CIA Handbook on Psyops: "Slander the identity of a sovereign and her founders"

[phosphene]

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE (The American Form of Government)

The Story of Your Enslavement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[JT Coyoté]

yeah, Statism is a religion. Respecting and appreciating the constitution is one thing. worshiping it is another.

What I have is a well educated respect... what you demonstrate is an impatient neo-anarchist zeal for thrill no matter the cost which equates to total lack of respect. ...(chuckle)...

which point in history should we should we freeze to accommodate your favorite constitutional model? It's like arguing between the old testament and the new testament.

You presume way over the top. You see, when you discover a cancer you treat or remove it you don't kill the host. The items I mentioned for Rose to consider are cancer precursors that preceded and caused the cancer of Taxation he is all on about. These precursors were injected into the Constitution in the "aftershock thru reconstruction" period after the civil war by the globalists. They should be removed along with the body of so-called law they engendered.

You don't go back anywhere in this game, you cure the affliction and then carry on, the organic Constitution is still strong and will survive the taking out of the globalist garbage just fine.

Oh, that's it. That's how you do it. Compare it to religion, make it a religious argument...Yeah, that's how you derail it... Psyop 101, eh phos?  It's really more like arguing Righteous Liberty VS Tyranny actually. However, if you lie about the causes of the tyranny, under the guise of trying to stop it, you have just diverted many eyes for a while and allow the tyranny to continue, this is what Rose is doing ... Oh, and by association, so are you.

The extremes of Anarchy and Tyranny are two sides of the same coin, they require one another for either to exist. So now I've got your number. And we have all read Animal Farm, BTW.

JTCoyoté

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek
it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding
the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth.
And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always
create the most hellish tyrannies.”
~Barry Goldwater

[phosphene]

larken rose is making social commentary about the source of authority. He uses taxation as an example. Barking Statist sheepdogs rounding everybody into the constitution pen is to be expected. JT is coming to the rescue of the constitution. but the irony is that he ends up confessing to a very long list of his own personal constitutional criticisms. JT is defending a constitution that doesnt exist...never existed...only existed for a few years...or something like that. Im starting to believe that this "organic constitution" only exists in JTs imagination. And that brings us full circle to Larken Rose's point in this video....the source of authority is in our imaginations. "there's a war on for your mind."...right?

[Dig]

larken rose is making social commentary about the source of authority. He uses taxation as an example. Barking Statist sheepdogs rounding everybody into the constitution pen is to be expected. JT is coming to the rescue of the constitution. but the irony is that he ends up confessing to a very long list of his own personal constitutional criticisms. JT is defending a constitution that doesnt exist...never existed...only existed for a few years...or something like that. Im starting to believe that this "organic constitution" only exists in JTs imagination. And that brings us full circle to Larken Rose's point in this video....the source of authority is in our imaginations. "there's a war on for your mind."...right?

Why would you say such absurdities?

Have you ever read the constitution?

Is it possible for you to use logic, reason, sourced information, references, etc. as a basis of arguements rather than just saying that documented facts live in some alternate reality?

[phosphene]

Have you ever read the constitution?

which version? the 2010 version? the 1776 version? the 1791 version? the 1912 version? or the organic version that JT fantasizes about?

[Dig]

which version? the 2010 version? the 1776 version? the 1791 version? the 1912 version? or the organic version that JT fantasizes about?

There is no ratified 1776 version.

There is a ratified 1791 version.

There is an original 13th amendment and Lincoln's 14th Amendment.

Are you really using such a moronic argument like this. How is it possible for you to not know when the US constitution was signed and what the original 13th amendment was when it was repeatedly explained to you (as well as what the 1913 issue is, there are volumes of books on this). You seem to be the only one fantasizing here. I will give you a suggestion...have you heard of the google?

[JT Coyoté]

The word "Organic" denotes beginning or in this case, Foundation Law. The Ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights, is the Organic Foundation Law for the United States of America, which is the litmus foundation for all statutes/laws in this country since day one, FYI.

JTCoyoté

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we
like it. The only question is whether World Government
will be achieved by conquest or consent."
~James Paul Warburg, banker and son of Federal Reserve
creator and Rothschild minion, Paul Warburg, appearing before the
Senate on the 7th of February 1950

[phosphene]

yall like the 1791 version of the constitution. Thats wonderful. Good for you. Nobody has a problem with that. Which version the federal agents choose to follow is what's important. And taxation is still immoral and tyrannical....even the 4% apportioned that is being cheered for.

And all of that is beside the point anyways....the video is not about taxation, or the constitution. the video is about the source of authority...YOU! YOU give the "law" all its' power. And I'm shocked to see people who are willing to deny their own personal political power just so they can fit into their nostalgic 1791 model of government. Seems like alotta unnecessary mental gymnastics to me.

[JT Coyoté]

yall like the 1791 version of the constitution. Thats wonderful. Good for you. Nobody has a problem with that. Which version the federal agents choose to follow is what's important. And taxation is still immoral and tyrannical....even the 4% apportioned that is being cheered for.

And all of that is beside the point anyways....the video is not about taxation, or the constitution. the video is about the source of authority...YOU! YOU give the "law" all its' power. And I'm shocked to see people who are willing to deny their own personal political power just so they can fit into their nostalgic 1791 model of government. Seems like alotta unnecessary mental gymnastics to me.

Well, you were obviously watching a different video than I... or so it seems. Though I can see how a very subtle implication of taking personal authority could be inferred from this video, I think the rank and file, average Joe, won't exactly snap to it right away, if at all.  

