by: Gary Rea (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved
It is generally supposed, by most Americans, that the Constitution is the founding document of this nation. It is not. In fact, the United States of America was founded with the ratification of our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (Articles of Confederation, for short) on March 1, 1781.
This document was written to secure a union between the original thirteen states and it was written by the states, for the states. In other words, the states created the central government, which consisted of nothing more than a very weak unicameral Congress, composed of not less than two and no more than seven representatives from each state.
The original intent, as laid out in the Articles, was “a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
In short, the Articles represented a voluntary union of friendship and cooperation between the states and nothing more. It was never intended to be another body of government, ruling over the states. In fact, the authors of the Articles greatly feared such a central government.
At the time the Articles were written, in 1776-1777, and for the first two years following their ratification in 1781, the states were at war with Britain. It was during this conflict – against the world’s largest military force – that the Articles were put to the test. They proved to serve the young fledgling republic well through the remainder of the war, which had begun in 1775, when no union yet existed and each state was free and independent of the other states. In fact, when a convention was called for, to be conducted in May of 1787 in Philadelphia, for the stated purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation to “perfect” them and create a “stronger government,” there was much dissent against this, which is typified by this quote from none other than Patrick Henry, who was among the Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist’s Constitution:
“The Confederation; this same despised [by the Federalists] Government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war: it rendered us victorious in the that bloody conflict with a powerful nation: it has secured us a territory greater than that any Monarch possesses: And shall a Government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility and abandoned for want of energy?”
Henry went on to say:
“…great danger [allegedly] would ensue if the [Virginia] Convention rose without adopting…[the Constitution]: I ask, where is the danger? I see none. Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government?…I see great jeopardy in this new Government. I see none from our present one [the Articles of Confederation].”
There were many others, initially, who shared Patrick Henry’s apprehensions of the new Constitution that was being framed by the Federalists.
To quote a modern historian, J.W. Peltason, from his book, Understanding the Constitution, 7th Ed.:
“Nor should the accomplishments of the government under the Articles of Confederation be overlooked. It successfully brought the war to a conclusion; negotiated the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which gave the United States de jure status as a nation; established an enduring system for the development of western lands; and refined the practices of interstate cooperation that gave Americans further practical experience in handling national problems.”
And, what of the Federalists, particularly their leader, Alexander Hamilton? As I have said before, Hamilton, who was born and raised in the Caribbean, was an agent of the Rothschilds. Kenneth W. Royce, author of Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance with Big Government, notes Hamilton’s suspicious comings and goings from the Convention with a quote from Farrand’s The Record of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. III, p. 588, (the parenthetical statement is Royce’s insertion):
“[Hamilton] Attended on May 18; left Convention June 29; was in New York after July 2; appears to have been in Philadelphia on July 13 (without attending? Was back in N.Y. By July 26 to write Auldjo); attended Convention August 13; was in New York August 20 – September 2.”
To caution that he’s not the only author who regards Hamilton’s attendance record with suspicion, Royce then reinforces this with a quote from Robert A. Hendrickson’s Hamilton I, p. 483:
“Hamilton was back in New York again in late August for mysterious and inscrutable reasons that must have come up quite suddenly: There is no other way to account for his rushing back to Philadelphia and forth to New York again in late August for only a week or so of not very consequential floor appearances…”
Now, who was Hamilton seeing in New York who was so important he repeatedly left the Convention for weeks at a time? Well, consider that the great money interests of New York didn’t yet exist. Wall Street didn’t yet exist and neither did the New York Stock Exchange (not founded until 1792). As for the great fortunes of New York’s monopolist “robber barons,” these had yet to be achieved, as well. The Rockefeller dynasty that began with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil wouldn’t exist yet for another century. The same goes for the Astors. The Dupont family wouldn’t start its fortune until 1803. The fortune of the Vanderbilt family of New York began with Cornelius Vanderbilt, who wasn’t born until 1794. So, who does that leave? Well, the Rothschild family had been actively building its fortunes since 1769 when the family’s empire was founded by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who began the dynasty by becoming the money lender to Prince William of Hannau, Germany and who later, in partnership with Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria, helped found and fund the Illuminati, which infiltrated the Masonic lodges of Europe and America. According to Andrew Hitchcock’s The History of the House of Rothschild, in 1790, Mayer Amschel Rothschild stated:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Furthermore, Hitchcock states that, in 1791, when Freemason George Washington became the first President of the United States, that Rothschild got “control of a nation’s money:”
“through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) when they set up a central bank in the USA called the First Bank of the United States.”
So, it would seem that Hamilton may have been sneaking off to New York to meet in secret with fellow Rothschild agents.
Even more incriminating than Hamilton’s unexplained comings and goings to and from the Convention, though, are his own words. Writing to fellow Freemason and Federalist George Washington (to whom Hamilton was an aide de camp during the Revolutionary War) from New York on July 3rd, 1787, Hamilton said:
“In my passage…I have taken particular pains to discover the public sentiment and I am more and more convinced that this is the critical opportunity for establishing the prosperity of this country on a solid foundation The prevailing apprehension among thinking men [his fellow nationalists] is that the Convention, from a fear of shocking the popular opinion, will not go far enough…A plain and sensible man, in a conversation I had with him yesterday, expressed himself nearly in this manner—The people begin to be convinced that their ‘excellent form of government’ [the Confederation] as they have been used to call it, will not answer their [the Federalists] purpose; and that they must substitute something not very remote from that [a monarchy] which they have lately quitted.”
“These appearances though they will not warrant a conclusion that the people are yet ripe for such a plan as I advocate, yet serve to prove that there is no reason to despair of their adopting one equally energetic, if the Convention should think proper to propose it. They serve to prove that we ought not to allow too much weight to objections drawn from the repugnancy of the people to such an efficient constitution.”
More incriminating, still, are Hamilton’s closing remarks to Washington:
“…I fear that we shall let slip the golden opportunity of rescuing the American EMPIRE [my emphasis] from disunion and anarchy and misery…”
Now, what do you suppose Hamilton meant by “American Empire” at a time when America was anything but an empire? Remember, we had just fought a war for our independence from what was already fast becoming the world’s largest empire, Britain. The only – and inescapable – conclusion possible is that Hamilton was referring to a hoped for future American empire, yet to be established. But, how would he – and Washington – have known, at the time, that America would, indeed, one day become an empire, unless the Constitution that the Federalists were attempting to install was designed to be the basis for that empire? As Royce says:
“Civic Belief #1: Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2: The Federal government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?”
Or, to quote Royce again:
“During the ratification debates, sly, theoretical assuagements from the Federalists were the rule: ‘Tyranny could not possibly happen with the Constitution’s checks and balances!’ Folks, there are no real “checks and balances” amongst the three branches of government. No branch has any real motive in restraining the others.”
