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.


Is the United States of America even a country?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:18 AM

Is the United States of America even a country?

Not until our country and borders are secure!

Just a short thread here. I was looking through my old threads and I have something that should be a no-brainer idea.

Tell all of our representative that no more money for foreign wars or foreign bases until our borders are secure.

Related threads-

What is the purpose of the US Military?

FBI Awaits Lab Results on White Powder Sent to AZ Governor's Office

President Obama proposes cutting border security in 2011 federal budget

Illegal immigration and porous borders need to be stopped.

A country with no borders.

Why again do we even say we are a country?

[edit on 5/6/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Well why do you think this issue still exists? Big businesses have continued to hire these illegals over the years and this is where continue to see this problem persist. People refuse to get their heads out of the sand over the issue. The 'borders' are not the core problem to hiring illegals, the fact they have saved businesses billions over the last few decades shows you just why they continue to come over and why the problem continues. It would not matter how many fences or border agents you put there, so long as illegal workers benefit big business, the issue will continue.

I mean for goodness sakes we spent the last administration spending billions on war, sending over 200,000 soldiers abroad and in the process losing over 6,000 soldiers, and yet how many people stood up and pointed to the borders? Nope we were all distracted on WND's and terrorism. What about our constant distraction over other issues we waste tax payer money off? Did Bushes $900 billion tax cut solve the issue? How about the tax cuts from Clintons or Obama? You think this AZ law will help the problem? Its just a political pander bill for 2010 just like Obama's offshore drilling bill. It certainly will not scare illegals from coming here because they know businesses know that they pay off. A large business benefits much more from hiring an illegal, dictating wages as opposed to a citizen. People want to insist to blame the government and blame inaction and blame the illegals for taking up all the jobs, but are never prepared to look at the core issue at hand.

As I said I'd like to see 10,000 troops being put on the borders from the overseas and I would like withdrawal of bases and troops. But that alone will not solve the issue. So long as the corporations and the big guns continue to benefit from illegal immigration, so long as they continue to hire and so long as they continue to lobby and influence government, the issue will not go away.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Southern Guardian]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:10 AM
No the United States is not a country. Countries don't exist anymore, except maybe in some rouge outlaw corner of the world.

The United States is a Corporation.

U.S. Code
§ 3002. Definitions

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Read em and weep. 100% Fact.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:23 AM
Businesses who hire illegals do contribute to the problem, but I believe it is as much or more the fact that government assistance is available whether they can find a job once they are here or not. To me, that is the bigger draw. If they can get here, find a place to stay and continue to have child after child born as a citizen in this country- entitled to benefits; food, housing, healthcare, etc, it doesn't matter whether they find a job or not.
Look at all the ones referred to as hanging around in Home Depot parking lots. They aren't holding a regular job. Or necessarily even work on anything like a regular basis.
There are now many American corporations in Mexico (right ON the border) where they could work- possibly for as much as they could make here, and with a much cheaper standard of living. Further, too many of them turn to crime; robbery, shoplifting (there is a huge market- at least in Texas, for bash & run), petty theft, car theft, identity fraud & credit card theft, dealing drugs, as a means of making money. Some, who can gain access to a vehicle, will even drive the vehicle into convenience stores & tow the ATM machines out.

Those businesses that do hire illegals should be heavily fined and have their corporate charters revoked. There needs to be a multi pronged approach to this problem since it has gotten so big.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Business and government are intertwined. Government is the military for the MEGA business, not all business.

Hmmm, never thought of that analogy before.

Just thinking of a form or an idea that could bring about change, REAL change. Not the rhetoric of calling for change and doing the exact same frelling thing. More war, more control, more taxation, more spending, more.............

This country, stressing again "THIS" country has to take care of its own damn self now. And quit worrying about the damn world and the globalists bull# idea that wrapping every country in the world together, will stabilize anything.

We have been at perpetual war and world police now since WW2. Does not seem to be going that well.

Just as in a sovereign country where the rights of the individual should NEVER be taken away for the "supposed" betterment of the country (North Korea an excellent example) or government.

If you take that micro and place it in the macro, no sovereign countries rights should be taken away for the betterment of the world.

This leads to tyranny, always has, always will.

All totalitarian/collectivist control end in the few controlling everything. Be it through capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic.

Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Fiscal Conservatism are the only TRUE ways to solve these problems.

Charity begins at home. Through each individual country's sovereignty and each of the sovereign country's increase in their own economic controls and advancement can prosperity be spread.

By mutual collectivism shown by the IMF and our own Federal Reserve's complicit actions to further the riches of the bankster fraudulent and corrupt practices, of removing the wealth of the entire world into the few's hands, has proven that individual sovereign countries and local governance is the only way to advance our very society.

One can see that by their own test or experiment so to speak, that the experiment is a failure. Complete and utter failure.

