Our unlawful government

My Recent Posts

When government no longer is conducted in a manner having any connection to the constitution, as is the case today where most of the activity of government lies outside of the scope of powers granted it by the states, management and employees are both unlawfully employed. The solution is therefore very simple; end the unconstitutional activity and the connection to government of those doing it.


A corollary to this solution is to end the unconstitutional and unlawful usurpation of the constitution by the attorneys that constitute the Supreme Court Of the United States claim of a right to "interpret" the constitution. No such right is granted by the constitution now, or ever has been. Congress is not permitted to pass any law that is not in conformity with the powers granted to the government by the states as stated in the constitution, and any congressman who votes to pass such a law commits a felony; that of false swearing, sometimes called perjury. All members of congress swear an oath to support and defend the constitution.


The fact that most of the constitution has been ignored, other than by lip service mention of it, for so long should have been sufficient to have given notice that the government has been a de facto government with no lawful right to rule over us, which is what it now does, for well over 157 years. (158 in April 2019)


It, the de facto government, actually is a corporation, the third of three private municipal corporations first established on February 23, 1871. The current one filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on June 5, 1933. There have been reports of the corporation having been discharged in 2000, but I have been unable to find any record to confirm that.


There has been, from the time following the American Revolution, at the end of the war that arose from that revolution, a continuous evolution carried forward by successive generations of the families that comprise the moneyed elites to restore the power and control those families enjoyed during the era of the Middle Ages. The group has been known by various names, and have always included european royals, high level churchmen, secret societies of both secular and religious origin, and bankers related to them. In the affairs of government and its handmaiden, finance, there is little or nothing that takes place that is not the product of conspiracies. Following the American Revolution the families recognized that direct and violent overthrow of the government would not produce the desired outcome. They began to formulate and advance a plan to substitute a government under their control that would appear to be that established under the constitution. By financial manipulations they managed to create the division that resulted in secession; and have in place a leader carefully cultivated to be totally committed to the advancement of the American Empire.


Also to be committed to the reformation of the "Union" in a form that would resemble the one dissolved by secession but was actually that of a conqueror and an occupied country until it was "restored" as a corporation; with most of the people none the wiser. From then on, through groups formed or recruited for their plan, some unknowingly, their agenda was introduced into every facet of industry, commerce, education, politics, communication and finance.


Corruption was, as a result, made too lucrative to pass up for those inclined to be seekers of wealth and power and motivated by greed and/or other forms of evil too numerous to list. At this point all that can be said is that the elite families plan has succeeded; not just here, but in all of what is known as Western Civilization. Nowhere is there liberty for anyone other than the moneyed elites.


