Archive for the ‘NWO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT’ Category

Politics Or Political Thought Ain’t Bona Fide!

June 3, 2017

Where Are All Of Those Fools?

Politics or political thought is a fictitious personally held private belief and nothing more..—ThereIsNoDebt

Notes by ThereIsNoDebt

Etymology of Politics
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politics
What is BODY POLITIC?
http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic/
What is BODY CORPORATE?
http://thelawdictionary.org/body-corporate/
~
Definition of Legislature –
“A body of persons having the power to legislate; specifically : an organized body having the authority to make laws for a political unit”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legislature

Definition of body politic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/body+politic
Note.- A body politic is fictitious in character.
It must be remembered that ‘politics’ deals with affairs of the mind. They are ‘personal opinions’ of how people think we should relate to each other and to which people are entitled to contract or agree with if that is open to them to do so, or just simply ignore. And therefore as opinion, politics or political thought is a fictitious personally held private belief and nothing more.

Definition of Political unit
political unit – a unit with political responsibilities
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political+unit
Note.- Political units are unable to own land, in fact or in reality, due to their fictitious nature. Their ownership of land is a mere fancy that remains unchallenged, no doubt because they have a monopoly on force. Of which land they ‘claim’ to own, can only be that to be found in the physical world where the living do not dwell. That is why the territorial jurisdiction political units (nations, countries, states, etc.) define legally as being where they are to be found, remains in their definition as, territorial waters, sea bed, continental shelf, and only the subsoil making up the subterranean world.

IRS
United States Income Tax Treaties – A to Z
(Note.- On failure to open, search for title-heading with browser and select link)
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties—A-to-Z
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Treaties and TIEAs
(Double Taxation Treaties )
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/treaties.aspx
See pages 18 & 19 –
Maritime Zones and Jurisdiction
http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ABLOS/ABLOS_Conf3/SESSION3.PDF
See Illustration –
Subsoil
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geology/soil/
28 USC § 3002 – Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
SOURCED
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/muddying-the-waters/
~
Definition of Land
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/land
~
Definition of State (politics)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+(politics)

WHERE AM I
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/where-am-i/

The Psychology Of Evil
http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/daimonic/psychologyofevil.html

Russian Textbook Psycho Politics
http://nesara.insights2.org/Psychopolitics.html

Political

SHEARING THE SHEEP IN A SHEEP PEN OF SELF DELUSION
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/shearing-the-sheep-in-a-sheep-pen-of-self-delusion/

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.― George Orwell

KNOW THAT MOST MEN, INCLUDING THOSE AT EASE WITH PROBLEMS OF THE GREATEST COMPLEXITY, CAN SELDOM ACCEPT EVEN THE SIMPLEST AND MOST OBVIOUS TRUTH IF IT WOULD OBLIGE THEM TO ADMIT THE FALSITY OF CONCLUSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE DELIGHTED IN EXPLAINING TO COLLEAGUES, PROUDLY TAUGHT TO OTHERS, AND WHICH THEY HAVE WOVEN, THREAD BY THREAD, INTO THE FABRIC OF THEIR LIVES
— Leo Tolstoy

Advertisements

Patronymic Paralogy

May 16, 2017

Patronymic Paralogy
Your Name Under Their Law – 137 pages
http://www.ptshamrock.com/your_name_under_the_law.pdf

The United States Citizen General immunities pertaining to prosecutors, judges and government agents
1.)
Prosecutor may violate civil rights
in initiating prosecution and presenting case.
– United States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman
z
424 U.S.
409 (1976)
2.)
Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential
litigation.
– Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Davis v. Grusemever, 996 F.2d 617
(1993)
3.)
Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence. – United
States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
4.)
Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)
5.)
Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)
6.)
Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony.
– Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310
(1987)
7.)
Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence. (Exculpatory defined: Evidence
showing one innocent)
– Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Henzel v. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979)

8.)
Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring
with judges to determine
outcome of judicial proceedings.
– Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986)
9.)
Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that
never occurred.
– Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980)
Ignorantia juris non excusat or
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
(Latin for
“ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a
legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for
violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

Who Owns Agenda 2030-2050-Population Objectivity of Subjects Conclusion Set Date 2100?

May 13, 2017

The mechanism and origins of economic inequality are to be found with the Vatican.. All roads lead to Rome.. UNICEP-UNEP-Agenda 2100 Sustainable development is their inquisition of eugenics.. Unfortunately while u.s. subjects can read the international documents evidence. They fail to comprehend what the words / terms are implying.. The document[s] is specifically calling for depopulation.. I am referring to the Agenda 21 document, the United Nations Environmental “Global” Biodiversity Assessment.. The number one problem of course being people, subjects specifically called direct drivers of environmental destruction, causing eco system collapse via Climate Change.. All lies of course as they are manipulating the destruction and misplacing the blame of the cause onto the worlds mass populace..

Economic restrictions are not being implemented by wolves nor grizzly bears.. Nor controlled opposition environmental groups..

The bears and wolves can be managed/controlled.. Obviously governmental public office holders representing who they serve who is not the subjects negatively effected by these various U.N. documents are the real storm troopers delivering heavy Agenda 2100 economic bombing.. Carpet bombing every aspect of how people make their livings into oblivion.. The wolves and bears are a cute distraction.. In their massive campaign of distractions.. This is not only effecting farming, ranching nor hunting.. It is everything economical, it is in everything, building codes, plumbing/heating/electrical all housing.. In everything..ALL ASPECTS of any business.

“…reduce their persons to perpetual slavery…and to convert them to his and their use and profit”—Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455

Those who discover sustainable developments true meaning will be deemed arbiters of “fake news” and silenced – censured, ignored.. While those who misinterpret it will be rewarded..

SWW is fourth grade propaganda level Gate-keeping fake opposition…Nothing more.. A huge disappointment..

AGENDA 2030 – A CALL TO ACTION

Agenda 21’s eugenics programme of worldwide ‘preparedness’ having been finalised, calls for its eugenicist ambitions to be put into ‘action’ with its successor, Agenda 2030, primed and ready to do just that; whose programme into action for the eugenicist depopulation of the Earth has been officially announced by the Holy See as law at the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 25th of September 2015.

It must be understood that when the Holy See gave his climate-change encyclical – preceeding his appearance at the United Nations – as well as his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, that his encyclical is an ecclesiastical letter as ‘actual law’ for all of the Churches fictitious jurisdictions. Together with his official pronouncements as ‘law’ given at the United Nations General Assembly, these both quite rightly are to be taken as ‘personally owned private laws’ for fictitious jurisdictional territories.

We read last paragraph, that –

“In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters…”

Source:

Encyclical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

Letters of the popes:

We read from the 1st paragraph –

“The popes began early, by virtue of the primacy, to issue laws as well for the entire Church as for individuals. This was done in the form of letters. Such letters were sent by the popes either of their own will or when application was made to them by synods, bishops, or individual Christians.”

We also read and learn –

“Following the example of the Roman emperors the popes soon established archives (scrinium) in which copies of their letters were placed as memorials for further use, and as proofs of authenticity.”

Source:

Ecclesiastical Letters
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09202a.htm

~

The Pope is an example of a Roman emperor –

Source:

EYE OF NEWT, TOE OF FROG – ACT III
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/eye-of-newt-toe-of-frog-act-iii/

From Chapter 2, entitled, The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy, we read,

The Roman Church, without dispute, had by 538 inherited the seat of the Caesars, as Adolf Harnack recorded in his book What is Christianity?,

It [the Papacy] is a political creation, and as imposing as a World-Empire, because of the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself “King” and “Pontifex Maximus” is Caesar’s successor. (New York, Putnam, 1901, second edition, page 270).

The same historian concluded that—

The Roman Church in its way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. (Ibid.)

Alexander Clarence Flick in his historical work, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, concluded that,

The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of the Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of the Pope. . . . Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1959 pp 148, 149).

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/twobeasts/tb02.htm

SOURCES & ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR READINGS IN CHURCH HISTORY

What is Christianity? (1957) by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930, New York, Harper 1901
https://archive.org/details/whatischristian01saungoog

Adolf Harnack – German historian and theologian
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack

Adolf von Harnack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack

~

Divine Right of Kings

If we consider that all men are ‘equally endowed’ by nature’s Cause with ‘innate freewill’, then the information we find in reading what is said about the Divine Right of Kings, as well as what is said concerning ‘the Church’, is something of a curiosity, since the Will of God, we would reasonably deduce in relation to man, is quite clear when it comes to all men everywhere – who are endowed with ‘an equal measure of freewill before nature’s Cause or nature’s God’, without exception in the realm of the physical world.

The source of a rebellion to what man sees as God’s Will, on the matter of freewill, would not be God as the source of rebellion contradicting Himself; we would reasonably deduce regarding ‘equal freewill’ in all men, but the source of rebellion, if we look to Heaven for heavenly authority and the source of what God would not make absurd in us, would then be an alternative to God’s Authority and the use by men of that ‘alternative authority’, in making ‘absurd’, equal innate freewill endowed by nature’s Cause or nature’s God in all men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

RULE THYSELF LEST YE BE RULED
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/

~

EUGENICS AS A MEANS OF CLEANSING

Etymology of Purgatory

in Latin, “means of cleansing,”

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purgatory

~

Etymology of Purge

note noun.-

“that which purges,”

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purge&allowed_in_frame=0

~

Definition of Purge

1.4 Law Atone for or wipe out

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purge

~

Definition of Purgative

Origin

from the verb purgare (see purge)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purgative

~

Etymology of Purgatory

past participle stem of Latin purgare (see purge (v.)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purgatory

~

Definition of Atone

verb

Make amends or reparation

Example

a human sacrifice to atone for the sin

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atone#atone__2

~

The Roots and Origins of Eugenics belong to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their Self-validating Clergy’s Doctrines

We read, 1st paragraph of Catholic doctrine –

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

Source:

Purgatory
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Comment.-

Where are people to be found in purgatory ?

Purgatory happens in a space between Heaven(that is, ‘this life in God’s grace’) and Hell; purgatory is the temporal corporeal, or physical world, where people are to be found in a temporal condition of life, in the here and now

~

Definition of Transgression

noun

1. 1. (Law) a breach of a law, etc;

sin or crime

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transgression

~

Definition of Temporal
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/temporal

~

Definition of Corporeal
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporeal

~

The Catholic Church’s definition of Space (or a Place):

We read, end of 5th paragraph –

“Space is therefore as real, as objective, as the corporeal world itself, but in itself it exists apart only in the human mind, seeing that in the reality of existing things it is only the extension of bodies themselves.”

Source:

Space
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14167a.htm

Comment.-

Space is the temporal corporeal world itself if it is said to be as real as the corporeal world itself. When we use our eyes we are made aware of reality outside of our mind alone, that is what our eyes are for. And of course, the mind is made viable and enabled by the reality of existing things as literally ‘us’, and in that respect, the mind is ‘only the extension of bodies themselves’.

~

Image of a fiery purgatory by Annibale Carracci

Source:

Purgatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

Definition of Purgatory

Noun

1. – a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven

Adjective

archaic

Having the quality of cleansing or purifying:

Example –

infernal punishments are purgatory and medicinal

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purgatory

~

Definition of Infernal

Adjective

1. Relating to or characteristic of hell or the underworld

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infernal#infernal__2

~

Definition of Expiate (Expiating)

Make amends or reparation for (guilt or wrongdoing):

Example –

their sins must be expiated by sacrifice

~

Definition of Sacrifice

Noun

1. An act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to a deity:

Examples –

they offer sacrifices to the spirits

the ancient laws of animal sacrifice

1.1 An animal, person, or object offered in the act of sacrifice

Verb

1. Offer or kill as a religious sacrifice

Example –

the goat was sacrificed at the shrine

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacrifice#sacrifice__2

~

Definition of Shrine

Noun

1. A place regarded as holy because of its associations with a divinity or a sacred person or relic, marked by a building or other construction

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/shrine#shrine__2

This excellent compilation of evidence was done by There Is No Debt..

Negotiable Debt Instrument Destroys Real Dollar

May 12, 2017

The Real Dollar Versus Negotiable Debt Instrument

Looking at an old 100 “dollar” federal reserve note 1934 series and reading the data on the bill, it states;

” This note is “Legal tender” for all debts public and private and is redeemable in ” lawful money” at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

It plainly states that the note is “legal tender” but then says it is redeemable in “lawful money”. Therefore Federal Reserve Notes are ” legal tender” but not “lawful money”. The Federal Reserve note is apparently evidence of some right to recover, as printed at the bottom of the front side of the note, just under the picture are the following words;

“WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS” or it used to, they hid this over the years.

This becomes obvious when looking at the United States Code, which, in talking about Federal Reserve notes, says;

” They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.” U.S.C.A., title 21, section 411.

Therefore, “FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS” or ONE DOLLAR is something different from a Federal Reserve Note or it would not state on the note that the note is redeemable in ” DOLLARS”.

It appears that Federal Reserve Notes are simply a medium of exchange used in place of, in lieu of, or as temporary substitutes for that which should be redeemable for “lawful money” of the United States—”Dollars.” ” Lawful Money” of the United States is not Federal Reserve Notes, as “Lawful Money” it can only be “DOLLARS.” A DOLLAR is a ” UNIT” of measure and is so defined;

” A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents of four shillings and sixpence sterling. American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828.

