Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death

Holy crap! *not intended as a slite at the Pope or the Vatican*
Protoplasmictraveler, I do not know how you have the patience to keep answering the same people with the same biased questions over and over. You must've repeated yourself like ten times to this guy alone:

You can say whatever you want about rome and the vatican but most people will probably not agree with you because as big and corupt as it may be, IT STILL IS THE HOUSE OF GOD and deserves a little respect.

To this guy I'll repeat it for you PT: THIS IS NOT ABOUT PERSONAL RELIGIONS, RACE, OR NATIONALITIES!!! Take the blinders off and READ!

Til you've read all 1400 some odd pages of source material that PT linked to above, you simply cannot have formed an honest, nor objective reply. You can call it conjecture all you want, but a judge, jury, or whatever would have hung the guy a long time ago on a lot less circumstantial evidence.

For Godsake *again not intented as a slight against the Pope or the Vatican* people.... You're on a conspiracy forum, and most of your signatures contain quotes backing the theory that bankers rule the world, and not just bankers, but Illuminati bankers, etc... Now how the hell did you come to that conclusion? Do you have any smoking-gun evidence to back that up? The nature of conspiracy is that it is secret, duh? You're not going to find smoking-gun evidence, unless pretty much all of the conspirators involved come out at the same time, fess up, and then provide proof that they are guilty of what they say they are. Do you really think that is going to happen in whatever parallel universe?

I know that you understand this, because I know that you believe what is in your signatures, so I can only come to the conclusion that you being biased, as was obvious by what you have posted. Some of your signatures say that you are proud Englishmen. That's great, but you're obviously not being objective here and your objections to this material aren't based in fact, but in opinion based on biased personal selfinterest. Take you blinders off and READ.

How anyone can ignore the monumental amount of evidence that suggests that not only did the Roman Empire not completely dissapate, but has had a hand in every major world event, since its inception, through today, is beyond me. You truly have to be a blind man.

I can see it out there, within the prison bars of the Vatican-produced proganda matrix, but not here on ATS. Here, you should "know a hawk from a handsaw."

For those that still contend that Rome (Vatican, Seborga) doesn't have that much influence over this blue orb in the cosmos, I offer these tidbits:

The Vatican installed, funded, and protected Hitler and the Nazis... watch this video: www.youtube.com...

And here are but a few of the hundreds of historical quotes from those that might have been there:

No political event or circumstance can be evaluated without the knowledge of the Vatican’s part in it. And no significant world situation exists in which the Vatican does not play an important explicit or implicit role. — Avro Manhattan, “Protestant” Knight of Malta, English Historian and Agitator, 1960, The Vatican And World Politics.

The Jesuits offer the world at large a system of theology by which every law, Divine and human, may be broken with impunity, and by which the very Bulls of Popes may be defied. It is a ghastly religion; it is a religion to be abhorred by all honest and honorable men. — M. F. Cusack, Converted Nun of Kenmare, 1896, The Black Pope.

The Jesuits laugh at us; and during their hilarity, the rattlesnake is coiled at our feet, climbing to strike us in the heart. — Edwin A. Sherman, American Shriner Freemason, Friend of Charles Chiniquy, 1883, The Engineer Corps Of Hell.

"The Protestants of both the North and South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion...are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon III, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free." [Fifty Years In The Church Of Rome, Charles Chiniquy, 1968, reprinted from the 1886 edition]

John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gypsies can assume, dressed as painters, publishers, writers, and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on Earth and in Hell it is this Society of Loyola’s." [The New Jesuits, George Riemer, 1971]

Napolean wrote in his memoirs, "The Jesuits are a military organization, not a religious order. There chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is: POWER. Power in its most despotic exercise. Absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms: and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses....

