Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

The Day That Lives in Infamy – Pearl Harbor Bombed

The American contribution to the successful Allied war effort spanned four long years and cost more than 400,000 American lives.

The Day That Lives in Infamy - Pearl Harbor Bombed

The Day That Lives in Infamy – Pearl Harbor Bombed

At 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time, a Japanese dive bomber bearing the red symbol of the Rising Sun of Japan on its wings appears out of the clouds above the island of Oahu. A swarm of 360 Japanese warplanes followed, descending on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in a ferocious assault. The surprise attack struck a critical blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet and drew the United States irrevocably into World War II.

With diplomatic negotiations with Japan breaking down, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisers knew that an imminent Japanese attack was probable, but nothing had been done to increase security at the important naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was Sunday morning, and many military personnel had been given passes to attend religious services off base. At 7:02 a.m., two radar operators spotted large groups of aircraft in flight toward the island from the north, but, with a flight of B-17s expected from the United States at the time, they were told to sound no alarm. Thus, the Japanese air assault came as a devastating surprise to the naval base.

Much of the Pacific fleet was rendered useless: Five of eight battleships, three destroyers, and seven other ships were sunk or severely damaged, and more than 200 aircraft were destroyed. A total of 2,400 Americans were killed and 1,200 were wounded, many while valiantly attempting to repulse the attack. Japan’s losses were some 30 planes, five midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men. Fortunately for the United States, all three Pacific fleet carriers were out at sea on training maneuvers. These giant aircraft carriers would have their revenge against Japan six months later at the Battle of Midway, reversing the tide against the previously invincible Japanese navy in a spectacular victory.

The day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt appeared before a joint session of Congress and declared, “Yesterday, December 7, 1941–a date which will live in infamy–the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” After a brief and forceful speech, he asked Congress to approve a resolution recognizing the state of war between the United States and Japan. The Senate voted for war against Japan by 82 to 0, and the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 388 to 1. The sole dissenter was Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, a devout pacifist who had also cast a dissenting vote against the U.S. entrance into World War I. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war against the United States, and the U.S. government responded in kind.

The American contribution to the successful Allied war effort spanned four long years and cost more than 400,000 American lives.



Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

14 Comments on The Day That Lives in Infamy – Pearl Harbor Bombed

  1. It is a logical, reasonable, step by step process whereby people are made to believe in the benefits of blind obedience to falsehood without question, and the proof is accurately measurable with such things as The National Debt Clock Real Time.

    If people can actually be made to believe there are benefits to be realized by funding the “distinguished” African Slave Trade, obtruded upon Americans by an all-powerful British Criminal wearing no “Royal” Clothes, then Americans can be made to believe (obtruded) in the benefits of Civil War, and World War, funding those actions too.

    True Christians are warned about these things in no uncertain terms.

    “8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors.”

    The bait is whatever has worked to convince (con) people into believing that there is a benefit to the transfer of power from their own control, as that power is then transferred to the con man working the confidence scheme.

    The concept of trial by the country, according to the common laws of free people, laws based upon scripture such as Mathew 7:12, and laws based upon natural laws, is for people to discover that the bait is bait in the net: accurate accounting of the facts that matter.

    “…it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird…”

    Following is a link for those interested in this subject matter. This is work that was done by an individual. This is work that ought to have been done by many individuals who constitute common law, independent, grand juries. This type of information would then lead to presentments, indictments, and trials according to the true law of the land, not the con man versions of justice: JUSTUS.

    If people really want to know the truth then people would logically, reasonably, conclude that the true law is the official way to find that truth: put the facts before representatives of the whole country, and have the whole country, through representatives, judge what the facts are, and eliminate thereby treasonous fake news.

    There are examples. People infected with blind belief in falsehood – without question – are triggered by information that contends with their blind belief, and once triggered those people go into “shoot the messenger” mode with obvious repetition: “conspiracy theorist.”

    There is a problem that surfaces if someone is triggered into calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” when dealing with information concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Luther King Jr. The problem with calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” when dealing with information concerning the conspiracy murder of Martin Lither King Jr. is that there was a trial, and the jury found the government guilty of conspiracy murder.

