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.


A brief history of the destruction of our republic

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:02 PM
There was a thread several weeks ago talking about how we are all debtors and how the USA is a corporation and we are owned by Great Britain. I posted in that thread a brief description of what I'm posting here, but I couldn't find all the info at the time and am still having a difficult time finding all of the info I have collected over the years on this subject. What follows is a brief description of the info I have collected and I will be adding some more over the next several days as I gather it all.

The original United States that was in operation until 1860 was a collection of sovereign states in the union. Under the Constitution the states controlled the federal government which was composed of the individual states united together for a very limited few purposes, mainly for defense of the republic, coinage of money, and security. The federal government didn't control the states and in fact had very little power.

The original United States has been usurped by a seperate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and its territories, and is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT) that acts as our current government. The UNITED STATES CORPORATION operates under Commercial/Corporate/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

The original Constitution was never removed, it has instead remained dormant since 1871. This fact is made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan in Downes v Bidwell, 182, US 244 1901 by stating in his dissenting opinion that "Two national governments exist; on to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by congress Independently of that instrument."

In 1845 Congress passed legislation that would allow common law to be usurped by Admiralty Law. (See for explanation). The yellow fringe on three sides of court flags shows this is still true. Prior to 1845 Americans were sovereign people who governed themselves under common law.

In 1860 Congress ajourned Sine Die and Lincoln could not legally reconvene Congress. In 1861 Lincoln declared a State of National Emergency and Martial Law which gave him unprecedented powers and removed the Executive Branch from the 3 branches of government. This has never been overturned and we are still under his declared State of Emergency.

In 1863 the Lieber Code was established taking away your property and your rights. From 1864-1867 several Reconstruction Acts were passed forcing the states to ratify the 14th amendment and making us all Citizens of The United States of America (Merriam Webster definition of citizen is "a subject") and removing our sovereignty.

In 1865 the capitol was moved to Washington District of Columbia which is not a state but a federal territory owned by the federal government. Remember that originally states united to form a federal republic which owned nothing and had very little power.

In 1871 the United States became a corporation with a new corporate government and the original constitutional government became dormant but it was never terminated. The new constitution had to be ratified by the people according to the original constitution, but it never was so the whole process was done behind closed doors. The people became the financing for the new government.

In 1917 the Trading With The Enemy Act was passed. It was implemented to deal with the countries we were at war with during WWI. It gave the President and the Alien Property Custodian the power to seize the assets of people included in the act and in oder to do business in this country they had to apply for a permit to do so. By 1921 the Federal Reserve Bank which was the trustee for the Alien Property Custodian held over $700 million intrust. This was based off our assets not theirs.

In 1933 48, State 1 of the TWEA was amended to include the American Citizen because they wanted to take our gold away. Executive Order 6102 was created to make it illegal for a U.S. Citizen to own gold. In order for the Government to take our gold away and violate our Constitutional rights, we were reclassified as ENEMY COMBATANTS.”

In 1933, there was a second United States bankruptcy. In the first bankruptcy the United States collateralized all public lands. In the 1933 bankruptcy, the U.S. government collateralized the private lands of the people (a lien) – they borrowed money against our private lands. They were then mortgaged. That is why we pay property taxes.

From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states:

“...It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States...

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allocated all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit “money substitute” it needed.

Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:03 PM
In 1944, Washington D.C. was deeded to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the Breton Woods Agreement. The IMF is made up of wealthy people that own most of the banking industries of the world. It is an organized group of bankers that have taken control of most governments of the world so the bankers run the world. Congress, the IRS, and the President work for the IMF. The IRS is not a U.S. government agency. It is an agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. A quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, in discussion of the 10th amendment:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959.

The issue of a fringed or Military Flag (AKA Admiralty Flag) is of great importance in understanding how our constitution and republic has been usurped.

Our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C.:
"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field."

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

The importance of the difference between the United States Flag and the Admiralty or Military Flag is very specific. When an Admiralty Flag is being flown it is done so to show that Admiralty Law is in effect whether it is on the high seas or on land as was confirmed in the following court cases.

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Here is a summary of a USSC court case by the Harvard law review of AMERICAN INS. CO. v. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828):

"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death....But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers." - Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933.

From Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933:

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." - Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

edit on 5-6-2013 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2013 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

Very nice.

Just a brief scan but looks well written.


posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:17 PM
Their is so much wrong with that it would require a book to explain how and why most of that is one confused twisted version of history. I would suggest you find someone, a professor of American history, buy them a beer and let them spend a could hours explaining what the confusion is.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

Please feel free to enlighten me.