"The general of the Jesuits insists on being master, sovereign, over the sovereign. Wherever the Jesuits are admitted they will be masters, cost what it may. Their society is by nature dictatorial, and therefore it is the irreconcilable enemy of all constituted authority. Every act, every crime, however atrocious, is a meritorious work, if committed for the interest of the Society of the Jesuits, or by the order of the general." [Fifty Years In The Church Of Rome, Charles Chiniquy, 1968, reprinted from the 1886 edition, quoting Memorial Of The Captivity Of Napolean At St. Helena, General Montholon]

"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America, are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies of civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe."-- General Layfayette

"I will repeat to you what I said at Urbana, when for the first time you told me your fears lest I would be assassinated by the Jesuits: Man must not care where and when he will die, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty. But I may add, today, that I have a presentiment that God will call me to Him through the hand of an assassin. Let His will, and not mine, be done! The Pope and the Jesuits, with their infernal Inquisition, are the only organized powers in the world which have recourse to the dagger of the assassin to murder those whom they cannot convince with their arguments or conquer with the sword."-- Abraham Lincoln

[edit on 18-4-2010 by HothSnake]

Protoplasmic Traveller...couple of questions:

Considering:

Art I Section 4 Paragraph 2
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Would not congress be required to meet, per the above? Regardless of how they were dismissed?

Considering:

Art II. Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Isn't the Civil War something that would be an "extraordinary occasion"?

As well, regarding Quorum....if we recognize that the southern states had seceded, would this not mean that when they were reconvened under the direction of Lincoln, that they had a quorum due to the secession of a portion of the representatives?

This is just something that was brought up as i discussed some of this with another individual I know.

edit to add quotations around legal sections, for ease of reading.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


An excellent question.

The truth is though, that Lincoln’s call to reconvene Congress in a de facto manner went largely unheeded by the states protesting the incursions on State’s rights.

Even the New York Times of the day declared Lincolns move to be premature, and akin to Caesar taking over.
(This is available through the New York Times Archives, and Hx-13’s post that links to his thread on the Original 13th Amendment a couple pages back, has a direct link to that article)

Chances are had Congress not been ordered into session de facto by Lincoln, and Ft. Sumter not attacked by the Union Army, the Congress would have eventually called itself back into session de jure.

Lincoln’s actions preempted such a thing from happening, and regardless the Congress lacked a quorum because so many of the Elected Members to it didn’t recognize his authority in calling it back into session. Of course the members, who showed up, were in fact from the States that wanted to weaken State’s rights, and promote the power of the Federal Government, so naturally any law this partial Congress would pass, would then favor that.

It’s called rigging a court.

While some of these things might be acceptable in some people’s eyes, the reality is that the Reconstruction period that followed the War, led to military occupation of the Southern States until 1978, when it was finally officially ended by Congress.

So in reality how free are representatives in their votes, when Federal forces, many of whom, were committing atrocities against the people, occupied their home districts, and could be called in to play, to influence a Representative’s vote?

Constitutional Government ceased to exist in 1861, and still to this day the United States is carved up into 10 Military Government Zones.

Because during this lengthy time period from 1864, to 1978, while the Southern States were officially under Federal Military Occupation and the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army, this in essence created a Military dictatorship.

In reality the true ‘free’ thing to have done after the conclusion of the Civil War was to hold a New Constitutional Convention, and for the people of ALL the states to see if they could actually agree on a new Constitution that would have held the nation together, without military occupation, and a Presidential Dictatorship.

Nor is there anyway to get around the fact that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and issued a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when he tried to challenge Lincoln on the suspension of the common citizen’s most fundamental protection of habeas corpus, the only thing that saved the Chief Justice from jail was the Union Army General who talked him out of mounting a Supreme Court Challenge to Lincoln’s actions.

So we see there, where the Military Dictatorship through the use of the Military was able to influence the Supreme Court and nullify it as a true Third and balancing, ultimate branch of Government.

Now with over 600,000 unconstitutional codes on the books from the Corporate Government, and us all having been made incorporated citizens of the States, and the States incorporated entities under the Federal Government in the 14th Amendment, and most of these codes, simply having power, by this trickery of making us all part of the Interstate Commerce system there is no freedom.