    On this subject matter – once again – the 6th President of the United States of America, someone named Richard Henry Lee:

    “It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together.”
    JANUARY 14, 1788.

    If the government is guilty of conspiracy murder, a fact determined by representatives of the country, in at least the Martin Luther King Jr case, then what else is that “government” guilty of doing, including the crime known as Aggressive War for Profit?

    In that context, on this matter, why is it not reasonable to conclude that the people, not a legal fiction corporate government entity, ought to employ the true law power, to separate fact from fake news?

    • Could Pearl Harbor and the Philippines been at a greater state of readiness? Yes.

      Beyond that this audio/video is trash. The Japanese sailed an attack force to make an attack on Pearl Harbor without a formal declaration of War (though conveniently the Japanese ambassador in D.C. was supposed to have done that right before Pearl Harbor was attacked)…that is a sneak attack no matter whether the Americans knew the attack force was on the way or not.

      Not to mention the Japanese sailed under radio silence through a major storm until reaching their launching point for the attack. Kinda hard to listen to communications when ship to ship comms was by morse code via flashing lights.

      Not mention the fact the Japanese comms would have had to been intercepted, transfer back to the States to be decrypted or interpreted, analysed, then “supposedly” the intel sent back to those U.S. Comms personnel so they would know what was being said. A stretch of the imagination given the state of technology in 1941.

      And just the mere presence of our naval base in Hawaii we are supposed to believe was to LURE the Japanese into attacking. Gimme a break. Like I said, “What were the Japanese supposed to do…not attack?”

      The “infamy” was not only that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor…but they they were going to make a Declaration of War in Washington D.C. and then within the hour, over 6,000 miles away their staged fleet would attack.

      Dr. Viktor Frankl wrote about mankind needing to fill their “existential vacuum” to fulfill their life’s meaning…what a shame some people choose to fill that vacuum with self-loathing anti-Americanism.

      No one made the Japanese attack. Perhaps if the Japanese had vacated Korea, Mongolia, Shanghai, and greater China the U.S. would have been less concerned with Japan.

      Speaking about provocation, how about this incident:
      USS Panay incident
      “The USS Panay incident was a Japanese attack on the American gunboat Panay while it was anchored in the Yangtze River outside Nanking (now spelled Nanjing), China on 12 December 1937. Japan and the United States were not at war at the time. The Japanese claimed that they did not see the American flags painted on the deck of the gunboat, apologized, and paid an indemnity. Nevertheless, the attack and the subsequent Allison incident in Nanking caused U.S. opinion to turn against the Japanese.”

    • And Japan was provoked into invading Korea, bombing Shanghai, invading Mongolia, attacking China at large. What was Japan supposed to do, not attack?

      How does your innocent self-righteous altruistic antifa philosophy come to be aligned with Imperial Japan with an all powerful Emperor? Oh, I get it, it is all anti-America. Got it.

  2. “The same authority that assumes a fictional power to speak for we”…like I said about words having meaning. “Speak for we”…is English a second language for you? Perhaps kindergarten got out early for Christmas break?

    Nay, I bet only a college education could produce such obfuscation. And let me guess…psychology with its pigeon hole diagnosis’s was a favorite of yours.

    1) offense or annoyance.
    2) [ARCHAIC] shade or shadow, especially as cast by trees.

    Leave it to you to pick the secondary ARCHAIC definition…had to look it up did you…heh heh heh.

    You pound away on the “Guns” side of the Statist’s irresponsible debt fueled largess…but where is the “Butter” side criticism. The vast “Food Pantry” tractor trailers, government housing, Food Stamps…etc ad naseum. People who provide those services as legitimate workers and business owners lose businness when people just line up to get their Cradle-to-Grave ration…not to mention the capability to fend for themselves when the government cannot provide.

    Or how many of “you and your gang” queue up for your government ration?

  3. The same authority that assumes a fictional power to speak for we now assumes a fictional power to judge my soul, and judge it to be poor. I had assumed that discussion would be civilized, perhaps it has been counterfeited.

    “Have you no decency, man?”

    Not only is “my” soul made poor by this judge, jury, and executioner but now he has executed all decency from “me”. Despots think alike, act alike, that is what makes them despotic.