Exactly! Why would they when they are all three a part of the same entity: the federal government, which functions as one entity?
Royce goes on to say that:
“ The framers well knew that growth in their beloved Federal Government could only be achieved gradually over time in leapfrogging fashion, branch over branch through political sleight-of-hand.”
Then there is the 19th century individualist Lysander Spooner, in his book, No Treason (1870):
“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”
If there is any lingering doubt of the Federalist’s intentions, here are the Federalists in their own words:
When asked by a Philadelphia woman “What have ye wrought?,” referring to the secret closed door sessions of the Philadelphia Convention, Freemason and Federalist Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of coercive power…” – George Washington to fellow Freemason and Federalist John Jay, August 1, 1786
“…virtue can only be exerted by a strong government. The right of coercion should be expressly declared.” – John Jay to George Washington, April 1787
“The great fault of the existing Confederacy is its inactivity. It has never been a complaint against Congress that they have governed overmuch. The complaint has been that they governed too little. To remedy this [supposed] defect, we were sent here [to the Philadelphia Convention].” – James Wilson, Federalist, to the Convention
Contrast Wilson’s statement with that of Thomas Jefferson, who said:
“That government which governs best governs least.”
The Philadelphia Convention of May to September 1787 was not planned to achieve it’s stated goal of “revising” the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the plan, by the Federalists, was to replace our original constitution with a new one that would allow, over time, a gradually growing central government that would evolve into a global empire.
The deck was deliberately stacked against the defenders of the young republic. Of the 55 delegates to the Convention, 41 were politicians and 34 were lawyers, mostly from the mercantile cities and not the countryside. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least 21 of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy. The authors of the “Virginia Plan,” which included Hamilton and was composed of those who had orchestrated the Convention, in the first place, actually favored abolishing the states. Hamilton is quoted as saying that the states “…might gradually dwindle to nothing.” James Madison, Freemason and Federalist, proposed that the states be “reduced to corporations.” Governor Morris of Pennsylvania said, “This country must be united. If persuasion does not unite, the sword will.”
Only 8 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence attended and only 6 of the signers of the Articles of Confederation were there. Jefferson and John Adams were in Europe, Patrick Henry refused to attend, and Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams and Christopher Gadsen were not chosen as delegates. 14 of the delegates would later resign from the Convention in disgust and go home. So, the remaining 41 delegates, acting against their charter to merely revise the Articles of Confederation, instead scrapped it and replaced it with the foundation of what has become today, unquestionably an empire serving the interests of an international elite. And that, my fellow Americans, is how our republic was murdered in its infancy 223 years ago.
DEATH of the REPUBLIC in 1787 – TRUE HISTORY REVEALED ! | Resurrect The Republic
Aug 16, 2015 @ 04:05:56
Aug 15, 2015 @ 05:03:26
Reblogged this on Patriot News Release | RTR Truth Media.
LikeLike
Apr 04, 2015 @ 14:43:47
Two parts of the Constitution that gave Hamilton (and his federalist cohorts) the eventual control sought were:
Article VI
“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
And then we have the unconstitutional 14th Article of Amendment:
“SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION. 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The act that Congress took AFTER the Civil War that was treason, was creating a new government in the District of Columbia (Organic Act of 1871) was the real start of the downfall of the Republic. That act created a corporate government in order to use debt-based currency in lieu of lawful money (silver and gold) as legal tender.
LikeLike
Mar 04, 2015 @ 15:35:11
Christopher: Even if most of us would rise up, we will quickly be put down. Not by foreign terrorists or by right wing extremists, or by left wing anarchists. It will be by Americans who turned against the rest of us.
LikeLike
Mar 04, 2015 @ 14:50:32
If only we, the average people, would awaken and realize “we have the power to end the corruption”. So very well stated. Want “TO END THE CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON DC? Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouw_c8fOmqQ… President Agenda #3. Friend us, share our videos and all 12 Presidential Agendas. , help us go viral and help get us on your state ballots for 2016. Help us and we can take back Washington DC from the 85 ITBBs
LikeLike
How the American Republic Died at Philadelphia in 1787 | The PPJ Gazette / Bill Giltner's Blog (on giltner.biz)
Oct 26, 2014 @ 13:35:43
How the American Republic Died at Philadelphia in 1787 | The PPJ Gazette | DICK.GAINES: AMERICAN! ~ Gunny.G: Online Since 1997
Aug 06, 2013 @ 16:15:40
Mar 16, 2012 @ 00:59:45
Here’s the 2nd Installment on the proof of the death of Habeas Corpus in America, that is, civilized jurisprudence since 1215 has been obliterated by Bush and now reinforced by Obama, who in all essential respects has carried out Bush’s 3rd term.
LikeLike
Mar 16, 2012 @ 00:47:33
As much as this scholarly endeavor into our Constitutional origins are appreciated by all sentient beings it should always be remembered that the original document authored by rich landed white slave holder males was so reactionary, that is, unacceptable to the vast majority of Yeoman farmers that comprised the democratic majority of America, to say nothing of women, slaves and indigenous peoples, that it required a whole bunch of AMMENDMENTS to that document in order to be truly ratified. Think about how revolutionary those AMMENDMENTS were, that is, they’re the Bill of Rights for crying out loud.
The point is all of this is moot when you consider the fact as of Bush’s signing of the Military Commissions Act that even the right to a writ of habeas corpus is dead, meaning so is the Bill of Rights:
Here’s the 1st of two installments proving this point:
LikeLike
Mar 15, 2012 @ 20:22:17
History lesson! Pay attention peeps!
LikeLike
Jan 20, 2012 @ 18:37:21
I’m impressed, I have to say. Actually hardly ever do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you might have hit the nail on the head. Your thought is excellent; the issue is one thing that not sufficient persons are speaking intelligently about.
LikeLike
Sep 09, 2011 @ 17:31:56
gary get a philip stein watch teslar sheild
LikeLike
Aug 08, 2011 @ 23:05:46
Hamilton a Rothschild agent?! Gimme a break! The Rothschilds had only begun business 20 years before and were too concerned with Europe to spare us a thought or two! It’s much more useful to remember that Hamilton was an aide of Washington’s during the Revolution and as such he, and most other field-rank officers (not to mention NCOs and soldiers) had BAD memories of Congress’s ineffectuality during the Revolution in getting supplies (including firearms and ammo) to the army, not to mention leaving them UNPAID for months at a time! Any of you lugs read about the Pennsylvania Line Mutiny in early 1781? Or the rumbles from the Continentals throughout 1782 and into 1783? It was almost all Washington could do to keep his frustrated, under-supplied and unpaid soldiers from marching on Philadelphia and demanding their wages from Congress at bayonet-point! And those bad memories from officers and men made the idea of a stronger central government look plenty good to them and those who (rightly) listened to them.