Further when you consider President Andrew Jackson was able to solve in essence the same crisis peacably, and through appeal, Lincoln's own haste to resort to Military force and a lack of any real effort to disuade the States who wished to leave, speaks of an agenda on his part, to force his preferred outcome, by violence, as a first and primary resort.

As I mentioned in the opening post, we were in essence sold a bill of goods, as the abolition of slavery being a cause to celebrate and justify all these things, since we were all wrapped into the commerce system at the end of the war through the 14th amendment.

Congress can in essence pass any law now based on us all being a part of the interstate commerce system, and not sovereign citizens as we were before the 14th Amendment.

I believe that was Lincoln's real intention from the beginning, to modify the Constitution in that fashion, so that all of our Constitutional rights would basically be negated through the commerce clauses.

Pelosi her self verified the power of the Commerce Clause versus citizens rights, during the Health Care Debate.

Regulating business and us along with it, has become one in the same.
Even to the point of codifying making us have to purchase things by decree.

There is no real representation, and of course there is the foreign owned and controlled Federal Reserve as well, that is neither under Congress’s power or the White House’s power in any accountable way.

It is what it is my furry Texas friend, and in my humble opinion, what it is, is not pretty.

Nor is it good for the nation.

Or good for the people.

Excellent question and big star for asking it.

Thanks.


[edit on 18/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

All I have pointed out is your argument basically boils down to some people get their feelings hurt when any intelligent conversation has to do with their own nation of origin.

Seriously, you're pulling this out of your arse. I'm not entirely really sure where you get this from. My country of origin is fairly incidental to this. My first post on this thread was to correct one of your facts - which, to be honest, I'm now wondering whether this was more instrumental to your latter posts than any other factor. I'm wondering who has the bruised ego here.

Then, secondly, I made a fair historical point as a response to something another poster said: that the English - not me personally, as I'm only 42-years-old - have been, rightly or wrongly, taking the blame for the world's ills for over a 100 years. And, in that context, Americans who aren't happy with the backlash they're receiving now, are going to have to grit their teeth with the way things are going for their 'empire'.

Then, you start wheeling out this pompous bollocks about ego and the premise of your thread; which I'm not bothered about either way, really as it's only Americans that should be crying into their cornflakes if it's true.

Oh, yes, I get it. Even daring to reply your pompousness is evidence of my ego. Honestly, with your self-inflated opinion of yourself and your thread, it's you that's got the ego problem ProtoplasmicTraveler.

Saying you have valid research that disputes something and actually displaying it are two different things.

You have claimed it, but as an imperative, not by actually displaying it.

# knows what the above is about. Are you talking about yourself, another poster or me as it in no way ties into my posts. The only 'research' I've personally questioned is your 'fact' about William the Bastard and you getting hist time frame wrong by at least 113 years. This is a 'schoolboy error' and I'm not sure that I need to present valid research to dispute it, even to you - unless, of course, you're suggesting that there's a 'secret history' where all the time frame of the Norman conquest is wrong.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Merriman Weir]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


while i don't have time right now to read the entire thread, you can be sure that i will. this is by far the best thread i have read on ATS. i told both my parents about this and it makes sense to them. i hope one day i figure out how to use this information. i am sure before i can i will be scooped up in a school bus and shipped off to the nearest holding camp for swift execution or experimentation.

i was reading some lady that said she did not want her or her children to die for the sake of removing people from power. i can unequivocally state that i would rather die than have the last vestiges of freedom taken from me.

interesting you bring up the point about states and the federal government being incorporated, and the point about the de jure and de facto congress. this is the same modus operandi of this "provost marshal" movement that has gotten so much attention. I have not been following it closely, but from what i read they are saying the same things and are using them to remove the various governments from power.

i dont think violent revolution is going to have any effect on these people. they are far too powerful. it would just take a peaceful grass roots movement to deny TPTB their power. i mean if everyone up and decided, "you know what, starting today we are returning to the barter system and will no longer use money" imagine the change we could effect. That wont happen tho, because sadly people are to accustomed to their conveniences.

forgive the improper grammar, it is late and i dont feel like going through the trouble of fixing them grammar myself. maybe i should just type in microsoft word so it will fix it for me next time. i too am victim of the conveniences of modern civilization (i.e. auto-correct).