Time to go back to what worked. NOW. The rule of REAL law, natural law.

Where everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and Property. Where the government has no right to take or infringe on ANY of those. They can tax and fee all they want business and corporations. But not one RED cent from the individual. That is the way you control the corporatists, while at the same time freeing the people to do what they will, which would be to soar.

The endisnighe, in more ways than one.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:36 AM

Originally posted by endisnighe

This country, stressing again "THIS" country has to take care of its own damn self now.

That doesn't make any sense though. The United States is a Corporation not a country.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
look at the core issue at hand.

Until you repeal the U.S. Code, and I mean all of it; you will never have a country. Bottom line.

All of this nonsense about illegal-immigration is a plot to tie you up, distract you, sap your energies, and waste your time.

Let's focus on the 'core issue at hand', that the REAL LAWS, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been drown in this nonsensical U.S.Code BS.

Once we repeal this abhorrent body of law, than we can start talking about having a Country.

Until then, please refer to it as a Federal Corporation, because that is exactly what it is.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Well, if you noticed, I used the United States of America, not the corporate wording of the "United States".

I try to remember that when writing here, otherwise it gets me into problems with people like you.

Notice also that I used "this country", not this corporation. I have been learning to word my comments and responses in that regard, specifically for that purpose.

And yes, I think we need to remove all UCC and all code which of course is all based on "color of law" and unlawful legislation and including legislation enacted by courts using precedent and interpretation. Judges are not legislators and should not be interpreting the law. They should in no shape or form be using that abhorrent format. A judge should only decide if a law that has passed, meets the original intent of the Constitution.

Like I said though. If we have no borders, are we even a country anymore?

reply to post by muzzleflash

I addressed that up there.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:48 AM
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

Yes, the AZ law has addressed that issue.

It seems people on some of the threads here about the AZ law say that without reading the legislation.

They will be going after the businesses.

But here I am talking about the borders.

Again, are we even a country if we have no borders?

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:04 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Very good reply, I like where this is going now.

I will respond more soon after I finish watching this Larry King episode.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:09 AM
The United States of America is nothing more than legend, a hallow shell of its former self, that rests upon the laurels earned by giants. From the beginning, The United States of America made fatal flaws that only ensured its own demise. The horrendous three-fifths compromise speaks to all that is wrong with compromise, and while the Founders may have been war torn and weary from battle with a formidable foe, they agreed to render the noble words of a Declaration of Independence moot, by agreeing to unite with several tyrants next door, in order to break free of a single tyrant an ocean away.

Agreeing to slavery as a legitimate form of economics was just the beginning, and it did not take long for a legislature to enact The Alien and Sedition Acts, and it took only seconds for a President to sign such an act into legislation, in clear and willful spite of the First Amendment forbidding such Acts. Indeed, these Acts were pushed through Congress by the very Federalists who so eloquently argued for the efficacy of a centralized government, and it was during this time the first undeclared war was fought by The United States of America, in the "Quasi-War" or "Franco-American War", given dangerous precedence to that act of undeclared wars waged by Presidents never intended to possess the power of kings.

These tyrannical acts came with an expiration date that ironically coincided with the end of John Adams administration, and while the strange dichotomy of the man known as Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner who authored the Declaration of Independence, railed against these acts, he oddly chose to point to the 10th Amendment as evidence of their unconstitutionality, rather than the first, and due to its timely, (though not timely enough), expiration, the constitutionality of these acts were never challenged in the courts. Jefferson did use his power of pardon, upon following Adams into the Presidency, to somehow right the wrongs of these acts, the historical relevance of this lies in how early on this supposed government mandated to protect rights, saw fit to protect itself as an institution in willful spite of peoples rights.

This was, however, a time before big media was a common reality, and in spite of the Alien and Sedition Acts, those who opposed the Federalist, including former Federalists such as James Madison, had no compunction in using their freedom of speech and freedom to publish, to strongly criticize the Federalists and their obvious lust for power. Even if these horrid acts were to be challenged as unconstitutional, the legal theory of judicial review was not even established until 1803 with Marbury v Madison, not quite two years after those acts had expired. The O.P. talks about The SCOTUS as if they've been mandated to strike legislation abhorrent to the Constitution down as not legal, but this notion was alien to our Founder's and Jefferson was livid at the decision held in Marbury v. Madison and saw it as a power grab by the courts.

Much like it can be with all of us here in this site, so it was with they the Founders, and longtime friendships dissolved into bitter feuds, and where Adams and Jefferson were once friends, the Presidency of Adams, and the crumbling of the Federalist party placed a wedge between his friendship with Jefferson. Even so, it is recorded they kissed and made up before Adams died, and Jefferson, as great as he was, was also known as "The Great Equivocator, and not just because he authored the Declaration of Independence while still holding slaves, but because he equivocated on a number of issues. Yet, he was a man, his own slave holding notwithstanding, who insisted that people did not need government in order to possess rights, and was likable in that he saw the inherent problems with corporations.

While Jefferson did rant and rave against the Alien and Sedition Acts, he also, as President, had arrested his own Vice President, Aaron Burr, for treason, based upon rumors that Burr was instigating an uprising to overthrow Jefferson's regime. Jefferson did this while paying lip service to the "tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants", in tacit praise of Shay's Rebellion. Burr himself, had no qualms at all about killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, outlawed at that time, over a slight about his personal life. Hamilton was a strong proponent of a National banking system, and the architect of the First Bank of the United States. Where Jefferson and Madison were vehemently against this bank, it was established none the less, and while Madison had no love for such and idea, he himself was the instigator of The Second National Bank, (the charter to the first had expired), to fund the War of 1812.

While Jefferson may have been The Great Equivocator, he did once state that; " Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct", and no truer words have been spoken in regards to those we elect into office. How ironic it came from a man who had indeed cast a longing eye on offices. He is recorded as being one of the greatest Presidents The United States of America has ever known, and such record marks the beginnings of the worship and adoration the People have placed upon Presidents, granting by fiat the power of kings, to an office made public, and not created by Divine Right.

Where individuals once wisely eyed those running for office with an equal share of skepticism and indifference, merely wanting to be left alone to make their own fortunes, today far too many individuals eye these same offices with a strange reverence, and adoration, and just as Benjamin Franklin once warned, that the moment people figured out they could vote themselves free money, that would be the end of the republic, surely the republic has been dead for some time. Was it the much adored Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was responsible for this end, or did it end long before that? Whenever that Republic ended, it was Woodrow Wilson who first claimed that The United States of America must make the world safe for democracy.

Today, there are many who believe they are advocates of freedom while fiercely insisting this freedom is granted by government alone, and can not exist without such an institution. Anarchy is a pejorative often used by the main stream media, who smugly refers to themselves as the Fourth Estate, not even deigning to call themselves by what such a title implies in this nation which would be the unauthorized fourth branch of government, and instead, as if strangely Europhillian in their worship, would rather be seen as an Estate, not as a part of the People, but separate from and more privileged. They are the "credentialed" arbiters of "news", and hide behind a false notion of unbiased reporting, so far removed from the clear advocacy of the media of our Founders, such as The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

Rather than use government as an instrument of the People, We the People have acquiesced to become tools of that government. Individuals who dare to argue that Natural and Inalienable Rights belong to all people are branded "dissidents", "delusional", "ignorant", and as of late; "terrorists", and all the while We the People continue to shove our hands out, and as if some poor orphan child, declare; "Please sir, I want some more."

When so many who have proudly accepted the title of citizenship declare only citizens of the United States of America have rights, and no one else, when those same citizens rely upon, and even quote, the very Constitution that was designed to protect the rights of individuals, to show how rights are granted and can not possibly be Natural or God forbid anyone dare suggest they are God granted, what damn difference does it make if our borders remain unprotected. We will not even bother to fight those within our borders, and by fight I don't even mean take up arms, but I mean stand united against the arguments of tyranny and rebuke them with their own arguments. We all view ourselves as cherishing freedom, we just can not seem to agree on what freedom is.

We will quibble and bicker with those of whom we are so closely allied, what possible chance does freedom have? Further, where those who cherish freedom the loudest all seem to understand rights are inalienable, they are disparate individuals uninterested in forming any united front, while those who detest inalienable rights are more and more united each day. What does it matter if The United States is a country? It is just a fable, a fairy tale told to children so they may grow up believing that the prison nation responsible for imprisoning more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, is the "freest country in the world" and all the while, more and more people become legislatively criminal, while legislation is equated with law, and privileges such as voting are declared rights, rights declare privileges granted by government.

Our tax supported public school teachers instruct our children that we are free because we are a democracy and that voting is what keeps us free, and will not even hesitate to call in agencies such as child protective services to rip children from parents arms, if those parents had the audacity to teach their children themselves, and the courts will solemnly approve in the name of protection of rights. Yet, it is increasingly clear that the only rights any official is interested in protecting is the right of usurpation, and the government must be protected from the People at all costs.

Is The United States of America even a country? It matters not, for it surely is not an institution of laws, but of legislation, and where we have proudly kept an Establishment of national religion from forming, we willingly worship the priest class lawyers who thrust their legislation upon us.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Powerful words my fellow progenitor of the American verbiage.

So you caught my position on the place I believe the Court's Judges should have.

I speak not of the standard format of the Common Law or Criminal Courts but of the Supreme Court.

I believe the SC should only place a yes or no vote on any legislation before it even becomes law. I feel this is a mistake our founders made. I feel the SC should evaluate the Constitutionality of the very legislation that exits the halls of our Congress. Before it becomes law.