LikeLike
Jul 16, 2011 @ 17:00:33
Technically, you’re correct, Jeff. However, the reality of the situation, in any practical terms, is quite something else. Let’s examine the Second Amendment, for example, as I think it’s the clearest example among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
As human beings, we have the right to life. This was never and could never be granted to us by government. It is a natural condition arising from the fact that we live. By extension, we also have a natural right to defend our lives from those who would take it from us and, to that end, we have every right to arm ourselves in any way we see fit. This means there are no restrictions upon what weapons we may have, how many of them we may have, nor how we may hold, transport, store or use them. This is all arising from our natural right to life, which was never granted to us by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, in fact, only acknowledges this existing right.
However, despite this, the Second Amendment has been repeatedly infringed by the government, and by the governments of all fifty states, hundreds of times since the National Firearms Act of 1934 set the precedent for that infringement.
Over the intervening 77 years, the number and scope of these infringements has grown to such a degree and has become so firmly entrenched for at least three or four generations of Americans, that it is no longer even recognized as an infringement by most. Not only that, but, most gun owners, these days, consider such additional infringements as “concealed carry” permits and “open carry permits” to be a “victory for the Second Amendment,” when, in fact, they are further infringements which turn our existing right to arm ourselves into a government-granted and regulated privilege that can be revoked at any time.
And that is just what’s happened to the Second Amendment over the course of the last 77 years. Yes, we all still retain our right to defend our lives and to arm ourselves in any way we see fit, but our actual exercise of that right has been so far removed and for so long, now, that most people not only don’t know it exists, but they even agree with the government’s erroneous arguments in favor of their infringement. Even the most ardent defenders of the Second Amendment think the concealed carry and open carry laws are a good thing, a “victory for the Second Amendment.” That’s how far gone things are after only 77 years, let alone the 224 years since the Constitution was written.
So, we are faced with a dismal situation in which generations of Americans have lived, cradle to grave, defending the Constitution as the founding document of our nation, and defending the government that document created as if it’s a free republic, and all the while totally oblivious to the true nature and history of either. Not only that, but every American has been so thoroughly indoctrinated into this mindset, since early childhood, that it is virtually impossible to counter the effects of this brainwashing in any one individual, let alone in more than 370 million of them. Nearly all the people in the so-called truth movement, nearly every so-called “patriot” fits this description. Because of their thoroughly ingrained life-long conditioning and training, they are unable to see the truth about the Constitution – even though they know they are living in a fascistic police state. They talk the talk and walk the walk of being true patriots, right up to the point at which I challenge their cherished notions of what the Constitution really is, and then 99% of them will not only balk at this, but vehemently oppose it, believing they are “defending the Constitution” and that I am somehow an enemy of liberty for even suggesting the Constitution is the very vehicle that created this fascistic police state, in the first place. That is the reality we face, and it is so overwhelmingly severe that any discussion of our rights still existing has been rendered effectively moot. For, what do our rights really matter, in the final analysis, if we are effectively prevented from freely exercising them and if the majority of the people can’t see through the incredible subterfuge that prevents us from doing so?
LikeLike
Jul 16, 2011 @ 14:17:45
The sovereignty of the people did not change, from the Articles to the USCON. The “Free Inhabitants” still retained their powers and rights. However, the nature of the government, itself, changed, as the State governments surrendered their sovereignty to the supremacy of the USCON, via Article Six. That is the crux of the matter.
Because “Republic” is not synonymous with “Republican form”. In fact, the Republic that Franklin refers to, is the democratic form, where the subject citizenry operate.
LikeLike
May 24, 2011 @ 20:57:34
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so dense, so stupid that they can’t read quotes from original sources – from the people who were actually there and participated in these events that took place 224 years ago – and somehow think it’s all some sort of “conspiracy theory.” Apparently, idiocy and denial know no bounds. Read again, “The Man,” and read carefully this time. This is not a theory, nor is it an opinion, nor is it fiction.
LikeLike
Apr 03, 2011 @ 18:03:36
Thank you for the words of praise, and it is refreshing to know that, against the odds, as well as the systematic dumbing down agenda being pursued by our government-run school system, a teacher such as yourself exists. My kudos to you and your efforts.
As for the Tea Party, while it was initially founded by libertarians and “truthers,” it has since fallen under the control of infiltrators from the Republican Party and the corporate controlled media. I trust that you’re aware of the fact that both political parties – as well as any third party “alternatives” – are controlled opposition that, while appearing, on the surface, to be opposed to each other, are, in fact, pursuing a common agenda, which is that of the global elite who fund all sides of this supposed “conflict” of ideologies, and thus control the entire political spectrum at once.
Good luck to in your continuing efforts at true education.
LikeLike
Apr 03, 2011 @ 17:51:35
As a Professor of American Government my gut has told me for many years that something was “different” from what our original Founding Fathers had intended. Each semester I teach my students about the Articles of Association of the United Colonies of American and the Articles of Confederation and Perpectual Union of the United States of America. Their amazment at learning this history, along with the Presidents that preceded George Washington is truly marvelous. It is refreshing to find your website and other like-minded souls on this issue.
We also study the clever Federalist trick of labeling the opposition Anti-Federalist to give a negative connotation for keeping the original documents. Many at that time viewed the U.S. Constitution like the new Health Care Reform law-unknown, unpopular and not voted on by the people.
Do you think the growth the of Tea Party is a resurgence of the American Spirit as it was when we fought for our independence? The Articles did have term limits for all, just as the Tea Party is calling for. The Articles also prevented creation of the greatest leeches on society known as the Professional Politicians.
Regrettably I cannot sign my real name or relveal where I teach or my Liberal colleagues would wreak more havoc than usual for an independent viewpoint.
LikeLike
Jul 06, 2010 @ 19:40:21
Jul 06, 2010 @ 19:38:30
Great read and great comments folks! Got me on my toes@!!