As I said, search the congressional records, use LexisNexis legal case search engine and look at the provided cases, it can all be confirmed as true and factual.

And I am sorry but a "professor" is the last person in the world I would rely upon to give me a history lesson. That would be like going to our great and knowledgeable "Law Professor" POTUS to get educated about the Constitution.

But as I said, enlighten me. If you have any evidence to contradict anything I have posted please feel free to present it here.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:52 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:05 PM
I am curious how much time the nay sayers have spent researching this for themselves. I have literally spent hundreds of hours researching this subject and have searched court cases and house and senate records on these matters and have found many instances where our elected representatives have even openly admitted to much of this in speeches and statements made in the halls of Congress and these statements are on the record for anyone to find.

So my question is that if the court cases can be researched using LexisNexis or the Cornell Law legal search engine, and the congressional records can be researched and the actual statements made can be read then how is this conspiracy theory or freeman/strawman conspiracy?

This is why our second amendment, 4th amendment, and entire Bill of Rights is being slowly chiseled away. Because the courts and the legislatures do not follow the original prescribed common or equity law set forth within the constitution.

Perhaps it's just easier for people to dismiss this and continue to live in a state of bondage and servitude while believing they are free than to actually recognize that we are in fact living in a state of perpetual lies and deceit and are no more free than our founders were under rule of the King of England.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

Perhaps it's just easier for people to dismiss this and continue to live in a state of bondage and servitude while believing they are free than to actually recognize that we are in fact living in a state of perpetual lies and deceit and are no more free than our founders were under rule of the King of England.

Yes, its easier. They don't want people talking down to them like they're talking down to you? Better to be ignorant than to be laughed at and mocked. And of course their masters know better to laugh at them to their faces, but they are laughing at them, all the way to the bank.

Good job, btw. Flags and stars.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

So Britain owns the U.S? Is that what you're saying?

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by EA006

No, the original thread was that British owned the US, I guess I should have been more specific in my thread. The fact is that the IMF owns the US via liens for the money that has been received over the several bankruptcies that the US has filed, first after the Civil War and then again in 1933 during the great depression.

Just as the IMF and world bank received collateral assets when they bailed out the various EU countries recently, they hold all assets both public and private of the US through liens that were attached as collateral as part of our bankruptcies.

I am on my mobile now so can't post links but when the IMF is mentioned it pretty much is synonomus with the Rothschild and Bilderbergs. I will add some links and more info when I get back to my PC.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
I am curious how much time the nay sayers have spent researching this for themselves.


I have literally spent hundreds of hours researching this subject and have searched court cases and house and senate records on these matters and have found many instances where our elected representatives have even openly admitted to much of this in speeches and statements made in the halls of Congress and these statements are on the record for anyone to find.

Then I suggest you need to do some more research, because your conclusions are wrong. You've posted a bunch of random, out-of-context quotes from court cases and other sources, but I don't see how they prove your claim. I see a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in the OP.

Perhaps it's just easier for people to dismiss this and continue to live in a state of bondage and servitude while believing they are free than to actually recognize that we are in fact living in a state of perpetual lies and deceit and are no more free than our founders were under rule of the King of England.

I live in Australia, so even if this whacky conspiracy theory was true it wouldn't have any effect on me. I'd still be free as a bird.

edit on 6/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

the freeman & Co. crowd have the right idea regarding breaking free from the house of bondage, but are WRONG regarding their strategy and the implementation thereof

going to court?
playing a rigged game
signing documents of "emancipation"?
by going "begging to massa"?

LMAO! those facts you've uncovered, and facts they are, are proof that a corporatist-mafia runs things
and you're [general not you nuke,] going to go tell these gavones and jamokes that some papers you've
whipped up ,using the same casuistries they use to print "money" and legitimize their rule , [legal] fictions that are, make you a "free man"?

yet Molyneux errs in that his way requires the acquiescence of the slavemasters and their straw bosses

being a free human on this planet requires a 24/7/365.25 commitment to wage WAR on all fronts against any and all who would presume to own you as "their" property.

a sort of chris dorner, but on a planetary scale. a "walking exigent circumstance" when it comes to ones personal liberty.

carry on though [S&F], lol, some would dispute and turn their noses up at your facts, preferring to noisily slurp their koolaid, when you've offered them fine wine,

and a heady wine it is indeed, pressed from grapes of wrath as they are.

but pay no heed to my words either,

as I am quite "Mad"

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:28 PM
A few good videos that help further explain this thread. Now I understand why Harry Reid said income taxes were "voluntary".

