The United States is Still a British Colony!

reply to post by hawkiye


This is the dumbest of the dumb conspiracy theories.. Some guy tries to make a play on words from a language no longer spoken (Old English) to try and say the strongest nation on Earth is subservient to ... Britain?

It makes no sense what so ever, regardless of how he tries to spin words, which he's mostly wrong about. GB makes no claim on the US .. and even if they did, no one would agree, and they'd have a bit of a fight on their hands.

As I say, stupid conspiracy (almost as bad as the evil joos and evil catholics ruling the World from Rome).

Actually...The United states belongs to the king of Spain.

The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" issued by the pope stated by papel donation that all lands discovered west and south of the Azores belong to Spain. That was issued in May 1493.

Columbus had just arrived in Spain from having discovered America on March 15th, about a month and a half earlier.

Talk About hitting the Jack Pot!

en.wikipedia.org...

The conqustadores would often read the contents of this Papal Bull as a declaration to the natives before conquering them, giving them a choice to submit and be converted to Papal authority or "Else"...

The history of "Else" is rather bloody

Of course it didnt matter that the natives didnt speak the language.

The authority continued in the U.S. under a doctrine called Manifest Destiny.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by conspiracyguru]

Originally posted by conspiracyguru

The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" issued by the pope stated by papel donation that all lands discovered west and south of the Azores belong to Spain. That was issued in May 1493.

After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Spain no longer had the ability to enforce their holdings.

Thus France and Britain gained a strong foothold in the Americas as a result.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Nope haven't read the book.
Just recommending that you do.
I know this from my studies into the origins of common law, the law of the land and the law of the sea.
US laws are derived from British laws.
The information has been around long before the books of Jordan Maxwell.
I will ignore your roundabout way of accusing me of plagiarism.

I wasn't accusing you of plagiarism. Apparently I wasn't clear in my meaning. What I meant is this was one of the first books to compile this evidence. Yes its been around a long time but not easily garnered until then. The book delves into what you are talking about also and worth the read.

I have been at this for 25 years and there is British common law and common law. British common law refers to the British law of Commons. Real common law is natural law i.e. no harm no crime, oppress no one, etc. Our original common law was natural law but was then slowly commuted to British common law with is a conglomerate of admiralty and commercial law and what ever else they decided to throw in.

The problem is few people will research it to the point you and I have and so books like this can really give people a basic understanding of what's going on and this book has lots of good references for its claims unlike some others.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by conspiracyguru

The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" issued by the pope stated by papel donation that all lands discovered west and south of the Azores belong to Spain. That was issued in May 1493.

After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Spain no longer had the ability to enforce their holdings.

Thus France and Britain gained a strong foothold in the Americas as a result.

Well that brings up an interesting point...for the first 100 years after columbus, Spain had the monopoly on the new world. But after the Armada, you see attempts by Britian to Colonize...Roanoke...Jamestown....Plymouth....So was there some sort of treaty, or conference by the pope as a result of the Armada/wars etc that transfered a legal right to Britian to begin to enter into the new world?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by hawkiye

 

This is the dumbest of the dumb conspiracy theories.. Some guy tries to make a play on words from a language no longer spoken (Old English) to try and say the strongest nation on Earth is subservient to ... Britain?

It makes no sense what so ever, regardless of how he tries to spin words, which he's mostly wrong about. GB makes no claim on the US .. and even if they did, no one would agree, and they'd have a bit of a fight on their hands.

As I say, stupid conspiracy (almost as bad as the evil joos and evil catholics ruling the World from Rome).

Of course you'd actually have to read the content to make an intelligent comment on it... Sigh. What is with all the mentally challenged who are name calling not having read it...? Sigh!

reply to post by hawkiye


I agree with everything you say.
I retract my accusation with apologies.
You are right in that this is a very murky area, deliberately made murky by lawyers who just love to use lawyer speak (I'm sure you know what that is).
The English language being so flexible in its meanings, the semantics are often ambiguous to say the least.
To go further into this we have to study the history of corporation.
I look forward to discussing this subject with you, it is something that i also have studied for years.
This and International banking is where the heads of the Hydra meet.

reply to post by Cosmic4life

Forget about it, I see everythng is OK now.

Bugger

That will teach me to read to the end of the thread, before posting in!

again!

[edit on 20/6/2010 by JakiusFogg]

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Oh you've got me intrigued now Jakius.
Come on spill the beans, what were you going to say.
I have read many of your posts and i find myself in agreement with (most) of them.
Out with it Old Boy!

Originally posted by conspiracyguru

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by conspiracyguru

The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera" issued by the pope stated by papel donation that all lands discovered west and south of the Azores belong to Spain. That was issued in May 1493.

After the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Spain no longer had the ability to enforce their holdings.

Thus France and Britain gained a strong foothold in the Americas as a result.

Well that brings up an interesting point...for the first 100 years after columbus, Spain had the monopoly on the new world. But after the Armada, you see attempts by Britian to Colonize...Roanoke...Jamestown....Plymouth....So was there some sort of treaty, or conference by the pope as a result of the Armada/wars etc that transfered a legal right to Britian to begin to enter into the new world?

The "Anglo-Spanish" war ended when the Treaty of London was signed in 1604.