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2010 @ 19:02:40
One more point: The Articles of Confederation WAS the basis of a republic that HAD checks and balances and the most effective check against tyranny was its mandate that the states create their own money. Aside from this, there were several other checks built in:
1. No President
2. A weak unicameral Congress with few powers
3. No standing military
4. All military power resided with each of the states
5. The states were still more powerful than the central government, which was merely a union of cooperation between the states
In all of this combined, we had a far more effective check against tyranny. Also, the Constitution was ratified WITHOUT any Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added after ratification, and only because it had been insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists, who had opposed the Constitution, to begin with. Had this Bill of Rights not been allowed, we’d have a far greater tyranny today than the one we have. Indeed, the world government would have come into being much sooner.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2010 @ 18:55:40
While it may be the republic was doomed, anyway (probably so, as we see that it did, in fact, die 223 years ago). However, that doesn’t in any way make the Constitution somehow superior. I think you’ve missed the point and that was that the Articles were replaced NOT to create a government with “checks and balances,” but exactly the opposite. That is, in fact, exactly what happened. We see the results of this daily. Had the Constitution been intended to truly protect individual liberty and states’ rights, it would have – and very easily could have – been written to do so. There are examples around the world of national constitutions that have, in one way or another, done a better job of protecting their citizens from subterfuge from within. The Swiss, for example, created a far stronger defense against the prospect of their citizens being disarmed. Indeed, as I’ve made quite plain, the Articles of Confederation WAS far superior to the Constitution in securing our liberty. The main protective aspect of it was that it made a centralized monetary system impossible. It was SO impossible, in fact, that the only way around it was to obliterate the Articles of Confederation entirely and replace the republic with a new government; one that was malleable and could be slowly changed over time, to the benefit of those who staged this silent coup, as well as their Freemasonic future brethren.
To get a better sense of how the Constitution was deliberately designed to result in the government we see today, read my follow-up articles to this one, or, better yet, download my ebook, “The Death of the Republic,” which contains this article, plus the follow-ups:
Click to access TheDeathOfTheRepublic.pdf
In it, I explained the various loopholes designed into the Constitution that have allowed each branch of the federal government to collude with each other.
LikeLike
Jun 21, 2010 @ 17:39:57
Quote from your article: “The Philadelphia Convention of May to September 1787 was not planned to achieve it’s stated goal of “revising” the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the plan, by the Federalists, was to replace our original constitution with a new one that would allow, over time, a gradually growing central government that would evolve into a global empire.”
The goal of the creation of the central government was to evolve into a global empire is a stretch. That may have been Hamilton & Co’s. goal, but the design of a government with the separation of powers deserves more credit than you give. The original 13th Amendment would have stopped the expansion, and it was nearly ratified. It was the international bankers who defeated it… a failure of the people to protect the Constitution, not a failure of the Constitution itself or by design.
When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with a republic, then the people became the supreme power.
etymonline.com republic
c.1600, “state in which supreme power rests in the people,”
Why don’t we simply use that power to ratify the original 13th Amendment? We still have the power to do that.
The Articles of Confederation was going to die anyway. There is no way the international bankers would have left the individual States alone. The birth of the republic through the creation of Constitution for the United States of America is stronger for the people than the Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation only lasted 10 years against the bankers. The U.S. Constitutional republic twice routed the bankers out, and we still maintain the power to do it again if we choose.
LikeLike
May 25, 2010 @ 10:05:46
Good questions, and thanks for asking them. First, it is informational, to the extent that I want every American to know their true history. I know that even that is a tall order, so, the second question, then, presents and even greater challenge, and that is doing something about it. I think that, if enough of us are educated about what has really happened and why; i.e., how we got to where we are today, and how markedly that differs from what our ancestors intended (those being the founders of the republic, not the Federalists), it may be possible to initiate some sort of attempt to right the wrong.
As for what that would consist of, I think it’s rather obvious that, if the mission is to restore the republic, then restoring the republic’s founding document to its rightful place and its full authority as law is the right way to go. This will be a very painful process, however, one that will cause great changes, many of them catastrophic. Just going from where we are now: society run by unseen oligarchs who conjure our debt-based money out of thin air, to a society in which there is no central monetary system and each of the fifty states coins its own money would create quite a bit of chaos, but it needs to be done because there is no other way to get there from here. If we re-adopt the gold standard, especially, the resulting contraction caused by making all values based upon the amount of gold in circulation would make millionaires out of billionaires overnight and the value of all wages and prices would tumble, as well. If we can get through that, things would stabilize at values that are determined by the gold supply and not by usurious debt.
As for the federal government, it would, of course, have to shrink dramatically in size and scope, back to its original legitimate functions and no more than this. Gone would be any standing military, let alone an military empire waging “pre-emptive” wars around the world. In its place, each state would have a high-tech version of the state militias that existed under the Articles. Congress would shrink, also, from the bicameral colossus it is now to its original unicameral state, with not less than two and no more than seven representatives from each of the fifty states. All the various agencies the federal behemoth has created over two centuries would be dissolved and disbanded, as well, save for those originally mandated by the Articles. Gone, of course, would be the IRS and the Federal Reserve, which was never a part of our government to begin with.
In all this, of course the illegitimate Federalist Constitution would be what is should be considered to be now: null and void, as its very creation was a violation of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation, to begin with. As for the Bill of Rights, these were amendments made to the Federalist’s document when it was realized that document and the government it authorized were not to be trusted. There was no need for a Bill of Rights under the Articles because the Articles had already established the freest republic that had ever existed in history. It was sufficient, as it was, to safeguard our liberties, as it imposed no central authority over the people and left the people in charge of the states. Of course, we’d have to scrap each state’s constitution and replace each with something more resembling what existed in 1787 at the state level. That was varied, though, differing with the historical foundations of each of the original thirteen colonies. Perhaps the original constitution of, say, New Hampshire might be a model we could use. That’s one that might be best left to each state, in fact.
Do I believe any of this is possible, given what exists today? Well, unless we change the minds of most Americans and bring them all up to speed, prosecute the banksters and their minions, and begin this process of restoration, I don’t see how it could ever happen. Considering how insurmountable the odds are of just awakening all of America to what has happened, it seems rather doubtful. I don’t think that’s pessimistic, though; just realistic.
LikeLike
May 25, 2010 @ 01:02:45
Very sound article. I have for many years been of the firm opinion that this Constitution of ours was not what so many seem to feel. It is a highly flawed document in many ways and given the intelligence of the authors, it is difficult to believe that those flaws were happenstance resulting from ignorance, naivete, or stupidity – leaving not much more than intentional design.
If you read historical accounts of the various comings and goings of the manifold characters of the day, there does appear a certain sense of machination beyond what the textbooks address.
I have a question for you, Gary: assuming the utter truth and accuracy of what you have written here, was your purpose merely informational or is there a more meaningful point of recommending action?
I would also ask, not being a lawyer and given the facts as you present them, is our Constitution invalid? I ask because those in power are charged with seeing after the public trust. If they violated their charter, was that trust not also violated most egregiously? If so, would their actions pursuant to such a violation not be invalid? In my view, 223 years of precedent does not remove the stain of such a violation. No doubt my opinion may constitute a one-man minority.
LikeLike
Hezekiah Wyman » Blog Archive » The Death of the Republic Revisited by Gary Rea
May 21, 2010 @ 20:44:31
May 09, 2010 @ 05:34:16
Apology accepted, Ingo. As for history, well, it’s a subject anyone can know about, depending upon where one looks. If you’re reading consists of only mainstream sources, then you’ve been lied to. I find the words of historical figures, themselves, often tell the true story.