What they will get however is what was blatantly implied, considering that it jumps right out and grabs you by the throat.  That would be the idea that the Constitution "over 200 years ago," gave the federal government the power to directly tax individuals, to ROB them. An authority it does not even imply. Then, by the title and flow, the video leads the viewer to infer and conclude that the founders were in essence scoundrels and robbers. All as a result of a taxation clause in the Constitution, illustrated by a little box drawn around it, which the narrator never lets the viewer read, nor does he quote.

The usurpers follow none of it, they are an external foreign agency under contract to the government of the United States. The Globalist constitution here, is the DC Organic act. Amendments 14 thru 27, are designed to control the "citizens." In exchange they grant the opportunity to have a job, from which they exact a defacto tax in the form of interest paid to their bank. All by signed contract on the "citizen's" part, and fully outside constitutional aegis. Those last 13 Amendments empower the Government and virtually cancel the bill of rights through statute dovetailing, citing these new amendments as the power.

You are back peddling, phos. You are mining for inferences... covering your ass I think it's called.

JTCoyoté

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson

[phosphene]

Well, you were obviously watching a different video than I... or so it seems. Though I can see how a very subtle implication of taking personal authority could be inferred from this video,

the video is titled "I'm allowed to rob you". lol. the self-empowerment message is not subtle. The only mental leap that might be missed is....."if he can do it, you can do it." It boils down to believing in yourself, or believing in documents written by someone else.

Besides, only federal agents are required to obey the constitution. Unless JT is a federal agent, he does not have to obey the constitution. Unless Larken rose is a federal agent, what he feels about the constitution shouldnt bother anybody....its not like hes running the country. Only the feds are subject to the constitution. Others are protected by it.

[JT Coyoté]

the video is titled "I'm allowed to rob you". lol. the self-empowerment message is not subtle. The only mental leap that might be missed is....."if he can do it, you can do it." It boils down to believing in yourself, or believing in documents written by someone else.

Besides, only federal agents are required to obey the constitution. Unless JT is a federal agent, he does not have to obey the constitution. Unless Larken rose is a federal agent, what he feels about the constitution shouldnt bother anybody....its not like hes running the country. Only the feds are subject to the constitution. Others are protected by it.

Read my last post again as many times as it takes to fully understand it and it's implications.

If you have signed an IRS form of any kind in your present work, you are an agent of a usurping federal agency and subject to it's rules, regulations, and of course it's taxes, by signed "legal" contract, of course. It won't matter one iota what you "believe."

JTCoyoté

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  
~John Adams

[Freeski]

Posphene, do you have a vision of how it should be?

If I'm reading you right, I think you're questioning the legitimacy of a written set of rules that lays out how a country should function, versus total freedom (i.e. anarchy) ... So I'm wondering if you think there's a better/different way than something like the U.S. Constitution -- which IMO is the best compromise we've had to date.

[phosphene]

Posphene, do you have a vision of how it should be?

Peace, love, dancing in the streets...all that dirty hippie junk. But this video isnt about my authority, the founding fathers authority, the constitutions authority, or larken rose's authority. It's about YOURS.

IMO is the best compromise we've had to date.

the constitution aint perfect, but its the best thing around. A few adjustments would be fine. I dont think the whole thing needs to be chucked though.

[Dig]

Besides, only federal agents are required to obey the constitution....Only the feds are subject to the constitution. Others are protected by it.

Have you read the 9th and 10th amendments?

What do you think they mean?

Also states cannot usurp powers given to citizens outlined in the constitution. Just as the federal government cannot usurp powers given to states outlined int he constitution. And any powers not specifically mentioned in the constitution cannot be ever given to the feds.

The NWO plan is actually to have people question the constitution. Whether you know it or not, your inability to actually read anything in this thread gives the power to the NWO agenda. They do the same exact thing in every other country they ravage. Their first priority is to have people feel that the foundation of their country is going to disappear. They do this by causing infirghting and questioning and then eventually with apathy.

I am surprised that you are so ignorant of this as it has been written for decades even centuries...

Cass Sunstein: Conspiracy Theories; Causes and Cures

The entire document read in text-to-speech. Not sure how useful this is for people, but here it is anyways.
http://www.archive.org/details/CassSunstein
Cass Sunstein_Conspiracy Theories pt 1 download mp3
Cass Sunstein_Conspiracy Theories pt 2 download mp3

Behavioral engineering - from Skinner to 'Nudge' Sunstein to David Brin
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=178266.0

Top Obama Czar Sunstein: Mein Kampf II: THE PLAN TO EXTERMINATE NWO OPPOSITION
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155434.0

Top Obama czar:
Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing." Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories. In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"  

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."

Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."
"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."
"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."
"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."

Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'” Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors

Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information. WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors." In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers. He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations." Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves. Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.  In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."  Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S. His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."

Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."  He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."  The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.  "It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.

Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation." Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."

He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."  In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority." He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses. "Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.  But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.

Just so we are all clear who the enemy is and how they operate...


"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -Sun Tzu

"To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then “managing” such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result. In the case of the United States, an agency for crisis management is already in place. It is called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), whose existence I first disclosed in 1980. There will be more on FEMA as we proceed." -John Coleman Committee of 300 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_02.htm

Levin was the author of a work entitled “Time Perspective and Morale” which is a Club of Rome publication concerning how to break down the morale of nations and individual leaders.

Here is an extract of the document:

“One of the main techniques for breaking morale through a strategy of terror consists in exactly this tactic: keep the person hazy as to where he stands and just what he may expect. In addition, if frequent vacillations between severe disciplinary measures and promise of good treatment together with the spreading of contradictory news make the structure of the situation unclear, then the individual may cease to know whether a particular plan would lead toward or away from his goal.