Highlighting my stated entreaty that contemporary sources of definitive information from the time periods in question are required as most accurate descriptions of some things, I would like to present to you Library Scofflaw number one in the United States, with the highest fine ever for borrowing books on International Law and never returning them…

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you none other than George Washington…

George Washington's $300,000 library book fine

Librarians in New York's oldest library have uncovered a surprising borrower with overdue books: George Washington.

The first president of the United States of America borrowed two books from the New York Society Library in 1789 but failed to return them.

Adjusted for inflation, he has since racked up $300,000 (£195,000) in fines for being some 220 years late.

The New York Society Library says it will not pursue the fine. It would simply like the books back.

He famously never told a lie, but it seems George Washington was not without his faults, the BBC's Madeleine Morris notes, reporting from Washington.

Two small losses

On 5 October 1789, the first president borrowed two books from what was then the only library in Manhattan - "Law of Nations," a dissertation on international relations, and a volume of debate transcripts from Britain's House of Commons.

BBC.UK

A book entitled Law of Nations was so prized by Washington he never bothered to return it.

Chances are you would have to look far and hard to find a copy of this book today.

Washington's estate is not known to have it, in it's possession.

What might have that book described the Law of Nations at that time as being?

Hard to speculate, but it's a safe bet, it's not Wikipedia's version.

Some food for thought!



[edit on 19/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Proto,

First and foremost. Thanks for your effort to communicate your research. The respect, patience, and motivation with which you share your ideas and respond to others is remarkable. I am a long time reader and first time poster. I have read this thread and a few others from you, but please excuse me if I am asking questions that have been answered before.

1. I can understand Rome's control in large and "developed" countries, with economies large enough to warrant tampering with their currencies, collecting taxes, etc. What happens with other smaller or less influential countries? Are they "controlled" by other means or simply loose cannons? I am hard pressed to believe there is much of Rome's order in place in Nicaragua, for instance. Or let's say if you live in Namibia, I don't get the feeling there is much in the way of controlling you from doing as you please, along the lines of 400,000 laws restricting your free will.

2. Who or what runs this organization? I ask that because the competence required sounds elevated. I can picture such groups may exist in the UK or Italy, the US, or whatever, but how about other countries a bit off the radar? I doubt the Kirchner's in Argentina are "in the loop" and answering to Rome.

3. Along the same lines, unless we are on autopilot, it sounds that there is a number of people that are brought in to be made aware of these matters. Is this the case? Are people chosen to join the leadership or is it a blood matter of sorts? Considering the incompetency of presidents in handling big matters like wars, etc. I'm impressed this stuff does not leak easier over beers.

4. Assuming the state of the world and command and control you describe is correct, what are we to expect in the short to medium term? It sounds from your comments that much of what happens is not coincidental. Do we have any insight as to what to expect?

Many thanks.

reply to post by Zombie II

1. I can understand Rome's control in large and "developed" countries, with economies large enough to warrant tampering with their currencies, collecting taxes, etc. What happens with other smaller or less influential countries? Are they "controlled" by other means or simply loose cannons? I am hard pressed to believe there is much of Rome's order in place in Nicaragua, for instance. Or let's say if you live in Namibia, I don't get the feeling there is much in the way of controlling you from doing as you please, along the lines of 400,000 laws restricting your free will.

First Rome has the world broken down into a few different systems for governance of an area.

1. Principalities are nations/areas ruled by Roman Princes, Monaco and Seborga are such examples.
2. Monarchies are Kingdoms run my monarchs who serve by the grace of the Pope.
3. Republics are patterned off the Roman Republic, and contractually tied to Rome, as franchises.
4. States are estates, wholly owned by a Roman patrician.
5. Theocracies use ecclesiastical rule, patterned off the Roman Bible and build upon it.

