Okay, this sounds a little too good to be true, but, Foster Gamble, heir to the Procter and Gamble conglomerate, who hosts the documentary, Thrive created by Clear Compass Media LLC (making every attempt to censor Thrive Exposed), brings to light the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), that Walter Burien and Clint Richardson are working so hard to expose. I guess time will tell if Mr. Gamble's efforts are genuine, or, more than likely, another attempt to hijack the truth by our corporate rulers by spreading disinformation.
As cities and states struggle to balance their budgets, folks everywhere are losing their jobs, parks are closing and people most in need are getting left in the dust... Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money is currently sitting in unpublicized government investment funds and people are organizing to get it back.
This much is true, but, never underestimate the cunning and ingenious Machiavellian methods of the ruling class.
What is the duty of It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers.According to the US Supreme Court, a corporation is a person when it wants to buy an election - Citizens United ruling - but when it wants to torture and murder people - unanimous ruling on Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority- it's not a person; therefore, cannot be held accountable.
The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a law on the books since 1991 precludes organizations, both political and corporate, from being sued for torture or murder outside of the U.S.
In a unanimous ruling on Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (PDF), Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the careful text of the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991, the way it is written "convinces us that Congress did not extend liability to organizations, sovereign or not."
Do you need any more proof that the United States is, indeed, a corporation? Because it most certainly is. Not only that, despite what you were taught in school about the Revolutionary War, that we won our independence from the Brits, the United States is still, and always has been subject to the British Crown.
Keep in mind, the use of "Esquire" which declares anyone who uses that title, British subjection and loyalty to the crown.
Using his money and resources, King James I sent his subjects to America with the expectation of gain from his commercial venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and declared the amount of gold, silver and copper he was to receive. Moreover, the king declared the right to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony.
This treaty contradicts what we've been taught about the Revolutionary war. We did not win our total independence. Ben Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams - all Esquires - merely negotiated further granted privileges from the King of England. Quite a few, in fact, except one: his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain (see Virginia Charter, 1606) for his commercial venture.
So, why is the King granting us privileges if we won the war? Why was the King dictating the terms for surrender if we won the war? To this very day, the US is still paying millions of dollars per day to the Crown. Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.
Financial servitude
Every taxpayer has an Individual Master File (IMF). Document 6209, about 467 pages, is used to decode the computer codes on the IMF records. If you retrieve your IMF, you will find that you are being held liable for a tax payable to the Crown.
Act of 1871 "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia."
The 41st Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land. This Act created a new constitution for the District of Columbia, the corporation.
Here, you will find much more information on the purpose of the War of 1812, the forgotten amendment (#13),
Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security (S.I. 1997 No:1778 The Social Security. A 1040 form is for tribute (tax - A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677) paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209).
Read this section from Title 26 (at this link, you will find lots more info on this subject) you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
-CITE- 26 USC Sec. 1491
HEAD- Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
-STATUTE-
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.
-SOURCE-
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar.
(B). EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after
October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.'
It's true. Registered American citizens are transformed into "chattel property" (collateral) to float bonds for government loans that add to the national debt thanks to the corporate constitution created in 1871, where our rights were transformed into privileges.
Here's how it works: each birth is issued a certificate which acts as a stock on the futures market as well as creating a "corporate person" bond which is used as collateral toward the national debt. In other words, the treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and the bond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the Federal Reserve Box Series, which then uses it as collateral to issue bank notes. This bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the guarantee on said bonds. Our labor is then payable at some future date. So, we the chattel citizens, pay the interest on the national debt when we pay income taxes. Yep, that's right. Income tax pays interest on national debt... nothing else!
Well, once upon a time, in the United States of America, prior to the Civil War, this little transformation of the American people did not take place, because each individual was sovereign. That is, every human being was considered a unique soul, created by God, who was, therefore entitled to certain inalienable rights. This is supported by documents created throughout history, such as the Magna Carta, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and various Constitutions, Bills of Rights, and Charters of rights and freedoms of different countries. And instead of a first and a last name typed out in block letters, you had a Christian and Family name.