Under these conditions, even those individuals who have definite goals and are ready to take risks are paralyzed by the severe inner conflict in regard to what to do.”

This Club of Rome blueprint applies to COUNTRIES as well as to individuals, particularly the government leaders of those countries. We in the U.S. need not think that “Oh well, this is America, and those kinds of things just do not happen here.” Let me assure you that they ARE happening in the U.S., and perhaps more so than in any other country.

The Levin-Club of Rome plan is designed to demoralize us all so that in the end we feel we should follow whatever it is that is planned for us. We WILL follow Club of Rome orders like sheep. Any seemingly strong leader who SUDDENLY APPEARS to “rescue” the nation must be regarded with the utmost suspicion. Remember that Khomeini was groomed for years by British intelligence, especially during his time in Paris, before he suddenly appeared as the savior of Iran. Boris Yeltsin is from the same M16-SIS stable.

The Club of Rome feels confident that it has carried out it Committee of 300 mandate to “soften up” the United States. After 45 years of waging war on the people of this nation, who will doubt that it has indeed accomplished its task? Look around and see how we have been demoralized.

[...]

With the U.S. spiritually, morally bankrupted, with our industrial base destroyed throwing 30 million people out of work with our big cities ghastly cesspools of every imaginable crime with a murder rate almost three times higher than any other country, with 4 million homeless, with corruption in government reaching endemic proportions, who will gainsay that the United States is ready to collapse from within, into the waiting arms of the New Dark Age One World Government?

[...]

We as a nation are ready to accept the demise of the United States of America and the American way of life, once the envy of the entire world.
 
Do not think this has happened on its own— the old “times are changing” syndrome. Time does not change anything, PEOPLE do.

Hey Tavistock...I got your apathy right here you pieces of psychopathic crapola!  

The goal is for us to turn on the constitution and the constitutional government.

Watch the movie Secret of Oz, it exposes the plan that the banksters have to question out government, our constitution in a planned "anarchist" way rather than a reinforcement of the legitimate constitution.

It exposes that once the NWO can get a country to give up on its government completely, then they can really start raaveaging her. The government is there to protect us from these banksters and the constitution does just that with the issuance of money being a government priority (like national defense). But when a private group usurps that power, then we have what we have now.

Proposing to change the constitution while the country is so vulnerable to bankster vultures and their teams of economic hit men seems highly counter productive to me.

[JT Coyoté]

Phos...

I think Digler found your resumé...  

JTCoyoté

"One must always maintain one's connection to the past
and yet ceaselessly pull away from it." ~Gaston Bachelard

[phosphene]

Have you read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Yup, like i was sayin, the constitution protects the people. the people are not subject to it. the people are not required to obey the constitution, the feds are. Imagining the amendments in the form of a letter helps for me....

Dear Federal Government:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sincerely,
Phosphene


Dear Federal Government:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sincerely,
Phosphene

It's their job. not mine. Those are their rules, not mine.

[JT Coyoté]

Yes, the Constitution Protects the People... and the States, and the Union... but you did get one out of the three...

The people however have a responsibility too. By their participation in the ideas, opinions, and solutions which they should share with government at all levels, this grants and insures the ultimate protection of the Constitution.

The Constitution ratified in 1791 is a contract by the people, for the people, and the oiling and maintenance of the machinery of this entire symbiosis is the responsibility of the people. It's called self government.

The first three words of the 1791 Organic Constitution, and the last three words of the 1791 Organic Constitution are these: "We The People [...] To The People."

Get involved!

Oldyoti

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government
to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to
restrain the government -- lest it, [the government] come
to dominate our lives and interests."
~Patrick Henry

[phosphene]

Get involved!

Thats right. while its the federal agent's responsibility to operate within the restrictions of the constitution, its the people's responsibility to keep them in check.

It's our responsibility to understand our rights. stand up for our rights. and say "NO!". The federal and state representatives burden subjugation to the constitution.

[TheCaliKid]

We get the government we deserve.......or should I have "have been conditioned to THINK that we deserve"

[phosphene]

I contend that this is somewhat of a defeatist attitude engrained and conditioned into the cognizance of most people by the very "controllers" and "elite" you speak of.

I also contend that there is little, if any, "tyranny by force" happening on this land. The force almost always comes AFTER the admissions and testimonies of men and women who identify themselves falsely by the Legal M. NAME which most of us were taught is us or ours.

The voluntary nature of this entire system is given life and power by our own testimony, energy, participation in and endorsement of THEIR creations, constructs and "laws". Once that "arraignment" has occurred, the force and guns are used to hold you to that "contract agreement". Silent acquiescence is also a "power giving" action of sorts which WILL BE recognized as consent.

We all must get our own houses and identities in order before we attempt to hold any agent/officer "in check" according to the law that only applies to and binds THEM. When this occurs, one finds that the "PTB" have no power at all. The "power" is an illusion which we have allowed to continue through lack of knowledge.

On this land, the pen is mightier than the sword and it has been wielded artfully and successfully by those who would take advantage of others who are absent the truth.

We have always had the weapon to defeat this enemy. Our own lack of knowledge enslaves, and destroys us.

Displacing responsibility or blaming a government or others for one's tribulations is a defeatist mentality which is also an intentionally designed product of the very entity one wishes to be free from.

Know thyself.
Know thy true name.
Restore thy identity."

[Dig]

I contend that this is somewhat of a defeatist attitude engrained and conditioned into the cognizance of most people by the very "controllers" and "elite" you speak of.

I also contend that there is little, if any, "tyranny by force" happening on this land. The force almost always comes AFTER the admissions and testimonies of men and women who identify themselves falsely by the Legal M. NAME which most of us were taught is us or ours.