    Grand Juries:

    The People’s Panel
    The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 – 1941
    Richard D. Younger

    Page 3

    “They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

    “But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people’s panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of “star chamber” and “secret inquisition” helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.”

    As warned by George Mason, there goes trial by jury.

    As to the dodged question concerning the relative importance of attending a federal (voluntary association for mutual defense) congress, to constitute a quorum, after having gone through a very costly defense against the largest criminal army of aggression for profit, the following was offered by the 6th President of The United States of America, Richard Henry Lee:

    “The conduct of several legislatures, touching paper money, and tender laws, has prepared many honest men for changes in government, which otherwise they would not have thought of-when by the evils, on the one hand, and by the secret instigations of artful men, on the other, the minds of men were become sufficiently uneasy, a bold step was taken, which is usually followed by a revolution, or a civil war. A general convention for mere commercial purposes was moved for-the authors of this measure saw that the people’s attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started, probably no state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could not have been admitted-a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in congress power to regulate trade was proposed.”

    That is called a con game, or deception, and at that level, that type of deception is treason; plain and simple for anyone who can clearly see the principle, which is a natural law. Principles can be seen, for those who seek the truth, or ignored, for those who wish to deceive or be deceived.

    “what slander, this?”

    Not only is “my” soul poor and “I” lack all decency but now “I” am guilty of slander. Ask any Jew, Gypsy, or other non-“naturalized” individual captured by the Nazi’s if the so-called Nazi government was and all-powerful Nation-State, and what would a true Nazi say in reply? “what slander, this?”

    Ask any of the millions of slaves enslaved by the all-powerful Nation-State criminally created in 1789 if they were free and at liberty to have equal protection under the law of the land, or was that “law of the land” for just them?

    In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10

    “The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

    That is Thomas Jefferson, in the congressional record (previous to the criminal usurpation of 1787), explaining why his original Declaration of Independence was censored.

    Here is the censored part:

    Thomas Jefferson
    Declaration of Independence

    “he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

    “…you tar n’ feather me…”

    Where? If you agree with subsidized slavery as being “the law of the land,” then that is what you do, by your own admission; having nothing at all to do with me, other than the fact that I point that fact out to you, and anyone else caring to know the facts.

    “Listen, civilization comes at a cost…it COSTS! Have you ever heard of the phrase “purchase your civil liberty?”

    Who pays?

    The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made, By Paul Finkelman
    “The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a “covenant with death” and “an agreement with Hell,” he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting “the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States.” Instead, under the slogan “No Union with Slaveholders,” the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

    “Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

    Who pays?

    Address to the non-slaveholders of the South, on the social and political evils of slavery, 1849
    “We ask your attention to the injuries inflicted upon you and your children, by an institution which lives by your sufferance, and will die at your mandate. Slavery is maintained by you whom it impoverishes and degrades, not by those upon whom it confers wealth and influence. These assertions will be received by you and others with surprise and incredulity. Before you condemn them, ponder the following considerations and statistics.”

    It costs says Boyd White, while ignoring the fact that “it” which he speaks about – with authority – is Nation Wide subsidized slavery, in a former federation of independent states. Those costs are profits on the end opposite the stinky end of that stick that was deceptively put into action in 1789.

    For some people, civilization is this method by which poor working families are “taxed” to pay for all the costs of preserving the African Slave Trade, which hits those poor working families on two fronts. 1. Ends are already difficult to meet and add to the cost of making ends meet are these “taxes” that fund the competition which utilizes slave labor. 2. Competitors already taking a criminal advantage in cornering markets already render poor people poorer, now those poor people (rich souls) have to pay what little they have earned to the slave laborers.

    That type of civilization costs a lot, including the cost of so-called Civilized War or Civil War. Aren’t those people so clever with words?

    Then the authority over what we think are laws offers Speeding Limits as an example of a Law? The right to travel is a natural born right, and the right to travel as fast as one might feel the need to travel, risking no one else’s life in the process (within reason, and reason determined by the country in trial by the country according to the common law) is an act of being free in liberty. Blind obedience to so-called Speeding Limit Laws – without question – is either foolish, or someone writing more treasonous fiction.