Some argue that when someone fights the Constitutionality of legislation it will gets it's view then. I argue that if it waits that long, the damage will already be done.

Of course we all know we hold exalted these pillars of our governance. As some have stated, the priests of our courts are only that, priests that espouse their rhetoric as if it was divine proclamation.

I also say that if an individual stands before his fellow beings and proclaims a law is unjust and he proves his case, the judge has no authority to place any direction. For the individual stands before the very divinity of his fellow beings and awaits judgment.

The true will of the divine runs through us all. That is why the true power of governance is held in the hand of the individual, not the government.

Set free these divine people, for they know their true place amongst God. For whom sits on the side of God? But the people.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:13 AM
Its funny, its as though people somehow forget Texas used to be part of Mexico lol. Europes tried this before with empires trying to assimilate a multi tude of peoples from varying ethnic backgrounds into one, it never lasts, and 9 out of ten times its led to some form of calamity or genocide. Looking at a map of Europe now you will see most of these past empires have reverted back to much smaller nation states based very much on the original concentrations of particular ethnic groups. Solves a lot of problems. Nationalism is a dangerous thing.

I am of course not attributing ethnicity or immigration as the reason for these empires collapse, it was more often than not, over exspansion and bankruptcy. But if America takes its natural course and splits up into smaller nation states, thats basicaly whats going to happen and only an extreme change in government like a ruthlessly efficient communist state like China could hold it together.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by Johnze

Well, the United States of America is a conglomerate of Nation States called Sovereign Republics. The problems happening now is the federal government has set aside it's duty of protecting the border of it's own Sovereign Republics.

That is what I am stating in this thread. For their very own actions of not protecting the border, we are no longer a country. The federal government has abdicated one of its very purposes, to protect this country. The federal government is more interested in foreign wars and protection of corporate interests around the globe.

I hope they continue on this path. I say it is high time the Sovereign States tell the federal government to suck ass.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Yeah man i can see your point, im from the UK eh, and we live on an island, A #ING ISLAND yet somehow our government cannot in anyway secure our border from a massive influx of immigration. WE HAVE AN ISLAND ITS A GODDAMN FORTRESS IN THE OCEAN!!!!

However i think its a slippery slope denying a person right emmigrate to new lands, ESPECIALY if the land they are emmigrating too may in some way be responsible through hyper aggresive trade policys to have caused adverse poverty in said persons country of origin. Something to weigh up?

I am aware though America faces a massive criminal pandemic with people trafficing and drugs due to an extreme lack of border enforcement, that should really be addresed first and foremost.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by Johnze

Hey, to me the drugs are the same problem we had a few decades ago with alcohol. We tried prohibition and what did that do? Oh well people like Al Capone. I stayed in Al Capone's hide out in Wisconsin. Kinda cool.

Yes, the criminals are bad. California is a cesspool of crime. Left there a year and a half ago.

As for allowing emmigration, we have about 300k to 500k immigrants per year. I think we allow quite a lot of legal immigration.

I back your complaint about the fair trade practices also. I am a backer for individual agreements between nations. Not these blanket treaties for all. This makes the multi national corps a menace to every country they are in.

Thanks for the comments.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

The PTB don't want our borders secure,our citizens safe,
our children taught national pride...They want their drugs
to move smoothly through the WIDE- OPENED borders.
Imprison citizens who get fed up and take to securing the
borders themselves.They want our children taught to think
in terms of GLOBAL community instead of pride in ones
The U.S. is dying and NOBODY cares...when it starts to rot
and stink,it(U.S.) will be privately buried while her citizens

[edit on 6-5-2010 by mamabeth]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
No the United States is not a country. Countries don't exist anymore, except maybe in some rouge outlaw corner of the world.

The United States is a Corporation.

Hush, my friend patriots will no take that information very well, you know, their minds will scrabble and they will lose their train of thinking.

Actually I thought that America was once A Republic, you know an union of various sovereign states to form an United Nation, The Unites States of America.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by marg6043]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:21 AM
Um, no.

Since 1933, we became a corporation...

We trademarked (wife's a patent attorney there on my avatar) the trade names

America, etc

USA Incorporated, literally, and hence the Courts are part of Commerce and
the Fed is not just a Corp as well but a foreign one...


posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by mamabeth

The country is on life support, maybe, just maybe we could have a miracle?

reply to post by marg6043

reply to post by HighDefinitionFilms

But even a corporation protects its company, does it not?

What the hell was I thinking, this is a global corporation. I guess the upstart US of A need to be fired and replaced with other less costly employees.

So, no one is going to argue that our CEO's are not doing all of this on purpose. I thought there would have been someone on ATS that would argue my premise.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

The U.S. may be on life support,have they
called in hospice yet?If they have been
called in there is no hope!

<<   2 >>

log in