The United States is still a British Colony?

What do you guys think about this guy's take on this question?

www.civil-liberties.com...

www.heart7.net...
1783 The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The Treaty of 1783, which totally contradicts our having won the Revolutionary War. This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?

Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

At the time the treaty was signed, the Brits had control over much of the world. You could be a soverign nation, but you still had to answer to the king of England and his edicts because, like the US is now, if you didn't play by their rules, they'd take the ball and go home. Then, the world's economy pretty much revolved around the British empire and the East India Company, which was controlled by the Brits. Today, the world's economy revolves around the US. We make mandates to soverign nations and they obey them or they have sanctions placed on them.

The website you link to is a foolish one, full of inaccuracies and half-baked theories. The answer to your specific question will be found in Article 1 of the aforementioned Treaty of Paris (1783) (emphasis is mine):

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

That's fairly unambiguous, don't you think?

His other point, about the 2 year wait (although I don't know what that in itself proves anyway) is answered in the preamble to the treaty (snips and emphasis mine):

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third... and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences ... and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part... but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America ... have constituted and appointed... yada yada etc etc

UK still owning the US is a great story, but that's all it is i'm afraid.

I liked this one though...

Article 8: The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

I feel a holiday coming on...

Originally posted by Trinityman
The website you link to is a foolish one, full of inaccuracies and half-baked theories. The answer to your specific question will be found in Article 1 of the aforementioned Treaty of Paris (1783) (emphasis is mine):

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

That's fairly unambiguous, don't you think?

It's much deeper than IF the US is still a British colony. Britian wasnt run by the British goverment. It was run by the elite. Who ran the major companies, and corporations. So the question is... is America still run by the same companies that founded it?

www.apva.org...

In June of 1606, King James I granted a charter to a group of London entrepreneurs, the Virginia Company

Actually the entire Treaty that ended the American Revolutionary War is void. Due to the fact the USA was never a colony in the first place. And it never was/is a sovierign country in the second place. It is a very little known fact that the USA is a company. A corporation. The Dutch East India Trading company first owned the USA.

en.wikipedia.org...

(At the highest of the highest levels, all of the "Trading Companies" were owned by the same families, same bloodlines, even though on the lowest levels it appears the trading companies were in competition, and/or headquarted in different countries.)


And after the American Revolution still owned the USA. And to this very day still owns the USA. It is all on paper.

It does not matter which "goverment" controls America. The companies that existed before, and after each change of goverment (Dutch goverment, ....... ((Hey all you Black Americans who live in Harlem, NYC. Guess what? It originally was a Dutch neighbourhood! It's were the word "Harlem" comes from! It's also a name of a popular place in the Dutch homeland. I crack up every time I see the show "Different Strokes" and how Willis brags he's from Harlem heheh)) ....... Spanish goverment, French goverment, British goverment, American goverment) remain.

The same elite families who founded the company/companies that founded America, still exist, still run America. America is still on paper a corporation, one big company.

www.serendipity.li...

www.fourwinds10.com...


[edit on 31-5-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

[edit on 31-5-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Interesting post OpenSecret. that was the level of discussion I was looking for here.

I would be really curious to know how many American Presidents, and in general, powerful/influencial people, can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

I think it might be more concise to simply say that USA Inc. is a British corporation.

Originally posted by junglejake
Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

Umm... we didn't lose the war of 1812. We signed a Peace Treaty of sorts, I forget what they are called right now. It is where you agree to lay down your arms. In fact, in that war, the British were well on their way to another loss. We had just had a very decisive victory when we were out manned. But that is moot, the only war we lost was Vietnam, however, this wasn't a war!

However, America is nothing like Great Britain. If anything the UK has become an American Colony as they do almost whatever we wish of them to do.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Ryanp5555]

Originally posted by Hajduk
I would be really curious to know how many American Presidents, and in general, powerful/influencial people, can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

David Icke covers this subject in his books. You can find them in any major bookstore (Barnes & Noble, Strand, Collusium, on and on). Major bookstores encourage customers to read any book for free. Or you can buy em and read em anytime you want. I suggest starting first with "The Biggest Secret". Then next read "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" which goes into brutal detail.