The DOLLAR means “lawful money” of the United States. (103 U.S. 792 )

” The gold coins of the United States shall be a one DOLLAR piece, which at the standard weight of 24.75 grains shall be the unit of value.” 31 U.S.C.A. 314

A DOLLAR then is a coin that has value. In other words a DOLLAR is something of value, not something that represents something of value, nor an implied evidence of value. A coin has value as it is made from a substance that itself has value. A coin is defined as;

“Money stamped; a piece of metal, as gold, silver, copper, or other metal, converted into money by impressing on it marks, figures or characters.” Websters, 1828, Vol I, page 40

A coin then, of stamped gold or silver, is money. Money is defined as:

” Coin, stamped metal; any piece of metal usually gold, silver, or copper stamped by public authority ,… among modern commercial nations, gold, silver, and copper are the only metals used for this purpose. Gold and silver containing great value in a small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money. Which is the representative of commodities of all kinds, of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce.” Webster’s Volume II, page 18

This definition is further substantiated in law dictionaries which define money as;
“Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1870, page 192. Love that old set of law dictionaries.

” In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, as evidence of debt…Lane v. Riley, 280 Ky 319…” Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. page 115. ( Federal Reserve Notes are FIAT DEBT NOTES, not real, fake). What can you buy with 3500 FDRNs? Now what can you buy with 3500 American Silver Dollars, you know, those old metal dollars. A LOT MORE, I could go buy a new truck with them if I so desired.

Are you starting to get it? I certainly hope so. lets continue a bit further.

” In its strict technical sense, “money” means coined metal, usually gold or silver, upon which the government stamp has been impressed; it indicates its value.” Black’s, supra.

Interestingly enough, in this definition it can be plainly seen that money is coined gold and silver ( DOLLARS) having a value, and cannot be NOTES or evidences of debt.

A DOLLAR is defined as; ” The money unit of the United States…established under the confederation by a resolution of Congress, July 6, 1785. This was originally represented by a silver piece only; the coinage of which was authorized by the act of Congress of Aug. 8, 1786. But the coinage was not effected until after the passage of the act of April 2, 1792, establishing a mint.”
Bouvier’s, p. 496

That act was passed after the Constitution was in force and effect and is 1 U.S. Statute at Large, 246 which states; ” that there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, copper of the following denominations, values and descriptions…” DOLLARS or UNITS—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”

” That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units…and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.” ALL DOLLARS are specific ” UNITS” of gold and silver coins having a fixed “value” based upon their weight content of gold and/or silver in grains and are ” lawful money” of the United States. This is further substantiated by the United States Code which states; ” Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States. U.S.C.A., title 12, Section 152

The ” DOLLAR” means lawful money of the United States. 103 U.S. 792.

Lawful money of the United States is quite a different thing from legal tender or other lawful currency for the United States. Federal Reserve Debt Notes are a legal tender for but not of the United States. It can be said that all DOLLARS are legal tender, but not all legal tender is DOLLARS, Federal Reserve Debt Notes cannot be, nor ever have been ” Lawful Money” of the United States.

Federal Reserve Debt Notes and other forms of lawful money are not the topic of my blog, but it should suffice to say that anything could serve as a currency for the United States ( such as Federal Reserve Negotiable Debt Notes) but there is only one form of ” lawful money of the United States” and that is the DOLLAR, expressed in a unit of weight in grains of gold and silver contained in coin. Since Federal Reserve Debt Notes are not gold and silver coins, have no fixed value, and are not even redeemable in silver or gold dollars, Federal Reserve Debt Notes are not dollars or even evidence of dollars.

The so called modern Federal Negotiable Reserve Debt Note is quite different from the one mentioned in the beginning of the blog, as current Federal Reserve Debt Notes only state; “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private” ( there is not even a period after this statement, proving the statement is not complete.) There is no mention of the note being redeemable in ” lawful money” at the United States Treasury or at the Federal Reserve Bank” and it makes no promise to “PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND” DOLLARS in the amount printed on its face.

There is a vast difference between the two notes as one is redeemable in something of value ( lawful money) and the other is redeemable in nothing except more Federal Reserve Debt Notes. Therefore, Federal Reserve Debt Notes have no value except what they may bring in the market place from day to day.

Are you ready for the next financial collapse America will suffer ? The Big one, The final crash is forthcoming. Are you ready to lose your Nation, your home, the fake banker is coming to collect his 20 Trillion owed, thanks to your double speaking mis-leaders and their web of deception. The Federal Reserve Negotiable Debt Note is worthless which is why it has been in slow motion hyper-inflation as was the plan so many years ago. It takes a wheel barrel full of these debt instruments just to eat these days..

By the way when the owners of the Nation/States and banks are making trades they trade in real wealth. Real commodities, land, resources, slaves that use their Monopoly Negotiable Debt Instruments. Resources can be in the ground yet verified to be in that spot, thus a natural bank holding the asset for trading.. Oil, gas, precious metals, water.. Vast plots of growing food.. The debt against their Negotiable Debt Instrument Economy is a weapon helpful in their population reduction aspect of human resources management..

The human resources slave classes are being over charged for everything, land, housing, food, transportation.. To make things worse human resources ownership of any property is an illusion.. When you know who owns the Allodial Title to this continent you then know who owns everything because you dear human resource even if your are Mortmain mortgage free must pay annually just to keep hold of your land and house..

The Bankers; Of course the bankers have a boss.. But that fact is to upsetting..

A DEN OF THIEVES, IMPOSTORS ALL AND THE FECKLESS

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/a-den-of-thieves-impostors-all-and-the-feckless/
“The kaleidoscope of fabricated diversions, distractions and varied agendas together with the propensity of people to sow complexity and confusion of their own making, facilitates the Impostor with orchestrating misdirection, away from the real issue of freewill and ‘the true economy of man’, to a meaningless dependency on the Impostor to provide a palliative as well as true sustenance for the problems created by ‘the imposed lie of economy’. To be sure, all hell would have to freeze-over in the wait for that to happen.”—There Is No Debt

The “Quiet War” Against Humanity
http://henrymakow.com/000504.html

The Only True and Accurate Description of Economy

TERRORISM AND THE ILLUMINATE –
A THREE THOUSAND YEAR HISTORY (PDF)

http://www.lovethetruth.com/books/terrorism_illuminati.pdf

Banks Controlled Independent Reviews
(Note.- Remember, you fund or work for your loaned thing as your own investor.)
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/banks-controlled-independent-reviews/

The Same Corporate Entity has management of a very impressive and lucrative business. That has insured their ownership of the Earth and everything in it and on it..

Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Came Roon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya (Their most recent conquest)
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philip Pines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

Go count up your assets dear human resource PERSON… The Bankers definition of YOU of course.. Thats what you do if you steal intellectual property belonging to another.. Who called You man..

Article I Section 8 Powers Of Congress

May 9, 2017

Article I Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So they established and created their taxing power. Because the true purpose of managing a Nation/State Corporate entity occupying a country is a very lucrative business. Obviously it is for a profit, theirs.. Their Compact say’s what happens in case of impeachment and “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [Article I section 3] So the Corporation Nation-State is a profit generating business. And it is a privately owned business. This is why everything is and always has been from day one when agreed upon in 1783 became CORPORATE.
Article I Section 8 – Powers of Congress

~ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What is “necessary and proper”? Obviously anything they want it to mean. There is cannot be an unconstitutional law because if the Congress passed it, the new law had to be “necessary and proper”.
Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

~ 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.

Obviously there is no disputing the debts of the United States Corporation, Congress Assembled because it’s their Business manged from their boardroom..

~ 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.

Apparently they knew they were going to be passing more taxation over the coming years, making various other laws and signing numerous Business Contracts otherwise known as Treaties with other privately owned Nation/States around the world, and all of these contractual agreement treaties would be done based upon international law, Which that COTUS declares shall be the supreme “Law of the Land”, and the black robed Judges are upholding international law and upholding the Private Compact Political Charter recognized by the International Community Constitution when they do.

Sovereigns Rights Superior Over Citizens

May 9, 2017

“Ye Can Be As Gods”.. Thats what Nation state builders owners do, play god..

CHAP. IV.
OF THE SOVEREIGN, HIS OBLIGATIONS, AND HIS RIGHTS.
§ 38. Of the sovereign.

THE reader cannot expect to find here a long deduction of the rights of sovereignty, and the functions of a prince. These are to be found in treatises on the public law. In this chapter we only propose to show, in consequence of the grand principles of the law of nations, what a sovereign is, and to give a general idea of his obligations and his rights.

We have said that the sovereignty is that public authority which commands in civil society, and orders and directs what each citizen is to perform, to obtain the end of its institution. This authority originally and essentially belonged to the body of the society, to which each member submitted, and ceded his natural right of conducting himself in every thing as he pleased, according to the dictates of his own understanding, and of doing himself justice. But the body of the society does not always retain in its own hands this sovereign authority: it frequently intrusts it to a senate, or to a single person. That senate, or that person, is then the sovereign.
§ 39. It is solely established for thesafety and advantage of society.

It is evident that men form a political society, and submit to laws, solely for their own advantage and safety. The sovereign authority is then established only for the common good of all the citizens; and it would be absurd to think that it could change its nature on passing into the hands of a senate or a monarch. Flattery, therefore, cannot, without rendering itself equally ridiculous and odious, deny that the sovereign is only established for the safety and advantage of society.

A good prince, a wise conductor of society, ought to have his mind impressed with this great truth, that the sovereign power is solely intrusted to him for the safety of the state, and the happiness of all the people; that he is not permitted to consider himself as the principal object in the administration of affairs, to seek his own satisfaction, or his private advantage; but that he ought to direct all his views, all his steps, to the greatest advantage of the state and people who have submitted to him.1 What a noble sight it is to see a king of England rendering his parliament an account of his principal operations — assuring that body, the representatives of the nation, that he has no other end in view than the glory of the state and the happiness of his people — and affectionately thanking all who concur with him in such salutary views! Certainly, a monarch who makes use of this language, and by his conduct proves the sincerity of his professions, is, in the opinion of the wise, the only great man. But, in most kingdoms, a criminal flattery has long since caused these maxims to be forgotten. A crowd of servile courtiers easily persuade a proud monarch that the nation was made for him, and not he for the nation. He soon considers the kingdom as a patrimony that is his own property, and his people as a herd of cattle from which he is to derive his wealth, and which he may dispose of to answer his own views, and gratify his passions. Hence those fatal wars undertaken by ambition, restlessness, hatred, and pride; — hence those oppressive taxes, whose produce is dissipated by ruinous luxury, or squandered upon mistresses and favourites; — hence, in fine, are important posts given by favour, while public merit is neglected, and every thing that does not immediately interest the prince is abandoned to ministers and subalterns. Who can, in this unhappy government, discover an authority established for the public welfare? A great prince will be on his guard even against his virtues.

Let us not say, with some writers, that private virtues are not the virtues of kings — a maxim of superficial politicians, or of those who are very inaccurate in their expressions. Goodness, friendship, gratitude, are still virtues on the throne; and would to God they were always to be found there! But a wise king does not yield an undiscerning obedience to their impulse. He cherishes them, he cultivates them in his private life; but in state affairs he listens only to justice and sound policy. And why? because he knows that the government was intrusted to him only for the happiness of society, and that, therefore, he ought not to consult his own pleasure in the use he makes of his power. He tempers his goodness with wisdom; he gives to friendship his domestic and private favours; he distributes posts and employments according to merit; public rewards to services done to the state. In a word, he uses the public power only with a view to the public welfare. All this is comprehended in that fine saying of Lewis XII.: — “A king of France does not revenge the injuries of a duke of Orleans.”
§ 40. Of his representative character.

A political society is a moral person (Prelim. § 2) inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will, of which it makes use for the conduct of its affairs, and is capable of obligations and rights. When, therefore, a people confer the sovereignty on any one person, they invest him with their understanding and will, and make over to him their obligations and rights, so far as relates to the administration of the state, and to the exercise of the public authority. The sovereign, or conductor of the state, thus becoming the depositary of the obligations and rights relative to government, in him is found the moral person, who, without absolutely ceasing to exist in the nation, acts thenceforwards only in him and by him. Such is the origin of the representative character attributed to the sovereign. He represents the nation in all the affairs in which he may happen to be engaged as a sovereign. It does not debase the dignity of the greatest monarch to attribute to him this representative character; on the contrary, nothing sheds a greater lustre on it, since the monarch thus unites in his own person all the majesty that belongs to the entire body of the nation.
§ 41. He is intrusted with the obligations of the nation, and invested with its rights.

The sovereign, thus clothed with the public authority, with every thing that constitutes the moral personality of the nation, of course becomes bound by the obligations of that nation, and invested with its rights.
§ 42 His duty with respect to the preservation and perfection of the nation.

All that has been said in Chap. II. of the general duties of a nation towards itself particularly regards the sovereign. He is the depositary of the empire, and the power of commanding whatever conduces to the public welfare; he ought, therefore, as a tender and wise father, and as a faithful administrator, to watch for the nation, and take care to preserve it, and render it more perfect; to better its state, and to secure it, as far as possible, against every thing that threatens its safety or its happiness.
§ 43. His rights in this respect.

Hence all the rights which a nation derives from its obligation to preserve and perfect itself, and to improve its state, (see §§ 18, 20, and 23, of this book); all these rights, I say, reside in the sovereign, who is therefore indifferently called the conductor of the society, superior, prince, &c.
§ 44. He ought to know the nation.