    “…you slander me with supporting the central banking fraud…”

    I did no such thing, but you can read (or write) just about any fiction imaginable, the sky is no limit. If the shoe fits, then wear the shoe. If the shoe does not fit, don’t wear it. On the other hand, you can just keep writing fiction.

    “It is you and your assumed authoritarian power to pass judgement on my life by your Grand Jury that is the transgressor. ”

    I don’t have a Grand Jury, Mr. Fiction writer, so if you find someone having one, then that shoe can fit them, truly, and you can then be telling the truth, instead of writing fiction.

    “Two can play the baiting false umbrage game.”

    “shade or shadow, especially as cast by trees”

    What is authored by me is published and on the public record thereby, and wherever there is an error, of any kind, or umbrage, or deception, or baiting, or switching, then said evidence can be examined and a remedy is possible. Where fiction is written there is no remedy, only more fiction. You can put any flaw into your man-of-straw at your exclusive pleasure, or take it away, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with me, other than you placing “my” name on your man-of-straw.

  4. Nay, you poor soul, it is not fiction nor reliant on “writings” which any one with a quill and ink well could have done…the Articles of Confederation, which did mandate a quorum be present, COULD NOT ACQUIRE. That is fact; not fiction.

    “Who claims that a Quorum was a good idea at which time, exactly?” HayZeus, let take your Grand Jury for instance, a unanimous Quorum must be present to render a verdict…do you dispute that? So say the Grand Jury only has 30% of its members present…is that enough to render a verdict. Have you no decency, man?

    “.. could be replaced by an all-powerful Nation-State…”, what slander, this? I am entirely for free enterprise, liberty in vast majority of things, and extremely small unprivileged government which IS obtainable under the U.S. Constitution due to its many prudent checks…yet you tar n’ feather me as being a proponent of the “all-powerful Nation-State”. Let a candid world provide judgement on who is the purveyor of fiction.

    Listen, civilization comes at a cost…it COSTS! Have you ever heard of the phrase “purchase your civil liberty?”

    This is your sour example, “If they say pay me to run my slave business, and you say OK, then that makes you one of the criminals.”

    But let’s compare that with a sour example of my own, “If a doctor is ninety miles from a hospital where a patient he alone can treat only has ninety minutes to live…and the speed limit is 65 MPH…the doctor will not reach the patient if he obeys the speed limit. And the patients death will be, as you macabrelly put in, “be on all our hands” if the doctor does obey the speed limit law.”

    Laws COST in the direct proportion of the amount of time and energy it takes to obey them…the objective is that there is significant ROI in the exchange.

    Your inexperience betrays your innocent; you slander me with supporting the central banking fraud yet I have used silver and barter in many transaction…I have went without a Bank Account for three years…these are real things…give it a shot. I bet it is you who are living in a fiction.

    As I have said before, all your claims of innocence are only demonstrable and verifiable with the real steps you have taken to distance yourself from the very things you condemn all American Patriots with. Prove you can convene a Grand Jury on the premises you post on Redoubt News; prove you don’t use Central Banking; prove you have the power to suppress me with your “Grand Jury” because I don’t agree to be under your jurisdiction.

    It is you and your assumed authoritarian power to pass judgement on my life by your Grand Jury that is the transgressor.

    Two can play the baiting false umbrage game.

  5. “And now, the Articles of Confederation was “broke” in 1786 and thereby not “inviolably observed” nor “perpetual” in that they could not even maintain a Quorum to do business…the Articles of Confederation were vacated…abandoned.”

    Webs of deceit invented for the occasion: pure fiction? You assume the authority to make these claims despite clear accounts written by those who were witnesses to the events that you now turn into a fictional story for what, your amusement? How can it be possible that your fiction is intended to be believed? How does your storyline proceed from that stated, imaginary, situation?

    “The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had representatives from 12 of the 13 States to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation…Rhode Island was invited.”

    That account – assuming words have meaning – contradicts your previous account. How can something abandoned be fixed? Oh, but this is a setup, a sudden realization by “we” emerges whereby the dead thing can’t be resurrected, so a new thing has to be born; at least according to this fictional account.

    “And there is a tacit respect in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution that is so strong as to dilute any argument that the “that the Union shall be perpetual” was not the objective.”