LikeLike
May 09, 2010 @ 05:26:31
Gary, I do apologize for misspelling your name.
As to knowing history, I don’t know that I bow to your understanding of it.
Ingo
LikeLike
May 09, 2010 @ 02:24:47
Ingo, there is no “bias” on my part toward anything. The historical facts speak for themselves and I have used direct quotes from those involved who were actually there at the time.
Secondly, your knowledge of history leaves much to be desired. The Philadelphia Convention, which was called to supposedly “revise” the Articles of Confederation (but was covertly intended to replace it, and did, ultimately, do so) was convened in May of 1787, not in 1776. As for the several states, none had any constitution to speak of, although there were still colonial commonwealths in existence in 1776. Up until 1781, with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, there was no central government and even after the Articles were ratified in 1781, the central government it created was a weak union of states with a weak unicameral Congress having few powers over the states. This much you should have learned within the first couple of paragraphs of my article, but, apparently that escaped you, somehow.
As for everything else you’ve said here, you show a complete lack of understanding of history, as well as of the Articles of Confederation, the republic it created, or the Constitution, let alone the machinations of the Federalists. You are not a careful reader and, by the way, you couldn’t even spell my name correctly.
LikeLike
May 09, 2010 @ 01:10:03
Gary Rae in my opinion is too biased toward conspiracy involving the Rothschilds to merit much attention. I don’t agree with his assessments. Here is why:
The country had been formed piecemeal. The colonies were created at different times under different philosophies of life, ranging from the hard-bitten Calvinism of New England to the wordly Hedonism of the Deep South. Before 1776 there was no American government as such. Each colony had its own legislature, and a council and governor usually appointed by the Crown. Such government as there was for America sat in London. The Parliament and the King together could and did establish some general laws, having to do mostly with shipping and commerce. Otherwise, each colony was on its own.
With the signing of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the legal basis of all these colonial governments was undermined, and the various states set out to write constitutions and creating new governments for themselves. Each was now, in effect, an independant nation.
It was clear that the newly free colonies could not fight a common war against the British without some common government. In June 1776, the delegates from the states at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia voted to draw up a “firm league of friendship”. The result was a document called the Articles of Confederation. These Articles created an organization which might be compared to the League of Nations. The author’s assertion that it was a Republic, is far fetched at best. The basic principle underlying the Articles of Conderation was that each state would remain “sovereign”. What exactly that meant, nobody knew. What it did mean however, is that the separate states could with impunity ignore legislation by the Congress. When the states were assessed taxes to pay for the war and other expenses, many dragged their feet……and on and on it went…..
What looked all so promising at first seemed to fall apart……. ..that was the reason for the May 1787 convention in Philadelphia to improve on the Articles of Confederation, not to write a new Constitution. While they were in convention, something magical happened…something took over and the result was the U.S. Constitution.
The question of whether to form a federal republic versus a confederation of independent states was heavily debated and fought over. Governor Clinton of New York, and Patrick Henry of Virginia were vocal and ardent anti-federalists. Alexander Hamilton was very much for a strong central government. Hamilton’s ideas were wide open and he published them in many of the Federalist Papers. He was a delegate from New York who had standing because of his service in the War of Independence and his close association with George Washington. On the other hand, the two fellow delegates from New York were very much opposed to a federal republic….I could go on about federalist anti-federalist sentiment, but my point is that the author of the article is wrong when he insists that there existed a Republic before 1787.
The U.S. Constitution in turn has to be understood in the light of the debates and the understanding that most delegates had about human nature and the Natural Law. Unfortunately, nothing about this marvelous document is taught by the education establishment. It is our violation of the Constitution, and the Natural Law as its underlying basis, that now creates societal upheaval. It could all have been prevented, had the people truly understood the U.S. Constitution all along and resisted its violation.
As to Hamilton admiring the British system, he did admire the Magna Carta and the constitutional monarchy of the British, but he was utterly against Feudalism.
As to the banking system, yes he advocated the 20 year charter of the First Bank of the U.S. to pay off the war debt with paper money. Under the circumstances, it was a reasonable decision to charter the bank for that purpose.
Hamilton also realized that British military might was based on borrowed money (maybe the Rothschild’s money), and that rather than fighting them on the battle field, it would be more effective to undermine the confidence in the repayment of the bonds with which the British financed their military.
BTW, this is the trick the Islamists use on the United States today……an idea borrowed from Alexander Hamilton in the late 1700s.
Ingo Bischoff
LikeLike
May 06, 2010 @ 07:24:21
May 06, 2010 @ 04:51:01
Thanks, Dean, though the earlier drafts of the Constitution were just as filled with subterfuge as the final draft. The Philadelphia Convention – which, in itself, was a violation of the Articles of Confederation – was intended to be used, not to merely revise the Articles, but to replace them. This had been planned months in advance by the Federalists.
LikeLike
May 06, 2010 @ 03:43:49
Dear Gary
Fantastic article! I absolutely enjoyed this, as well as all the discussion, as I find the revolution years of our history both fascinating and educational. i have read extensively on this, and find your research right on the money. I have long believed there was a certain amount of betrayal amoung the early founders, regarding the final draft and revisions to the Constitution. Thank you for posting this – I look forward to your further articles. – Dean Haas, Jr.
LikeLike
Apr 28, 2010 @ 06:01:09
Apr 20, 2010 @ 02:04:16
First of all, Joseph posted a comment, not an article. Secondly, he’s not a writer here. I am.
LikeLike
Apr 20, 2010 @ 00:33:05
Folks, it’s an issue of SCHOLARSHIP! Where are the citations showing the source of the “facts” alleged in the article Joseph Archie posted?
On it’s face, the article is questionable b/c no sources are given.
The only way we can know that someone doesn’t just make stuff up is his provision of sources which we can check to verify his “facts”.
Surely, you understand the need to provide the source of the facts one alleges!
If no sources for the facts alleged are provided, how do you know whether to believe what you read? What is your standard?
Is your standard this: If it “fits” what you already believe, then you accept it? If it doesn’t “fit” what you already believe, then you reject it?
Do you understand that if your standard is what you already believe, then you reject altogether the concept of an objective Reality, and embrace a subjective standard – your existing belief system?
This is serious!
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 21:31:29
Joseph, I believe you must have meant to address your comment to “Plubius Huldah,” not me. I’m the author of the article above and I assure you I’m fully awake to what you’re talking about and I’m certainly not upset. It was Plubius, not me, who challenged your comment.
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 20:58:36
GaryRea,
I’m sorry that you are upset. Your shields are up. If you can’t get your head around it, you might later. Time will tell.
The author is Michael Edward. You will have to google it.
Conspiracy theory is a hypnotic word, you hear it and your mind turns off.