We have observed above, that every nation ought to know itself. This obligation devolves on the sovereign, since it is he who is to watch over the preservation and perfection of the nation. The duty which the law of nature here imposes on the conductors of nations is of extreme importance, and of considerable extent. They ought exactly to know the whole country subject to their authority; its qualities, defects, advantages, and situation with regard to the neighbouring states; and they ought to acquire a perfect knowledge of the manners and general inclinations of their people, their virtues, vices, talents, &c. All these branches of knowledge are necessary to enable them to govern properly.
§ 45. The extent of his power.

The prince derives his authority from the nation; he possesses just so much of it as they have thought proper to intrust him with. If the nation has plainly and simply invested him with the sovereignty, without limitation or division, he is supposed to be invested with all the prerogatives, without which the sovereign command or authority could not be exerted in the manner most conducive to the public welfare. These are called regal prerogatives, or the prerogatives of majesty.
§ 46. The prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws.

But when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which the nation has resolved to labour for the attainment of happiness; the execution is intrusted to the prince. Let him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample them under foot?2
§ 47. He may change the laws not fundamental.

If the prince be invested with the legislative power, he may, according to his wisdom, and when the public advantage requires it, abolish those laws that are not fundamental, and make now ones. (See what we have said on this subject in the preceding chapter, § 34.)
§ 48. He ought to maintain and observe the existing laws.

But while these laws exist, the sovereign ought religiously to maintain and observe them. They are the foundation of the public tranquility, and the firmest support of the sovereign authority. Every thing is uncertain, violent, and subject to revolutions, in those unhappy states where arbitrary power has placed her throne. It is therefore the true interest of the prince, as well as his duty, to maintain and respect the laws; he ought to submit to them himself. We find this truth established in a piece published by order of Lewis XIV., one of the most absolute princes that ever reigned in Europe. “Let it not be said that the sovereign is not subject to the laws of his state, since the contrary proposition is one of the truths of the law of nations, which flattery has sometimes attacked, and which good princes have always defended, as a tutelar divinity of their states.”3
§ 49. In what sense he is subject to the laws.

But it is necessary to explain this submission of the prince to the laws. First, he ought, as we have just seen, to follow their regulations in all the acts of his administration. In the second place, he is himself subject, in his private affairs, to all the laws that relate to property. I say, “in his private affairs;” for when he acts as a sovereign prince, and in the name of the state, he is subject only to the fundamental laws, and the law of nations. In the third place, the prince is subject to certain regulations of general polity, considered by the state as inviolable, unless he be excepted in express terms by the law, or tacitly by a necessary consequence of his dignity. I here speak of the laws that relate to the situation of individuals, and particularly of those that regulate the validity of marriages. These laws are established to ascertain the state of families: now the royal family is that of all others the most important to be certainly known. But, fourthly, we shall observe in general, with respect to this question, that, if the prince is invested with a full, absolute, and unlimited sovereignty, he is above the laws, which derive from him all their force; and he may dispense with his own observance of them, whenever natural justice and equity will permit him. Fifthly, as to the laws relative to morals and good order, the prince ought doubtless to respect them, and to support them by his example. But, sixthly, he is certainly above all civil penal laws, The majesty of a sovereign will not admit of his being punished like a private person; and his functions are too exalted to allow of his being molested under pretence of a fault that does not directly concern the government of the state.
§ 50. His person is sacred and inviolable.

It is not sufficient that the prince be above the penal laws: even the interest of nations requires that we should go something farther. The sovereign is the soul of the society; if he be not held in veneration by the people, and in perfect security, the public peace, and the happiness and safety of the state, are in continual danger. The safety of the nation then necessarily requires that the person of the prince be sacred and inviolable. The Roman people bestowed this privilege on their tribunes, in order that they might meet with no obstruction in defending them, and that no apprehension might disturb them in the discharge of their office. The cares, the employments of a sovereign, are of much greater importance than those of the tribunes were, and not less dangerous, if he be not provided with a powerful defence. It is impossible even for the most just and wise monarch not to make malcontents; and ought the state to continue exposed to the danger of losing so valuable a prince by the hand of an assassin? The monstrous and absurd doctrine, that a private person is permitted to kill a bad prince, deprived the French, in the beginning of the last century, of a hero who was truly the father of his people.4 Whatever a prince may be, it is an enormous crime against a nation to deprive them of a sovereign whom they think proper to obey.5
§ 51. But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience.

But this high attribute of sovereignty is no reason why the nation should not curb an insupportable tyrant, pronounce sentence on him (still respecting in his person the majesty of his rank) and withdraw itself from his obedience. To this indisputable right a powerful republic owes its birth. The tyranny exercised by Philip II. in the Netherlands excited those provinces to rise: seven of them, closely confederated, bravely maintained their liberties, under the conduct of the heroes of the House of Orange; and Spain, after several vain and ruinous efforts, acknowledged them sovereign and independent states. If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws, the prince, on exceeding the bounds prescribed him, commands without any right and even without a just title: the nation is not obliged to obey him, but may resist his unjust attempts. As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression. This truth is acknowledged by every sensible writer, whose pen is not enslaved by fear, or sold for hire. But some celebrated authors maintain, that if the prince is invested with the supreme command in a full and absolute manner, nobody has a right to resist him, much less to curb him, and that naught remains for the nation but to suffer and obey with patience. This is founded upon the supposition that such a sovereign is not accountable to any person for the manner in which he governs, and that if the nation might control his actions and resist him where it thinks them unjust, his authority would no longer be absolute; which would be contrary to this hypothesis. They say that an absolute sovereign completely possesses all the political authority of the society, which nobody can oppose; that, if he abuses it, he does ill indeed, and wounds his conscience; but that his commands are not the less obligatory, as being founded on a lawful right to command; that the nation, by giving him absolute authority, has reserved no share of it to itself, and has submitted to his discretion, &c. We might be content with answering, that in this light there is not any sovereign who is completely and fully absolute. But in order to remove all these vain subtleties, let us remember the essential end of civil society. Is it not to labour in concert for the common happiness of all? Was it not with this view that every citizen divested himself of his rights, and resigned his liberty? Could the society make such use of its authority as irrevocably to surrender itself and all its members to the discretion of a cruel tyrant? No, certainly, since it would no longer possess any right itself, if it were disposed to oppress a part of the citizens. When, therefore, it confers the supreme and absolute government, without an express reserve, it is necessarily with the tacit reserve that the sovereign shall use it for the safety of the people, and not for their ruin. If he becomes the scourge of the state, he degrades himself; he is no better than a public enemy, against whom the nation may and ought to defend itself; and if he has carried his tyranny to the utmost height, why should even the life of so cruel and perfidious an enemy be spared? Who shall presume to blame the conduct of the Roman senate, that declared Nero an enemy to his country?

But it is of the utmost importance to observe, that this judgment can only be passed by the nation, or by a body which represents it, and that the nation itself cannot make any attempt on the person of the sovereign, except in cases of extreme necessity, and when the prince, by violating the laws, and threatening the safety of his people, puts himself in a state of war against them. It is the person of the sovereign, not that of an unnatural tyrant and a public enemy, that the interest of the nation declares sacred and inviolable. We seldom see such monsters as Nero. In the more common cases, when a prince violates the fundamental laws; when he attacks the liberties and privileges of his subjects; or (if he be absolute) when his government, without being carried to extreme violence, manifestly tends to the ruin of the nation; it may resist him, pass sentence on him, and withdraw from his obedience; but though this may be done, still his person should be spared, and that for the welfare of the state.5 It is above a century since the English took up arms against their king, and obliged him to descend from the throne. A set of able, enterprising men, spurred on by ambition, took advantage of the terrible ferment caused by fanaticism and party spirit; and Great Britain suffered her sovereign to die unworthily on a scaffold. The nation coming to itself discovered its former blindness. If, to this day, it still annually makes a solemn atonement, it is not only from the opinion that the unfortunate Charles I. did not deserve so cruel a fate, but, doubtless, from a conviction that the very safety of the state requires the person of the sovereign to be held sacred and inviolable, and that the whole nation ought to render this maxim venerable, by paying respect to it when the care of its own preservation will permit.

One word more on the distinction that is endeavoured to be made here in favour of an absolute sovereign. Whoever has well weighed the force of the indisputable principles we have established, will be convinced, that when it is necessary to resist a prince who has become a tyrant, the right of the people is still the same, whether that prince was made absolute by the laws, or was not; because that right is derived from what is the object of all political society — the safety of the nation, which is the supreme law.6 But, if the distinction of which we are treating is of no moment with respect to the right, it can be of none in practice, with respect to expediency. As it is very difficult to oppose an absolute prince, and it cannot be done without raising great disturbances in the state, and the most violent and dangerous commotions, it ought to be attempted only in cases of extremity, when the public miseries are raised to such a height that the people may say with Tacitus, miseram pacem vel bello bene niutari, that it is better to expose themselves to a civil war than to endure them. But if the prince’s authority is limited, if it in some respects depends on a senate, or a parliament that represents the nation, there are means of resisting and curbing him, without exposing the state to violent shocks. When mild and innocent remedies can be applied to the evil, there can be no reason for waiting until it becomes extreme.
§ 52. Arbitration between the king and his subjects.

But however limited a prince’s authority may be, he is commonly very jealous of it; it seldom happens that he patiently suffers resistance, and peaceably submits to the judgement of his people. Can he want support, while he is the distributor of favours? We see too many base and ambitious souls, for whom the state of a rich and decorated slave has more charms than that of a modest and virtuous citizen. It is therefore always difficult for a nation to resist a prince and pronounce sentence on his conduct, without exposing the state to dangerous troubles, and to shocks capable of overturning it. This has sometimes occasioned a compromise between the prince and the subjects, to submit to the decision of a friendly power all the disputes that might arise between them. Thus the kings of Denmark, by solemn treaties, formerly referred to those of Sweden the differences that might arise between them and their senate; and this the kings of Sweden have also done with regard to those of Denmark. The princes and states of West Friesland, and the burgesses of Embden, have in the same manner constituted the republic of the United Provinces the judge of their differences. The princes and the city of Neufchatel established, in 1406, the canton of Berne perpetual judge and arbitrator of their disputes. Thus also, according to the spirit of the Helvetic confederacy, the entire body takes cognisance of the disturbances that arise in any of the confederated states, though each of them is truly sovereign and independent.
§ 53. The obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign.

As soon as a nation acknowledges a prince for its lawful sovereign, all the citizens owe him a faithful obedience. He can neither govern the state, nor perform what the nation expects from him, if he be not punctually obeyed. Subjects then have no right, in doubtful cases, to examine the wisdom or justice of their sovereign’s commands; this examination belongs to the prince: his subjects ought to suppose (if there be a possibility of supposing it) that all his orders are just and salutary: he alone is accountable for the evil that may result from them.
§ 54. In what cases they may resist him.

Nevertheless this ought not to be entirely a blind obedience. No engagement can oblige, or even authorize, a man to violate the law of nature. All authors who have any regard to conscience or decency agree that no one ought to obey such commands as are evidently contrary to that sacred law. Those governors of places who bravely refused to execute the barbarous orders of Charles IX. on the memorable day of St. Bartholomew, have been universally praised; and the court did not dare to punish them, at least openly. “Sire,” said the brave Orte, governor of Bayonne, in his letter, “I have communicated your majesty’s command to your faithful inhabitants and warriors in the garrison; and I have found there only good citizens and brave soldiers, but not a single executioner: wherefore both they and I most humbly entreat your majesty to be pleased to employ our hands and our lives in things that are possible, however hazardous they may be; and we will exert ourselves to the last drop of our blood in the execution of them.”7 The Count de Tende, Charny, and others, replied to those who brought them the orders of the court, “that they had too great a respect for the king, to believe that such barbarous orders came from him.”