After the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603, her successor James I quickly sought to end the long and draining conflict. Philip III of Spain, who also had inherited the war from his predecessor, Philip II, warmly welcomed the offer and ordered the commencement of the difficult negotiations that followed.

en.wikipedia.org...

The "Virginia Company" was chartered directly after this Treaty. In 1606.

The Virginia Company refers collectively to a pair of English joint stock companies chartered by James I on April 10 1606

en.wikipedia.org...


Another source with good info here.

Despite having committed a significant fraction of Spain's military power against the Dutch, Phillip II was unable to completely subjugate the rebellious Dutch provinces, thereby remaining caught in an expensive, endless, military quagmire (Eighty Years War), and so Phillip III welcomed England's James I's pledge of non-intervention in Continental affairs, which had been the principal aim of the Spanish Armada of 1588.

www.spiritus-temporis.com...

So essentially James I and Phillip III agreed to just leave each other alone in the 'New World', and mind their own business.

That is why all of the colonies sprung up right after this Treaty of London took place.

Go look up the dates, ALL English Colonies were founded AFTER this treaty.



Edit to add:
A link to a list of all of the signatories of the Treaty of London 1604; with a nice portrait of them all sitting there discussing it.
armadaforever.blogspot.com...

[edit on 20-6-2010 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by Cosmic4life


I was just questioning you logic on how someone could recommend that they read something, when n that person had not read it in the first place.

any retort or citation following the reading could not be refuted, even if fictional, until the recommender had themselves read the book

thats all.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Good post! It's all about contracts and just business to these people and they don't care who gets hurt in the process they are just looking to make a profit on their business venture that just happened to start nearly 300 years or more ago. If a few peasants or even millions die in the process oh well we made a profit...

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


So why do visiting USA presidents bow to the queen of England?? common knowledge, but never filmed or photographed, unlike the bow to the Saudi royalty.

I will definitely read more on this. So if the President has dual citizenship, and he is also a British citizen because his dad was Kenyan , what does that mean?

Originally posted by hawkiye
Was it settled? If we won the war for independence why did Britain dictates terms and demand war reparations and payment for existing contracts and we agreed to pay? If we just won our independence the slate should have been wiped clean as the spoils of victory no one should have been dictating terms to us much less the losers. What happened is Britain realized it was getting too expensive so agreed to cease physical hostilities if we would pay the agreed amounts on the contracts starting with the Virgina Charter and several other.

Why did Britain come against us again in 1812? Because we were going to renege on the original agreement and so they resumed the physical war and burned our capital to the ground along with all our founding documents. So we acquiesced again.

So why does your sig refer to "taking our country back?" If you are correct, it's not "our country" and it never was.

I'm waiting for someone to connect this to fringed flags and people who think using words like "de facto" and "de jure" make their legal filings have merit.

Originally posted by TamtammyMacx
I will definitely read more on this. So if the President has dual citizenship, and he is also a British citizen because his dad was Kenyan , what does that mean?

Why, that would mean he is completely legitimate.

I hadn't thought of that...it's hilarious.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by hawkiye
Was it settled? If we won the war for independence why did Britain dictates terms and demand war reparations and payment for existing contracts and we agreed to pay? If we just won our independence the slate should have been wiped clean as the spoils of victory no one should have been dictating terms to us much less the losers. What happened is Britain realized it was getting too expensive so agreed to cease physical hostilities if we would pay the agreed amounts on the contracts starting with the Virgina Charter and several other.

Why did Britain come against us again in 1812? Because we were going to renege on the original agreement and so they resumed the physical war and burned our capital to the ground along with all our founding documents. So we acquiesced again.

So why does your sig refer to "taking our country back?" If you are correct, it's not "our country" and it never was.

I'm waiting for someone to connect this to fringed flags and people who think using words like "de facto" and "de jure" make their legal filings have merit.

Sigh... Well I suspect I am responding to ignorance here, however taking our country back means just that. There was a short time after the Declaration of Independence and during the revolutionary war we were actually free. Also words mean things in law and legalities but that would require picking up a law dictionary and researching history etc. which you obviously have not done and will not do judging by the lack of an intelligent response from you and your kindergarten attempt to ridicule something you have not bothered to read or know anything about.

If I am so wrong it should be relatively easy for you arrogant self proclaimed geniuses to disprove the evidence I point to... But instead we get pathetic attempts at ridicule...Bigger sigh!

[edit on 21-6-2010 by hawkiye]

hi hawk ......guys

im interseted to be involved in the topic
my video collection is narrow in context but does have case law
and its easy for others to watch and get involved







www.youtube.com...

sorry about the tone of the videos but the information included was what sparked my interest

XPLodER

hawk great thread

reply to post by ReluctantShaman


If the US is truly a British colony (which I'm not arguing it is or isnt) then they were SERIOUSLY stupid in letting the slaves own weapons. Still have weapons and have the necessity so engrained in them, so deeply, they will die for their right to their ownership.

Slaves who are armed are not strict slaves. They are ignorant fools who CHOSE to be slaves.

The British are becoming strict slaves by the day. Taxed without representation, monitored like cattle, and disarmed as if they were incompetent to be so.

reply to post by XPLodER


adendum

please note the videos i have posted are one sided and only cite case law that supports the agenda of the creator
there seams to be alot more about this subject that is not included
so please dont just take them as truth
investigate your self

xploder