) and make their voting record which is public and anything that hinges that an Impeachment of Rights is being approached needs to immediately be addressed.

I hate to keep writing, I am not against you, but listening to people talk about how its all over reminds me of George Carlin, saying, what are you crazy there are no rights only privelages and spouting off something about driving. Talking about how it is all illusions and further perpetuating a myth. I wish the ghost of George Washington had been on that stage to knock the living crap out of him and push him into a pool of blood that if it were not for,he would not even be allowed to breathe his haughty remarks about our freedoms......My friend Mcarthy was right he was just ahead of his time. It is time we wake up, but its not over!

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by birchtree

You refer to the National Emergencies Act as if it actually means anything. It is an Act passed by an illegitimate Congress more than a century after the fact. It is an empty gesture meant to give the appearance of the Legislative branch has regained its balance of power with the Executive.

If we are to take what you say here...

Nevertheless, it did render them ineffective by returning to dormancy the statutory authorities they had had activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory emergency authorities.

...then we see how empty the legislation actually is. Everything that has already been declared, can be declared at any time again, at the sole discretion of the President.

I have heard the 1933 argument before and it is false.

This thread has nothing to do with 1933.

...because if they were just privelages there would be no chance for recourse...

This doesn't really make any sense. You are priveleged to take recourse, but that does not mean that they have to allow it. You might get lucky and get out of a speeding ticket too, with a PBA sticker, but it does not change the law.

What we need to do as a people is to make a law (which is stupid because it already underlyingly exists) to hold our reprenstatives accountable for their Constitutional oaths ...

What you think of as "stupid" is where you are missing the point. The representatives cannot be held accountable because they are shielded by the legal straw-man that is the corporation known as the United States.

My friend Mcarthy ...


posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:20 PM

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:54 AM

Originally posted by passenger
Most are completely ignorant about even the basic concepts within and underlying the Constitution itself. Perhaps that has something to do with so much Federal involvement in public education? Perhaps deliberately keeping citizens ignorant of what their Nation was intended to be?

That's a definite "yes." You may remember that a few years ago the realization that our graduates from the public school system were so ignorant that it was plastered all over the media? That's why People like us are required to continue with "self-education." Is it any wonder that the government frowns so heavily on "home schooling" instead of forcing parents to enroll their kids in public school?

Originally posted by passenger
I get so frustrated in trying to explain to people that support more and more Federal involvement in their lives, e.g. Universal Health Care, that these concepts are completely UN-American in nature...
...The confusion about rights of individual Liberty and social entitlement are commonplace.

Even the Founding Forefathers were aware of their history & how it repeats itself...And the inherent dangers in keeping the People ignorant of their history.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."--Thomas Jefferson
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."--Thomas Jefferson
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."--Thomas Jefferson
"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is."--Thomas Jefferson
"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way."--Thomas Jefferson
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."--Thomas Jefferson

Well, there's a lot more from people like Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams & Thomas Paine, but Jefferson alone is enough to get the point across...

Originally posted by passenger
Given that history is essentially cyclical in nature, I suppose that someday - hopefully- someone will wake up and stand as a new Jefferson and write again a document that will establish the supremacy of the individual over the State and the State as an Independent entity. And a new Washington, Franklin and Adams will stand beside them. And again, for a time, those words will mean something.

Actually, I think the "new Thomas Jefferson" is already at work...Check out all that Bob Schultz & WTP organization is doing right now...And has been doing for quite a few years already.

Originally posted by human8
Too bad the original 13th amendment that was burned by the British in 1812 never made it we would not be ruled by cousins of the Queen today.

Actually, there's already been a search that's found prima facie evidence that the original 13th Amendment had been successfully ratified, but being denied by the Courts.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I've found another link for the General Orders No. 100, which is at a website that may be of some interest to users here...

This and a couple of other links that describe just how thoroughly the Justice System has been corrupted from it's original purpose:
Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag (citizen truth & jackinthebox, this might be the specific link you were referring to on page 1 of this thread?
Attention ATS! Know The Hidden Meanings...

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
I believe that the time has long since passed where we as Americans could invoke the rights of the state over the rights of the federal government. Although your documentation and argument holds sincere merit and consideration, the fact remains that if more states don't follow the lead of the OK sate legislature, then we will have given up on our rights as individual states.

Personally, I think this may still be possible, if more States take Oklahoma's lead. Before the Civil War, States were trying to dissolve the Union, but now it's a completely different story for the States to stand up for their State sovereignty. If this succeeds, then the States can be the "front lines" for the People to "alter or abolish" the government in favor of a strictly-enforced Constitution. After all, if the States stand steadfast for their sovereignty, they still have their own Militias as well as the armed Sovereign People, ya' know...Remember that the Federal Military represents only about 2%-3% of the total US population! And most of them are "stranded" in other countries spread throughout the world.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Being a yankee, I grew up making fun of "them good ol' boys" down South "who think the war never ended." Well, little did I know that it hadn't.

This reminds me of an aunt I have who married into a family in Tennesee & used to call us "damn yankees" all the time...Until we reminded her that she was born in Iowa...

Never mind the fact that, if you move from one State to another, you become a Citizen of your new State after a year in residence.

Originally posted by abelievingskeptic
Today I think we have two things on our side that keeps these megalomaniacs hindered.
1) we have history of each and everyone of these failed attempts (although I think Britain came closest to achieving there goals (through clandestine achievements) than all of the rest and actually still has to this day, imperialists, that work behind the scenes unofficially or not) to refer to...

This is one of the points I was making way back in 2003 with Future Shock, whereas the primary "Power Group" in control today are the Merchant Class, as I'd described it. I've been working on a "part 2" to that, by bringing it up to date...But when it comes to the Civil War part, Jack made it a lot easier for me to link back here. He's already posted more details about the Civil War than I'd researched to date.

Originally posted by abelievingskeptic
2) the world is simply to diversified. There are simply to many "great powers" in the world today that would not concede power. There will never be an official world government.

Well, if you put any credence in this "revealing info" (I'm still skeptical...At least until I can research further from different resources), this is what's really happening...Total Control by one person, backed up by a relatively small but well-organized group. Then again, isn't this the whole concept of the Biblical Anti-Christ in the first place?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
But in the end, what difference does it really make these days anyway, when all of the candidates are bought and paid for by groups and companies who's interests are contrary to the needs of the people?

One fact that should be pointed out: Even though our Government Officers (both Federal & State) are required to swear/affirm an Oath of Office to the Constitution, these "groups & companies" are not. The real crimes are committed when our Government Officers violate their Oaths in concession to those who have no Oath. The "warp & weave" of the Constitution includes provisions for the government to reign in such rogue interests because one of the major reasons for the War of Independence was because the English Crown was using its military to enforce the English Charters over the colonists.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The "Articles of Confederation" were meant to be a "perpetual" union binding the states together for eternity. It wasn't working out so it was scrapped by our founding fathers for the Constitution further reenfocring the fact the states were intended to maintain their sovreignty. Any reference to a "perpetual" union was intentionally left out of the Constitution.

Most Constitution Scholars don't really see the Articles of Confederation as completely scrapped in favor of the Constitution: When Exploring Constitutional Law, they look to the history of its most direct predecessors for issues not directly enumerated in the Constitution itself. Another way to put it is that the Constitution takes precedence, but in researching the Constitution's "lineage" they backtrack to the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, then the Magna Carta (in this order) to set what precedence may not exist within the latter of these documents.

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by crawgator406
amen preach on brother. don't you just love the way our for fathers us to speak. they could give you the bird and you would think they were complimenting you.

Not very constructive in your attitude, huh? But I think Ben Franklin's choice for the National Bird was somewhat prophetic: He suggested the wild turkey, perhaps in precognition to what the government would become in later decades. After all, he already realized that we may not be able to keep the Republic that was created:

Source: American Experiment
After the Constitutional Convention had finished its work in 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin what kind of government had been decided upon. He replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Kudos, Jack...Stars (on each of your multiple-part OP's) & Flag for this thread. IMHO, I think you'd deserve the title of "Scholar" added to your avatar...Not only for this thread, but most of what you've already researched to post in other threads too.

One thing that still bugs me, Jack...If Lincoln actually violated the terms of the Constitution in being aggressor to the Confederacy & then assassinated before he could restore the Constitution, then by Constitutional Law, the whole shebang was illegal to begin with & the resulting government has been operating illegally ever since.

Even the currently-invoked UCC in Supreme Court have their "remedy & recourse" clauses that invalidate any contractual obligation if "full disclosure" is not evident...Which means that even under UCC, the People should be able to invoke UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203 to demand that the current government be brought to trial for "Breech of Contract" & subsequently reformed back to Constitutional levels. I wonder if this has been tried by any Citizen or State already? Anybody care to join me in the research for it?

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Thanks much for the link to We the People. Some very good stuff there, but also very
frightening. I will definitely check there on a regular basis, from now on.
Unfortunately, we only hear about a small fraction of the assault on our Liberties; those that occasionally make the mainstream media. So much is happening though, it seems almost impossible to defend against. A thousand cuts can kill you just as surely as one blow from a sword.

The quotes from Jefferson were great. Some I had heard, some I hadn’t.
Stunning how we used to have such giants of mind and spirit that governed this county and our now ruled by such low and diminutive characters.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:03 PM
alls i have to say regarding this is that martial law is nothing compared to the unwritten laws

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:54 AM
If the Articles of Confederation had remained the "law of the land", your argument would hold up. But the newly independent states quickly learned that full independence led to utter chaos. One state would not recognize the laws of another, they would not recognize each others currency, etc., etc. The Congress had no power at all, and there was no leadership.

That is exactly why the real leaders of the newly freed states got together and drafted a Constitution. Under the Constitution of the United States, the several States were no longer free and independent countries, but became units in a larger country.

As to whether or not an individual state could leave the union, well that question was debated for many years. It was decided once and for all by the civil war.

The United States does not operate under Martial Law, and has not since the 1860's. Too bad the original author has such a limited understanding of his own countries origins and underpinnings in law.

But then again, he is one of those ignorant fools that actually believes that he has discovered something in our government that nobody else has ever found.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:45 AM
Naomi Wolf, author of The Ending Of America, has outlined the ten steps necessary as demonstrated in history. She also outlines various steps that have already been taken by our government to destroy our democracy.

Create/Invoke a terrifying external AND internal threat to security. Exaggeration, lying about, and distortion of the threat is how it is played. Best if the threat is amorphous and impossible to 'pin down.'
1. Create an prison camp and military tribunals that are OUTSIDE of the law.
2. Develop a private military that is not bound by the law of the democracy or constitution. Give them broad authority and limit accountability to law.
3. Begin extraordinary internal surveillance. Turn your citizens into 'enemies' of the state.
4. Infiltrate, harrass and corrupt citizens groups, political parties, interest groups. Create problems that make them 'look bad' and turn other citizens against them.
5. Target key individuals. Political competitors, Rivals, opposing special interests. Eliminate, defang, discredit or absorb them.
6. Terrorize or corrupt the Influential. Universities, Professors, Professionals, anyone trusted with expertise in a position to speak out or influence citizens. Publicize the fear to demonstrate power, and the necessity for it, to the public. Make them afraid to talk or do their professional job.
7. Control, by any means necessary, the media. Make it YOUR propaganda machine with lies, distortions, dissimulations, defamations.
8. Eliminate dissent. Ensure that citizens understand and cooperate with the tenet 'dissent equals treason' and follow through with accusations in a public and visible way. Generate distrust among groups, families, neighborhoods. Encourage informing on suspected activities or suspicious individuals. Ignore the use of this for personal vendettas, but encourage this to further terrorize civilians.
9. Suspend the Rule of Law. Declare Martial Law. Create gathering hyper- or super- treaties and alliances without consultation of law and consolidate into the inner circle.
I recommend Ms. Wolfe’s book, it’s a very insightful read.

America has already “hit” most of the above marks.

Now, how could this have happened? American’s tend to rely on “the news” via paper and tv, ie: CNN and Fox. Well almost all of our news media is now owned by an elite rich few and the ones that aren’t have been bullied into compliance in order to survive. There is very little REAL NEWS via the tv and newspaper today in America. You have got to dig for the “real news” and most people don’t have the time, energy or understand this.

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
—Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 2004

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by OldMedic

And so it begins. I was wondering what took so long for your kind to show up.

Do you have any valid evidence, documentation, etc. to counter what I have clearly shown, or are a few cheap personal attacks the best you could muster?

You're going to have to do much better than that if you hope to sway me or the serious reader.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:27 AM
Great post -- I would disagree with your statement "Of course we know that the founding fathers did intend to bring unity to the thirteen former colonies with a federal form of government" --- There where two camps, the "Federalists" and the non-Federalists. The federalists won out probably by brainwashing, coercion and bribery even back then. The great crime of the constitution is that it established a separate power known to us as the "Federal Government". The bill of rights came later (as I'm sure you know) and was adopted and supported by Federalists (like Hamilton) both in an effort to get support for a Federal Reserve and probably to prevent and backlash and secession of states when they realize what they had done by signing the constitution in the first place. The Bill of Rights was a kind of panic attack by the states. Apparently the Federalists felt they could manipulate the media even then, so they allowed the 10th amendment which certainly would have made the states feel better about the situation at the time. I have to wonder what the real original drafts of the text of the Bill of Rights stated as the writing seems rather convoluted and designed to be somewhat vague. Perhaps the work of the Federalists to facilitate interpretation.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:40 AM
Great post! Though there are those that will steadfastly refuse to even consider what happened in 1861 they will also deny any real problem today. Since Congress has never reconvened, any and all acts that they do are merely an illusion for our benefit.

Though a poster did bring up 1933 as a defense against the OP's posting, it would seem that he over looked the point regarding the bankruptcy of the US. The bankruptcy was the coup de' grace of any hope of peaceful restoration. When you declare bankruptcy it is the courts and banks that make the laws or rules of the insolvent. The question is who's courts and which banks? The creditors of course. Therefore the creditors own all our assets along with our blessed Constitution which they did not reinstate.

So far no president has come forth with an executive order resending Lincoln's and they are not about to do so. The next point of contention is; the reinstatement of the Constitution to its proper place.

Restoration of the Constitution will require first the insurrection of the State's to regain their sovereignty. Secondly, the abolition of the present governmental body. Third, placing any and all prior court orders (bankruptcy proceedings) as null and void and fourth, placing a Constitutional government in its place. Nothing short of what was done to gain our independence from England but in this case the Federal monster in Washington D.C.. Not an easy task nor a bloodless one. Regaining our freedom would come at a high price that I venture few would be willing to pay.

Oklahoma has taken a step in this direction but it will require the majority to do so if it is to be effectual. Given current standing of the states and the people, not likely. However, one can still hope.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by ReelView

Well, I stand by my assertion that a federal form of government was a part of the vision put forth, but certainly limited in scope and power.

More importantly to keep in mind though, is that secession was never made illegal until after the Civil War.

The Federal government had breached the contract, not the southern states, by usurping power never designated to them. Once they had broken the contract and refused to reverse themselves, the southern states were no longer bound to it, and reverted back to their own natural sovereign state.

One is not bound by the terms of a contract, once the other party has already violated the terms, and certainly not when the other party is demanding that terms be recognized that were never a part of the original contract in the first place.

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Yeah I am not sure what old medic said, as you replied to me that the right to redress was a privelage given for an illusion, but the right to redress in stated clearly in the declaration. I see where you are going here, but I am sure as sxxx that if the constitution and bill were circumvented sometime ago, the gov would not be jumping through all the loopholes of a process just to front it to a public.

So they are giving us the illusion of redress by allowing us to do it? That does not make sense either. I will even go as far as saying SO WHAT then what is it you want to happen? Are you saying we are living in a defunct society and we can do nothing about it? Do you want civil war? Do you think there should be some kind of public uprising to demand redress? or are you just saying it is hopeless and we are already slaves and there is nothing we can do?

Just do not provide your theory lets see what your solution to this problem is, instead of just haggling over if there is martial law. By the way I have seen martial law and if you think what we are living is is martial law, then the illusion that you say is being created for us is pointless and that my friend doesnt make any sense.

Once again I am not arguing with you about the fact that I think that is where the people outside the box and up the chain are trying to take us, but I do not see us being there yet, because it will be a hell of a lot worse and there would be no reason for them to even bother creating an illusion for us. It does not make sense. There will be open bloodshed in the street, people will be controlled, even to the point of buying groceries and selling personal items, the idea of personal property will not even exist as an illusion, people will be rounded up in large scales. This is not happening and when they do declare martial law, which is what the above describes there will be no illusions about it, it will be in your face and I am sorry I am not seeing it. I see the manifestation and implementation of Karl Marxs manifesto in our Government and a reach for social reforms that have led into more then the appearence of facism, but I am not seeing martial law, and what youve provided lest far is not proof enough.

As far as providing proof I gave what you claimed was a lameduck statement from the EPACT that you said did not matter, Why should your evidence matter to me. I will give you three documents that do matter, The Constitution, The Declaration and The Bill you can say they are useless and dont matter anymore but the truth is just the opposite, because without those documents you wouldnt even have a point to make here, and although groups may try to circumvent these documents when it comes down to, it is not legal for them to do so, So They Are Still Valid. Period.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by birchtree]

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Anonymous thank you for the ref I will check out Naomis book, I agree we are headed there but I cannot agree we are already there. I liked the points you put on your post and agree, but were not there yet.


top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in