Ward Tipton Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:21pm
Because what we have now is conducted under the color of law, not under the Constitution. Under a number of guises, we have become US citizens rather than denizens of the independent but united States and as such, enjoy privileges that must be contracted, and not our God given and Constitutionally protected rights. Under the color of law, under the color of authority. My supposition is that we have not had a lawful government since at least 1861 when the Southern representatives walked out, leaving the house without a quorum or the ability to lawfully reconvene. 
I am curious however, if you understand the ramifications and implications in the difference between legal and lawful ... I ask because you got it correct in your article and even many lawyers do not understand the difference. 
The Owl Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:39pm
The lunatic fringe is having its Saturday afternoon meeting.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 12, 2019 - 5:58pm
Very true, Richard.  Lol, Owl reads the NY Slimes and thinks others are lunatics.
Porn, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion would all still be illegal if SCOTUS did not illicitly legalize them.
Ryan Messano Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:39pm
Mogg, when you have values, your opinion will be valued.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jan 12, 2019 - 9:22pm
@ Owl. "Ah...
The lunatic fringe is having its Saturday afternoon meeting."
A LOL response from you. However, though you could quickly make the determination, I have to read deeply to ascertain same and if I would be welcomed to the meeting.
@ Ryan. Very true, Richard.  Lol, Owl reads the NY Slimes and thinks others are lunatics.
Porn, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion would all still be illegal if SCOTUS did not illicitly legalize them.
Seems as I have a fascination with Johnsons and pink pussies, Ryan has one with something that he does not know but knows that pulling out is a key element or wise undertaking of the adjunct activities.
The Owl Added Jan 12, 2019 - 9:54pm
'Tis a shame, Rupert, that Ryan doesn't recognize that pulling out of his unceasing role as itinerant preacher would markedly improve his credibility.  It's as if he is insufficiently sure of his presentations that he has to wrap them in the virtue flag to try to get people to go along with him.
I dispute a couple of assumptions in the original essay that are sufficient to cripple the conclusions.
The fist is the role of the judiciary, particularly that of a "supreme" court.  If they are not entitled to pass on the constitutionality of a law, then there has to be the assumption that Congress in passing laws and the Chief Executive's signing them creates two infallable branches of government.  That sort of assumption is absurd.
There is legitimate debate as to whether the Supreme Court has made errors in deciding cases and in recognizing rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  I disagree with some of their rulings in this area a agree with others.  I particularly agree with the ruling a on gay marriages and uncourage.  The Supreme Court was not particularly article in their opinions on the subject, but I believe they made the correct decision.  For a better explication in the MA Supreme Judicial Court's first-in-the-nation decision to allow gay marriages.  I encourage all to read it.
But more importantly, Congress in it's infinite wisdom has chosen NOT to challenge the role of the judiciary, and every time the states have tried, they have come up short.
I do note that SCOTUS has relegated the 10th amendment to be almost irrelevant.  I see that as an error brought on by the liberalization of the Court since Warren's chief justiceship.  I see it possible that the current Warren Court will restore the 10th to the Constitution.
As for the email about the Saturday meeting of the lunatic society, I have to suggest that some of you are taking yourselves too seriously.  I also have to note that many of you are not as sharp as you think on that you whiffed on opportunity for the obvious snarky retort.
Next is the permanent nature of the Union.  Lincoln argued that states could not secured from the United States of America.  We all know that that was a contested viewpoint, a viewpoint the validity of which was tested by the sword
Score;. Owl 3, Lunatics 0.
Flying Junior Added Jan 12, 2019 - 10:17pm
Just end it all, huh?  And how do you propose to do that?
While we're at it, why don't we go ahead and just end poverty, crime, warfare and abuse?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Jan 13, 2019 - 12:55am
Government is not the solution government is the problem.
Jim Stoner Added Jan 13, 2019 - 1:11am
I will yield to The Owl to defend sanity on this thread.  
Dino Manalis Added Jan 13, 2019 - 2:41pm
 The government is legal and constitutional, but not always ethical.
Richard Olsen Added Jan 13, 2019 - 8:17pm
The government is, in fact, legal. However it is neither lawful or constitutional. The fact that every president has issued executive orders for purposes other than to, "take care that the Laws are faithfully executed." From Abraham Lincoln on to this day presidents have issued such orders to both constitute law made by edict and to contravene laws passed by what pretend to be congress. That fact alone should be sufficient to demonstrate its unconstitutionality. The present government, as it acts and conducts its business at the present time, can only be truthfully described as being a  criminal enterprise. It is a private municipal corporation that is authorized to conduct business only in the District of Columbia and the territories (not the states) of the United States. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 13, 2019 - 8:21pm
"It is a private municipal corporation that is authorized to conduct business only in the District of Columbia and the territories (not the states) of the United States. "
And in Federal Districts thereof as have been established, such as Zone Improvement Process Districts ... ZIP Codes, the Federal State within the States, the Federal Reserve Districts, Social Security Districts ... did you and I attend the same schools? 
Sadly, most of the persons of this nation, much less globally, do not even want to be made aware. Easier to accept "just the way things are" and deceive themselves into believing in their non-existent freedom. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 14, 2019 - 8:43am
How about considering the obvious fraud in spending.  Not that the Founders and Constitution included 'enumerated powers.'  These are the only ones that money can be spent to accomplish. The mail today is the internet.  If you add the numbers the vast majority is spending that is not part of the 'enumerated powers.'  The Constitution puts the responsibility on the states and citizens which is basically saying the pyramid of governments below the Federal to the bottom which are citizens. 
The budget is broken into a primary pie chart and two pie charts for subcategories for 2015:
'Mandatory and Discretionary Spending and Interest on Federal Debt.'  The divisions on the chart, pure fraud.
1) Interest on Federal Debt (Mandatory) $229.63 B
2) Discretionary Spending $1.11 T Which is it's own pie chart:
3) Mandatory Spending $2.45 T Which is it's own pie chart:
2.1) Military (which is a clear responsibility of the Federal government in the Federalist Papers and the Constitution thus is Mandatory) $598.49 B
2.2) Government (obvious Mandatory that the building processes and people have a cost) $72.89 B
2.3) Department of Education $69.89 B
2.4, 3.2) Medicare & Health Department (not Mandatory less then a Century old, split) $5.93 B & $985.74 B
2.5, 3.4) Veterans' Benefits (Not stated as Mandatory and Historically often not provided, split) $5.86 B & $95.31
2.6) Housing & Community Dept. (not Mandatory less then a Century old) $5.68 B
2.7) International Affairs (Mandatory in the Constitution but not necessary the details) $3.67 B
2.8) Energy & Environment (not Mandatory less then a Century old) $3.51 B
2.9) Science (not Mandatory less then a Century old) $2.67 B
2.10, 3.1) Social Security & Unemployment & Labor (not Mandatory less then a Century old, split) $2.61 B & $1.25 T
2.11, 3.5) Transportation (not Mandatory consider a state responsibility, split) $2.36 B & $58.7 B
2.12, 3.3) Food & Agriculture (not Mandatory less then a Century old, split) $1.18 B & $122.57
3.6) Other (not Mandatory less then a Century old likely) $58.18 B
TexasLynn Added Jan 14, 2019 - 2:41pm
Owl >> Next is the permanent nature of the Union. Lincoln argued that states could not [secede] from the United States of America. We all know that that was a contested viewpoint, a viewpoint the validity of which was tested by the sword.
And could be tested again, hopefully not by sword, but by the states agreeing that Lincoln was wrong, OR that the time has come for that "permanent nature" to be altered.
Richard Olsen Added Jan 14, 2019 - 7:59pm
To Flying Junior: You may not know it, but you are right on target. There is no way now to "end it". Politicians, forever promise that they have the answers needed to bring about utopia; if we will just give THEM more power, and, that we just use less sense. Human nature for the most part, seeks the path of least resistance. For at least the 85 years that I have been an inhabitant of this planet, we have been giving the politicians that which they asked us to do. They now have absolute power, and the vast majority have reached the point of no return for using less sense. The axiom concerning the connection between power and corruption is in full operation so sit back and enjoy the show. The solution is simple, the implementation is impossible.
Richard Olsen Added Jan 14, 2019 - 8:41pm
To TexasLynn: Texas came into the united states by treaty. That treaty contained a provision that Texas could, on its own initiative and without the consent of the united states, withdraw from the union and again become an independent sovereign nation. The disregard of that treaty clearly demonstrates that the organic united states, under its constitution, no longer existed; and that a new entity, part of which was under military occupation (including Texas) had been formed. Further, the president of this new entity was issuing executive orders that were enforced as laws; a power of presidents never granted in the organic constitution.