It doesn’t matter which style of government these 5 different systems provide because ultimately they are contractually bound to Rome, pay taxes to Rome, and defer to Rome when it comes to events that lead to Wars, exterminations and migrations.

If you read the 100 plus page report published by the United Nations on the World Wide Economic Crisis, available on the United Nation’s Web Site, they don’t even hide the fact that many African nations are owned in whole or in part by Western interests, and sole proprietors.

As far as real freedom goes, most of us are only as free as the money in our pockets allows us to be. Without money you can’t travel, travel and find time to protest, buy weapons, or supplies to rebel and other such things.

A lot of our 600,000 laws are designed to curb and limit the freedom that money can buy you. In poor undeveloped or under developed nations, where people are so poor they basically just sit around and starve, waiting for aide groups to come and feed them, for lack of real economic opportunity, you don’t need to do much to legislate the behavior of someone too weak to brush the flies from their face or to stand upright. Total poverty substitutes for the lack of restrictive and debilitating laws.

That is why, now more than ever, Americans need to understand the world wide system, as we are rapidly being impoverished too!

2. Who or what runs this organization? I ask that because the competence required sounds elevated. I can picture such groups may exist in the UK or Italy, the US, or whatever, but how about other countries a bit off the radar? I doubt the Kirchner's in Argentina are "in the loop" and answering to Rome.

Right now the real unifying source of central power are the Reserve Banks and the International Monetary Fund, and to a lesser but still great extent the United Nations.

The United Nations more or less exists as a central location where nations can be dictated too through the IMF and Reserve Banks.

The only nations who are technically outside of Rome’s Control are those that don’t have Central Reserve Banks owned by the International Money Cartel, and aren’t a party to the IMF agreements.

Every other nation that is, can be dictated to and manipulated by using credit, and debt as leverage. The U.S. for instance is 11 Trillion in debt, and much of what we have won in Iraq in the way of Oil and Afghanistan in the way of Copper has been granted to China, who has for the most part lent the U.S. the money to finance the War and much of the rest of our government. Yet the Chinese Reserve Bank is a Rothschild Bank, foreign controlled, and as a nation our future lines of credit which we desperately need, are dependent upon what we militarily are able to do for other nations in exchange.

Ultimately who controls this at the top, are the principle owners of these reserve banks, and their benefactors. All of this is wealth that was amassed by Roman patricians, and Monarchs throughout Europe then later, and leveraged into the Modern Banking system.

We know some of the public names that put a front on this, but we don’t really know the well guarded names who stand behind the scenes.

Some people believe there is a ruling council of eight people at the very top of the pyramid who decide most of these things, which because that could result in a 4/4 tie, there is obviously a Caesar above them who can break that tie.

That would not be the Pope or the Jesuit General, but would be the person who inherited the rest of Caesar’s Titles.

Who that is, is probably only known to the Council of Eight, and maybe a few people beyond it?

This is something I am investigating, but actually have to leave my little corner of the world to do! I hope to have some more information on this as the summer wears on and comes to an end. I hate cold weather!

3. Along the same lines, unless we are on autopilot, it sounds that there is a number of people that are brought in to be made aware of these matters. Is this the case? Are people chosen to join the leadership or is it a blood matter of sorts? Considering the incompetency of presidents in handling big matters like wars, etc. I'm impressed this stuff does not leak easier over beers.

Much of what happens happens through synergy. By setting up two sides, of which you control each, but only with partial information, and only empowered to the extent you want them each to be, to collide, as genuine diametrically opposed sides, where the outcome of that confrontation, is what the person really wants, who set up both sides to confront one another.