It is more difficult to determine in what cases a subject may not only refuse to obey, but even resist a sovereign, and oppose his violence by force. When a sovereign does injury to any one, he acts without any real authority; but we ought not thence to conclude hastily that the subject may resist him. The nature of sovereignty, and the welfare of the state, will not permit citizens to oppose a prince whenever his commands appear to them unjust or prejudicial. This would be falling back into the state of nature, and rendering government impossible. A subject ought patiently to suffer from the prince doubtful wrongs, and wrongs that are supportable; the former, because whoever has submitted to the decision of a judge, is no longer capable of deciding his own pretensions; and as to those that are supportable, they ought to be sacrificed to the peace and safety of the state, on account of the great advantages obtained by living in society. It is presumed, as matter of course, that every citizen has tacitly engaged to observe this moderation; because, without it, society could not exist. But when the injuries are manifest and atrocious, — when a prince, without any apparent reason attempts to deprive us of life, or of those things the loss of which would render life irksome, who can dispute our right to resist him? Self-preservation is not only a natural right, but an obligation imposed by nature, and no man can entirely and absolutely renounce it. And though he might give it up, can he be considered as having done it by his political engagements since he entered into society only to establish his own safety upon a more solid basis? The welfare of society does not require such a sacrifice; and, as Barbeyrac well observes in his notes on Grotius, “If the public interest requires that those who obey should suffer some inconvenience, it is no less for the public interest that those who command should be afraid of driving their patience to the utmost extremity.”8 The prince who violates all laws, who no longer observes any measures, and who would in his transports of fury take away the life of an innocent person, divests himself of his character, and is no longer to be considered in any other light than that of an unjust and outrageous enemy, against whom his people are allowed to defend themselves. The person of the sovereign is sacred and inviolable: but he who, after having lost all the sentiments of a sovereign, divests himself even of the appearances and exterior conduct of a monarch, degrades himself: he no longer retains the sacred character of a sovereign, and cannot retain the prerogatives attached to that exalted rank. However, if this prince is not a monster, — if he is furious only against us in particular, and from the effects of a sudden transport or a violent passion, and is supportable to the rest of the nation, the respect we ought to pay to the tranquility of the state is such, and the respect due to sovereign majesty so powerful, that we are strictly obliged to seek every other means of preservation, rather than to put his person in danger. Every one knows the example set by David: he fled, — he kept himself concealed, to secure himself from Saul’s fury, and more than once spared the life of his persecutor. When the reason of Charles VI. of France was suddenly disordered by a fatal accident, he in his fury killed several of those who surrounded him: none of them thought of securing his own life at the expense of that of the king; they only endeavoured to disarm and secure him. They did their duty like men of honour and faithful subjects, in exposing their lives to save that of this unfortunate monarch: such a sacrifice is due to the state and to sovereign majesty: furious from the derangement of his faculties, Charles was not guilty: he might recover his health, and again become a good king.
§ 55. Of ministers.

What has been said is sufficient for the intention of this work: the reader may see these questions treated more at large in many books that are well known. We shall conclude this subject with an important observation. A sovereign is undoubtedly allowed to employ ministers to ease him in the painful offices of government; but he ought never to surrender his authority to them. When a nation chooses a conductor, it is not with a view that he should deliver up his charge into other hands. Ministers ought only to be instruments in the hands of the prince; he ought constantly to direct them, and continually endeavour to know whether they act according to his intentions. If the imbecility of age. or any infirmity, render him incapable of governing, a regent ought to be nominated, according to the laws of the state: but when once the sovereign is capable of holding the reins, let him insist on being served, but never suffer himself to be superseded. The last kings of France of the first race surrendered to government and authority to the mayors of the palace: thus becoming mere phantoms, they justly lost the title and honours of a dignity of which they had abandoned the functions. The nation has every thing to gain in crowning an all-powerful minister, for he will improve that soil as his own inheritance, which he plundered whilst he only reaped precarious advantages from it.

1. The last words of Louis VI. to his son Louis VII. were — “Remember, my son, that royalty is but a public employment of which you must render a rigorous account to him who is the sole disposer of crowns and sceptres,” Abbe Velley’s Hist. of France, Vol. III. p. 65.

Timur-Bec declared (as he often before had done on similar occasions) that “a single hour’s attention devoted by a prince to the care of his state, is of more use and consequence than all the homage and prayers he could offer up to God during his whole life.” The same sentiment is found in the Koran. Hist. of Timur-Bec, Book II. ch. xli.

2. Neque enim se princeps reipulicae et singulorum dominum arbitrabitur, quamvis assentatoribus id in aurem insusurrantibus, sed rectorem mercede a civibus designata, quam augere, nisi ipsis volentibus, nefas existimabit. Ibid. c. v. — From this principle it follows that the nation is superior to the sovereign. Quod caput est, sit principi persuasum totius reipulicae majorem quam ipsius unius auctoritatem esse: neque pessimis hominibus credat diversum affirmantibus gratificandi studio; quae magna pernicies est. Ibid.

In some countries, formal precautions are taken against the abuse of power. — “Reflecting among other things (says Grotius), that princes are often found to make no scruple of violating their promises under the state pretext of the public good, the people of Brabant, in order to obviate that inconvenience, established the custom of never admitting their prince to the possession of the government without having previously made with him a covenant, that, whenever he may happen to violate the laws of the country, they shall be absolved from the oath of obedience they had sworn to him, until ample reparation be made for the outrages committed. The truth of this is confirmed by the example of past generations, who formerly made effectual use of arms and decrees to reduce within proper bounds such of their sovereigns as had transgressed the line of duty, whether through their own licentiousness or the artifices of their flatterers. Thus it happened to John the Second; nor would they consent to make peace with him or his successors, until those princes had entered into a solemn engagement to secure the citizens in the enjoyment of their privileges.” Annals of the Netherlands, Book II. note, edit A.D. 1797.

3. A treatise on the right of the queen to several states of the Spanish monarchy, 1667, in 12 mo. Part II. p. 191.

4. Since the above was written, France has witnessed a renewal of those horrors. She sighs at the idea of having given birth to a monster capable of violating the majesty of kings in the person of a prince, whom the qualities of his heart entitle to the love of his subjects and the veneration of foreigners. [The author alludes to the attempt made by Damien to assassinate Louis XV.] Note, edit a.d. 1797.

5. In Mariana’s work, above quoted, I find (chap. vii. towards the end) a remarkable instance of the errors into which we are apt to be led by a subtle sophistry destitute of sound principles. That author allows us to poison a tyrant, and even a public enemy, provided it be done without obliging him, either by force or through mistake or ignorance, to concur in the act that causes his own death, — which would be the case, for instance, in presenting him a poisoned draught. For (says he), in thus leading him to an act of suicide, although committed through ignorance, we make him violate the natural law which forbids each individual to lake away his own life; and the crime of him who thus unknowingly poisons himself redounds on the real author, — the person who administered the poison. — No cogatur tantum sciens aut imprudens sibi conscire mortem; quod esse nefas judicamus, veneno in potu aut cibo, quod hauriat qui perimendus est, aut simili alia retemperato. A fine reason, truly! Was Mariana disposed to insult the understandings of his readers, or only desirous of throwing a slight varnish over the detestable doctrine contained in that chapter? — Note, edit. A.D. 1797.

5. Dissimulandum censeo quatenus salus publica patiatur, privatimque corruptis moribus princeps continagat; alioquin si rempublicam in periculum vocat, si patriae religionis contemptor existit, neque mediciniam ullam recipit, abdicandum judico, alium substituendum; quod in Hispania non semel fuisse factum scimus: quasi fera irritata, ominium telis peti debet, cum, humanitate abdicata, tyrannum induit. Sic Petro rege ob immanitatem dejecto publice, Henricus ejus frater, quamvis ex impari matre, regnum obtinuit. Sic Henrico hujus abnepote ob ignaviam pravosque mores abdicato procerum suffragiis, primum Alfonsus ejus frater, recte an secus non disputo, sed tamen in tenera actate rex est proclamatus: deinde defuncto Alfonso, Elisabetha ejas soror, Henrico invito, rerum summam ad se traxit, regio tantum nomine abstinens dum ille vixit. Mariana, de Rege et Regis Institut. Lib. 1. c. iii.

To this authority, furnished by Spain, join that of Scotland, proved by the letter of the barons to the pope, dated April 6, 1320, requesting him to prevail on the king of England to desist from his enterprises against Scotland. After having spoken of the evils they had suffered from him. they add — A quibus malis innumeris, ipso juvante qui post vulnera medetur et sanat, liberati sumus per serenissimum principem regem et dominum nostrum. dominum Robertum, qui pro populo et haereditate suis de manibus inimicorm liberandis, quasi alter Maccabaeus aut Josue, labores et taedia, inedias et pericula laeto sustinuit animo. Quem etiam divina dispositio, et (juxta leges et consuetudines nostras, quas usque ad mortem sustinere volumus) juris successio, et debitus nostrorum consensus et assensus nostrum fecerunt principem atque regem: cui, tanquam liii per quem salus in populo facta est, pro nostra libertate tuenda, tam jure quam meritis tenemur, et volumus in omnibus adhaerere. Quem, si ab inceptis desistet, regi Anglorum aut Anglis nos aut regnum nostrum volens subjicere, tanquam inimicum nostrum et sui nostrique juris subversorem, statim expellere nitemur, et alium regem nostrum, qui ad defensionem nostram sufficiet, faciemus: quia quamdiu centum viri remanserint, numquam Anglorum dominio aliquatenus volumus subjugari, Non enim propter gloriam, divitias, aut honores pugnamus, sed propter libertatem solummodo, quam remo, bonus nisi simul eum vita amittit.

“In the year 1581” (says Grotius, Ann. Book III.) “the confederated provinces of the Netherlands — after having for nine years continued to wage war against Philip the Second, without ceasing to acknowledge him as their sovereign — at length solemnly deprived him of the authority he had possessed over their country, because he had violated their laws and privileges,” The author afterwards observes, that “France, Spain herself, England, Sweden, Denmark, furnish instances of kings deposed by their people; so that there are at present few sovereigns in Europe whose right to the crown rests on any other foundation than the right which the people possess of divesting their sovereign of his power when he makes an ill use of it,” Pursuant to this idea, the United Provinces, in their justificatory letters on that subject, addressed to the princes of the empire and the king of Denmark — after having enumerated the oppressive acts of the king of Spain, added — “Then, by a mode which has been often enough adopted even by those nations that now live under kingly government, we wrested the sovereignty from him whose actions were all contrary to the duty of a prince.” Ibid. — Note, edit A.D. 1797.

6. Populi patroni non pauciora neque mis ora praesidia habent. Certe a republica, unde ortum habet regia potestas, rebus exigentibus, regens in jus vocari potest, et, si sanitatem respuat, principatu spoiliari; neque ita in principem jura potestatis transtuilit, ut non sibi majorem reservârit potestatem. Ibid. cap. vi.

Est tamen salutaris cogitatio, ut sit principibus persuasum, si rempublicam oppresserint, si vitiis et foeditate intolerandi erunt, ea se conditione vivere, ut non jure tantum, sed cum laude et gloria, perimi possint. Ibid. — Note. edit. A.D. 1797.

7. Mezeray’s History of France, vol. ii. p. 1107.

8. De Jure Belli & Pacis. lib. i. cap. lv. § 11, n. 2

Rights And Duties Of All Citizens Residing In Any Nation/State

May 9, 2017

CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 211. What is our country.

THE whole of the countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation. We have been obliged to anticipate the definition of the term, native country (§ 122), because our subject led us to treat of the love of our country — a virtue so excellent and so necessary in a state. Supposing, then, this definition already known, it remains that we should explain several things that have a relation to this subject, and answer the questions that naturally arise from it.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 216. Children born at sea.

As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
§ 218. Settlement.

Settlement is a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his settlement in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not transfer his settlement elsewhere. In this sense, a person who stops at a place upon business, even though he stay a long time, has only a simple habitation there, but has no settlement. Thus, the envoy of a foreign prince has not his settlement at the court where he resides.

The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his; and we are considered as retaining it, till we have abandoned it, in order to choose another. The acquired settlement (adscititium) is that where we settle by our own choice.
§ 219. Vagrants.

Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently, those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (§ 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member, which comes to the same point; for, to settle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, if not with all the privileges of a citizen. We may, however, consider the country of a vagrant to be that of his child, while that vagrant is considered as not having absolutely renounced his natural or original settlement.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.

Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60) — 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,1 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.

2. As soon as the son of a citizen attains the age of manhood, and acts as a citizen, he tacitly assumes that character; his obligations, like those of others who expressly and formally enter into engagements with society, become stronger and more extensive: but the case is very different with respect to him of whom we have been speaking. When a society has not been formed for a determinate time, it is allowable to quit it, when that separation can take place without detriment to the society. A citizen may therefore quit the state of which he is a member, provided it be not in such a conjuncture when he cannot abandon it without doing it a visible injury. But we must here draw a distinction between what may in strict justice be done, and what is honourable and conformable to every duty — in a word, between the internal, and the external obligation. Every man has a right to quit his country, in order to settle in any other, when by that step he does not endanger the welfare of his country. But a good citizen will never determine on such a step without necessity, or without very strong reasons. It is taking a dishonourable advantage of our liberty, to quit our associates upon slight pretences, after having derived considerable advantages from them; and this is the case of every citizen, with respect to his country.

3. As to those who have the cowardice to abandon their country in a time of danger, and seek to secure themselves, instead of defending it, they manifestly violate the social compact, by which all the contracting parties engaged to defend themselves in a united body, and in concert; they are infamous deserters, whom the state has a right to punish severely.2
§ 221. How a person may absent himself for a time.

In a time of peace and tranquillity, when the country has no actual need of all her children, the very welfare of the state, and that of the citizens, requires that every individual be at liberty to travel on business, provided that he be always ready to return, whenever the public interest recalls him. It is not presumed that any man has bound himself to the society of which he is a member, by an engagement never to leave the country when the interest of his affairs requires it, and when he can absent himself without injury to his country.
§ 222. Variation of the political laws in this respect, (61) These must be obeyed.