    “understood or implied without being stated”

    More confessions from the fiction writer? Nudge, nudge, wink, and wink?

    So something implied is so strong as to dilute an argument. Rather than stating something strongly, something is implied instead, and rather than stating something strongly, something implied – a tacit thing – is put in place instead of something stated strongly.

    That sounds very familiar, at the time of the counterfeiting of the law of the land the word for treasonous fiction writing was “construction.” If something is tacit, not strongly stated, then that implication can mean just about anything to any group fiction writers.

    George Mason, June 6, 1788:
    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

    Out with the law of the land (trial by the country, consent of the governed) and in with just about any fiction written by any fiction writer then or now.

    “Not being able to acquire a Quorum can be extrapolated to Congress being in “recess”…forever.”

    Who claims that a Quorum was a good idea at which time, exactly? How does a decision by people to attend to other things for a moment turn into an absolute eternity? Are there any boundaries to this fiction or is even the sky no limit?

    “…can be extrapolated…”

    “to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval”

    So you too are in the construction business?

    “Nine and Nine. Not to mention that ALL 13 of the States ratified the U.S. Constitution…INCLUDING Rhode Island.”

    Ignore, as you and your gang may do perpetually, the fact that there was no agreement to give authority to anyone by which the perpetual union (federal union) could be replaced by an all-powerful Nation-State, and while you are doing all that ignoring you can keep on writing fiction, just as your predecessors had to do to get away with that treasonous act.

    To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802
    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”

    And at the crime scene:

    “A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.” Mr. E. Gerry at the Con-Con Con-Job Crime Scene.

    It is questionable or inferred, or tacitly agreed upon, or implied, that changing the existing voluntary mutual defense association, or federation, into a consolidated nation-state profitable monopoly – including aggressive wars for profit, subsidized slave trading, and central banking fraud – would be treason, and since “we” are actually in the treason business, it is advised that “we” do not let that cat out of that bag.

    “We all get it, the Constitution is not as good as it should be, and that not all people are going to agree. But we should try to be “fair” and “proper”…and not arbitrary nor allow privileged authority.”

    And again the authority that speaks for we, a tacitly assumed, presumptuous, authority, ignores the fact that the document is inculpatory evidence of a crime, not a “constitution.” If they say pay me to run my slave business, and you say OK, then that makes you one of the criminals.

    If they say pay me to run a war of aggression, and you say OK, then just like the Nazi’s, that makes you a war criminal too.

    If they say let me write me a check for as much money as everyone else combined has, thereby doubling the entire money supply, and you say OK, then that makes you a central banking fraud too.

    All that blood is on your hands, and it is in the irrefutable documentation, all that is needed is a confession: you agreed to it. Natural laws being what they are, in fact, you will get what you pay for, even if you didn’t quite infer the same tacit meaning from the fine print.

  6. Sigh, SMH, once again we have to replow ground plowed.

    In response to your first demand, “We” being the people who agree words have meaning and voluntary agree/commit to a charter of making law; then, “naturalization” as a civilized means to include people who voluntary join…or, based on their own liberty and decision disassociated themselves…whereupon, it stands to reason they should be escorted from the jurisdiction, be that a small or large territory, where the agreement holds power. I do not have a problem with living in a jurisdiction where only people who agree there is a charter for government that is the “supreme Law of the Land”…to the exclusion of all others.

    And now, the Articles of Confederation was “broke” in 1786 and thereby not “inviolably observed” nor “perpetual” in that they could not even maintain a Quorum to do business…the Articles of Confederation were vacated…abandoned.

    The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had representatives from 12 of the 13 States to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation…Rhode Island was invited.

    And there is a tacit respect in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution that is so strong as to dilute any argument that the “that the Union shall be perpetual” was not the objective.

    Articles of Confederation
    “Article X.
    The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states in the congress of the united states assembled is requisite.”

    Not being able to acquire a Quorum can be extrapolated to Congress being in “recess”…forever.

    Which entirely meshes with the Ratification Article of the U.S. Constitution:
    “Article. VII.
    The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

    Nine and Nine. Not to mention that ALL 13 of the States ratified the U.S. Constitution…INCLUDING Rhode Island.