This is how puppet masters work, and in working in this way, you never have to tell hardly anyone the whole truth or the plan, because in essence you are tricking them to think that you helping them achieve what they want, even while you are at the same time, tricking a diametrically opposed opposition into thinking you are helping them achieve what they want. The natural compromise born out of that battle though is in fact what the Puppet Master wants, and the easiest way to not have anyone betray him, or reveal that, is to never share that with anyone, but to instead simply allow them to believe you are helping them get precisely what they want.

At the highest levels, some talk does occur, but let’s say for instance, I came by all this information, because someone involved at the very top told me, and even provided me some real proof.

Who though would I take this information to in the way of a Law Enforcement Agency? The heads of those agencies are all political appointees who would simply bury the case, that’s why they were appointed as heads, to make sure some things can never gain traction. The same is true with the Media, the Media Moguls are all either oligarchs or tied directly to them.

When Marine Core Major General Smedgley Darlington Butler was approached in the 1930’s by the Powers that Be to lead a Coup against the Roosevelt Administration, it was quietly investigated by Congress, and then publicly the New York Times and other’s stated that this was all sour grapes on Butler’s part for being passed over and up for Commandant of the Marine Core, which terribly hurt his reputation. Once the plot was dealt with neither the Government nor the Oligarchs wanted it to appear credible, so Butler who was a determined man went from city to city, contacting small newspapers and speaking to small groups to get his points across, and eventually restored his reputation in that fashion. However its important to note because a massive depression was gripping the nation most people did not care, and its also important to note that many of those small and independent publications have long ago been bought up by media groups owned by the Oligarchs.

The truth only becomes the truth, if you can find a real platform for it, and that is a very difficult thing to do.

4. Assuming the state of the world and command and control you describe is correct, what are we to expect in the short to medium term? It sounds from your comments that much of what happens is not coincidental. Do we have any insight as to what to expect?

Ultimately the drive is towards a one world government, using events that mimic biblical prophecy. This is one of the things that makes Rome not only very important, beyond being the architect of those prophecies and the belief system that gives them credit, but keeps that belief system credible.

Ultimately it does no good just to force people into submission because productivity decreases and opposition increases, so its about driving world events in a way where people see the real value in giving up national and religious identity to create a one world homogenous society.

Ultimately that requires people being injured by the Statist system of nations, and the system of multiple religions who fight each other over these things.

Make the economy bad enough, create enough wars between nations and religions, throw in some secret technology to create what appears to be natural disasters and pretty soon you have people believing a. that prophecy is coming true, and that God will soon be returning and to embrace these things, and b. that national pride, religious pride, and ethnicity caused these things, and that its time to do away with them.

In this fashion the people not killed in these events will be happy and productive in a now homogenous one world government, religion and society, and the Oligarchs can eliminate overlapping and costly layers of management and control, by maintaining different systems for each nation.

[edit on 19/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I believe that was Lincoln's real intention from the beginning, to modify the Constitution in that fashion, so that all of our Constitutional rights would basically be negated through the commerce clauses.

From what I understood (from government schools granted) Lincoln was against the Reconstruction that took place after his death, which was one reason they killed him.

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I believe that was Lincoln's real intention from the beginning, to modify the Constitution in that fashion, so that all of our Constitutional rights would basically be negated through the commerce clauses.

From what I understood (from government schools granted) Lincoln was against the Reconstruction that took place after his death, which was one reason they killed him.

So much of what we are told about Lincoln are distortions. For instance we know he founded the country of Liberia to deport freed slaves too. He claimed that the blacks were equal, but fundamentally different from a cultural standpoint and didn't believe the two races would cohabitate on equal terms well. It was Frederick Douglas and other leading abolitionists that used political pressure to get him to drop forced deportations to Liberia.

I think this is very important, because its highly doubtful that the dogma of the war simply being fought over slavery, would have committed Lincoln to spending millions of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars simply to deport the people, he couldn't tolerate being enslaved?

My own humble opinion is Lincoln was assissinated because after destroying the nation on behalf of foreign interests the smartest thing to do was to kill him too. Dead men tell no tales, and that's why rule number one in political assissination is to kill the assassin. Lincoln was the Constitutional Government's assassin, and the people he did for then assassinated him for simply knowing too much, and being in too great a position of authority and power, and popularity to safely know so much.