The voluntary nature of this entire system is given life and power by our own testimony, energy, participation in and endorsement of THEIR creations, constructs and "laws". Once that "arraignment" has occurred, the force and guns are used to hold you to that "contract agreement". Silent acquiescence is also a "power giving" action of sorts which WILL BE recognized as consent.

We all must get our own houses and identities in order before we attempt to hold any agent/officer "in check" according to the law that only applies to and binds THEM. When this occurs, one finds that the "PTB" have no power at all. The "power" is an illusion which we have allowed to continue through lack of knowledge.

On this land, the pen is mightier than the sword and it has been wielded artfully and successfully by those who would take advantage of others who are absent the truth.

We have always had the weapon to defeat this enemy. Our own lack of knowledge enslaves, and destroys us.

Displacing responsibility or blaming a government or others for one's tribulations is a defeatist mentality which is also an intentionally designed product of the very entity one wishes to be free from.

Know thyself.
Know thy true name.
Restore thy identity."

Is it possible for you to be any more full of shit?

Other than Barry Soetoro and George Bush, I have never heard anyone make up so many excuses for psychotic, demonic, incestuous genocidal maniacs who are attempting to overthrow the United States Government. In consideration of the following statement, isn't Abraham Lincoln exposing the terrorists that are attempting to overthrow the legitimate government? We do not support terrorism, that is what the NWO wants. They want an overthrow of the country. We are doing as Lincoln suggests, to expose the terrorists attempting to dissolve the government of the United States of America.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
~Abraham Lincoln



"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world."
~Otto von Bismark, Chancellor of Germany

[phosphene]

I believe this still is a free country. Maybe the Constitution aint broke. its not the constitutions fault when federal government representatives operate outside of their constitutional restraints. It's the perpetrator's fault. And It's "the people's" fault for not holding those perpetrators accountable.

In an attempt to demonstrate the true source of authority, Larken Rose suggests to disregard one tax clause. Then, in an attempt to defend the constitution, Yall are suggesting to revoke every amendment after 10, or 11, or something. Which concept is more radical, his or yours? Which is more anti-constitutional? Which is more pro-freedom? Which concept "claims" freedom and which one "asks" for it?

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility." Eleanor Roosevelt

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Declaration of Independence

[Dig]

I believe this still is a free country. Maybe the Constitution aint broke. its not the constitutions fault when federal government representatives operate outside of their constitutional restraints. It's the perpetrator's fault. And It's "the people's" fault for not holding those perpetrators accountable.

In an attempt to demonstrate the true source of authority, Larken Rose suggests to disregard one tax clause. Then, in an attempt to defend the constitution, Yall are suggesting to revoke every amendment after 10, or 11, or something. Which concept is more radical, his or yours? Which is more anti-constitutional? Which is more pro-freedom? Which concept "claims" freedom and which one "asks" for it?

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility." Eleanor Roosevelt

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Declaration of Independence

why do you continue to act all loopy about the reinstatement of the original 13th Amendment?

[phosphene]

speaking of loopy. maybe this guy can explain better than me or larken rose. This guy says "Your evil witch queen". Sane hasta like this guy.

freeman on the land escapes policy enforcers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuyOBVTnoLQ

[Freeski]

speaking of loopy. maybe this guy can explain better than me or larken rose. This guy says "Your evil witch queen". Sane hasta like this guy.

freeman on the land escapes policy enforcers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuyOBVTnoLQ

In a free society, this would never happen.

[lord edward coke]

    divine right of kings alive and well today.

The Federal Reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States . They had transferred them to you via the company you worked, or if you worked as yourself, they were transferred to you by a man for whom you did work. You in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the Federal Reserve system. This is the liability stated in the IRS CODE if you are a US citizen and a PERSON. It is NOT 6011, 6012 or 6001, or 26 USC 1.1-1. They are only supplements to the real liability statute found at the end of the USE and TRANSFER article. When you get a cancelled Check Back when paying income taxes, does it not say PAY TO ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? THAT DEAR TAXPAYER IS THE REAL CREDITOR. IF The United States, was written on the back PAY TO THE UNITED STATES. For Example: You would probably be a U.S. employee as stated in Title 27 CFR Section 70.161 (a) (4) (1) (A) (B) or (4) (ii) or (iii). Right from the Federal Register page 47623, Vol 55 No. 220 Wednesday November 14, 1990. This is where U.S. and State employees are dumped for collection purposes. See in the Federal Register page 47604, third column 27, CFR part 70, under List of subjects. That would be the Creditor. Ok, on the Federal Reserve...where is the contract you ask? Well for most Americans it is that bank signature contact card. It, in reality, is a 400 page contract. It is NOT to verify your signature. That can be done in many ways. The other way is simply the USE of Federal Reserve Notes and now in comes the supplements if you say, Hey I am not in banking! There is a back up. They have thought of everything. US citizen 26 USC 1.1-1 for one. RESIDENT in a State for #2 and how about Person in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1). Ok, let's put the double whammy on you when you say I am not a US citizen. Ever read the words defining person in 7701 (a) (1)? Wow, Individual is a TERM defining the TERM person. How many times, unknowingly, have you stated you are an individual on any document? Even if it is a FOIA request ? How about an “INDIVIDUAL” income tax Form? Read the TERM, as it is no longer a Word in law. In the Title 5 USC 552 A (6) what does the term “individual” mean? I rest my case. Try as you might to get out you seemingly cannot do it. But as I have written extensively on the subject, there is a way out. Believe me I have used it to get out. It stares people in the face whenever you pick up a Title 26 Statute. The IRS spends 1/3rd of title 26 on the term to use to get out. So much so I wrote a book on it in 1990. It is called "Which One Are You". But alas, no one wanted to use it. It was a nasty word and so foreign no one wanted to touch it. See how the money changers dupe people into believing one set of Terms and then through WORDS of common meaning, demean the very way to legally get out of all control of the corporations you call States and United States? What are they operating? Have you ever heard of R.I.C.O.? That's what they are plying on you. Due to your Deficiency in understanding you are the same as the people Elliot Ness was helping get free of the Mafia protection racket; now practiced by the corporation named United States and all its Private corporate agencies listed on Dun and Bradstreet as private corporations.