The political laws of nations vary greatly in this respect. In some nations, it is at all times, except in case of actual war, allowed to every citizen to absent himself, and even to quit the country altogether, whenever he thinks proper without alleging any reason for it. This liberty, contrary in its own nature to the welfare and safety of society, can nowhere be tolerated but in a country destitute of resources and incapable of supplying the wants of its inhabitants. In such a country there can only be an imperfect society; for civil society ought to be capable of enabling all its members to procure, by their own labour and industry, all the necessaries of life: unless it effects this, it has no right to require them to devote themselves entirely to it. In some other states, every citizen is left at liberty to travel abroad on business, but not to quit his country altogether, without the express permission of the sovereign. Finally, there are states where the rigour of the government will not permit any one whatsoever to go out of the country without passports in form, which are even not granted without great difficulty. In all these cases, it is necessary to conform to the laws, when they are made by a lawful authority. But, in the last-mentioned case, the sovereign abuses his power, and reduces his subjects to an insupportable slavery, if he refuses them permission to travel for their own advantage, when he might grant it to them without inconvenience, and without danger to the state. Nay, it will presently appear, that, on certain occasions, he cannot, under any pretext, detain persons who wish to quit the country, with the intention of abandoning it for ever.
§ 223. Cases in which a citizen has a right to quit his country.

There are cases in which a citizen has an absolute right to renounce his country, and abandon it entirely — a right founded on reasons derived from the very nature of the social compact. 1. If the citizen cannot procure subsistence in his own country, it is undoubtedly lawful for him to seek it elsewhere. For, political or civil society being entered into only with a view of facilitating to each of its members the means of supporting himself, and of living in happiness and safety, it would be absurd to pretend that a member, whom it cannot furnish with such things as are most necessary, has not a right to leave it.

2. If the body of the society, or he who represents it, absolutely fail to discharge their obligations towards a citizen, the latter may withdraw himself. For, if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engagements, the other is no longer bound to fulfil his; as the contract is reciprocal between the society and its members. It is on the same principle, also, that me society may expel a member who violates its laws.

3. If the major part of the nation, or the sovereign who represents it, attempt to enact laws relative to matters in which the social compact cannot oblige every citizen to submission, those who are averse to these laws have a right to quit the society, and go settle elsewhere. For instance, if the sovereign, or the greater part of the nation, will allow but one religion in the state, those who believe and profess another religion have a right to withdraw, and take with mem their families and effects. For, they cannot be supposed to have subjected themselves to the authority of men, in affairs of conscience;3 and if the society suffers and is weakened by their departure, the blame must be imputed to the intolerant party; for it is they who fail in their observance of the social compact — it is they who violate it, and force the others to a separation. We have elsewhere touched upon some other instances of this third case, — that of a popular state wishing to have a sovereign (§ 33), and that of an independent nation taking the resolution to submit to a foreign power (§ 195).
§ 224. Emigrants.

Those who quit their country for any lawful reason, with a design to settle elsewhere, and take their families and property with them, are called emigrants.
§ 225. Sources of their right

Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources. 1. In the cases we have just mentioned (§ 223), it is a natural right, which is certainly reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.

2. The liberty of emigration may, in certain cases, be secured to the citizens by a fundamental law of the state. The citizens of Neufchatel and Valangin in Switzerland may quit the country and carry off their effects at their own pleasure, without even paying any duties.

3. It may be voluntarily granted them by the sovereign.

4. This right may be derived from some treaty made with a foreign power, by which a sovereign has promised to leave full liberty to those of his subjects, who, for a certain reason — on account of religion, for instance — desire to transplant themselves into me territories of that power. There are such treaties between the German princes, particularly for cases in which religion is concerned. In Switzerland likewise, a citizen of Bern who wishes to emigrate to Fribourg, and there profess the religion of the place, and, reciprocally, a citizen of Fribourg who, for a similar reason, is desirous of removing to Bern, has a right to quit his native country, and carry off with him all his property.

It appears from several passages in history, particularly the history of Switzerland and the neighbouring countries, that the law of nations, established there by custom some ages back, did not permit a state to receive the subjects of another state into the number of its citizens. This vicious custom had no other foundation than the slavery to which the people were then reduced. A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under the head of his private property; he calculated their number as he did that of his flocks; and, to the disgrace of human nature, this strange abuse is not yet everywhere eradicated.
§226. If the sovereign infringes their right, he injures them.

If the sovereign attempts to molest those who have a right to emigrate, he does them an injury; and the injured individuals may lawfully implore the protection of the power who is willing to receive them. Thus we have seen Frederic William, king of Prussia, grant his protection to the emigrant Protestants of Saltzburgh.
§227. Supplicants.

The name of supplicants is given to all fugitives who implore the protection of a sovereign against the nation or prince they have quitted. We cannot solidly establish what the law of nations determines with respect to them, until we have treated of the duties of one nation towards others.
§ 228. Exile and banishment.

Finally, exile is another manner of leaving our country. An exile is a man driven from the place of his settlement, or constrained to quit it, but without a mark of infamy. Banishment is a similar expulsion, with a mark of infamy annexed.4 Both may be for a limited time, or for ever. If an exile, or banished man, had his settlement in his own country, he is exiled or banished from his country. It is, however, proper to observe that common usage applies also the terms exile and banishment to the expulsion of a foreigner who is driven from a country where he had no settlement, and to which he is, either for a limited time, or for ever, prohibited to return.

As a man may be deprived of any right whatsoever by way of punishment — exile, which deprives him of the right of dwelling in a certain place, may be inflicted as a punishment: banishment is always one; for, a mark of infamy cannot be set on any one, but with a view of punishing him for a fault, either real or pretended.

When the society has excluded one of its members by a perpetual banishment, he is only banished from the lands of that society, and it cannot hinder him from living wherever else he pleases; for, after having driven him out, it can no longer claim any authority over him. The contrary, however, may take place by particular conventions between two or more states. Thus, every member of the Helvetic confederacy may banish its own subject out of the territories of Switzerland in general; and in this case the banished person will not be allowed to live in any of the cantons, or in the territories of their allies.

Exile is divided into voluntary and involuntary. It is voluntary, when a man quits his settlement to escape some punishment, or to avoid some calamity — and involuntary, when it is the effect of a superior order.

Sometimes a particular place is appointed, where the exiled person is to remain during his exile; or a certain space is particularized, which he is forbid to enter. These various circumstances and modifications depend on him who has the power of sending into exile.
§ 229. The exile and banished man have a right to live somewhere.

A man, by being exiled or banished, does not forfeit the human character, nor consequently his right to dwell somewhere on earth. He derives this right from nature, or rather from its Author, who has destined the earth for the habitation of mankind; and the introduction of property cannot have impaired the right which every man has to the use of such things as are absolutely necessary — a right which he brings with him into the world at the moment of his birth.
§ 230. Nature of this right.

But though this right is necessary and perfect in the general view of it, we must not forget that it is but imperfect with respect to each particular country. For, on the other hand, every nation has a right to refuse admitting a foreigner into her territory, when he cannot enter it without exposing the nation to evident danger, or doing her a manifest injury, what she owes to herself, the care of her own safety, gives her this right; and, in virtue of her natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge, whether her circumstances will or will not justify the admission of that foreigner (Prelim. § 16). He cannot, then, settle by a full right, and as he pleases, in the place he has chosen, but must ask permission of the chief of the place; and, if it is refused, it is his duty to submit.
§ 231. Duty of nations towards them.

However, as property could not be introduced to the prejudice of the right acquired by every human creature, of not being absolutely deprived of such things as are necessary — no nation can, without good reasons, refuse even a perpetual residence to a man driven from his country. But, if particular and substantial reasons prevent her from affording him an asylum, this man has no longer any right to demand it — because, in such a case, the country inhabited by the nation cannot, at the same time, serve for her own use, and that of this foreigner. Now, supposing even that things are still in common, nobody can arrogate to himself the use of a thing which actually serves to supply the wants of another. Thus, a nation, whose lands are scarcely sufficient to supply the wants of the citizens, is not obliged to receive into its territories a company of fugitives or exiles. Thus, it ought even absolutely to reject them, if they are infected with a contagious disease. Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens, that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged to follow, in this respect, the suggestions of prudence. But this prudence should be free from unnecessary suspicion and jealousy; it should not be carried so far as to refuse a retreat to the unfortunate, for slight reasons, and on groundless and frivolous fears. The means of tempering it will be, never to lose sight of that charity and commiseration which are due to the unhappy. We must not suppress these feelings even for those who have fallen into misfortune through their own fault. For, we ought to hate the crime, but love the man, since all mankind ought to love each other.
§ 232. A nation cannot punish them for faults committed out of its territories.

If an exiled or banished man has been driven from his country for any crime, it does not belong to the nation in which he has taken refuge to punish him for that fault committed in a foreign country. For, nature does not give to men or to nations any right to inflict punishment, except for their own defence and safety (§ 169); whence it follows that we cannot punish any but those by whom we have been injured.
§ 233. Except such as affect the common safety of mankind.

But this very reason shows, that, although the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories, we ought to except from this rule those villains, who, by the nature and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized; for they attack and injure all nations by trampling under foot the foundations of their common safety. Thus, pirates are sent to the gibbet by the first into whose hands they fall. If the sovereign of the country where crimes of that nature have been committed, reclaims the perpetrators of them, in order to bring them to punishment, they ought to be surrendered to him, as being the person who is principally interested in punishing them in an exemplary manner. And as it is proper to have criminals regularly convicted by a trial in due form of law, this is a second reason for delivering up malefactors of that class to the states where their crimes have been committed. (62)

(58) See fully in general, and of naturalization in Great Britain in particular, 1 Chitty’s Commercial Law, 123 to 131; 1 Bla. Com. 369; Bac. Ab. Aliens. A naturalization in a foreign country, without license, wilt not discharge a natural-born subject from his allegiance, 2 Chalmer’s Col. Opin. 363. But a natural-born subject of England, naturalized in America, was holden to be entitled to trade as an American subject to the East Indies, 8 Term Rep. 39, 43, 45; and see Reeves, 2d ed. 328, 330, and 37 Geo. 3, c. 97. — C.

{A native citizen of the United States cannot throw off his allegiance to the government, without an Act of Congress authorizing him to do so. Miller v. The Resolution, 1 Dall. 10; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. S.C. Rep. 246; Coxe v. McIlvaine, 4 Cranch, 209; The Santissinta Trinidada, 7 Wheat. Rep. 763. The United states v. Gillies, Peter’s C.C. Rep. 159.)

(59) See 1 Chitty’s Commercial Law, 114, n. 1.; 115, n. 1.

(60) In Great Britain, the established maxim is nemo potest exuere patriam, 1 Bla. C. 369, 3 Chit. Com. Law, 129 to 132.

1. This is the foundation of the tax paid on quitting a country, called, in Latin, census emigrationis.

2. Charles XII. condemned to death and executed General Patkul, a native of Livonia, whom he had made prisoner in an engagement with the Saxons. But the sentence and execution were a violation of the laws of justice. Patkul, it is true, had been born a subject of the king of Sweden; but he had quitted his native country at the age of twelve years, and having been promoted in the army of Saxony, had, with the permission of his former sovereign sold the property he possessed in Livonia. he had therefore quitted his own country, to choose another (as every free citizen is at liberty to do, except, as we have observed above, at a critical moment, when the circumstances of his country require the aid of all her sons), and the king of Sweden, by permitting him to sell his property, had consented to his emigration.

(61) See post. Book II. ch. viii. § 108, p. 174. and Chitty’s General Practice, p. 731 to 736, as to writs of ne exeat regno.

(62) A distinction has usually been taken between capital offences and mere misdemeanors, and for one state to allow the taking and removing an offender of the former class back into the country where the offence was committed, in order to take his trial in the latter, but not so in case of misdemeanors. But sometimes, as upon a charge of perjury, a foreign country will allow the removal of an offender even in case of a misdemeanor. See Ex parte Scott, 9 Barn. & Cress. 446. (A foreign government has no right, by the Law of Nations, to demand of the government of the United States a surrender of a citizen or subject of such foreign government, who has committed a crime in his own country. Such a right can only exist by treaty. Comm. v. Deacon, 10 Serg. &c Raw. 125; Case of Dos Santos, 2 Brocken. Rep. 493. The Case of Robins, Bee’s Rep. 266; was under the treaty with Great Britain.)

3. See above, the chapter on Religion.

4. The common acceptation of these two terms is not repugnant to our application of them. The French academy says, “Banishment is only applied to condemnations indue course of law. Exile is only an absence caused by some disgrace at court.” The reason is plain: such a condemnation from the tribunal of justice entails infamy on the emigrant; whereas a disgrace at court does not usually involve the same consequence.

The Status of the Law of Nations In Early American Law

May 9, 2017

The Status of the Law of Nations In Early American Law

It should be clear who a Nation/State belongs to and who it does not belong to…
[Sylvester, supra note 55, at 67; see also Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 VAND. L. REV. 819, 823 (1989) (“In ascertaining principles of the law of nations, lawyers and judges of that era relied heavily on continental treatise writers, Vattel being the most often consulted by Americans. An essential part of a sound legal education consisted of reading Vattel, Grotius, Pufendorf, and Burlamaqui, among others.”).]

Below is what Vattel and the Law of Nations has to say…
“The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. It is principally for them, and for their ministers, that it ought to be written. All mankind are indeed interested in it; and, in a free country, the study of its maxims is a proper employment for every citizen; but it would be of little consequence to impart the knowledge of it only to private individuals, who are not called to the councils of nations, and who have no influence in directing the public measures. If the conductors of slates, if all those who are employed in public affairs, condescended to apply seriously to the study of a science which ought to be their law, and, as it were, the compass by which to steer their course, what happy effects might we not expect from a good treatise on the law of nations! We every day feel the advantages of a good body of laws in civil society: — the law of nations is, in point of importance, as much superior to the civil law, as the proceedings of nations and sovereigns are more momentous in their consequences than those of private persons….”