After the Civil War, in 1868, the United States was in bad shape, financially. The Bank of England saw this as their opportunity to cash in. So, they formed the corporation: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (again block letters), with its own constitution that declared citizens as employees, and the government as the board of directors.
As I mentioned before, each and every child that is born in a country, which operates under a central bank, is registered and issued a birth certificate which automatically creates a "legal person (persona)" or corporation at the same time. This "legal person" is not you, however, you are led to believe that this "person" is, in fact, you. Why? Because we're all equal; hence, no one has the right to govern you without your consent, so they need evidence that you actually consented to be governed. Your social security # provides all the evidence they need to declare the right to act upon you as a government employee or federal citizen, as they like to call it.
Keep in mind that the term, "registration" comes from the Latin word, "regis", which means to turn over to an authority or to give up ownership for equitable title. Whenever you 'register' something, you hand legal title over to the government. So, essentially, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with the equitable title - the right to use, not own. Moreover, for that "right to use", you will pay a 'use' tax. The act of registration moves a thing from common law to marine law jurisdiction and relinquishes ownership.
Nevertheless, your fundamental rights and freedoms still exist under the original Constitution that was so conveniently shoved aside. You've been tricked into believing that you must follow the laws created for the corporate or legal person. In essence you and your "person" are joined After 140 years, it's easy to see how this deception is buried so far beneath the radar of the average American, that it's undetectable. We certainly didn't learn about it in school. You can see why those in power fear the free Internet in the hands of the people.
Original Constitution: The real thing. The Constitution For The United States of America that governs the geographical location under common law.
Treasonous or Corporate Constitution: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution.
"Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the lawmerchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call "Social Insurance."
Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America." -- "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson
It's all about invisible contracts that you never knew you made, from the birth certificate onwards, that you were never supposed to find out about because the ones who designed the "game" never told you the rules.
Remember, The Declaration of Independence states the "government is subject to the consent of the governed". Not the other way around.
Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves, considering the power corporations wield today. I'm fairly certain that at the time of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, tremors must've been felt, wherever our Founders were laid to rest. Why? The Framers of the Constitution viewed curbing corruption at the highest level, as chief amongst reasons for creating the Constitution. Corruption, in their eyes, presented the greatest threat to democracy and they worried most about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital. Thus, they saw the role of corporations as completely subordinate to representative government.
After all, the American Revolution was fought, in part, to free American colonists from English corporations. So, severe limits were placed on the powers of corporations. Most importantly, they were prohibited from attempting to influence elections, and public policy. This lasted 100 years. ignores this history, undermining the Constitution's efforts to curb corruption at the highest level.
"...corruption was discussed more often in the constitutional convention than factions, violence, or instability. It was a topic of concern on almost a quarter of the days that the members convened. Madison recorded the specific term corruption fifty-four times, and the vast majority of the corruption discussions were spearheaded by influential delegates Madison, Moris, Mason, and Wilson. The attendees were concerned about the corrupting influence of wealth, greed, and ambition." -- Zephyr Rain Teachout, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 341, 2009
In 1790, lasting approximately 100 years, the states imposed the following restrictions and limitations on corporations (Act of Incorporation):
Specified their capitalization limitations.
Limited their lifespan.
Dictated the boundaries of their operations and functions to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Prohibited corporations from owning stock in other corporations or from owning property if not relevant to their chartered purpose.
Immediately terminated corporate charters that broke the law, exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Specifically spelled out how shareholder elections were to be conducted to choose directors.
Held corporate owners and executives fully accountable.
Banned corporations from making any political and/or charitable contributions as well as banned spending money to influence legislation in any way.
In other words, it was clearly understood, that the state granted the corporation legal protections and immunities with the expectation that - in addition to producing a profit - the corporation would also serve a public good.