I hope that you can get your mind above it, you really have to do some digging. It is hard to break away from what you where taught through out life, believe me, I have travel many paths. They say when you are old (70 years), you are wise, but I’am still learning.
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 15:15:13
Apr 19, 2010 @ 05:20:37
I personally cannot verify either Gary or Archie’s comments but I do want to say this:
Conspiracy is theory only if you have no evidence to support your opinions or summations. we have been carefully guided as a society into viewing and labeling anything someone wants kept covered up as a “conspiracy theory”. The intention is to derail any debate, any comparison of ideas or any possible exposure of what the real truth might be.
We don’t do conspiracy theories here or encourage the use of labeling those we may disagree with, with what has been intentionally defined as a derogatroy statement or question…..we do discuss all possible avenues of thought. Yours are welcome….and even if we don’t agree with any or all of your thoughts and ideas, we will not refer to your differences as conspiracy theories. We have a great discussion going here with some really good thoughts and ideas, and some very different opinions. Please help this continue by refraining from using negative terms. We can all learn as long as we don’t close doors.
Marti Oakley
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 05:18:44
Well, Joseph, time to show him what you’ve got. I’ve already shown him a scant fragment of what I have and he’s dismissed it because he’s living in denial. Good luck.
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 04:55:21
Joseph Archie! Gary Rea! Is there any EVIDENCE to support the allegations in the article Joseph posted? Or if it is some huge conspiracy theory which trashes our Founders (ones using the term, “templar”, are particularily favored by conspiracy theorists), do you just accept it?
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 01:59:43
Very interesting, Joseph. Who is the author of this piece? Thanks for posting!
LikeLike
Apr 19, 2010 @ 01:52:17
O.k., I’m copying this from an article.
At least five signatories to the American Declaration of Independence were Temple Bar Attorneys who had pledge allegiance to the Crown! The crown is not the British monarch, but known as the Crown Templars.The Crown Temple controls the global ‘legal’ system, including those in the United States and Canada, because all bar Associations are franchises of the International Bar Association at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple based at Chancery Lane in London. All Bar Associations are frachises of the Crown and all Bar Attorneys throughout the world pledge a solemn oath to the Temple, even though some may not be aware that this is what they are doing.
The ruling monarch is also subordinate to the Crown Temple and has been so since the reign of King John in the 13th century when royal sovereignty was transferred to the Crown Temple and, through that, to the Roman Church.
Anyways, as Michael Edward points out—
“Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were Independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through lettters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony. Seven Middle Inn Templars who had pledged an oath of allegiance to the Crown Temple (including Alexander Hamilton) were among the members of the Constitutional Convention who signed the completed ‘American Constitution’.
1776 is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called ‘States’ as direct possessive estates of the Crown.
“The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word ‘State’ to signify a ‘legal estate of possession.’ Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word ‘States’. By the use of ‘State’, the significance of a government of estate possesion was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 21:07:49
Publius, the only thing I see here that you’ve correctly stated is that the Federalist Papers were an inducement for ratification of the Constitution. Yes, they certainly were. Are you aware, though, that the Philadelphia convention was a closed door event and that the Federalists had prepared their case for REPLACEMENT of the Articles in Confederation months in advance of the convention, which was purported by them to have been convened ONLY for the purpose of “revising” the Articles? Are you also aware that the Articles, themselves made it ILLEGAL for this convention to have been called, in the first place, let alone what resulted from it? Here is Article VIII, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union – a PRIMARY source and our original founding document, upon which the republic was based, in the first place:
“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”
Note that, to even REVISE the Articles required not only the consent of Congress (the unicameral Congress created by the Articles), but also the UNANIMOUS consent of all the states. Nothing of the sort occurred in 1787. In fact, what the Federalists – led by Alexander Hamilton – DID do was obviously in direct violation of the Articles and thus, was an act of treason.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 20:51:29
Yes, Publius, it is a secondary source. Having been a researcher, both as a writer and as a genealogist for many years, I know the difference. However, you conveniently ignore the fact that Royce is using direct quotations from Hamilton and his contemporaries, as well as from the Federalist Papers, which you contend show exactly the opposite of what they clearly show. If you intend for us to believe your argument based upon that source, I’d say you’ve already lost the debate, as Royce is 100% correct. There is no denying it.
Furthermore, I HAVE formed “my opinion,” as you call my elucidation of historical facts, from reading both primary and secondary sources. So has Mr. Royce.
The facts are what they are and the quotes support my argument, as well as Royce’s. They are the backbone of his writing and mine. Hamilton and his cronies, as well as his detractors, said what they said and there is all is, in black and white. That YOU are in denial about it is quite evident. I expect that, in fact. Most Americans will find it very difficult to accept that everything they’ve been told about their country since childhood is a lie. I don’t expect you to be any exception. But, again, there it is. How do you reconcile YOUR opinion with Hamilton’s own words? You are attempting to make the case that what he said means the complete opposite of what it clearly says. I don’t know what else I can possibly do to convince you, but then, I really don’t care if you don’t get it. It’s obvious that everyone else did.
As for any citations to prove my points, I’ve already provided them. Read the article. It is based mostly upon quotes from Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others who were actually THERE at the time this coup de e’tat took place. YOU are the one who is selectively interpreting events.
“And how do you reconcile your 3 conclusions with what Hamilton actually said in The Federalist Papers?”
As I just said, Hamilton’s words IN the Federalist Papers prove my points. That, plus Farrand’s “Record of the Federal Convention of 1787,” which you’ve conveniently ignored. As I said, there is much, much more I could have included and, in fact, I am planning a follow-up to this article that will include more material supporting the same conclusions.
I DID “provide citations to primary sources.” That is what I’ve done throughout the article. I can’t imagine that you could have read it and thought otherwise. No one else has.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 20:08:02
Glenda!
The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the People and to induce them to ratify it. This is why The Federalist Papers are THE most authoritative commentary on the meaning of the Constitution which we have.
Constitutional illiteracy runs throughout our Country. As a result, our constitutional republic is collapsing. I am doing what I can to fix that. One thing I do is write short papers explaining the Constitution. Since I am a retired litigation attorney (trial & appellate), I think in terms of the need for “proof” for every statement I make about the Constitution. For such “proof”, I go to the Federalist Papers. If Glenda will trouble herself to read the papers, she might see that my papers do not set forth my opinions about anything. I make a statement about Our Constitution, and support it by quotes from the Federalist Papers. My papers are thus “self-proving”.
Ideally, I hope that everyone who reads my papers will check out what I say in The Federalist Papers. We can not safely rely on other people to get it right! We must check other peoples’ work. Check mine!
Elizabeth R and ppjg: I will be delighted to continue this discussion at this site. PH
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 18:28:36
We will do the best we can to keep the debate here. Marti
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 17:43:37
Pease allow me to butt in and say: I would hate to see you folks take this offline… I am learning a lot from both sides of the debate!
