Diane Feinstein @ President Obama's Inaugural Address "These United States", page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 13-9-2009 @ 04:54 AM by overide

Has this question been discussed already here on ats?

The other day I decided I was going to try and listen to every speech, comment.. that I could find on the internet from President Obama.

During President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address Dianne Feinstein referred to America as "these united states", I found this odd since most americans are familiar with the phrase "united states of america"

this what she said..

"It is my great personal honor to present the forty fourth president of these united states Barack Obama"

and not..

"It is my great personal honor to present the forty fourth president of the united states of america Barack Obama"

that smells kinda fishy to me, anybody else think so? or was it just a flook.
i say this because i've heard enough americans express their concerns about a UN and NATO agenda for America, aka.. takeover.

i'm going to start listening to all the introductions from previous Inaugural Address(s) too see if the phrase "these united states" has ever been used. i think i should watch her speeches to see if she uses that term "these united states" vs "the united states of america"

what do you think honestly or is this a waste of time?
i'm not suggesting any grand conspiracy here but it sounded odd to me.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by overide]

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 05:55 AM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by overide

I don't think there's anything weird about it at all as I myself have used the phrase and heard it used quite a few times... What would be suspicious about calling the United States of America, these United States? How would that be bad?

Our country is merely a group of states with one government unifying them, originally this national government was meant to be kept weak and most rights of governance belonged to the states but the Civil War decided once and for all that federal power trumps state power...

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:00 AM by groingrinder

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I also have heard that phrase used before. It does not sound suspicious to me in any way. In spit of the source being who she is.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:04 AM by TheNetherlands

So he is inaugurated to be president of these united states?
Which United States? Could be any.

So he is now president of these United Sates, but not the US of America.

He is president of a country that doesnt exist, because there is no These United States. That doesnt exist.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:10 AM by Hx3_1963

FYI: IMHO there is a difference...why do you think our power base is concentrated in a District...separate from the States???

"The Truth as I see it."
www.usavsus.info...

Original:

union of the several states
the states united
united states in Congress assembled
these united States of America
The united states of America
The United States of America
The United States
(intent or defined to be the original or organic)

Started with:
Declaration of Independence in 1776,
Articles of Confederation in 1778,
and the Constitution in 1787

a "Republic"
having its beginning with the colonial resistance against England's tyrannical government.

Major opposition against British control began with The Stamp Act, established by British parliament on March 22, 1765--Taxation without representation, followed by the Declaratory Act, the Boston Massacre of 1770, and the Tea Act passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773 to save the East Indian Company from bankruptcy.

Resistance continued with the Quartering Act established by Parliament on June 2, 1774, requiring American colonists to provide shelter to British troops and horses when requested.

From September 5 to October 25, 1774 Twelve colonies, all but Georgia, sent 56 delegates to Philadelphia to participate in the First Continental Congress. The purpose of the First Continental Congress was to debate and plan a unified response to British policy and actions.

On March 25, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his "give me liberty or give me death" speech to the Virginia Assembly in Richmond.

Various conflicts took place
and blood continued to be shed.

On May 10, 1775, The Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Delegates from all thirteen colonies were present.

After signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and winning the revolutionary war which ended with the Paris Peace Treaty signed September 3, 1783, all American colonists became free, Sovereign people, endowed with the same rights that the King of England had.

"... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty ... Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."

--Supreme Court of the United States
2 US 419 (February 1794)
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chief Justice: Jay, John
Argued: February 5, 1793
Decided: February 18, 1793

having a de jure form of government
Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title; "by law"
--Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition

CORPORATE:

the UNITED STATES
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(all capital letters--a fiction--a corporation)
the United States of America
the United States
(intent or defined to be the corporate US),

Started with:
Gettysburg Address in 1864,
and the Incorporation of
District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts.
Then reorganized June 11, 1878
--16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62

a " Corporation"
with a legislature was established,
with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act,
February 21, 1871
Forty-first Congress, Session III,
Chapter 62, page 419

On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons.
18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337

A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating 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)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS,
181 U.S. 453 (1901)
supreme.justia.com...

METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)
supreme.justia.com...

Corporate Officers
"... But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided ...and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation."
The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury,
136 U.S. 472 (1890)
www.supremelaw.org...

In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28,
in Section 3002 Definitions,
it states the following:
(15) "United States" means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

To incorporate means to become
a part of something bigger

Some people believe
it is incorporated with England
or the crown
and the paperwork
is filed in Puerto Rico.

This so-called government is
an imposter
posing and or masquerading
as the original government.