    We all get it, the Constitution is not as good as it should be, and that not all people are going to agree. But we should try to be “fair” and “proper”…and not arbitrary nor allow privileged authority.

  7. Boyd White,

    You assume the authority to speak for which people exactly? In other words who in your opinion is “we” in the context of your intended message? Or is yet again other words what qualifies someone so as to belong in this group you speak of when you use the word “we”?

    Example: “…we would have to agree upon a charter of Laws and/or process to determine law within a jurisdiction/territory…”

    Who determines what the following words mean; which we?

    “…the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. ” Crime Scene Evidence Euphemistically called The U.S. Constitution of 1789

    So…trial by the country, trial by jury according to the common law, is still the law of the land according to those words?

    That “according to Law.” is quoted from a criminal document brought forth by fraud, the document known as the Constitution of 1787 and 1789. None of the people who were fooled by that fraud agreed to it. If you claim that any of the people fooled by that fraud – treasonous fraud – could possibly agree to something that deceives them, then you are either one of the deceivers, and/or you are one of the deceived. To claim that victims of fraud agree to being victims is absurd, or willful deception.

    If that criminal document eluded to a “process to determine law within a jurisdiction/territory” in those words stating “…be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law…” then who (and what army) determines what is done to indict, try, judge and punish anyone, let alone those who claim the authority to employ government offices so as to perpetrate treasonous fraud?

    How about the following possible details that may help narrow down the many possibilities as to what is or is not this process (law) eluded to in the criminal document?

    ” No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” Failed Attempt to Amend the Criminal Document of 1789

    Grand juries were the law of the land previous to that so-called Constitution. Previous to that criminal document, the document used to enslave millions of people, the law of the land was (and still is) the common law with trial by jury; trial by the country. Despite those failed attempts to amend that criminal document, those criminals using that criminal document set about on their criminal path.

    How about the following process?

    “Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.” Articles that confederated the federation of independent Nation States during the War of Aggression perpetrated by Criminal British forces. Those are the words quoted from the text that gave anyone authority to do anything in the name of a federated (voluntary) mutual defense association called The United States of America.

    “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
    “The United States of America”.”

    So what happens in cases where an officer of the government perpetrates treason, felony, or breach of the peace? What process is used in that case? What process have “we” agreed upon?

    What about the following 2 agreements?

    “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

    “…And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. ”

    Does the word “alteration” mean the same thing as replace? Have “we” agreed upon those meanings of words? It is not treason for slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds to replace the perpetual federal union with an all-powerful Nation State dictatorship so long as words can mean anything to suit the occasion, depending upon which “we” you plant yourself into by your willful actions?

    Those criminals called themselves congress, which they were not, and while impersonating congress those criminals claimed to alter the perpetual union, which they did not, they replaced it, and those criminals actually got away with subsidizing African Slave Trade for more than half a century. And people today have the temerity to claim that such crimes are the law of the land; still?

    Whining and criticizing? How about explaining what “we” mean when we use the word “naturalization”?

    The laws of any land are the laws of nature, acknowledge by people capable of doing so, and thereby employed by people for our mutual defense against all enemies of freedom, including slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds domestic. Any one of the criminals in counterfeit public office since 1789 can be tried for treason, or just disturbing the peace, if people stop believing these absurd lies. SMH

  8. Who, or what army, has that lawful authority to determine what is or is not done properly? I’d like to know an individual’s subjective opinion on the matter that concerns our temporal salvation.

    • First we would have to agree that words have meaning; secondly we would have to agree upon a charter of Laws and/or process to determine law withing a jurisdiction/territory; thirdly we would have to account for the Naturalization of people who want to come into our jurisdiction/territory and also the people born into the jurisdiction/territory should also be Naturalized.

      Of course nihilism, relativism and blithering idiots strive to dismiss this civilized premise.

      Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution currently is the “supreme Law of the Land.” And the United States does have an army. To declare that the U.S. Constitution is not the “supreme Law of the Land”…is to deny reality if not outright Treason.

      Did the U.S. Constitution become the “supreme Law of the Land” by the civilized process outlined above? No, it did not. So, there is good work to do in the future to become and maintain civilization…or there is the path of whining and criticizing.

Comments are closed.