Almost every single US president, along with the majority of all major politicians (Vice Prez, sec state, cabinate members, senators, on and on) are related to each other. And as well to British and French royalty. British and French royalty on higher levels are related to the exact same families as Russian royalty, German royalty, Dutch, Spainish, Irish, royalty. William the Orange was the first major "invader" of Europe to introduce the elite rulers and royalty.

David Icke traces the elite boodlines from America back to Europe back to Germany back to Iran back to the middle east. All the way back to Egypt then to Babylon.

And as ususal, Icke at the end of every chapter lists all his sources.

Originally posted by Hajduk
I would be really curious to know how many American Presidents, and in general, powerful/influencial people, can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

The answer is... probably all of them. Why David Icke and his gopher OpenSecret make this fact out to be something special I have no idea. Almost everyone in the US is related to Charlemagne, a very high proportion will be related to some historical figure in the British royal family.

www.compapp.dcu.ie...

Originally posted by twitchy
Interesting post OpenSecret. that was the level of discussion I was looking for here.

THe stuff posted by opensecret has nothing to do with treaty in the original post. If you wanted a discussion on corporations and the like, then why start by talking about the treaty?

hajduk
can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

Why? What would it demonstrate? Almost everyone is related to the various royals that have run europe. It demonstrates nothing.

I actually read the other day that the Queen of England has ties to British royalty, so you know what that means!

Originally posted by junglejake
Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

At the time the treaty was signed, the Brits had control over much of the world. You could be a soverign nation, but you still had to answer to the king of England and his edicts because, like the US is now, if you didn't play by their rules, they'd take the ball and go home. Then, the world's economy pretty much revolved around the British empire and the East India Company, which was controlled by the Brits. Today, the world's economy revolves around the US. We make mandates to soverign nations and they obey them or they have sanctions placed on them.

Just one remark - the 1812-1814 war was not lost, it was a stalemate.

Originally posted by longbow
Just one remark - the 1812-1814 war was not lost, it was a stalemate.

Yeah, so I've come to learn. For whatever reason, my recollection of what I learned in school was that the Brits burned down our capitol, and we surrendered to them. As the Brittish wre packing up to leave, Andrew Jackson swept across their southern troops and decimated them, post-surrender, so the US called it a victory. However, since RyanP's comments, I've come to learn that that version of history is drastically different that the one the facts support.

So now the question is, was my memory at fault (it's been about 10 years since US History), or was that how it was actually taught? Normally I would side with bad memory, except Andy Jackson was absloutly demonized in my US History class in high school. Curious.

Thanks for the info, though, y'all!

opensecret, you lose all credibility with crap like this;

"((Hey all you Black Americans who live in Harlem, NYC"

harlem is an up and coming area, many townhouses go for over a million.


there have been just a few noteworthy events since 1606, wouldn't you agree ?


couldn't you argure the romans still own britain, so the US is a roman state ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest



couldn't you argure the romans still own britain, so the US is a roman state ?

Hummm.....
*Strokes Goatee*
Me like....Me like!


/I keed!

The romans withdrew from Britain in 409ad so no they dont still own it. Also modern historical and archaeological research suggests that they barely had control of it when it was part of the roman empire. Just look at how many rebel emperers started in britain.

If you look at the way British Prime Minister Tony Blair allowed Bush to drag him along in this Iraq fiasco, I'd say it was the other way around. They don't call Tony Dubya's poodle fer nuthin.

so case closed thanks to EastCoastKid who solved the mystery, the US of A aint a Brit colony and hasnt been since 1781. anibody who still dreams of America being a Brit colony talk to me.

Originally posted by deltaboy
so case closed thanks to EastCoastKid who solved the mystery, the US of A aint a Brit colony and hasnt been since 1781. anibody who still dreams of America being a Brit colony talk to me.

Sorry folks.. I ran outta tin foil and my dog ate my tin foil hat.