 

ALL patriot and tax protesters arguments are absolutely no good. They are so far off point that in less than 45 seconds reading any brief I trash it and tell them they will lose. Of course they get angry at me. But hey, it's their ass in a sling, not mine. They can't fathom the truth. They don't want to know the truth. They already know the truth. That is the big lie that has become truth to them. Hey, I am talking to you. Why do you think you are so special when not having a letter from IRS saying you are no longer have a tax obligation and you no longer have a SSN, as you are a nontaxpayer? Yes, it is an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) TAX. Yes, you voluntarily paid the Excise tax. Now can you see why they say it is a voluntary Tax? YOU voluntarily USE Federal Reserve Private trade-marked Notes, do you not? You transfer these notes when buying property, any property, from land to baby diapers, don't you? So you voluntarily exercise the Privilege of Transfer do you not, as a citizen and artificial person who is resident in the state and do so every day of your life? Get in your commercial vehicle with a wallet full of funny money or credit cards. You are transporting small articles of merchandise. End up at Wal-mart. Transfer those small articles of merchandise for food or a TV. Now for the privilege the state takes a sales tax based on the Privilege of buying NOT on the price but on the Privilege of the products you transferred the worthless FRN's either directly or bank credit card. It's all explained in that 1914 Case. All Terms now...No words used in law. Now why did I obtain the status of Man, the non resident in contract and an Alien, NON TAXPAYER, where in the real Creditor that you might call the Federal Reserve comes after you with their private collection agency called IRS? They sent me a letter to that effect? I was NOT in Banking and Had No DL or cars registered to me, whereby I used that commercial vehicle to transfer those small articles (FRNS) in any transfer business. That Federal Reserve note is what has caused the mess we all are in today and why the Pope's CEO, Obama was placed to protect the banking system and NOT to protect you, the Slave of the private banking system of the Black Pope.

I know anyone can read what appear to be WORDS in this article. But, do you know there are a mix of WORDS and TERMS? If you do not know that WORD and TERM are two different meanings I suggest you read TERMS – Not- WORDS on atgpress.com, to maybe understand what is said. If you do not understand, that shows how the education system has taken away understanding from you. The best thing to do to stay out of trouble is to understand or be a good slave to the system and pay everything the Private Corporation tells you to pay. All the Courts quotes are TERMS. They have no meaning resembling a WORD. They use “it”, “they”, “and” words like that but all the key TERMS like resident, person, nonresident are all TERMS. I think you all should read this Wheeler case 10 times because what they say is so foreign to your thought process, TCD will kick in quite rapidly. Then you give up and go back into slavery again thinking it's hopeless. It's only hopeless because of this quote. "Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."
"The Rights of Man,"
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/ba039.htm

[Dig]

   divine right of kings alive and well today.

The Federal Reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States . They had transferred them to you via the company you worked, or if you worked as yourself, they were transferred to you by a man for whom you did work. You in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the Federal Reserve system. This is the liability stated in the IRS CODE if you are a US citizen and a PERSON. It is NOT 6011, 6012 or 6001, or 26 USC 1.1-1. They are only supplements to the real liability statute found at the end of the USE and TRANSFER article. When you get a cancelled Check Back when paying income taxes, does it not say PAY TO ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? THAT DEAR TAXPAYER IS THE REAL CREDITOR. IF The United States, was written on the back PAY TO THE UNITED STATES. For Example: You would probably be a U.S. employee as stated in Title 27 CFR Section 70.161 (a) (4) (1) (A) (B) or (4) (ii) or (iii). Right from the Federal Register page 47623, Vol 55 No. 220 Wednesday November 14, 1990. This is where U.S. and State employees are dumped for collection purposes. See in the Federal Register page 47604, third column 27, CFR part 70, under List of subjects. That would be the Creditor. Ok, on the Federal Reserve...where is the contract you ask? Well for most Americans it is that bank signature contact card. It, in reality, is a 400 page contract. It is NOT to verify your signature. That can be done in many ways. The other way is simply the USE of Federal Reserve Notes and now in comes the supplements if you say, Hey I am not in banking! There is a back up. They have thought of everything. US citizen 26 USC 1.1-1 for one. RESIDENT in a State for #2 and how about Person in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1). Ok, let's put the double whammy on you when you say I am not a US citizen. Ever read the words defining person in 7701 (a) (1)? Wow, Individual is a TERM defining the TERM person. How many times, unknowingly, have you stated you are an individual on any document? Even if it is a FOIA request ? How about an “INDIVIDUAL” income tax Form? Read the TERM, as it is no longer a Word in law. In the Title 5 USC 552 A (6) what does the term “individual” mean? I rest my case. Try as you might to get out you seemingly cannot do it. But as I have written extensively on the subject, there is a way out. Believe me I have used it to get out. It stares people in the face whenever you pick up a Title 26 Statute. The IRS spends 1/3rd of title 26 on the term to use to get out. So much so I wrote a book on it in 1990. It is called "Which One Are You". But alas, no one wanted to use it. It was a nasty word and so foreign no one wanted to touch it. See how the money changers dupe people into believing one set of Terms and then through WORDS of common meaning, demean the very way to legally get out of all control of the corporations you call States and United States? What are they operating? Have you ever heard of R.I.C.O.? That's what they are plying on you. Due to your Deficiency in understanding you are the same as the people Elliot Ness was helping get free of the Mafia protection racket; now practiced by the corporation named United States and all its Private corporate agencies listed on Dun and Bradstreet as private corporations.