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 16:52:48
So here we go. Now those who studied the Federalist papers and wrote their opinions are now secondary sources. Here’s a news flash for ya…..anyone who writes about anything that wasn’t there for the actual creation of the source…..is a secondary source. Are you not a secondary source? You read, but did not create the Federalist papers….does that not make your opinion or decided understanding…secondary?
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 16:21:53
Gary Rea!
Your “principle source” (Ken Royce’s book) is a “secondary source”! Instead of reading someone else’s opinions about Hamilton’s views, motivations, etc., why not go to “primary sources” – Hamilton’s actual writings – and be guided by those? Why not form your own opinion based on PRIMARY SOURCES?
Too often, these “secondary sources” are nothing more than the author’s personal interpretations & selections of “facts” pasted together in order to support the author’s own agenda.
Actually, I am intimately familiar with The Federalist Papers! And the things you say about Hamilton simply do not jive with what he actually wrote. That is the danger of relying on “secondary sources” (i.e., someone else’s opinion) to form your own views.
Will you be so kind as to provide me with some citations to The Federalist Papers or to other PRIMARY SOURCES which show that Hamilton was:
“(1) an agent of the Rothschilds,”
“(2) a monarchist and”
“(3) that he did everything he could to see to it the Constitution would lead to exactly the government we have today.”
And how do you reconcile your 3 conclusions with what Hamilton actually said in The Federalist Papers?
You also said:
“I don’t know what else I could possibly have said that would have made this any clearer.”
This is how you can make it clearer: Provide CITATIONS TO PRIMARY SOURCES which support what you say! All you have done so far is to state conclusions without any citations to primary sources to support what you say.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 16:13:38
Publius: thank you for your thoughtful reply. and yes I would very much enjoy a conversation with you considering your obvious knowledge on the subject. Please give me a day or two here to get caught up as I am running way behind. We will pick this up. I will send you my private email to use for this discussion if you like. Thank you so much for not only taking the time to read the article but for your response. Marti Oakley
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 15:54:05
ppjg! You said:
1. “The Federalist papers advocated a system of granted privileges rather than inalienable rights.”
QUESTION: Can you give me some citations to the Federalist Papers to support your statement?
2. “Federalism was rejected for a Republican form of government with guaranteed rights.”
QUESTION: What? Would you extend to me the courtesy of reading my paper on Federalism, and show me where I got it wrong? I see Hamilton & Madison as staunch advocates of “federalism”! Here is the link to my paper:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/refuting-the-bad-health-insurance-auto-insurance-analogy-a-lesson-in-federalism/
Please show me – by citations to the Federalist Papers – where I got it wrong.
3. “The Federalist Society, that bastion of elitists who think the Federalist papers are the bible of the right wing nuts have been instrumental in stripping away rights in favor of granting privileges whcih canjsut as easily be taken away.”
QUESTIONS: (1) WHO has been “instrumental in stripping away rights in favor of granting privileges”? The Federalist Society? The Federalist Papers? (2) Your statement is a conclusion only. Do you have any citations to original sources to support what you say? (3) Whom do you blame for the stripping away of our rights and the replacing of our “rights” with revocable privileges?
I wrote a paper on “Rights”: Would you read it and tell me where I got it wrong? Here is the link:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/is-medical-care-a-right/
I am particularily interested in what you think of Hamilton’s comments on the wisdom of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
My paper on the enumerated powers of the federal courts shows that Hamilton was right! Here is that paper:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-the-federal-courts/
4. “Why would anyone refer to these documents as worthy of consideration when they in fact advocated servitude and a ruling class. Calen”
QUESTION: Could you show me citations to the places in the Federalist Papers where “servitude” and “a ruling class” are advocated? I have found no places where these things are advocated! Instead, over & over & over, Hamilton & Madison support a limited “central” governments whose powers are restricted to those 21 or so enumerated powers (depending on how you count) delegated to the “central” government in the Constitution.
I look forward to a civil & intellectual discussion with you.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 07:38:43
Thanks, Elizabeth. Enjoy the book!
Yep, Facebook, MySpace and all the rest of it – the whole internet – was “given” to us by its creators (the Department of Defense, the NSA and Sun Microsystems) no doubt with the intention of it’s becoming (as it has) the world’s largest datamining operation.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 07:28:09
HI Gary: I just received my copy of “Dumbing Down” when we picked up our mail on Friday – back from a three week road trip to find a place suitable for us as we flee from California. If I can manage to get off Facebook anytime soon tonight (they knew we’d all be hooked like junkies!), I’ll attempt to stay awake long enough to get through the first chapter.
Thanks again for your insightful work, and I look forward to reading more of what you have written. Best wishes.
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 07:16:18
Hi, Elizabeth! Nice to meet you, too. If you’re reading “Dumbing Down,” you already know the Montessori program is full of New Age Luciferian b.s. Good choice of topics! People, especially parents of young children, need to know about what they’re exposing their children to. That goes for television, as well. Heck, the whole damned sick artificial society, for that matter!
Mmmm…banana bread. Sounds great! 🙂
LikeLike
Apr 18, 2010 @ 06:37:24
Hi Gary! Nice to meet you new Friend! Regarding your post about education… I too am working on an article on education, with a focus on the influence of the occult and satanism in our schools. Not long ago, a friend suggested that I check out “Waldorf schools” since my husband and I are working on IVF and/or adoption. We decided long ago that will home educate, but I hated to ignore a dear friend’s suggestion. What I found when I dug beyond her cursory look into Waldorf was amazing… and it prompted me to dig deeper into Montessouri and the like.
Wow, is it ugly, manipulative stuff.
And I too am reading “Dumbing Down.” Sounds like you and Jeff and I ought to start a book discusison group! Too bad we are just virtual… I would have offered to bake the banana bread for our meeting! 😉
LikeLike
Apr 15, 2010 @ 00:37:11
Ummm…Publius, the article (as well as my principle source, Kenneth W. Royce’s book, “Hologram of Liberty”) is loaded with QUOTES from Hamilton and from the Federalist Papers. If you believe Hamilton was “a staunch advocate of a limited federal government with enumerated powers,” I have to question whether YOU’VE read the Federalist Papers, yourself. As I’ve shown, with direct quotes from Hamilton, himself, he was anything but what you claim. In fact, I could have used many more quotes from the Federalist Papers, but for the lack of space (the article runs 2,200 words, as it is), all of them showing that Hamilton was (1) an agent of the Rothschilds, (2) a monarchist and (3) that he did everything he could to see to it the Constitution would lead to exactly the government we have today. I don’t know what else I could possibly have said that would have made this any clearer.
“Later supported a national bank?” Hamilton, as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, engineered the beginnings of the First Bank of the United States.