" As Charles Evans Hughes, Governor of New york and twice appointed Justice of the Supreme Court said. "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is." This is as frank an assessment of the true situation as you will ever get from a government official. George Bush said practically the same thing when he declared "The Constitution is just a piece of paper." ...the Northwest Ordinance shows why the Federal government has no legal jurisdiction over any territory but that which is owned by the United States of America. ...The fact is, the Constitution, for all practical purposes, annuls the Declaration of Independance."
--Lawrence Berg

a de facto government
In fact, in deed, actually; a state of affairs; but is illegal or illegitimate; "by equity" and not "by law"; is not constitutional. Thus an officer, king. or government de facto is in actual possession, but by usurpation, or without lawful title.
--Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition

I suggest you read the rest of the main usavsus link and research for yourselves how our Republic has "evolved" over the decades...

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:14 AM by overide

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by overide

I don't think there's anything weird about it at all as I myself have used the phrase and heard it used quite a few times... What would be suspicious about calling the United States of America, these United States? How would that be bad?

Our country is merely a group of states with one government unifying them, originally this national government was meant to be kept weak and most rights of governance belonged to the states but the Civil War decided once and for all that federal power trumps state power...

i can understand your thinking here your view makes sense, especially your take on what happened after the civil war.

i didn't think it was bad necessarily, i just never heard it said that way as i recall. now i see i must be living under a rock

but seriosly like TheNetherlands says i know some of us think that way, thats why i was curious to see if it had been brought up before.

thanks for the input here people

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:22 AM by overide

reply to post by Hx3_1963

thanks i'll check it out

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 07:58 AM by Asktheanimals

I find that statement by Pelosi rather odd too given the
high profile of the ocassion. what bothers me more is
how many government officials and congress critters
use the term "Homeland". That creeps me out SO badly.
They can put that word where the sun don't shine IMO.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 08:29 AM by octotom

One shouldn't make a mountain out of a mole hill over this. By saying "these United States" Feinstein was making a reference to how the country is a nation made up of different parts, and she was speficially saying which ones, these ones that we're in, as opposed to those that make up the United States of Mexico, for example.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 09:04 AM by Hx3_1963

The thing I find most disconcerting is this "proclamation" is made at a event held in a District...a separate entity...not even a State...let alone one, "of these united states"...

I hear they are trying or already have remedied this situation though...

Seems the District had/has no actual delegate with voting rights in Congress???

Was this ever "corrected" or is it still on the "back burner"?

District of Columbia voting rights
en.wikipedia.org...

Voting rights of citizens in the District of Columbia differ from those of United States citizens in each of the 50 states. D.C. residents do not have voting representation in the United States Senate, but D.C. is entitled to three electoral votes for President. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the District is entitled to a delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the floor of the House, but can vote on procedural matters and in House committees.

The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to the states, which the District is not. The District is a federal territory ultimately under the complete authority of Congress. The lack of voting representation in Congress for residents of the U.S. capital has been an issue since the foundation of the federal district. Numerous proposals have been introduced to change this situation including legislation and constitutional amendments to grant D.C. residents voting representation, returning the District to the state of Maryland and making the District of Columbia into a new state. All proposals have been met with political or constitutional challenges; therefore, there has been no change in the District's representation in the Congress.

District of Columbia's At-large congressional district
en.wikipedia.org...

Since, according to the U.S. Constitution, only states may be represented in Congress, the District of Columbia has no voting representative. Instead, D.C. elects a non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives. Unlike residents of U.S. territories, who also elect non-voting delegates to Congress, residents of D.C. pay federal income tax, which in the view of many residents subjects them to "taxation without representation".

Despite lacking full voting privileges on the House floor, delegates are voting members of House committees and they lobby their Congressional colleagues regarding the District's interests. In January 2007, the House adopted H.Res. 78, which permits delegates to cast non-binding floor votes when the House was operating in the Committee of the Whole, a procedure that last existed from 1993-1995.

Hmmm...

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 09:15 AM by autowrench

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Yes, that is true. America was once called, "Confederation of States.....
dictionary.reference.com...
" the Confederation, the union of the 13 original U.S. states under the Articles of Confederation 1781–89." Before we had a Constitution, we had Articles of Confederation.
www.loc.gov...

The War of Northern Aggression changed all that forever. It was decided at the highest levels of government that the States must never "get together" ever again, and that the Martial Law declared by Lincoln's Executive Order.....

ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

This Act was never appealed, to the best of my knowledge and research. Presidents after Lincoln just maintained the Order, changing it as circumstances warranted, such as the REX-84 Plan, and others...cz85b.com...

The greatest fear the founders of this nation had was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They no longer wanted kings, potentates or czars, they wanted a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States (People) and not from the central government.