When general incorporation acts are eventually adopted by states in the early nineteenth century, the states' intent is to level the playing field and disentangle themselves from the political power — and burden — of choosing among rival groups of charter-seekers. The intent of these laws is therefore the opposite of what the Court asserted in Citizens United. Free incorporation was meant to limit the power of corporations by democratizing the corporate form through dilution. It was supposed to be a giant leap in distinguishing between public and private spheres of activity. -- Brian Murphy
Today, the legal nature and structure of the corporation exempts both the corporation and its executives from accountability for almost all of the costs of their activities. The Citizens United decision grants them unlimited influence and power at a time when economic globalization increasingly, shifts power away from governments, toward a few very large publicly traded corporations, and small group of economic and political elite. Corporations have one goal: short-term financial gain, in which they capture all of the benefits of their success and pass the seen and unseen costs to we, the people.
Marcus Crassus, of the late Roman Republic, profited handsomely as a real estate developer and entrepreneur, only his tactics were a bit questionable. You see, Crassus' private fire brigade would rush to burning homes and places of business, however refuse to refused to douse the flames until the the building's owner and threatened neighbors sold the property to him for less than one-fifth the market value. It worked like a dream...that is, until several years later when Rome crashed and burned.
Fast forward 2,010 years and firefighters watch a home burn to the ground in Tennessee over a $75 fee. Either not much has changed, or we've come full circle, and like Ancient Rome, we've lost the moral foundation upon which our society relies:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So how is watching a house burn down over a $75 fee, or letting people suffer and/or die due to lack of health insurance, or allowing children (America's future) to go hungry or suffer the consequences of neglect and a system that puts their needs dead last, synchronize with the belief, that all men are endowed with "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that is interwoven throughout our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
The Republican agenda to privatize everything under the sun, including essential matters of life and death, while at the same time, supporting corporate welfare and the military industrial complex, contributes greatly to the greed and arrogance that corrupt the atmosphere and culture of today's society. This "atmosphere" is eerily similar to the greedy and power hungry faction of wealthy capitalists and nobles that began to use the Roman mob to promote their own selfish interests and expand the Roman Republic for gain and the acquisition of even more power.
If we can't trust firefighters to put out fires, then the breakdown of all trust - essential to a capitalist society - is sure to follow, hence, the collapse of the American empire.
Read more...
How is making adealwith the devil itself, (Verizon) to take over the Internet so they can get special privileges on Verizon's network considered not evil?
How is drastically tilting the playing field so far toward yourself - prioritizing Google's traffic, giving them an advantage over any other content online - that no one else has a chance to succeed, not evil?
How is stripping the FCC of its powers to act as a watchdog for consumers and regulate violations of network neutrality not evil?
How is helping Verizon protect its ability to profit over the control of its pipes (advanced network services) not evil?
How is threatening to close the Internet off - for all practical purposes - to future innovators and creators not evil?
So, Google's pledge not to be evil didn't last long, if it ever began. Gee, what a surprise. As if they haven't advanced their own interests enough already. Let's see... expanding and taking over every market that is not 100% nailed down; threatening the livelihood of people and small businesses as they take and provide all their creative content for free; exposing people's private information, etc. Now, of course, all the while, Google continues to profit immensely by establishing themselves as the gatekeepers of the greatest amount of information ever collected in the history of the world.
Yep. Google is acting just like the banksters. In fact, Google is worse than the banksters. Google promised to do no harm. Yet here they are, helping to set up an infrastructure that will devastate competition at a time when the unemployment rate is higher than it's been in 70 years.
Isn't it time we put the corporate behemoths in their place? Isn't it time to guarantee an open Internet from this day forward? And finally, isn't it time to put the interests of we, the people ahead of the interests of big money and the corporate elite?
“Google and Verizon can try all they want to disguise this deal as a reasonable path forward, but the simple fact is this framework, if embraced by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, would transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television. This is much worse than a business arrangement between two companies. It’s a signed-sealed-and-delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers.” -- Joel Kelsey, political advisor for media watchdog Free Press
Click here to take action. Tell the FCC they work for you, not AT&T and Verizon.
The Google-Verizon deal will kill the open Internet as we know it.