Finally, I would advise YOU to “read original sources” yourself – and to learn what they actually mean, as well as what they actually say.
LikeLike
Apr 15, 2010 @ 00:25:12
The Federalist papers advocated a system of granted privileges rather than inalienable rights. Federalism was rejected for a Republican form of government with guaranteed rights.
The Federalist Society, that bastion of elitists who think the Federalist papers are the bible of the right wing nuts have been instrumental in stripping away rights in favor of granting privileges whcih canjsut as easily be taken away.
Why would anyone refer to these documents as worthy of consideration when they in fact advocated servitude and a ruling class. Calen
LikeLike
Apr 15, 2010 @ 00:07:49
Good Heavens, Folks! Instead of engaging in silly speculation and constructing secret conspiracies and intrigues, why not just sit down and actually read original sources? Read The Federalist Papers! Read Alexander Hamilton’s original writings! He was a genius in political philosophy and a staunch advocate of a limited federal government with enumerated powers.
In my writings on the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, I quote Hamilton all the time to prove my points about the extremely limited nature of the federal government’s powers and of our Supremacy over it.
Honest to God: I think the Enemy has infiltrated “patriot” groups to turn them against one of the greatest champions of limited civil government to ever grace the World with his presence.
Yes, Hamilton later supported a national bank. But if YOU are perfect and philosophically consistent in all things, please contact me at once, b/c I would dearly love to meet (for the first time) a perfect person.
READ ORIGINAL SOURCES! Stop the silliness. We can’t afford to lose you by having you focus your efforts on promulgating self-righteous twaddle.
.
LikeLike
Apr 12, 2010 @ 18:17:55
Thanks, Jeff. Coming from a true skeptic, such as yourself, that’s a real complement. 🙂 Of course, I owe a tremendous debt to Kenneth W. Royce, who awakened me to the same.
My observation, so far, is that it has been a well received article. I’ve had very few people try to argue against me. I believe the quotes from the people historically responsible has been the main reason for this. It’s hard to argue with the words of those who were there and who either were creators of the Constitution, or their opposition.
Even so, some people have reacted with the attitude, “So, what? What can we do about it?,” or “What difference would it have made if it hadn’t happened?” That last one is easily answerable by rattling off a list of what would not have happened and what would not exist had it never happened. As for what to do about it, that’s the tough one.
LikeLike
Apr 12, 2010 @ 17:42:20
I’ve referred people to this page with frequency. It doesn’t alter the perspective of everyone entirely but it starts them in the right direction perhaps. I hope. Thanks for posting this Gary, you’re a true intellectual hero.
Peace
LikeLike
Apr 01, 2010 @ 20:31:22
Mar 31, 2010 @ 17:53:45
Thanks, Jeff. Actually, I’m reading Iserbyt’s book, currently, and I’m planning to do an article based upon it soon.
LikeLike
Mar 31, 2010 @ 17:31:00
Since you’ve expressed an interest in the US educational system which we’re all unfortunate products of I might suggest that you read a book by Charlotte Iserbyt, the former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms.
She’s a fascinating lady and her book is an historical synopsis of the development of the educational system in America which began many years ago and is based on some very devious psychology, although I might be right in assuming you’ve read it. I’m reading it a second time right now.
The book, “The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America” is available as a free PDF at the link below. If you haven’t read it I promise, you should.
Thanks for the informative post Gary. I put this web site in my FastDial link in Firefox and will be back often. After several years I need to give the other web site a rest. I’ve grown impatient with anyone not open to new information.
Peace
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 22:01:00
Thanks, Bob! I’ll be sure to check out what you have. As far as I’m concerned, the REAL “Founding Fathers” were the authors and signers of the Articles of Confederation and the Anti-Federalists who opposed the document that created this criminal regime we’ve been living under for generations.
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 19:28:37
Great to see more agreement on the treason perpetrated by our Founding Scoundrels in 1787.
For a real understanding of the intentions of the FSs it is necessary to read John Lansing’s unedited notes on the ConCon. He did edit and publish Yates’ notes which may be obtained from http://www.OMNICBC.com which show the attendance and voting figures, but Lansing’s own notes which he never intended to publish tell more. See the RumorMill link below my signature.
—
Best regards,.
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Upton, Wyoming
(307) 465-2447
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint
the great ones to public office.” Aesop
http://www.freedomclubusa.com/the_tun
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=74897
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 15:44:32
Thanks, Anita. I’ve only been aware of this aspect of our history, myself, for about two years, now. It’s a real eye-opener and puts the lie to what we have all been taught in our government-run school system.
Speaking of that school system, thanks, also, to CI Dean. If you think this was something, wait until I tackle the subject of how our government-run school system has been, from its very beginnings, designed, not to educate, but to reduce our intellectual capacity, making us docile, unquestioning workers. But then, maybe you’ve already glimpsed a bit of that?
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 15:02:42
Excellant synopsis. Much different than what we teach in advanced education, but far more accurate.
Just once I would love to get up in front of my classes and tell them the real story behind “who we are” and where we came from. But then, I would most likely lose my job.
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 14:07:17
Gary thanks for a great article. Until recently, after listening to Glen Beck, I had not even thought or reading the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, but after trips to the library my eyes are wide open. You summarized the turning point very plainly.
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 07:32:09
Oh! Just realized something I forgot about. Technically speaking, the Philadelphia Convention was ILLEGAL and so was it’s product, i.e., the Constitution. Why?
Article XIII, Section I of the Articles of Confederation says:
“…the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”
In other words, the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was in violation of Article XIII, Section I of the Articles of Confederation, in the first place, and the subsequent Constitution the Federalists ramrodded through was also in violation of Article XIII, Section I, as it and the convention that created it were neither authorized by Congress, nor by the a unanimous vote of the states, as required to ALTER the Articles of Confederation, let alone to usurp and replace them. In short, the government we have lived under for 223 years is entirely criminal from its very inception.
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 04:24:52
I tend to agree, Old Dog. The vast majority are so far gone there is absolutely no hope of them ever grasping any of this, even if they are willing to accept it, and so few are. The mind control has been a near perfect success.
LikeLike
Mar 26, 2010 @ 03:41:19
Gary,
Six years ago I stumbled on to Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth W, Royyce, and that kicked off this insane pursuit of authenticating his conclusions, which has so completely changed my life. You will see this on my web site, A Nation Beguiled.com, and I have found no other information that can disprove what he wrote. I congratulate you on being capable of so accurately quoting him.
Americas’ constitution was born a bastard, and the Bankers were it’s father. Now, the dull and ignorant have issued a new birth certificate to the bastard, simply because he is the worlds biggest employer. I suggest that Americans are no longer worthy of freedom, as they have sold their courage for a damn job.
OldDog said that!
wethepeople@anationbeguiled.com
LikeLike