Once upon a time, in a faraway land . . .
“How to snatch from the sovereign American People[1] their Liberty and place them under the discretionary power of the Executive that we control?” says one Bank of England goldsmith-banker to the other.
“Change the legal meaning of the word they use for their sovereign political bodies, ‘state,’ to mean the one over whom our servants in Congress have absolute, exclusive control, the District of Columbia,” says the other in response, “but do it during wartime (in an internal war that we create) so no one will notice.[2] Thereafter, when they see that particular word in a legislative act, they will think it means the one thing, when ‘legally’ it means the other (as defined by us), and we can impose our will on them, through our stooges on Capitol Hill—and get away with it because of the American People’s foolish trusting nature.”
“The subject matter of the first legislative act to which we attach it should have broad public support, such as ‘civil rights for slaves’ or ‘freeing the slaves,’ so there is no real resistance,”[3] says the first. “We can ‘free the slaves’ from involuntary servitude and at the same time subject everyone—including the slaves—to voluntary servitude based on their erroneous belief that the legislation attaches to their particular sovereign ‘State’ and the ‘United States’ and citizens of the ‘United States,’ all of which, ultimately, shall mean, the District of Columbia.”[4]—which we can have Congress incorporate[5] (to ensure absolute, exclusive legislative power over all rightful subjects of legislation within that municipality), modeled, of course, after our own municipal corporation, the City of London!”
“That will soften them up for constitutional amendments we can compose for Congress to enact, about being a ‘citizen of the United States’ (District of Columbia) and ‘resident of the United States; (District of Columbia),”[6] says the other, “but not everyone will buy it; we need to get them all to enter into a binding contract without knowing it and from which there is no apparent escape—and the contract should ‘rescue’ them from something, so they are predisposed to agree to whatever we offer. To begin with, why not flood the market with easy loans of credit through the private banking monopoly[7] we shall charter through the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation and get people to borrow and invest in the stock market our proxies create and control, because ‘Everybody knows the stock market is going up!’; it costs us nothing to do so and we can secure the loans with their land and property and then crash the stock market, contract the availability of credit so the economy dives into a depression, and foreclose and evict them from their farms and homes and toss them out on the street, just like we did in ancient Rome,” the second replies.
“Most excellent,” says the first. “Then we can pretend to save them from potential financial destitution through what appears to be a personal retirement program, for which they need to apply, of course, but is actually a municipal franchise with political rights and duties, such as the right to receive (but not realize) retirement benefits and, most importantly, the duty to pay income tax[8] (so our currency does not inflate too noticeably and we can continue to finance their military to do our bidding without interruption) and token payroll taxes for the retirement of other franchisees and administration of the program), which our puppets in Congress enact under local powers of legislation in the District of Columbia—thereby providing a justification to presume that each franchisee is a resident, for legal purposes, of the District of Columbia, and government employee,[9] subject to municipal rule, and liable to all municipal taxes—especially income tax! In this wise we can reverse the effects of that horrible instrument they used to escape our policies back on July 4, 1776, exploit that legislative power to borrow on (our) credit we had installed in their Constitution,[10] and usurp their Liberty with voluntary servitude without them even knowing what happened!” he says in conclusion.
~ Lockesmith.
[1] “The same feudal ideas [that in European countries, particularly in England, the Prince is the sovereign and the people his subjects] run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471–472 (1793).
[5] “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” Ch. 62, Sec. 18, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” Ch. 180, Sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, i.e., Sec. 2 of the Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, Sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).
[6] 26 C.F.R. Internal Revenue § 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
[7] “The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly. . . .
“. . . [T]he policies of the monarch are always those of his creditors.” Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, pp. 1260-1261.
“The Federal Reserve Banks . . . are not federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
“Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. . . .” Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir.1982).
[8] Social Security Act of August 14, 1935.
[10] Constitution.