 

ALL patriot and tax protesters arguments are absolutely no good. They are so far off point that in less than 45 seconds reading any brief I trash it and tell them they will lose. Of course they get angry at me. But hey, it's their ass in a sling, not mine. They can't fathom the truth. They don't want to know the truth. They already know the truth. That is the big lie that has become truth to them. Hey, I am talking to you. Why do you think you are so special when not having a letter from IRS saying you are no longer have a tax obligation and you no longer have a SSN, as you are a nontaxpayer? Yes, it is an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) TAX. Yes, you voluntarily paid the Excise tax. Now can you see why they say it is a voluntary Tax? YOU voluntarily USE Federal Reserve Private trade-marked Notes, do you not? You transfer these notes when buying property, any property, from land to baby diapers, don't you? So you voluntarily exercise the Privilege of Transfer do you not, as a citizen and artificial person who is resident in the state and do so every day of your life? Get in your commercial vehicle with a wallet full of funny money or credit cards. You are transporting small articles of merchandise. End up at Wal-mart. Transfer those small articles of merchandise for food or a TV. Now for the privilege the state takes a sales tax based on the Privilege of buying NOT on the price but on the Privilege of the products you transferred the worthless FRN's either directly or bank credit card. It's all explained in that 1914 Case. All Terms now...No words used in law. Now why did I obtain the status of Man, the non resident in contract and an Alien, NON TAXPAYER, where in the real Creditor that you might call the Federal Reserve comes after you with their private collection agency called IRS? They sent me a letter to that effect? I was NOT in Banking and Had No DL or cars registered to me, whereby I used that commercial vehicle to transfer those small articles (FRNS) in any transfer business. That Federal Reserve note is what has caused the mess we all are in today and why the Pope's CEO, Obama was placed to protect the banking system and NOT to protect you, the Slave of the private banking system of the Black Pope.

I know anyone can read what appear to be WORDS in this article. But, do you know there are a mix of WORDS and TERMS? If you do not know that WORD and TERM are two different meanings I suggest you read TERMS – Not- WORDS on atgpress.com, to maybe understand what is said. If you do not understand, that shows how the education system has taken away understanding from you. The best thing to do to stay out of trouble is to understand or be a good slave to the system and pay everything the Private Corporation tells you to pay. All the Courts quotes are TERMS. They have no meaning resembling a WORD. They use “it”, “they”, “and” words like that but all the key TERMS like resident, person, nonresident are all TERMS. I think you all should read this Wheeler case 10 times because what they say is so foreign to your thought process, TCD will kick in quite rapidly. Then you give up and go back into slavery again thinking it's hopeless. It's only hopeless because of this quote. "Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."
"The Rights of Man,"
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/ba039.htm

Again this is more evidence supporting the constitution.

The private federal reserve is obviously guilty of theft of over $30 Trillion. The constitution actually exposes the insanity of non-apportioned taxation.

[Freeski]

   divine right of kings alive and well today.

The Federal Reserve has the right to tax their notes that are the debt obligations of the United States . They had transferred them to you via the company you worked, or if you worked as yourself, they were transferred to you by a man for whom you did work. You in turn transfer them to others and no matter where the notes, their situs, as stated by the court, lies in the Federal Reserve system. This is the liability stated in the IRS CODE if you are a US citizen and a PERSON. It is NOT 6011, 6012 or 6001, or 26 USC 1.1-1. They are only supplements to the real liability statute found at the end of the USE and TRANSFER article. When you get a cancelled Check Back when paying income taxes, does it not say PAY TO ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? THAT DEAR TAXPAYER IS THE REAL CREDITOR. IF The United States, was written on the back PAY TO THE UNITED STATES. For Example: You would probably be a U.S. employee as stated in Title 27 CFR Section 70.161 (a) (4) (1) (A) (B) or (4) (ii) or (iii). Right from the Federal Register page 47623, Vol 55 No. 220 Wednesday November 14, 1990. This is where U.S. and State employees are dumped for collection purposes. See in the Federal Register page 47604, third column 27, CFR part 70, under List of subjects. That would be the Creditor. Ok, on the Federal Reserve...where is the contract you ask? Well for most Americans it is that bank signature contact card. It, in reality, is a 400 page contract. It is NOT to verify your signature. That can be done in many ways. The other way is simply the USE of Federal Reserve Notes and now in comes the supplements if you say, Hey I am not in banking! There is a back up. They have thought of everything. US citizen 26 USC 1.1-1 for one. RESIDENT in a State for #2 and how about Person in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1). Ok, let's put the double whammy on you when you say I am not a US citizen. Ever read the words defining person in 7701 (a) (1)? Wow, Individual is a TERM defining the TERM person. How many times, unknowingly, have you stated you are an individual on any document? Even if it is a FOIA request ? How about an “INDIVIDUAL” income tax Form? Read the TERM, as it is no longer a Word in law. In the Title 5 USC 552 A (6) what does the term “individual” mean? I rest my case. Try as you might to get out you seemingly cannot do it. But as I have written extensively on the subject, there is a way out. Believe me I have used it to get out. It stares people in the face whenever you pick up a Title 26 Statute. The IRS spends 1/3rd of title 26 on the term to use to get out. So much so I wrote a book on it in 1990. It is called "Which One Are You". But alas, no one wanted to use it. It was a nasty word and so foreign no one wanted to touch it. See how the money changers dupe people into believing one set of Terms and then through WORDS of common meaning, demean the very way to legally get out of all control of the corporations you call States and United States? What are they operating? Have you ever heard of R.I.C.O.? That's what they are plying on you. Due to your Deficiency in understanding you are the same as the people Elliot Ness was helping get free of the Mafia protection racket; now practiced by the corporation named United States and all its Private corporate agencies listed on Dun and Bradstreet as private corporations.