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by Bilk22

Hey Bilk, that second video is a great and informative video. I just got back home from work and was going to post that one. I really wish that people would really get into researching this subject and quit dismissing all of us that believe in the Constitutional idea of being a sovereign being as wack jobs.

Our founders made it abundantly clear in our founding documents and writings that we are subjects of no man or government and that no man or government is our master. As I have said numerous times on this site, I am not a religious person, however I am a very spiritual person and I believe as our founders did that we are our own masters and that dependence upon or subservience to government destroys the human spirit. We have an inherent right that we are born with as human beings that posses free will to live in liberty, free from the controls and restraints of a lord or master.

Our founders also made it very clear in our Constitution what the role of government was, it was to secure and protect our inherent rights and they listed those rights and encompassed the within The Bill of Rights. Madison frequently referred to these rights as "Divine Rights" which no man or government has the authority to grant or rescind. Our founders believed that the rights within The Bill of Rights were fundamental to the exercising of the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which they had listed in our Declaration of Independence and that it was the duty of government to secure the rights as they also made clear within the Constitution by limiting the power that government has over a free person.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The Declaration states that We The People are the masters of said government by granting consent to the actions of the government. Therefore if We The People do not consent to the actions of a government then that governments actions are unlawful.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

I am really interested in this. However when doing some cursory research, I see there are plenty out there that deride anyone who wants to pursue this idea. Then there are those who believe the FF were part of the ruse and plotted with the powers in England to provide a land that was founded under the guise of freedom, but would be anything but. In essence, they were setting up a "slave colony" and people would come here and unwittingly become enslaved. One thing I do feel is, if there is a person or group of people who are the "Illuminati" or "TPTB", this is how you will find them. These are the people Eisenhower and other presidents whispered about and feared.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by Bilk22

Yes there are plenty of people out there that will call you a wackjob for pursuing this, but to those people I ask who are the real wackjobs, those who are content living under an overly oppressive government or those who like me believe that they are subservient to no one.

I myself personally believe that no man or government will ever be my master and that is why I started researching all of this.

There was a man several years ago that I think was from Tennessee that actually put the court on notice upon walking into the courtroom that he was a sovereign and did not and would not agree to the statutory laws of the court that won his case and walked out a free man. I can't remember his name and had his info on my old PC that crapped out on me several months ago so I have no way of retrieving the info on him. I know at one time he was on Coast 2 Coast AM talking about this so you may be able to check on their website. I'll see what I can dig up on him.

I know 2 very well known attorneys in central Fl that I am good friends with and when I presented all of the info I had on this they said that it was absolutely true but that the system was so corrupted with this that there is no way to stop it short of a revolution which ironically they both believed would be happening in the not to distant future.

There is a facebook group called AIB Radio that discusses how we went from common and equity law in this country to admiralty law. They are a great group of people and know a lot about the subject. I used to be involved with them a lot but I quit Facebook a while back ago due to a lot of stuff I found out about it dealing with personal information and data gathering. I still talk to some of the members there from time to time though via email. If you do FB you should check them out.
edit on 6-6-2013 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.

If you see that like socialism or communism, I wonder what else you could of gotten wrong!

Although, you seem to have done researching, good thread I enjoyed it.

But I often like to point out that history, especially the mainstream one, is written by the winners and by people that change it to their advantage.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by theMediator

Actually our founders viewed Democracy as a very vile form of government and viewed it in the same way that many today who understand what socialism/communism is. Here are some quotes from our founders on the negative aspects of Democracy.

"I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."
John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814).

"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments."
Alexander Hamilton

"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
Alexander Hamilton, speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison, Federalist Paper #10.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
Thomas Jefferson

There are plenty more but I don't have them on hand at the moment since my old PC fried and I lost all my files.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

Very good - I give you an A in history.

James Trafficant Jr was the "Michelle Bachman" of his day. Someone should explain that to this person.

Any rate - well done.


posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

No matter the opinion of what those people ALREADY IN POWER had to say about democracy but I think that the basic idea of democracy is one of freedom and choice. We all deserve to share the power and have a voice.
I'm totally not saying we are living in a real democracy as of now.

I believe that the general populace should be able to vote on everything 50/50 with the elected representatives and with internet, eventually I think it's something that would be achievable...not that the people in power want that, of course.

Hell, they don't even want the constitution to be the law of the people.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in