That's my own belief my friend. Too many inconsistencies and hypocracies where Lincoln was concerned to really ever know the whole truth, and his untimely death certainly made it easier to hide the whole truth.

Thanks for posting my friend.

reply to post by dbloch7986

while i don't have time right now to read the entire thread, you can be sure that i will. this is by far the best thread i have read on ATS. i told both my parents about this and it makes sense to them. i hope one day i figure out how to use this information. i am sure before i can i will be scooped up in a school bus and shipped off to the nearest holding camp for swift execution or experimentation.

Don't be crazy! The corporate government will get some good forced labor out of you first! Try to take a portion of your daily ration that won't spoil and stick it aside for a few weeks so you can have enough caloric intake before making your escape good!

The good news is that the Corporate Government's power can be curbed and countered if enough people are willing to evolve in their thinking and perspectives and to see it for what it is.

Ultimately they rule by consent, and they gain that consent through a lot of misrepresentations, lies, and manipulation, the use of brute force and intimidation is simply their last resort for the small numbers who can't be made to consent any other way.

When the numbers are larger than their ability to use brute force or intimidation, then the whole status quo changes.

One of the easiest ways to get the Status Quo to change, is for people to truly recognize just all of what goes into the current status quo, and my own opinion is, that if most people knew just a fraction of the whole real truth, it would be enough for them to reject it.

So its all about really just trying to discover the truth, and to get the truth out there. Of course they are going to use intimidation and other tactics to try to get people to reject or ignore or even accept the truth, but ultimately that's all part of the status quo many of us would like to change.

Dogs are amazing creatures, they can literally smell fear on people, and the more fear you display, the more aggressive they become at dominating you, it's why it's so important to never really show fear in the face of the unknown or intimidation.

It's actually all a story that can have a happy ending, once people want to get together and write one for it.

If we keep letting them write the story its bound to have a happy ending for the Elites, but not for the rest of us.

Thanks for posting, glad you and your parents had the time to read it and talk it over.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You're probably right, I tend to believe that Lincoln was more of a stooge that was manipulated by the people around him. He didn't have any illuminati blood in him (that I know of) and he came from such humble origins that its hard for me to believe that he was in on all of it. Also, he openly discussed how disgusted he was with the corruption in Washington and seemed to dislike the Jesuits that he saw infiltrating the world, based on the quote that I gave above, but by their fruit, ye shall know them.

I used to be a big fan of his. His political writings were genius, and his eloquence in oratory, plus his wisdom always amazed me growing up. But the more I learn, the more I distrust the forefathers and Ol' Abe, and more I think that a lot of it is propaganda. Clearly, he was a tyrant that spoke like a wise grandpa.

The same goes for Reagan (who I also admired growing up back when I was a young republican, falling for the Hegelian ruse.)

reply to post by HothSnake



As a kid, i idolized Reagan. He looked like my grandfather, who was the greatest man i ever knew. As i have gotten older, and learned of things like The October Surprise, i have changed my thinking on him.

RE: the founding fathers....i have always marvelled at how they were able to craft what they crafted. The enlightenment seen amongst them is staggering, even given the help recieved from the Iriquois in setting up the idea of democracy.

history is far to complex to fit into a 500 page text, it seems. too bad...it would be better to learn the big picture from the beginning.

reply to post by HothSnake


The truth is, with the kind of power and wealth Rome and London have at their disposal, they can get to anyone, more or less.

How do we even know Lincoln was Lincoln? Seriously, his wife was driven mad? Why by whom, his eldest son, died early?

In that day and age, without instant communications, photopgraphy was just in its infancy, how hard would it have been, had all else failed, if wasn't bribable in some way? Was he replacable with a standin?

There are so many motives, posterity, blackmail, payoffs, etc., etc., we do know the outcome though.