 

ALL patriot and tax protesters arguments are absolutely no good. They are so far off point that in less than 45 seconds reading any brief I trash it and tell them they will lose. Of course they get angry at me. But hey, it's their ass in a sling, not mine. They can't fathom the truth. They don't want to know the truth. They already know the truth. That is the big lie that has become truth to them. Hey, I am talking to you. Why do you think you are so special when not having a letter from IRS saying you are no longer have a tax obligation and you no longer have a SSN, as you are a nontaxpayer? Yes, it is an EXCISE (PRIVILEGE) TAX. Yes, you voluntarily paid the Excise tax. Now can you see why they say it is a voluntary Tax? YOU voluntarily USE Federal Reserve Private trade-marked Notes, do you not? You transfer these notes when buying property, any property, from land to baby diapers, don't you? So you voluntarily exercise the Privilege of Transfer do you not, as a citizen and artificial person who is resident in the state and do so every day of your life? Get in your commercial vehicle with a wallet full of funny money or credit cards. You are transporting small articles of merchandise. End up at Wal-mart. Transfer those small articles of merchandise for food or a TV. Now for the privilege the state takes a sales tax based on the Privilege of buying NOT on the price but on the Privilege of the products you transferred the worthless FRN's either directly or bank credit card. It's all explained in that 1914 Case. All Terms now...No words used in law. Now why did I obtain the status of Man, the non resident in contract and an Alien, NON TAXPAYER, where in the real Creditor that you might call the Federal Reserve comes after you with their private collection agency called IRS? They sent me a letter to that effect? I was NOT in Banking and Had No DL or cars registered to me, whereby I used that commercial vehicle to transfer those small articles (FRNS) in any transfer business. That Federal Reserve note is what has caused the mess we all are in today and why the Pope's CEO, Obama was placed to protect the banking system and NOT to protect you, the Slave of the private banking system of the Black Pope.

I know anyone can read what appear to be WORDS in this article. But, do you know there are a mix of WORDS and TERMS? If you do not know that WORD and TERM are two different meanings I suggest you read TERMS – Not- WORDS on atgpress.com, to maybe understand what is said. If you do not understand, that shows how the education system has taken away understanding from you. The best thing to do to stay out of trouble is to understand or be a good slave to the system and pay everything the Private Corporation tells you to pay. All the Courts quotes are TERMS. They have no meaning resembling a WORD. They use “it”, “they”, “and” words like that but all the key TERMS like resident, person, nonresident are all TERMS. I think you all should read this Wheeler case 10 times because what they say is so foreign to your thought process, TCD will kick in quite rapidly. Then you give up and go back into slavery again thinking it's hopeless. It's only hopeless because of this quote. "Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."
"The Rights of Man,"
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/ba039.htm

Funny how every complication creates "jobs".

[phosphene]

United States Declaration of Independence
"....we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
They weren't talkin bout you.

"....to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station..."
The point is, you have a right to start your own government...just like the founding fathers did.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
The point is, you aint gonna alter or abolish their government. You can start your own though, like they did, if you have the guts.

[Freeski]

United States Declaration of Independence
"....we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
They weren't talkin bout you.

"....to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station..."
The point is, you have a right to start your own government...just like the founding fathers did.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
The point is, you aint gonna alter or abolish their government. You can start your own though, like they did, if you have the guts.

Remind me who "they" are please?

[phosphene]

Remind me who "they" are please?

thats what everybody wants to know. the million dollar question. survey says?!

[Freeski]

thats what everybody wants to know. the million dollar question. survey says?!

Hopefully in our lifetime.

[lord edward coke]

Remind me who "they" are please?

The illuminated freemasons?  How did they get their GREAT SEAL anyway?

Since the Constitution created the federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before A.D. 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true.  The earliest that the Constitution could’ve been deemed ratified and operations was A.D. 1788—222 years ago.   Similarly, given that the new federal “Government” was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken.  Under this criteria, the earliest that the federal Government might become operational was A.D. 1789—221 years ago.

Big deal, hmm?

Who cares?

Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill?  Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “222” or even “221”?

I doubt it.  If I’m right, it is a “big deal”.  Here’s why:

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”.  When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format.  In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States” started in “1787”.   (Today, they report “223” years in business.)

In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year before the Constitution itself was ratified and two years before the resulting federal government became operational.

If so, whatever currently passes for our “Government of the United States” is not based on the authority of We the People, but on some other “authority”.  Thus, this is a potentially “big” deal.

I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788.  So, in A.D. 2009, I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta.com used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years.  That’s not a big change.  It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error.  But given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced.  It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States” may correctly declare that that “Government” started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People.
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/somethin-funnys-goin-on/

[JT Coyoté]

The illuminated freemasons?  How did they get their GREAT SEAL anyway?

Since the Constitution created the federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before A.D. 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true.  The earliest that the Constitution could’ve been deemed ratified and operations was A.D. 1788—222 years ago.   Similarly, given that the new federal “Government” was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken.  Under this criteria, the earliest that the federal Government might become operational was A.D. 1789—221 years ago.