John Adams advocated that a good government consists of three balancing powers, the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial, that would produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. It was Adams' theory that the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare was to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies (legislative and executive) in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third (judicial). I happen to agree with Adams, any sort of good government has to have this separation of powers or a dictatorship soon emerges. We have two Constitutions, people...

"Original: union of the several states, the states united, united states in Congress assembled, these united States of America, The united states of America, The United States of America,The United States.
Started with: Declaration of Independence in 1776, Articles of Confederation in 1778,
and the Constitution in 1787. (The Real Constitution)

having a de jure form of government
Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title; "by law"
--Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition

CORPORATE: the UNITED STATES, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (all capital letters--a fiction--a corporation) the United States of America, the United States. (intent or defined to be the corporate US),
Started with: Gettysburg Address in 1864, and the Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts. Then reorganized June 11, 1878 --16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62.

In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following:
(15) "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation;
To incorporate means to become a part of something bigger

a de facto government
In fact, in deed, actually; a state of affairs; but is illegal or illegitimate; "by equity" and not "by law"; is not constitutional. Thus an officer, king. or government de facto is in actual possession, but by usurpation, or without lawful title.
--Black's Law Dictionary sixth edition"
(Text extracted from this great website: www.usavsus.info...)

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 09:20 AM by Hx3_1963

reply to post by autowrench

Lincoln was assassinated before he could repeal the "proclamation" and it has been in effect, in one form or another since then...convenient eh?

The question now is, was it the Separatists or the Banking Elite..(being as Lincoln, like Kennedy, wanted to reform the Banking System)

Senate report 93-549 (1973)
www.freedomsite.net...

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 01:09 AM by Phage

The phrase has a long and strong oratory tradition. Just a few examples.

John Hancock, 1788:

As the Constitution or frame of Government for these United States which was laid before us by your Excellency in the beginning of the last session was then to be submitted to the people for their unbiased decision there was the utmost propriety in your Excellency's conduct in not giving your sentiments upon it at that period.

Daniel Webster, April 14, 1826:

...to resist interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of the aforesaid governments; or any measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties of these United States...

John Quincy Adams, 1837:

...That, in the name and on behalf of the People of the State of Ohio, we do hereby solemnly protest against the annexation of Texas to the Union of these United States.

Harry Truman used it a lot.
www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com...

[edit on 9/14/2009 by Phage]

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 01:28 AM by Lillydale

reply to post by overide

You need to get out more. Or check google. This is a pretty low stretch to try and demonize the Obama administration. It seems to me that if you have to go this far and make up this junk, then you have real complaints to worry about.

These United States Music

OPEN SOURCE AND THESE UNITED STATES

Life in These United States

These United States

Just to name a few.

It is sad that people will stretch so far to demonize someone and it is even sadder that simple ignorance leads to threads like this.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 06:22 AM by overide

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by overide

You need to get out more. Or check google. This is a pretty low stretch to try and demonize the Obama administration. It seems to me that if you have to go this far and make up this junk, then you have real complaints to worry about.

DID you read my post at all? did I not say it was apparent I have been living under a rock?

Did you not hear me state the reason why I asked the question in the first place? it was because of fellow americans concerns, not my own.

and also

Did I not ask if people felt this was a waste of time?

IGNORE engaged Lillydale

Thank you everyone else for sharing history lessons and your comments.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by overide]

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:12 AM by Lillydale

Originally posted by overide

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by overide

You need to get out more. Or check google. This is a pretty low stretch to try and demonize the Obama administration. It seems to me that if you have to go this far and make up this junk, then you have real complaints to worry about.

DID you read my post at all? did I not say it was apparent I have been living under a rock?
Did you not hear me state the reason why I asked the question in the first place? it was because of fellow americans concerns, not my own.

and also

Did I not ask if people felt this was a waste of time?

IGNORE engaged Lillydale

Thank you everyone else for sharing history lessons and your comments.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by overide]

Wait wait wait? You are mad because I corrected you and then you had to go back and edit your post? Tch Tch.

Let me see if I have this straight. Someone else asked you a question that you knew the answer to but instead of tell them, you asked us so that you could then go back and tell your friend what you already knew???????

Gosh, really sorry that I looked something up for you, answered your question, and you did not like it. I see my post is not even remotely alone in its content or tone but hey, whatever makes you feel better.

Question answered, thread over, right?

reply posted on 18-12-2009 @ 02:12 AM by Marshall Law

"these united states" is the proper way the republic is described and notice they talk like that when its ass kissin time. THIS IS ANOTHER TOPIC THAT NEEDS ALOT OF VIGILANCE IT COULD BE THE KEY TO THE REPUBLIC'S LIBERATION

reply posted on 18-12-2009 @ 02:16 AM by SLAYER69

The United States are....

Not

The United States is...