“…But fatal experience too plainly proves how little regard those who are at the head of affairs pay to the dictates of justice, in conjunctures where they hope to find their advantage. Satisfied with bestowing their attention on a system of politics which is often false, since often unjust, the generality of them think they have done enough when they have thoroughly studied that. Nevertheless, we may truly apply to states a maxim which has long been acknowledged as true with respect to individuals, — that the best and safest policy is that which is founded on virtue. Cicero, as a great master in the art of government as in eloquence and philosophy, does not content himself with rejecting the vulgar maxim, that “a state cannot be happily governed without committing injustice;” he even proceeds so far as to lay down the very reverse of the proposition as an invariable truth, and maintains, that “without a strict attention to the most rigid justice, public affairs cannot be advantageously administered.”

Providence occasionally bestows on the world kings and ministers whose minds are impressed with this great truth. Let us not renounce the pleasing hope that the number of those wise conductors of nations will one day be multiplied; and in the interim let us, each in his own sphere, exert our best efforts to accelerate the happy period.”~[Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations]

From: The Law of Nations; Preliminaries: (This is what “States should be attain­ing” and this will give you a clue about what “all indi­vid­uals in a State” should be striv­ing for.)

§ 4. In what light nations or states are to be considered.
Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.

It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a State, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the State, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, and all other Nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them.

§ 10. Society established by nature between all mankind
Man is so formed by nature, that he cannot supply all his own wants, but necessarily stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his fellow-creatures, whether for his immediate preservation, or for the sake of perfecting his nature, and enjoying such a life as is suitable to a rational being. This is sufficiently proved by experience. We have instances of persons, who, having grown up to manhood among the bears of the forest, enjoyed not the use of speech or of reason, but were, like the brute beasts, possessed only of sensitive faculties. We see moreover that nature has refused to bestow on men the same strength and natural weapons of defence with which she has furnished other animals — having, in lieu of those advantages, endowed mankind with the faculties of speech and reason, or at least a capability of acquiring them by an intercourse with their fellow-creatures. Speech enables them to communicate with each other, to give each other mutual assistance, to perfect their reason and knowledge; and having thus become intelligent, they find a thousand methods of preserving themselves, and supplying their wants. Each individual, moreover, is intimately conscious that he can neither live happily nor improve his nature without the intercourse and assistance of others. Since, therefore, nature has thus formed mankind, it is a convincing proof of her intention that they should communicate with, and mutually aid and assist each other.

Hence is deduced the establishment of natural society among men. The general law of that society is, that each individual should do for the others every thing which their necessities require, and which he can perform without neglecting the duty that he owes to himself: (4) a law which all men must observe in order to live in a manner consonant to their nature, and conformable to the views of their common Creator — a law which our own safety, our happiness, our dearest interests, ought to render sacred to every one of us. Such is the general obligation that binds us to the observance of our duties: let us fulfil them with care, if we would wisely endeavour to promote our own advantage. (5)

From: The Law of Nations; Book 1:
§ 14. Of the preservation and perfection of a nation.
He who no longer exists can have no duties to perform: and a moral being is charged with obligations to himself, only with a view to his perfection and happiness: for to preserve and to perfect his own nature, is the sum of all his duties to himself.
The preservation of a nation is found in what renders it capable of obtaining the end of civil society; and a nation is in a perfect state, when nothing necessary is wanting to arrive at that end. We know that the perfection of a thing consists, generally, in the perfect agreement of all its constituent parts to tend to the same end. A nation being a multitude of men united together in civil society — if in that multitude all conspire to attain the end proposed in forming a civil society, the nation is perfect; and it is more or less so, according as it approaches more or less to that perfect agreement. In the same manner its external state will be more or less perfect, according as it concurs with the interior perfection of the nation,

§ 21. A nation ought to perfect itself and the state.
The second general duty of a nation towards itself is to labour at its own perfection and that of its state. It is this double perfection that renders a nation capable of attaining the end of civil society: it would be absurd to unite in society, and yet not endeavour to promote the end of that union.
Here the entire body of a nation, and each individual citizen, are bound by a double obligation, the one immediately proceeding from nature, and the other resulting from their reciprocal engagements. Nature lays an obligation upon each man to labour after his own perfection; and in so doing, he labours after that of civil society, which could not fail to be very flourishing, were it composed of none but good citizens. But the individual finding in a well-regulated society the most powerful succours to enable him to fulfil the task which Nature imposes upon him in relation to himself, for becoming better, and consequently more happy — he is doubtless obliged to contribute all in his power to render that society more perfect.
All the citizens who form a political society reciprocally engage to advance the common welfare, and as far as possible to promote the advantage of each member. Since then the perfection of the society is what enables it to secure equally the happiness of the body and that of the members, the grand object of the engagements and duties of a citizen is to aim at this perfection, This is more particularly the duty of the body collective in all their common deliberations, and in everything they do as a body. (18)

End Law of Nations; Below Citizen defined..

Section 1; 14th Amendement;
“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.”Definition of subject
1 : one that is placed under authority or control: such asa : vassalb (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch’s law (2) : one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

subject (v.)
late 14c., “to make (a person or nation) subject to another by force,” also “to render submissive or dependent,” from Medieval Latin subiectare “place beneath,” frequentative of Latin subicere “to make subject, subordinate” (see subject (n.)). Meaning “to lay open or expose to (some force or occurrence)” is recorded from early 15c. (implied in subjected). Related: Subjecting.
subject (n.)
early 14c., “person under control or dominion of another,” specifically a government or ruler, from Old French sogit, suget, subget “a subject person or thing” (12c., Modern French sujet), from noun use of Latin subiectus “lying under, below, near bordering on,” figuratively “subjected, subdued,” past participle of subicere, subiicere “to place under, throw under, bind under; to make subject, subordinate,” from sub “under” (see sub-) + combining form of iacere “to throw” (see jet (v.)). In 14c., sugges, sogetis, subgit, sugette; form re-Latinized in English 16c.

Meaning “person or thing regarded as recipient of action, one that may be acted upon” is recorded from 1590s. Grammatical sense is recorded from 1630s, from Latin subjectum “grammatical subject,” noun use of the neuter of the Latin past participle. Likewise some restricted uses in logic and philosophy are borrowed directly from Latin subjectum as “foundation or subject of a proposition,” a loan-translation of Aristotle’s to hypokeimenon. Meaning “subject matter of an art or science” is attested from 1540s, probably short for subject matter (late 14c.), which is from Medieval Latin subjecta materia, a loan translation of Greek hypokeimene hyle (Aristotle), literally “that which lies beneath.”

allegiance (n.)
“ties or obligations of a citizen or subject to a government or sovereign,” late 14c., formed in English from Anglo-French legaunce “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,” from Old French legeance, from liege (see liege (adj.)). Corrupted in spelling by confusion with the now-obsolete legal term allegeance “alleviation, mitigation” (for which see allay (v.)). General figurative sense of “recognition of claims to respect or duty, observance of obligation” is attested from 1732. French allégeance in this sense is said to be from English.

liege (adj.)
c. 1300, of lords, “entitled to feudal allegiance and service,” from Anglo-French lige (late 13c.), Old French lige “liege-lord,” noun use of an adjective meaning “free, giving or receiving fidelity” (corresponding to Medieval Latin ligius, legius), a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Late Latin laeticus “cultivated by serfs,” from laetus “serf,” which probably is from Proto-Germanic *lethiga- “freed” (source also of Old English læt “half-freedman, serf;” Old High German laz, Old Frisian lethar “freedman;” Middle Dutch ledich “idle, unemployed”), from PIE root *le- (2) “let go, slacken” (see let (v.)). Or the Middle English word might be directly from Old High German leidig “free,” on the notion of “free from obligation to service except as vassal to one lord,” but this reverses the notion contained in the word.

From late 14c. of vassals, “bound to render feudal allegiance and service.” The dual sense of the adjective reflects the reciprocal relationship it describes: protection in exchange for service. Hence, liege-man “a vassal sworn to the service and support of a lord, who in turn is obliged to protect him” (mid-14c.).

-ance
word-forming element attached to verbs to form abstract nouns of process or fact (convergence from converge), or of state or quality (absence from absent); ultimately from Latin -antia and -entia, which depended on the vowel in the stem word, from PIE *-nt-, adjectival suffix.
Definition of -ance
1 : action or process furtherance : instance of an action or process performance
2 : quality or state : instance of a quality or state protuberance
3 : amount or degree conductance

I can keep going with this.. Corpus Juris Secundem Citizen defined backs this up also..

Interesting how they established freedom by enslaving everyone else…

Law of Nations Book IV Chap. 1

May 9, 2017

Law of Nations Book Four Chap. 1

The point here is who are the disturbers of the public peace.. Anyone complaining about how these Nation/States manage their business.. From the lies to the environment to the privileges issues of their subjects.. Obviously we’re observing disturbers of the public peace categorization and management.. Even to the point of setting up sting operations.. Using actors to draw disturbers of the public peace, belligerents to the bait.. For arrests and trials.. These operations will have front people, who say all of the right things, smile, are kind leading the various groups of patriotic disturbers of the public peace, environmentalist disturbers of the public peace, political disturbers of the public peace, animal rights activist disturbers of the public peace…And so on..They are never going to let the subjects tell them how to manage their business.. Oh and, another way they manage the disturbers of the public peace is by allowing them to participate in staged elections by voting.. Nothing but frustration relief valves for disturbers of the public peace.. Ignorance of their right to conduct their business how they deem it necessary and proper as so stated in their own political charter is no excuse.. Misinterpretation of their political charters, the basis of their political charters, the statutes and codes deemed proper by their corporate boardrooms for management of all of their resources properties, in the case of this nation/State the U.S. Congress Assembled is the United States.. Is No Excuse.. Being unread and ignorant of the facts is no excuse.. Now, even if there were a large enough rebellion here to over throw the U.S. Congress Assembled United States, the United Nations as a whole would not tolerate it.. The rebels would have to whip the world.. It should be noted that the intelligence agencies operating the National Security apparatus have been forming these various disturbers of the public peace groups for decades.. One being the John Birch Society.. All patriot organizations.. All Environmental psyops.. All of it.. The NRA.. you name it.. There are to many group psyops to list here.. World wide controlled opposition.. This priceless evidence in book form is only $25.00.. So the citizen subjugated by the sovereign has a choice, keep being a disturber of the public peace…Zombie…Or learn how to go to peace with the adversary, such as walk away from them and their private business.. They do tell you that.. Walk away.. Another great voice once said, “Get out of her my people”.. “That you not suffer her plagues”..

The citizen wallows in the muck of slavery and knows not why…

BOOK IV.
OF THE RESTORATION OF PEACE; AND OF EMBASSIES
CHAP. I.

OF PEACE, AND THE OBLIGATION TO CULTIVATE IT.

§ l. What peace is.
PEACE is the reverse of war: it is that desirable state in which every one quietly enjoys his rights, or, if controverted, amicably discusses them by force of argument. Hobbes has had the boldness to assert, that war is the natural state of man. But if, by “the natural state of man,” we understand (as reason requires that we should) that state to which he is destined and called by his nature, peace should rather be termed his natural state. For, it is the part of a rational being to terminate his differences by rational methods; whereas, it is the characteristic of the brute creation to decide theirs by force.1 Man, as we have already observed (Prelim. § 10), alone and destitute of succours, would necessarily be a very wretched creature. He stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his species, in order to enjoy the sweets of life, to develop his faculties, and live in a manner suitable to his nature. Now, it is in peace alone that all these advantages are to be found: it is in peace that men respect, assist, and love each other: nor would they ever depart from that happy state, if they were not hurried on by the impetuosity of their passions, and blinded by the gross deceptions of self-love. What little we have said of the effects will be sufficient to give some idea of its various calamities; and it is an unfortunate circumstance for the human race, that the injustice of unprincipled men should so often render it inevitable.

§ 2. Obligation of cultivating it
Nations who are really impressed with sentiments of humanity, — who seriously attend to their duty, and are acquainted with their true and substantial interests, — will never seek to promote their own advantage at the expense and detriment of other nations: however intent they may be on their own happiness, they will ever be careful to combine it with that of others, and with justice and equity. Thus disposed, they will necessarily cultivate peace. If they do not live together in peace, how can they perform those mutual and sacred duties which nature enjoins them? And this state is found to be no less necessary to their happiness than to the discharge of their duties. Thus, the law of nature every way obliges them to seek and cultivate peace. That divine law has no other end in view than the welfare of mankind: to that object all its rules and all its precepts lend: they are alt deducible from this principle, that men should seek their own felicity; and morality is no more than the art of acquiring happiness. As this is true of individuals, it is equally so of nations, as must appear evident to any one who will but take the trouble of reflecting on what we have said of their common and reciprocal duties, in the first chapter of the second book.

3. The sovereign’s obligation to it.
This obligation of cultivating peace binds the sovereign by a double tie. He owes this attention to his people, on whom war would pour a torrent of evils; and he owes it in the most strict and indispensable manner, since it is solely for the advantage and welfare of the nation that he is intrusted with the government. (Book I. § 39.) He owes the same attention to foreign nations, whose happiness likewise is disturbed by war. The nation’s duty in this respect has been shown in the preceding chapter; and the sovereign, being invested with the public authority, is at the same time charged with all the duties of the society, or body of the nation. (Book I. § 41.)

§ 4. Extent of this duty
The nation or the sovereign ought not only to refrain, on their own part, from disturbing that peace which is so salutary to mankind: they are, moreover, bound to promote it as far as lies in their power, — to prevent others from breaking it without necessity, and to inspire them with the love of justice, equity, and public tranquillity, — in a word, with the love of peace. It is one of the best offices a sovereign can render to nations, and to the whole universe. What a glorious and amiable character is that of peace-maker! Were a powerful prince thoroughly acquainted with the advantages attending it, — were he to conceive what pure and effulgent glory he may derive from that endearing character, together with the gratitude, the love, the veneration, and the confidence of nations, — did he know what it is to reign over the hearts of men, — he would wish thus to become the benefactor, the friend, the father of mankind; and in being so, he would find infinitely more delight than in the most splendid conquests. Augustus, shutting the temple of Janus, giving peace to the universe, and adjusting the disputes of kings and nations, — Augustus, at that moment, appears the greatest of mortals, and, as it were, a god upon earth.
§ 5. Of the disturbers of the public peace.

But those disturbers of the public peace, — those scourges of the earth, who, fired by a lawless thirst of power, or impelled by the pride and ferocity of their disposition, snatch up arms without justice or reason, and sport with the quiet of mankind and the blood of their subjects, — those monstrous heroes, though almost deified by the foolish admiration of the vulgar, are in effect the most cruel enemies of the human race, and ought to be treated as such. Experience shows what a train of calamities war entails even upon nations that are not immediately engaged in it. War disturbs commerce, destroys the subsistence of mankind, raises the price of all the most necessary articles, spreads just alarms, and obliges all nations to be upon their guard, and to keep up an armed force. He, therefore, who without just cause breaks the general peace, unavoidably does an injury even to those nations which are not the objects of his arms; and by his pernicious example he essentially attacks the happiness and safety of every nation upon earth. He gives them a right to join in a general confederacy for the purpose of repressing and chastising him, and depriving him of a power which he so enormously abuses. What evils does he not bring on his own nation, lavishing her blood to gratify his inordinate passions, and exposing her to the resentment of a host of enemies! A famous minister of the last century has justly merited the indignation of his country, by involving her in unjust or unnecessary wars. If by his abilities and indefatigable application, he procured her distinguished successes in the field of battle, he drew on her, at least for a time, the execration of all Europe.

§ 6. How far war may be continued.
The love of peace should equally prevent us from embarking in a war without necessity, and from persevering in it after the necessity has ceased to exist. When a sovereign has been compelled to take up arms for just and important reasons, he may carry on the operations of war till he has attained its lawful end, which is, to procure justice and safety. (Book III § 28.)
If the cause be dubious, the just end of war can only be to bring the enemy to an equitable compromise (Book III. § 38); and consequently the war must not be continued beyond that point. The moment our enemy proposes or consents to such compromise, it is our duty to desist from hostilities.
But if we have to do with a perfidious enemy, it would be imprudent to trust either his words or his oaths. In sucli case, justice allows and prudence requires that we should avail ourselves of a successful war, and follow up our advantages, till we have humbled a dangerous and excessive power, or compelled the enemy to give us sufficient security for the time to come.
Finally, if the enemy obstinately rejects equitable conditions, he himself forces us to continue our progress till we have obtained a complete and decisive victory, by which he is absolutely reduced and subjected. The use to be made of victory has been shown above. (Book III. Chap. VIII., IX., XIII.)
§ 7. Peace the end of war.
When one of the parties is reduced to sue for peace, or both are weary of the war, then thoughts of an accommodation are entertained, and the conditions are agreed on. Thus peace steps in and puts a period to the war.
§ 8. General effects of peace.
The general and necessary effects of peace are the reconciliation of enemies and the cessation of hostilities on both sides. It restores the two nations to their natural state.

1. Nam cum sint duo genera decertandi, unum per disceptationem, alterum per vim, — cumque illud proprium sit hominis, hoc belluarum, — confuglendum est ad posterius, si ut non licet superiore. Cicero, de Offic. lib. i. cap. 11.

Law of Nations Book IV

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_04.htm

More Evidence Who Owns The British American Colonies

May 6, 2017

By Craig Oxley

The government and legal system of the United States is totally controlled by the Crown. I have also stated that the British Monarch is not the Crown. The Crown is the Inner City of London, which is an independent State in London belonging to the Vatican system. It is a banking cartel which has a massive system around and beneath, which hides its true power The City is in fact the Knights Templar Church, also known as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment. The Temple grounds are also home to the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. The CrownTemple controls the Global ‘Legal’ system, including those in the United States, Canada, Australia, and much more; this is because all Bar Associations are franchises of the International Bar Association at the Inns of Court at CrownTemple based at Chancery Lane in London.

All Bar Associations are franchises of the Crown and all Bar Attorneys/ Barristers throughout the world pledge a solemn oath to the Temple, even though many may not be aware that this is what they are doing. Bar Association ‘licensed’ Solicitors / Barristers must keep to their Oath, Pledge and terms of allegiance to the CrownTemple if they are to be “called to the Bar” and work in the legal profession. The ruling Monarch is also subordinate to the Crown Temple, this as been so since the reign of King John in the 13th century when Royal Sovereignty was transferred to the Crown Temple and, through this, to the Roman Church. King John 1167-1216 is the key to this deception.

It was at the Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court in January 1215 that King John was faced with the demands of the French/English Barons in England (mainly French), to confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. When he signed the Magna Carta in 1215 history records this as an event that extended human freedom, but the real affect was very different as we shall see. The governments of the USA, Canada, Australia and more are subsidiaries of the Crown Temple and so is the US Central Bank the Federal Reserve, as are all Central Banks on the Planet and including the IMF` World Bank. Bar Associations are awarded their franchises by the Four Inns of Court at Temple Bar.

{Magna Carta was nullified by the Pope as it was done under duress via sword held to King Johns throat.}

These are the InnerTemple, MiddleTemple, Lincolns Inn and Greys Inn and they are nothing less than elite secret societies without charters or statutes. They are the law unto themselves. The InnerTemple controls the legal system franchise for Canada and Britain while the MiddleTemple does the same for the United States. Queen Elizabeth II is a member of both Temples. At least five signatories to the American Declaration of Independence were Temple Bar Attorneys who had pledged allegiance to the Crown! Another MiddleTemple operative during the formation of the USA was Alexander Hamilton who structured the American Banking system to fulfil the Crown Temples agenda for total control of the United States. So in truth a State wherever it is on this planet, is a legal entity of the TempleCrown, or a Crown Colony. A man named Michael Edwards wrote: “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 CrownTemple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the rule and order of the CrownTemple.

A legal state is a CrownTemple Colony.” “Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The CrownTemple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Temple Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attorneys rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful Taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but’ legal’, orders, rules and codes of the Crown Temple Courts, or so called ‘Judiciary’ in America. This is because the CrownTemple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.” Seven Middle Inn Templars who had pledged an oath of allegiance to the CrownTemple (including Alexander Hamilton) were among the members of the Constitutional Convention who signed the completed ‘American Constitution’.

How symbolic it is that copies of the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence hang on the wall of the MiddleTemple in London. It’s not that surprising when you consider this Temple controlled both sides in these shenanigans. So while the Middle Bar Templars were orchestrating the illusion of freedom from the perceived rule by King George III, the King too, was a sworn member of the same Temple. Michael Edwards continues: “1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It 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 CrownTemple. 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 US Constitution would have been written using the word ‘States’. By the use of ‘State’, the significance of government of estate possessions 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. Who controls the Crown? On May 15th 1213, King John, puppet of the Knights Templar, effectively signed away the Kingdom of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent III and the Roman Church, witnessed by the Crown Templars. As King John said at the time: “I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.” The King John Charter said: “ We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by common councel of our Barons, do offer and freely concede to God and his Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman Church, and to our lord Pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him are aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his Catholic successors and the Roman Church…

binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in a similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at the time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and his senses, he shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.” Now it gets interesting. Historical accounts concentrate the fact that this charter obliged the Crown to pay money to the Roman Church, but it also states that if the terms of the charter are broken, the ‘right to the kingdom’ shall be lost. When King John signed the Magna Carter on June 15th 1215 he broke the terms of the charter with the Pope and therefore lost the right to his Kingdom. Pope Innocent III then declared the Magna Carter null and void. From this time the ‘Crown’ passed from the Monarch to the Knights Templar who to this day, governs Britain on behalf of the Roman IlluminatiChurch. The St Clair’s now Sinclair are the initial directors of this link of Templar and Rome in the British Isles as they took hold in Scotland at the time of the 1066 Norsemen-Norman invasion. This means, if we take it a stage further, that ultimately, through the CrownTemple, the Roman system also owns the United States, Canada and all countries and Bar associations controlled both overtly and covertly by the Crown. This is why the Peace Treaty between the American Colonies and the British Crown in 1783, stated:

“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the third, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc… and of the United States of America…”

And for the Irony, a Roman Catholic is barred from being the British Monarch while all along the Monarch and the Kingdom have been owned by the system that is Rome. The Queen is the Grand Patroness of Freemasonry. She is served by the 390 members of the Privy Council which connects with its equivalent in all other Commonwealth Countries. The Privy Council is ‘LEGALLY’ above Parliament because of its prerogative powers. Its members, who are appointed for life, include Prince Philip, Prince Charles, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister and many others. They hold nine official meetings each year and the government (Crown) minister’s stand to attention while the Queen is told of the government measures they are asking the Queen to approve, which are nothing other than what the Crown dictates via the elected leader and via the Whips of whichever political party has power…

After taking their bow to the Queen and shaking her hand they are sworn to conduct their business in the utmost secrecy. Another network of this structure is the CROWN AGENTS. Formed in 1833 as ‘Crown Agents for the Colonies,’ to run the day to day administration of the empire and to serve as private bankers to government officials, colonial authorities, and heads of state. It is also an older version of Brown & Root supplying a vast range of goods throughout the empire. Goods that included arms, drugs, Viruses, especially to Africa to create the genocidal wars we are, and have witnessed. The Crown Agents is the network that links the CrownTemple to the organised crime operations throughout the empire, the Golden Dawn being one of the most powerful occult operations to be used in Britain amongst the crime syndicates to ensure the right crime waves are in full swing as and when required. We can see this in the current agenda with guns. The Golden Dawn also operates within legal organisations, but is the interconnecting network across all secret societies and religion.

Remember the Crown Agents work directly for the Monarch who works for the KnightsTemplarChurch, which operates for the Vatican, and for added insult the Crown Agents entire debt is guaranteed by the British Government, that means you! In the 1970’s it was bailed out by the Bank of England costing hundreds of millions of pounds. For many years the Crown Agents managed the personal wealth of the Sultan of Brunei who just happens to be a great friend of the Queen, and has funded many of Prince Philips, Prince Charles, and father George Bush’s private projects. The Sultan is also the financier of both British and American unofficial intelligence operations as he has backed many of Mohammed Al Fayed’s operations, in fact the Sultan could be said to be Mohammed Al Fayed!

After the murder of Princess Diana the role of Al Fayed was for him to hijack the conspiracy and thus lead investigators down the Al Fayed rap of bullshit as was done with Nick Brown over the top up fees debate, and is currently being played by David Davis. Fortunately no one needed to go to him for information because we all in our hearts already know she was murdered. In 1996 the Crown Agents was privatised with the name Crown Agents for Overseas Government and Administration LTD. Of course privatisation is nothing but transfer of Power from CrownTemple through Government agency to CrownTemple via direct ownership; they own everything in this nation! Just to give an idea of What the Crown Agencies controls here’s a couple of little companies it controls as it acts as a holding company for: Barclays bank Standard and Chartered bank Unilever Tate and Lyle Securicor British Telecom The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum Aga Khan Foundation I think you get the picture; it’s big to say the least.

It manages the customs services of Mozambique, and through a company called Europe SA, is in charge of all economic construction procurement for Bosnia. It is also in joint venture with Monaco based company ES-KO, to provide all the food for United Nations peace keeping forces in Angola and Bosnia. With this you can see the more war the more profit for the Crown Agents, and if it goes tits up no problem the British Taxpayer will foot the bill!!!! The queen of England owns the 40.000 acre Duchy of Lancaster, the 44.000 acre Duchy of Cornwall which gives Charles his income. In truth it is the Crown that owns these assets which are assigned to the ruling monarch, so long as they do as they are told. The Crown it transpires owns land in the UK to the tune of 40 million acres. The Queen owns over 300 residencies around the country, and invests heavily in corporations like Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ), Royal Dutch Shell, ICI, and General Electric.

This is no surprise in that these companies are 100% Illuminati operations. Rio Tinto is the largest mining company in the world and was established in 1873 by Hugh Matheson of the Global drug running operation Jardine Matheson. Rio Tinto was in at the start of the North Sea Oil, along with Texaco. They used the refineries of BP in which the Queen also has massive investments, so now you know where all the revenues from the North Sea oil reserves went, to the CrownTemple. This shows insider dealing on an individual basis enabling the Queen to make massive profits. Another blatant conflict of interest to have been identified was Rio Tinto’s involvement in a cartel formed in 1971 to fix the price of Uranium.

A Federal grand jury and the 1976 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Frank Church, exposed the sting. It also included a company called Mary Kathleen Uranium of Australia. This company had been secretly encouraging the Aborigines to occupy Uranium rich lands in Australia to take these lands out of production to raise the price on the world market. The manipulated shortage of Uranium had a serious effect on the American Westinghouse company who sought to take legal action against Rio Tinto for price rigging. This strategy has been used in the USA against the Native Americans and throughout Africa.

An American court ordered that Rio Tinto officials answer questions, but this was quashed by the British Law Lords. The Australian government passed legislation to the same effect. This was after the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been dismissed from office by the Queens Governor General of Australia, Sir John Kerr. Whitlam was pursuing a policy of buying out the mining and raw material cartels, like Rio Tinto and Anglo American, to stop them raping Australia’s resource base, while giving nothing in return. The Queen having enormous investments in both companies, removed Whitlam by using some of her wide range of prerogative powers, which by the way she has in all commonwealth countries including Britain, which she can instigate when the Crown deem necessary, but of course in the minds of the masses the Queen has no powers today? Well I suppose she doesn’t in that she is a puppet of the CrownTemple and ultimately to the Roman system. Sir John Kerr, a former high level operative of British Intelligence, was made a member of the Privy Council and the Royal Victorian Order for his loyal and most profitable service to the Queens portfolio. He was later murdered however, when the truth about the removal of Gough Whitlam was in danger of coming out, how they look after their own! He was obviously outer circle and a good man and would have exposed the lies of the inner circle. The Crown Cartels continue through a House of Windsor extremely secretive society called the Club of the Isles. It was named after King Edward VII, Queen Victoria’s son, who was the first to carry the title, Prince of the Isles.

The title is held today by Prince Charles. Edward was heavily involved with the Black Nobility barons of the square mile London Financial District and helped them to engineer the Crimean War, the Russia – Japan War, the preparations for the First World War, and the Opium Wars against China. Through the central organisation of the Club of the Isles comes the fantastic web of interlocking directorships which hold apparently ‘independent’ companies in a network of common control and agenda. Part of the web includes: The Bank of England Anglo American Corporation of South Africa Rio Tinto Minorco Minerals and Resources Corp De Beers Consolidated Mines De Beers Centenary AG N.M Rothschilds Bank Barclays Bank Lloyds Bank Lloyds Insurance Market HSBC Bank National Westminster Bank Barings Bank Schroders bank Standard Chartered Bank Hambros Bank S.G Warburg Toronto Dominion Bank Johnson Matthey Kleinwort Benson Group Lazard Brothers Lohnro J.P Morgan and CO Morgan Grenfell Group British Petroleum Shell and Royal Dutch Petroleum Cadbury – Schweppes Bat Industries Assicurazioni Generali SpA (VeniceItaly) Courtaulds General Electric Cazeenove and Co Grand Metropolitan Hanson PLC HSBS (Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank) Imperial and Chemical Industries (ICI) Inchscape PLC Inco LTD ING Group Jardine Matheson Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation & Co (P & O ferries) Pilkington Glass Reuters Holdings Glaxo Wellcome Smithkline Beecham Unilever and UnileverNV Vickers PLC. This is just a few of them. In 1999 Lonrho had 640 subsidiary companies itself;

it has many more now, all these companies and more have staggering amounts of subsidiaries, in studying the subsidiaries of the multinationals you arrive at the fact that everything is controlled by the Crown, all lead back to operatives of the RomanIlluminatiChurch via the KnightsTemplarChurch. A fact worth noting is that just because a company like Pilkington Glass is now perceived to be owned by a none British company, it has only moved from the British economy, not from the control nor economy of the Illuminati who own everything, this type of movement is only a movement within the global conglomerate that is the New World Order and still earning for, and controlled by, the bloodline elite, albeit via a different branch of the elite tree. Just look at some of the TV companies owned and thus controlled by General Electric: NBC network CNBC MSNBC Bravo MUN2 TV Sci-Fi channel Trio WNBC – New York KNBC – Los Angeles WMAQ – Chicago WCAU – Philadelphia KNTV – San Jose – San Francisco KXAS – Dallas – Fort Worth WRAC Washington WTVJ – Miami KNSDF – San Diego WVIT – Hartford WNCN – Raleigh WCMH – Columbus WVTM – Birmingham (USA) WJAR – Providence KVEA / KWHY – Los Angeles WNJU – New York WSCV – Miami KTMD – Houston WSNS – Chicago KXTX – Dallas KVDA – San Antonio KSTS – San Francisco KDRX – Phoenix KNSO – Fresno KMAS – Denver WNEU – Boston / Merrimack KHRR – Tucson WKAQ – Puerto Rico Universal Studios NBC Universal Television Studio NBC Universal Television Distribution.

This is one company controlling a major chunk of the TV dream state given out to the whole of America. Is it any wonder American’s are completely under the control of the American elite? Another important part of the Windsor network which is part of the CrownTemple are, the City Livery Companies. These purport to represent the various groups of merchants like the gun makers, stationers, newspaper makers, goldsmiths and the like. They are in fact very secret societies fundamental to the control of the City institutions and much further afield. In the 1350’s, in the wake of the plague known to history as the black death, government of the City was passed from the ward councils to the City Livery Companies. In 1979 the year Thatcher took power, the Honourable Company of Freemen of the City of London and of North America, began to hold meetings in New York and Toronto and on October 21st 1991 the Association of Liverymen of the City of London in Hong Kong was founded and all their members were Architects (Freemasons).

The late author Peter Jones, researched some of the Livery Companies in the 1990’s for his book,’ the obedience of Australia’, which exposed the manipulation which led to the removal by the Queen, of Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. These are some of the names he found within these companies: Engineers: The Duke of Edinburgh. Airline Pilots and Navigators: The Duke of Edinburgh Prince Andrew Butchers: Queen Mother, Lord Vesty (of the meat family and Lord Prior of the Order of St John of Jerusalem) Merchant Tailors: Queen Mother, Lord Whitelaw, Lord Hailsham. Glovers: Margaret Thatcher, Sir John Fieldhouse (Admiral of the Fleet during the Falklands conflict) Poulterers: Margaret Thatcher, Duchess of Devonshire. Fishmongers: Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, C.E.A Hambro (Hambros Bank, Taylor Woodrow, and P&O), Lord Inchcape (Her Majesty’s Lieutenant of London) Goldsmiths: J.H Hambro. Grocers: Edward Heath. Salter’s: Duke of Kent (Grand Master of English Freemasonry) Lord Armstrong. Clothworkers: Sir Peter Gadson (a Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge), Lord Carrington (Thatcher’s handler). Another name prominent within these companies is McAlpine of the construction family. You will of course have noted Prince Philip heading the Pilots and Navigators which gives indication as to who is in control of the current attack on our right to travel by plane and the whole swath of legislation about to come out relative to the air traffic using the environment scam to force it through.

Just as a matter of interest, the cheap flight operator Easy Jet is financed by the Warberg Bank which is part of the Rothschilds empire and proven beyond doubt to have funded the rise of Hitler‘s war machine on behalf of the Rothschilds. The fact they are now blaming these cheap flight operators for the rise in carbon emissions shows you why the Warberg bank has funded this airline, it is the catalyst for the introduction of the carbon scam. Basically they will determine how much you as a household can travel. You have to look at this whole carbon emission agenda as an attempt to instill a massive suppressing layer of control upon families and business via the introduction of quotas per household. This will stifle people movement to unimaginable levels. Don’t forget the House of Rothschild operates directly under the current British chief, Prince Philip. Prince Philip’s whole family were supporters of the Nazi’s as was he. In 1935 Prince Christoph, the husband of Philip’s sister Sophie, was a colonel in the SS of Himmler’s personal staff and head of the Forschungsamt, an elite intelligence operation controlled by Hermann Goering.

It was they who carried out the famous Night of the Long Knives when Hitler removed his key opponents. Christoph and Sophie named their eldest child, Karl Adolf, after Hitler, Prince Philip was involved in his education. Christoph’s brother, Philip of Hess, was related to the King of Italy and was the official liaison between the fascists of Italy and Germany. Also at the same time the British King, Edward VIII, who was forced to abdicate in order the Queen Mother could be placed in the position of Chief Toad (remember Diana used to call the Windsor’s ‘toadies’) which meant she had to marry the lesser of the brothers, Bertie, the one she could obviously control. Edward was well known to be a Nazi supporter; Prince Philip kept up very serious connections with Edward even after his abdication in 1936. Another of Edward’s supporters, and mentor to Prince Philip was the known paedophile and Satanist Lord Louis Mountbatten (Battenberg). Mountbatten was Philips route into the House of Windsor. Mountbatten was the grandson of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and was born at WindsorCastle in 1900.

While Mountbatten was supposedly fighting on the British side during the war he maintained serious communications with his and the Windsor’s German Clan via his sister Louise, the Crown Princess of Sweden and wife of King Gustav. Louise was Prince Philips aunt. At the end of the war, in June 1945 the British King, George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth and Puppet of the Queen Mother, sent the former MI5 officer, Anthony Blunt, to the Kronberg Castle of Prince Philips sister Sophie, and her Nazi husband Prince Christoph of Hess, to recover correspondence between the British Royal Family and their Nazi relatives, for propaganda aimed at convincing the aristocrats of Britain they had not been in contact all along.

Blunt was the ‘surveyor of the Queens Pictures’ and a world expert in the paintings of Poussin, the initiate who painted pictures called ‘The Shepherds of Arcadia’ which related to the Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries. If you remember Blunt was named as a member of a KGB unit inside British intelligence along with Burgess, MacLean, and Philby, the fifth man of course was never named, but was in fact Lord Victor Rothschild. If you have seen the latest Bond movie Casino Royale, you hear the Character ‘M’ played by Dame Judy Dench state, ‘ in the cold war days intelligence operatives that made a big mistake had the common decency to defect’, of course they would the intelligence services of the world are one and the same. When Blunt was finally caught in the 1980’s, Queen Elizabeth II demanded he was not questioned on his clandestine mission to KronbergCastle… So who controls the law? Another important secret society within the CrownTemple is the Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, sounds pretty strange until you understand its symbolism. Both George Bush and Ronald Reagan were given this title. The resurrection bath of alchemy symbolises rebirth and purification or absolution.

Baths are given to Masonic Knights of the Bath before they perform horrendous deeds, hence the term ‘Blood Baths. This information in the last few paragraphs still only hints at the true power of the Crown Temple, one also has to include all that the Vatican openly controls to see the true extent of the power of the Roman Illuminati Church to which the Knights Templar Church is subordinate. Through all these networks and more, Thirteen Royal Nefilim families control the world, and it is they who are carrying out all the atrocities in the world at this present time using sad and pathetic creatures, namely fanatics of the human race to carry out the agenda of the Elohim. The Crown also owns massive parts of our coastline around this nation and 12 miles out to sea, in total about half of the coastline. Some of this is under the control of the Ministry of Defence itself controlled by the Crown. The current legislation in which the National Trust will purchase some of this land from the MOD and coast not belonging to the MOD changes nothing.

The National Trust is 100% controlled by the Crown. We have the British Waterways agency, and the railways again controlling massive amounts of land, we are almost back to the middle ages now. One of the greatest means to the Windsor landgrab is the: CLUB OF THE ISLES Controlling the World Wildlife Fund, WWF, this is one hell of a heinous operation and given the fact Prince Philip inherited the position as the Queens fella, as commander of the Club of the Isles…Then he is at the helm of genocide the likes the Holocaust could never imagine. I see the Royals are playing the good guys relative to the Sunni Muslims with the release of the Manchester man after 18 years in prison in Pakistan, this in itself shows you who operates President Musharaff of Pakistan, via such orders as the Order of the Mystic Shrine, ‘Shriners’.

This is important given Pakistan is now under attack from the NATO forces, again controlled by the Inner City banking cartel which includes the Dutch and the Swiss. So how does the Crown control all the MP’s? Answer; via the whip system. All MP’s that you vote in to represent you are told how to vote each day by each party’s leadership via the whips. So when any politician that has ever been and will be while this system exists, tells lies to the whole population the minute he or she opens its mouth and speaks. No matter what it speaks about it is speaking what it has been told to speak, how to speak and when to speak.

If it does not obey the whips there career is over. Thus the Crown need only control the personnel at leadership level or the cabinet of each political party and the Whips office, then through that clique of puppets demand obedience from all MP’s down to the members sat in each constituency claiming to be acting on your behalf. How you have all missed this one is beyond me. So the majority of Mundane Persons, oops sorry MP’s don’t even get to see each bill before it goes to the vote, and indeed they don’t need to as they are told how to vote. On Sunday 11th February 2007 on the political show ‘Sunday AM, Giles Brandreth a conservative party whip stated: “As a whip we understand each MP’s marital problems, their drinking problems their financial problems, we know a lot about them.

We then advise and guide them to making the right decisions.” Do you still feel MP’s operate by their own mind and emotions? Of course they do not. This is the best I have witnessed from a politician handing you on a plate how the game of politics in truth operates. They are all via fear of their personal information being leaked; totally afraid of the whips, and so do the whips bidding, which of course is the Crown’s bidding. All MP’s that speak at the box in the commons do so under oath to the Bible positioned under the box, what does that tell you about those who operate as very religious people (Blair) Blair is a high member of the Illuminati that is why he can lie as he speaks to the house and the people, with ease.