I have not read any part of this thread but in my not so humble opinion the death of the tyrant Lincoln should be celebrated. Worst president in the history of the country.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I find your posts/responses hilarious. You quote me but I do not remember stating what you quoted, could you please list the page and paragraph where I post
(Originally posted by daddio
What I have simply displayed in this thread is the road an American's Tax Money travels and why.)

I also find it funny that YOU seem to be a great historian and the rest of us are dumb. We obviously do not know "The Real History" as you claim again and again.

Well, my father repeatedly told me to believe NONE of what I read and half of what I see and do my own investigation to determine the closest thing to what could be the truth. History books are nothing but lies. I read "government" documents and the treaties that TPTB claim make them all powerful. Then I research American Jurisprudence and see if there are any precedence setting cases and decisions.

What seems more likely to be true usually is. And it ain't what the government claims or you claim. Sorry, too funny.

Edit to add, I do know WHO the Elite are, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, Kuhn-Loebs, Goldman-Sachs, Schiffs, Brown-Harriman, J.P. Morgans and so on, there are 300 families and I need not list them all. That is a fact.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by daddio]

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I find your posts/responses hilarious. You quote me but I do not remember stating what you quoted, could you please list the page and paragraph where I post
(Originally posted by daddio
What I have simply displayed in this thread is the road an American's Tax Money travels and why.)

Page 16, Very first post!

Please tell me your accussations were a mistake and not intentional as I find it VERY SILLY some people a)cannot read their own posts or b)need to invent pathetic *ad hominem* arguements.

Originally posted by daddio
Edit to add, I do know WHO the Elite are, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, Kuhn-Loebs, Goldman-Sachs, Schiffs, Brown-Harriman, J.P. Morgans and so on, there are 300 families and I need not list them all. That is a fact.

Then why do you side with posters that accuse the vatican and england as the main perpetrators that steal our tax-money? Would it not be easier to simply say:

1)Our tax money goes to the shareholders of those private central banks.

2)The primary benefactor of the Federal Reserve is the rockefeller family.

3)The primary benefactor of the ECB is the rothschild family.

4)Everything else is a side-show and not terribly important!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I find your posts/responses hilarious. You quote me but I do not remember stating what you quoted, could you please list the page and paragraph where I post
(Originally posted by daddio
What I have simply displayed in this thread is the road an American's Tax Money travels and why.)

Page 16, Very first post!

Please tell me your accussations were a mistake and not intentional as I find it VERY SILLY some people a)cannot read their own posts or b)need to invent pathetic *ad hominem* arguements.

Originally posted by daddio
Edit to add, I do know WHO the Elite are, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, Kuhn-Loebs, Goldman-Sachs, Schiffs, Brown-Harriman, J.P. Morgans and so on, there are 300 families and I need not list them all. That is a fact.

Then why do you side with posters that accuse the vatican and england as the main perpetrators that steal our tax-money? Would it not be easier to simply say:

1)Our tax money goes to the shareholders of those private central banks.

2)The primary benefactor of the Federal Reserve is the rockefeller family.

3)The primary benefactor of the ECB is the rothschild family.

4)Everything else is a side-show and not terribly important!

Maybe you can't read. NOWHERE did it state what I refered to in the previous post.

(Originally posted by daddio
What I have simply displayed in this thread is the road an American's Tax Money travels and why.)


THAT is what I was refering too. ANd the Rothschilds have to hide behind the Vatican so they have cover and plausible deniability. THAT is obvious. The Rothschilds are USING the Vatican to conduct THEIR business and guides the Vatican on where the next plan of action will be. What do you not understand about that. Do you know what the "Black Jesuits" are, maybe some research into that group will help you see the truth.

Again, silly you!!!

Fascinating read! This was one of my “what if” scenarios I worked up in my head bored in a college class back in the 80’s. Not quite as extensive, but maybe I had a moment of illumination back then.

Thanks for posting this. One of the best threads I have ever read here on ATS.

*