If Sam Walton is not spinning in his grave right about now then people don't "turn over in graves". Yet, we all know so many of our dearly departed who "turn over" on a regular basis after "seeing" who and what they've left behind to carry on their name. Sam Walton must convulse having to watch the soulless, heartless brain-dead who have assembled to run what he worked so hard to create.
Is this monstrosity, Wal*Mart, the same Wal*Mart Mr. Walton envisioned? I sincerely doubt it, however, let's assume the corporation we call Wal*Mart today was once the abstraction Sam dreamed would become concrete reality. From all appearances, Mr. Walton has a kind face and eyes, and recorded history seems to back that up. Nevertheless, looks can be deceiving, as proven by so many people who have participated in evil acts masked behind a veneer of sweetness and light.
If Mr. Walton, clever enough to thoroughly convince America of his genuineness, could create such a successful entity as Wal*Mart, he most certainly would not allow the name of his company to engage in the cruel mistreatment of an employee who has already has suffered tremendous misfortune, including the loss of her son who died a patriot. Even if Mr. Walton had no compassion in his heart - which I sincerely doubt - there is no way he lacked the brains, as do the people who run Wal*Mart now, to go after $470,000 in medical expenses from an employee who is now confined to a nursing home; whose husband must work two jobs to support her; whose son died serving our country and she must relive her son's death every day due to loss of short-term memory; who has lived and who is living what most of us couldn't imagine in our worst nightmare.
$470,000 is pocket change considering Wal*Mart supposedly makes over $20,000 (from 2005) per minute in profit around the clock, every day of the week, 52 weeks a year, for a total of $11.2 billion dollars ranking number one as Fortune 500's largest corporation.
What kind of idiot would risk the negative publicity this kind of story can generate over less than 25 minutes of profit? Wal*Mart must have spent much more than that just to create this horror story.
We'll never know, however, I believe, not only would Sam Walton not allow his company to bully an employee who has met with such tragic circumstances, he might even go as far as to provide the funds to take care of her for life, relieving this woman's husband, a modern day Job or maybe I'm getting carried away. He's not Oprah, after all.
According to the EPA, each of us generates about 4.5 pounds of trash a day; 10 million tons of it, unwanted clothing, making us the most wasteful country on earth. That's not hard to believe considering we spend a total of $282 billion on new clothes annually. Each American, on average, discards 68 pounds of the clothing we already have to make room for more than 75 brand new clothing items each of us purchase every year. Our closets are now the size more typical of an extra bedroom 40 years ago according to Time Magazine and inadequate closet space is regarded today as the biggest impediment to selling an older house. The US is number one among the world's top ten apparel importers, bringing in more textile than the other nine nations combined.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says per-person consumption of textile fiber in the United States is double that of Spain, four times that of China, and almost seven times India's. Currently, Americans buy 40 T-shirts per household annually, 94 percent of them imported. In 2003, four new pairs of shoes were imported for each American.
However, landfills are not the biggest problem generated by our gluttonous accumulation of body cloth...fiber production, manufacturing and dyeing is. The process of creating clothes, including the resources going into fabric; its production; dyeing, printing and finishing impact our environment much more than storing the unwanted wearables we dispose of. Not to mention, the methods used to make fabric from renewable raw materials are no better.
Translation:It's almost impossible to purchase new clothing, given the high environmental cost and at the same time, be environmentally responsible whether you purchase "green" or not. If you want to save our planet, stop stuffing your closets with new apparel.
That sounds easy enough but if every American curbed their clothing addiction, supposedly our economy would cease to thrive, or would it?
Not necessarily, because so much of our economic policy is made based on maximizing the corporation's ability to make profits and to increase the wealth of our richest citizens therefore if we cushion the blow to our economy by making the corporation and CEO's excessive wealth take the initial hit instead of the masses we could transition into a healthy economy where the addiction of the consumer is not necessary to the growth of the economy. This way even if we curb our apparel addiction, our economy will continue to thrive if we change the equation back to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" from the way it is now, "government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations”.
What choice do we have? If we overwhelm our limited natural resources and fragile ecosystem, upon which all our lives depend, we will cease to thrive.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A nation can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, April, 1967