Big deal, hmm?

Who cares?

Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill?  Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “222” or even “221”?

I doubt it.  If I’m right, it is a “big deal”.  Here’s why:

In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”.  When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format.  In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States” started in “1787”.   (Today, they report “223” years in business.)

In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year before the Constitution itself was ratified and two years before the resulting federal government became operational.

If so, whatever currently passes for our “Government of the United States” is not based on the authority of We the People, but on some other “authority”.  Thus, this is a potentially “big” deal.

I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788.  So, in A.D. 2009, I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.

As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.

For example, where Manta.com used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years.  That’s not a big change.  It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error.  But given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced.  It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States” may correctly declare that that “Government” started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People.
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/somethin-funnys-goin-on/

And this is your answer to their question as to who they/we were/are...

Earth to Ed! Earth to Ed!

I am surprised more at the question by phos and free than I am by your "oh too predictable" cut and pasted answer ... which answers absolutely nothing, and obviously is being used by you as an opportunity to run with your agenda...

It is quite easy to answer when you address the question... when you understand that there are 56 signatures of pledge beneath those last lines in the Declaration of Independence.  Signatures that represent 56 representatives to the Continental Congress, elected and selected by the people of 13 colonies to represent them in Philadelphia.  I will list them here.

     John Adams
     Samuel Adams
     Josiah Bartlett
     Carter Braxton
     Charles Carroll
     Samuel Chase
     Abraham Clark
     George Clymer
     William Ellery
     William Floyd
  * Benjamin Franklin
     Elbridge Gerry
     Button Gwinnett
  * John Hancock
     Lyman Hall
     Benjamin Harrison
     John Hart
  * Joseph Hewes
     Thomas Heyward, Jr.
  * William Hooper
     Stephen Hopkins
     Francis Hopkinson
     Samuel Huntington
     Thomas Jefferson
     Francis Lightfoot Lee
     Richard Henry Lee
     Francis Lewis
     Philip Livingston
     Thomas Lynch, Jr.
     Thomas McKean
     Arthur Middleton
     Lewis Morris
     Robert Morris
     John Morton
     Thomas Nelson, Jr.
     William Paca
     John Penn
  * Robert Treat Paine
     George Read
     Caesar Rodney
     George Ross
     Benjamin Rush
     Edward Rutledge
     Roger Sherman
     James Smith
  * Richard Stockton
     Thomas Stone
     George Taylor
     Charles Thomson (Secretary, attested to Hancock's signature,)
     Matthew Thornton
  * George Walton
  * William Whipple
     William Williams
     James Wilson
     John Witherspoon
     Oliver Wolcott
     George Wythe

  (* Documented Masons)

And as for your comments about the Great Seal for the United States of America -- a committee was appointed on July 4, 1776 to begin exploring ideas for the seal which would appear on all official U.S. documents.  Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were members of this committee ... Franklin's idea for the Great Seal was quite different than what was finally adopted in 1782 after several designs were proposed. The Congress finally settled on a design by a non Mason signer of the Declaration, Charles Thomson.  

The first design looked at in August 1776, came at the hands of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The reverse side depicted a scene from the Exodus where the sea crashes down upon the tyrant Rameses. The scene is surrounded at the edge with the words "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

Oldyoti

"The circulation of confidence is better
than the circulation of money."
~James Madison

[phosphene]

i dont see my signature on there

[Dig]

Lord Edward Coke...please stop spamming and just countering every single sourced, logical, referenced, and historically accurate argument with "CONstitution, see...I highlight the C-O-N to NLP the confusion onto patriot and truth forums baseless assurtions without any glimpse of reality".

If you want to actually make an argument based on reality fine, but continuing to just go: "CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution, CONstitution" like a fricking Henry Luce Mockingbird is spam.

We get it...you feel that capitalizing the first three letters of the word constitution renders the 20 years of collective action between dozens of people committed to freedom and the rights of man renders the entire foundation of this country a grift.  We understand your position. It has been thoroughly proven to be contrary to reality. Now unless you actually got some actual historical sourced evidence, please do not spam the NLP bullshit on this forum. Thanks

[JT Coyoté]

If you must put faith in anything political, let it be our system founded on Liberty, the first law of nature, the Golden Rule, and the first and only rule set down by Jesus The Christ... "...I ask only that ye Love one another." Jefferson was big on the last part. He loved Christ's teachings as morality for the people... He even did a Biblical rewrite, written in the light of these teachings as a moral guide.

Say what you will about that... there will always the amoral other hand... those who are too blind with the lust for power to see, or too avarice filled or vice ridden to care for anything even themselves. You know them, they are the scoundrels -- there will always be scoundrels you see... so for them there is this, so they can never reach the levers of power:

"Let no more be said of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson

Oldyoti

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations,
not only of all free government, but of social
felicity under all governments and in all the
combinations of human society."
~John Adams, August 28, 1811

[JT Coyoté]

During his term as president, after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were Ratified, yet before the War of 1812 -- after long deliberation and troubleshooting searching parchment for loop holes, or other weaknesses in the Constitution -- this great man determined the only problem we could possibly have regarding the possibility of the undermining of our Constitution, was....??

He chose the first audience to receive this insight carefully. It came in his address to the assembled Militia, their leaders, and a few other folks as well, he pronounced his warning along with an explanation of the reasoning behind his conclusions.  

This warning has come down to us today where most have heard the warning in some form or another, yet have no knowledge of the who, what, when, where, and why of it...  

Anyone care to give it a stab...?

JTCoyoté

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson