Sunday, March 18, 2012
Some of the reserach is cited. and some which is not cited comes from another persons research only known as "Informer".
I have said often times that every person in the US is a slave today, that blacks and whites alike are equally slaves to an over intrusive and overauthoritative power. But what exactly is that power that holds so much leverage, that it owns you? the IRS? the Federal Government? the President? A King maybe?
I am going to take you, the reader on a journey that will attempt to prove that you are now a slave, you always were a slave, and every person who tells you are a patriot for voting for the system that has been operating in this country since the end Paris Treaty was signed has been living under a lie! Given to you by the very people that you thought negotiated this nations ability to be free or (Hebrew yovel יובל) or in Sumerian Ama-gi.
We are all slaves now. We are required to pay taxes, and if we don't the property that taxes are levied against are then seized, vehicle, real property, phone service, water, sewage, anything that a government can lay ownership over and resell to someone else is taxed or fees are implieed prior to the purchase of it, including your skills whehter it be a carpenter, engineer, welder, fisherman, It is all considered an asset or property that can be taxed and seized by the controling government.
So who is this government that lays ownership of you, since you have been told you were freed from slavery, and you are no longer the owner of anyone?
Someone obviously owns you, otherwise you would not have to worry about paying a tax or fee for something that you worked for to obtain. Sure, some will say that it is your duty to surrender something to the government, so that it can operate. But what happens when that government operates out of the realm recognizing what is considered inalianable rights that are defined in the very document that started this whole discussion on Independence?
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen States of these united States
In 1776 there was a war that waged here on each plantation (look up the definition of plantation in anciet text) (a colony and later becoming known as State). Each of these plantations were businesses for a king in another country England, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, prior to the war in 1776 All who fought in the 30 yrs war in Europe and other wars afterwards were ony to decide which country in Europe would be the controling rule over this vast plantation that was to be seperated and independent from the Rule of England which was the victor of the Europen wars prior to the revolt of the slaves of these 13 colony's that became known as the colony's "of the thirteen united States of America" (the spelling is just as it was on the Declaration of Independence-look it up) Civil War and The Conquest that followed
The government and press propaganda that the War was to free the black people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand the Civil War Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black people are just as much slaves today as before the Civil War just as the white people are, and also we find ourselves subjects of the king/queen of England. The only thing that changed for black people is they changed masters and were granted a few rights, which I might add can be taken away anytime the government chooses. Since the 1930's the black people have been paid reparations to buy off their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on the plantation working. I do not say this to shock or come across as prejudiced, because I'm not.
Here's what Russell Means said, "until the white man is free we will never be free", Who is the we he is referring to? The Indians. There has never been a truer statement, however the problem is the majority of white people are not aware of their enslavement any more than blacks are. At the risk of being redundant; to set the record straight, because Lord only knows what will be
said about my statemeent regarding black people, I believe that if you are born in this country you are equal, period. Forget the empty promises of civil rights. What about unalienable natural rights under God Almighty?
All Americans are feudal tenants on the land, allowed to rent the property they live on as long as the king (No President or US Government) gets his share. What about self-determination, or being able to own allodial title to property, which means the king cannot take your property for failure to pay a tax? It means you did not own it to begin with. there is a king or crown who allows you to use the
material goods and land as long as you pay them!
Meanwhile you are being told to support Isreal and their fight for freedom to have a soverign land. Is it really theirs? or is it belonging to a king or crown somewhere? And if so doesn't that make the people of Isreal just as much a slave as Americans? So who is actually being awarded the comforts of enjoying making a profit for doing nothing more than owning you, and telling you that you will pay up or your property will be siezed, And that includes sending you to prison, and working for the government while you are there.
Again this is financial servitude. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law
and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in
Gold" written in 1933.
Delaware is one state that did not accept the 14th Amendent initially after it was drafted and passed on for states to ratify. Delaware rejected teh 13th 14th and 15th Amendments up to Feb. 12, 1901.
So why did a Union State that fought for freeing slaves wait so long to ratify an amendment that was supposed to free slaves? Delaware rejected the 13th Amendment in 1865 and did not pass it until the same day as it ratified the 14th Amendment.
Some will say that Delaware was a slavery state and it had a problem with wanting to give up its slaves. But there is an alternative reason to this question.
Maybe the States General Assembly understood just what was occuring, and was not so willing to impart freedom back to a Crown again that Delawareans had lost so much for fighting against in the war of 1776, the War of 1812, and then again in 1861.
Most Republicans still refuse to acknowledge publicly about the fact, many of Karl Marx supporters fled Europe and took up key positions in the newly formed political party, and even took up flag officer positions and were working in the major news media networks of that era. And like most history, the victors get to write on general public ledgers what they want people to know.
The king controlled this government by the time the North won the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes, just as today, and well placed subjects in the United States government. This would not have been possible if not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment, (not to be confused with the one laterindoduced in 1865, that Delaware didn't ratify until 1901)
Congress saw issue of slavery to a king and individuals holding titles of nobility as on of the greatest threats to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. So, on January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810, it was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810,(2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification.
The Amendment reads as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person
shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
In accordance with International law, to understand what took place when the North conquered the South, you first have to understand the word "conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, they are then subjects to the
conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes to change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign.
The Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the new sovereign; the conqueror. The Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated, so was the Constitution.
So what is the definition of Conquest?
"The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an
independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire."
"The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of conquest."
"The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the
annexation. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891.
"After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet.
(U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In international Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force the southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? (Keep in mind that Delaware was not a Southern State, so it was not obligated to the same rules as were the conquered ,(sic.).)
The laws of America, the Constitution were changed by the conquering
government. Why? The main part I want you to see, as I said at the beginning, is watch the money and the commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment says the government debt can not be questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold, silver and copper and the land.
Which can easily be done by increasing the government debt and making the American people sureties for the debt. This has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the bankers.
The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, as I have been saying all along, but they fought for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. (even Benjamin Franklin warned that we were given a Republic, if we could keep it. Sadly though the very man was an Esq. and held a title of nobility that also later in American History would be deemed enough to be no longer a citizen of these States. He also was one of the men who drafted the Treaty of 1783 taht ultimately made every action of conquest that was made by the people here null and void.)
Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out you were just being allowed to live there and pay tribute for your dwelling. The taxes being the tribute that you are required to pay to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken, because The king's tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and corruption of the Constitution and government representatives, instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of this country during the Civil War could have been avoided. George Washington
had vision during the Revolutionary War, concerning the Civil War.
These are the words of a first-hand observer, Anthony Sherman, who was there and describes the situation: "You doubtless heard the story of Washington's going to the thicket to pray. Well, it is not only true, but he used often to pray in secret for aid and comfort from God, the interposition of whose Divine Providence brought us safely through the darkest days of tribulation."
"One day, I remember it well, when the chilly winds whistled through the leafless trees, though the sky was cloudless and the Sun shown brightly, he remained in his quarters nearly all the afternoon alone. When he came out, I noticed that his face was a shade paler than usual. There seemed to be something on his mind of more than ordinary importance. Returning just after dusk, he dispatched an orderly to the quarters who was presently in attendance. After a preliminary conversation of about an hour, Washington, gazing upon his companion with that strange look of dignity which he alone commanded, related the event that occurred that day."
Washington's Own Words
"`I do not know whether it is owing to the anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a singularly beautiful being. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed, that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of the visit. A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat the question,
but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of the eyes.
"`By this time I felt strange sensations spreading through me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I
assayed once more to speak, but my tongue had become useless, as though it had become
paralyzed. A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me. All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor.
"`Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed to fill with sensations, and grew luminous. Everything about me seemed to rarefy, the mysterious visitor also becoming more airy and yet more distinct to my eyes than before. I began to feel as one dying, or rather to experience the sensations which I have sometimes imagined accompany death. I did not think, I did not reason, I did not move. All were alike impossible. I was only conscious of gazing fixedly, vacantly at my companion.
"`Presently I heard a voice saying, "Son of the Republic, look and learn," while at the same time my visitor extended an arm eastward. I now beheld a heavy white vapor at some distance rising fold upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked upon a strange scene. Before me lay spread out in one vast plain all the countries of the world--Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America the billows of the Atlantic, and between Asia and America lay the Pacific. "Son of the Republic,' said the same mysterious voice as before, 'look
"`At that moment I beheld a dark, shadowy being, like an angel, standing, or rather floating in mid-air, between Europe and America. Dipping water out of the ocean in the hollow of each hand, he sprinkled some upon America with his right hand, while with his left hand he cast some on Europe. Immediately a cloud arose from these countries, and joined in mid-ocean. For a while it seemed stationary, and then it moved slowly westward, until it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashes of lightning gleamed through it at intervals, and I heard the smothered groans and cries of the American people.
"A second time the angel dipped water from the ocean, and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud was then drawn back to the ocean, in whose heaving billows it sank from view.
"`A third time I heard the mysterious visitor saying, "Son of the Republic, look and learn," I cast my eyes upon America and beheld villages, towns, and cities springing up one after another until the whole land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was dotted with them. Again, I heard the mysterious voice say, "Son of the Republic, the end of the century cometh, look and learn."
"`And this the dark shadowy angel turned his face southward. From Africa I saw an ill-omened specter approach our land. It flitted slowly over every town and city of the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle array against each other. As I continued looking I saw a bright angel on whose brow rested a crown of light, on which was traced the word "Union." He bearing the American flag. He placed the flag between the divided nation, and said, "Remember ye are brethren."
"`Instantly, the inhabitants, casting down their weapons, became friends once more and united around the National Standard.
"`And again I heard the mysterious voice saying, "Son of the Republic, look and learn." At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia, and Africa.
"`Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene. From each of these countries arose thick, black clouds that were soon joined into one.
And through this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men. These men, moving with the cloud, marched by land and sailed by sea to America, which country was enveloped in this volume of the cloud. And I dimly saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns, and cities that I beheld springing up.
"`As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of swords, and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I heard again the mysterious voice saying, "Son of the Republic, look and learn." When the voice had ceased, the dark shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long fearful blast.
"`Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark clouds which enveloped America. At the same moment the angel upon whose head still shone the word "Union," and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived were well-nigh overcome, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken ranks and renewed the battle.
"Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict I heard the mysterious voice saying, "Son of the Republic, look and learn." As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious.
"`Then once more I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I had seen them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with a loud voice: "While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last." And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word "Union," he placed it upon the Standard while the people kneeling down said, "Amen."
"`The scene instantly began to fade and dissolve, and I at last saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor I at first beheld. This also disappeared, I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor, who, in the same voice I had heard before, said, "Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted.
Three great perils will come upon the Republic. The most fearful for her is the third. But the whole world united shall not prevail against her. Let every child of the Republic learn to live for his God, his land and Union. With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I had seen a vision wherein had been shown me the birth, progress, and destiny of the United States."
`Thus ended General George Washington's vision and prophecy for the United States of
America as told in his own words.
Do you believe you are actually liberated from the reigns of England?
Do you believe that by supporting the Republican Party ,(or Democrat Party), you are anything less than furthing the cause that began in 1783?
Have you ever read the Paris Treaty of 1783?
If you have, then why are you still supporting two political factions that have worked, in unison, to continue the enslavement of American citizens?
The United States defeated England right? Then how is the king granting rights to America in the Treaty, when we were now his equal in status after defeating them?
We supposedly defeated England in the Revolutionary War, right? So, why would these supposed patriots; John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, sign such a Treaty, when they knew that by signing it, their actions would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
We had won the Revolutionary War right? Cornwallis surrendered in Yorktown, VA. So why would the king need to grant us our land? Just by our winning the war, would make that unnecessary, it would have been ours, by his loss of the Revolutionary War.
Defeated rulers do not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after loosing the war; meaning the war was never won by us.
Think of other wars we have won. We defeated Japan Right?. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No.
All these three men done was gain status and privileges granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Do you know what an Esquire is? and what the differences in an attorney and lawyer are? It should be required that elementary students learn that, research that a little sometime. Worst of all, they sold out those who gave their lives and property for the chance to be free. When was the Amendment, freeing slaves ratified by the conquered states (Southern States)?
and then answer, when did Delaware ratify the 13th 14th and 15th Amendment
Why was there such a huge gap in the dates between the time southern States were forced to ratify these Amendments, and the date when Delaware finally ratified it? Delaware,a State, that joined the Union, in the conquest, (according to recent history courses), to fight against Slavery, But yet they didn't ratify the 13th, 14th or 15th Amenedments until Feb of 1901, one of the last states to ratify these Amendments.
Unless, there is actually more to what the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment were actually about-than what is being told to Americans today.
That infact we are all enslaved! Equally, white black red, yellow every person that surrendered their inalianable rights to the 14th Amendment!
When President Washington agreed with Hamilton to create a Bank of the United States this countries fate was sealed. With Congress, not restrained by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, their only concern then became the furtherance of commerce, not the rights of Americans.
The actions of Hamilton were directly responsible for the defeat of the American people. The American people over the course of our history have seen the events that enslaved them without realizing their enslavement, because their ability to buy and sell was never taken away. (a slight of hand, nothing more than a legalize maneuver of deception)
"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."11 (NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, query 17, p. 161, (1784)-Thomas Jefferson)
The Bank of the United States was operated by Nicholas Biddle, a wealthy and aristocratic Philadelphian, the bank was in a flourishing condition when President Jackson took office. Biddle was employed by the Rothschilds. When the bank failed in 1837 he was soon forgotten by the bankers and died penniless and a pauper in 1844.
Daniel Webster persuaded Biddle to request for the recharter of the bank before the election of 1832. Webster knew Congress would pass the bank bill because of the loans that were made to many of the congressmen. The bank bill passed and was promptly vetoed by President Jackson, here is a portion of his veto speech, his reasoning is sound:
"More than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.... Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition?...If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American." WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 240
Nicholas Biddle the President of the United States Bank said:
"This worthy President, thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken."19 THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, p. 380
On January 30, 1835: The bankers attempted to assassinate their fiercest enemy, President Jackson. Richard Lawrence armed with two pistols at point blank range, fired both pistols, both of which misfired spoiling the bankers plans.
President Jackson said: "the Bank is trying to kill me, but I shall Kill the Bank." A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN NATION, p. 177
With the reelection of President Jackson in 1836 he knew he had a mandate from the people of the America. He feared the power of Biddle in persuading the Congress, in order to head off Jackson through his power given him under the Constitution removed the money from the Bank of the United States and placed it in the State banks. In order to accomplish this he had to fire two Secretary of the Treasurers. Their successor, Roger B. Taney of Maryland did not hesitate to issue the order to remove the money.
Biddle shut off the flow of money to the State banks in order to turn public against Jackson's polices against the Bank of the United States. The State banks began to loan excessive amounts of paper money, which again triggered land speculation. The State bank loans increased from one hundred and thirty seven million in 1829 to five hundred and twenty five million dollars in 1837. The land speculation was so bad that the government sales of public lands rose from four million acres in 1834 to fifteen million in 1835, and to twenty million in 1836. Receipts from public lands had contributed to the treasury only four million eight hundred thousand dollars in 1834; but in 1835 this item rose to fourteen million seven hundred thousand dollars, and in 1836 to twenty four million eight hundred thousand dollars. These banks had nothing better to do with the funds that poured into their vaults than to lend them out again, and in far too many instances the borrowers were mere speculators who bought more land. Thus an endless chain was fashioned; payments made by the speculators to the United States were deposited into pet banks, then lent again to other speculators to buy more land, then paid once more into the treasury, then
re-deposited, then lent again, and so on in a vicious circle.
A COUNTRY DEFEATED IN VICTORY
I, am in no way using this paper to overthrow the United States
government nor am I trying to influence others to overthrow the government of the United States
or any insurrection against said Government. I, am practicing free speech
given under God's law and also recognized by the framers of the Constitution of the united States
in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which protects free speech of pre-fourteenth
Amendment citizens which are American Citizens.
This is a public domain document, when used in its entirety, it is not to be quoted out of
The list of books that were used in preparation for this are located on the last page.
The quotes are located in the following brackets.
"Every man should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when you
were called? Do not let that trouble you; but if a chance of liberty should come, take it. For the
man who as a slave received the call to be a Christian is the Lord's freedman, and, equally, the free
man who received the call is a slave in the service of Christ. You were bought at a price; do not
become slaves of men. Thus each one, my friends, is to remain before God in the condition in
which he received his call." (1 Corinthians 7: verses 20-24 New English Bible)
OUR CROWD - STEPHEN BIRMINGHAM, (1967) (Mr. Birmingham is a Jewish author, this
book is non-fiction and is an authorized autobiography, in which he obtained his information
from the principles, Rothchilds etc..via letters and by personal interview.)
THE MYSTERIES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM - JERRY VOORHIS, (1986)
PIECES OF EIGHT - EDWIN VIEIRA JR., (1983)
MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET - F. TUPPER SAUSSY, (1982)
A DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE - JOHN GRANDBOUCHE, (1983)
PIED PIPERS OF BABYLON - VEIL K. SPEER, (1985)
THE AMERICAN COVENANT - MARSHALL FOSTER, (1983)
BASHED BY THE BANKERS - BYRAN DALE, (1988)
A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES - T. HARRY WILLAMS, (1962)
THE FEDERAL UNION - JOHN D. HICKS, (1957)
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN NATION - JOHN A. GARRATY, (1973)
WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY - RICHARD N. CURRENT, (1972)
THE MAKING OF AMERICA - W. CLEON SKOUSEN, (1985)
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY - WEST, 4th ed. (1891), 5th ed. (1990)
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY - RAWLE'S, (1914)
WORDS AND PHRASES - WEST, (1957)
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES - BLACKSTONE, (1765)
NOAH WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY - NOAH WEBSTER, (1828)
INVISIBLE CONTRACTS - GEORGE MERCIER, (1985)
Friday, March 9, 2012
March 9 1847 the first day of the battle of Veracruz a combined Amphibius attack by the US Navy and US Army Under the Command of Commadore Perry and
Commadore David Connors
In 1845, Commodore David Connor's length of service in command of the Home Squadron expired. However, the Mexican-American War persuaded the authorities not to change commanders in the face of the war. Perry, who succeed Connor, was made second-in-command and captained the USS Mississippi.
Perry, in Norfolk at the time when Veracuz began, returned to the fleet during the siege of Veracruz and his ship the USS Mississippi supported the siege from the sea. After the fall of Veracruz General Winfield Scott moved inland and Perry moved against the remaining Mexican port cities. ·
Also one of the Home Squadron vessesl to paricipate in Vercrus Was the USS Savannah
John Stobart – Savannah, World’s First Steamship Leaving Savanna, Georgia, May 20, 1819
Thursday, March 8, 2012
by Early-Earl Lofland
Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 9:18pm
What will Delaware voters do this coming election, now they find
Christopher Tagani only recieved two years for his criminal activities, that
included violations of federal election laws on campaign contributions to state
and federal elected officials, and tax fraud?
Does Mr.Tagani's punishment fit the crimes that were committed against the
People? Or, has the Delaware Way of Justice meerly sided with the elite once
Chrirstopher Tigani, pleaded guilty back in June for two counts of federal
felony violations of campaign-finance laws, and two counts of tax fraud. He was
originally facing up to 5 years in prison for each of the election law offenses,
and up to 3 years in prison for each of the tax violations. Federal sentencing
guidelines called for a prison term of between three and four years and a fine
of up to $500,000, not including court fees and restitution to the Internal
Yet Mr. Tagani is to serve only 2 years in prison.
The judge, (Sleet) acknowledged Tigani's cooperation in an ongoing criminal
investigation, however, Sleet noted that Tigani's efforts, assisting prosecutors
in rooting out corruption "bore no fruit." because no other arrests have
resulted from Mr.Tigani's alleged cooperation in the investigation. (An
investigation by former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey
into possible violations of state laws is ongoing).
Will any of the named (and unnamed) elected officials or
State officials who willfully participated with Mr. Tagani and others like him
be held accountable and punished for their willful participation?
Punishment for this deeply rooted corruption is only likely occur when
voters decide to leave the two party's, and vote for other political party
candidates, who are not actively participating in the "Delaware Way" and have a
strong views against the Delaware Way, to destroy this form of piracy that has
infected the government like a terminal disease..
According to court documents, from at least October 2003 through December
2008, Christopher Tigani arranged for more than $200,000 in campaign
contributions to be made in the name of N.K.S. employees and family members to a
number of politicians.
Nearly a yearlong investigation conducted by the FBI revealed Mr. Tigani
plotted to increase his political influence in matters affecting his family
liquor business, N.K.S., by making contributions to federal and state political
campaigns that exceeded legal limits.
The ties between Delaware politicians, their party's and Mr.Tagani
The political oligarchy that makes up "The Delaware Way"
Mr Tagani boasted to the president of Anheuser-Busch back in 2008,
referring to, now Vice President, Joe Biden's presidential primary campaign in
2007, "I was the number one fundraiser for [Biden's] bid and will play a role in
his new campaign as well as his son's role as a future senator,", according to
court documents. Tigani stated "They are very good and close friends and I know
that we can take advantage of that relationship as needed."
Rep. Greg Lavelle, R-Sharpley, calls the sentence of Tagani a "first small
step". Wasn't that step anything more than a toe wiggle? Because more needs to
be done to clean the system of what Lavelle even admitted to, as the "corrosive
effect of corruption"."And that's blatant hard corruption in this case and the
soft corruption like favoritism that is apparently running rampant," ..."When
there's accountability with public officials and complicit state employees then
we'll have some change." Lavelle said.
The only way accountability will ever be properly administered though,
voters must leave the Democrat and Republican Party. Both hold Party's hold as
much guilt in this crime against the entire human race, just as much as Mr.
Tagani himself showed. When political party candidates (from both major party's)
take money from people like Tigani, and then do their bidding when they are
put in office as lawmakers that too is a crime But will they be punished?
Tigani used N.K.S., his alchohol distribution business as a medium
for this corruption.
Elected officials would pull up to its warehouses and get free cases of
beer and liquor. Tigani not only supplied campaigns with free beer, he treated
lawmakers and state officials to NASCAR races and lavish parties that sometimes
featured women in skimpy outfits. For several years, Tigani chartered buses for
trips to Jimmy Buffett concerts and Philadelphia Eagles games for these same
people that agreed to do his bidding for him and not serving the people of the
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner and members of her staff enjoyed a trip to Quebec on a
private jet compliments of Mr. Tigani.
House Speaker Robert F. Gilligan, D-Sherwood Park, said "the whole thing
has gotten people's attention." "Obviously, the perception is not good and
obviously elected officials will have to work very hard to change that
perception.". Actually,voters will have to work equally as hard to stop this
from continuing, That requires a fall out of voters from both party's to occur
It is up to Delaware Voters to ensure this does not occur again.
It is up to the people who vote in Delawrae to change that perception that
has been given by both party's to the entire world, to decide that they will no
longer vote for these people and their political party's and support these
corrupt politicians and their party's actions, by no longer voting for them or
contributing to these two party's and their candidates. It is also obviously
clear, the leaders from both party's are doing all they can to prevent a major
fallout, and neither Mr Sigler nor Mr Aronson address any more than what can be
seen as pointing blame solely on Mr. Tigani as if he is the lone person to
blame. It appears Mr. Sigler is only wanting more people to continue to donate
money, condone such a risk to continue, while attempting to lure people away
from the fact the Republican Party has also been involved in the same criminal
actions as Democrats for years (Abramoff scandal to name one incident).
John Sigler, state Republican chairman, said the case may "encourage
law-abiding donors to come forward and to participate in a lawful fashion
knowing they don't have to compete against people who are engaged in illegal
conduct to their disadvantage."
And though Aronson admits part of the way to solve the problem is by people
being punished, he too lures people away from the fact the Democrat Party's own
elected officials state officials appointed by both Democrats and
Republicans were willing to participate along with Tagani through his criminal
actions of fraud, and accepting bribes making the root of the problem to be more
than Mr. Tagani, alone. All participants are just as guilty as he is. When two
or more people are willfully involved participating in a crime, It is called
Conspiracy before and or after the fact. And they should not be excused from the
punishment of the law. Their actions have been nothing less than a piracy,
Jospeh Story defined this act as a crime against the human race, and these
crimes were committed by the state officials and elected officials who willfully
participated in "The Delaware Way" making them directly involved, by taking
kickbacks and conducting a Quid Pro Quo atmosphere with Mr. Tagani and others
Joe Aronson, Delaware Democratic Party executive director, said he hopes
people thinking of breaking campaign finance laws will remember what has
happened here." You're going to have folks who break the rules," he said. "Then
they're caught and they're punished. So the system ends up working out the way
it's supposed to."
So when those who participated with Mr. Tagani, and were not held
accountable, and when Mr. Tagani was sentenced to only 2 years out of a possible
16 year sentence, how many Delaware voters will realize now, the two partys
can't be saved?
How many voters will admit the only way to ensure justice is properly
administered equally, without malice or prejudice is for voters and people who
have abandoned voting because of "The Delaware Way" is to stop voting for
Democrat and Republican party candidates, and begin seeking out alternate
party's and their candidates starting in 2012?
Earl Lofland was the Independent Party of Delaware's Fusion Candidate for
US Congress. He is currently the State Chairman for the Constitution Party in
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Many times people running for an elected office will recite various quotes from US Presidents, they are using these quotes to make others believe they are correct. And many times those seeking public approval are the very members of either Democrat or Republican Party preying on those weaker individuals who listen in awe, without applying critical thinking or really looking beyond what they see and hear at that given moment.
Often times people quote George Washington to suggest that they are correct. And many have quoted Abraham Linclon as well to suggest they are correctly applying what is best for this nation.
Yet, it was obvious the real issue was being ignored, otherwise they would not be so fast to endorse someone who is either a Republican or Democrat. It could even be argued they would not be registered to vote under either party.
When you go to register to vote as another party besides Democrat or Republican, or, when changing your party association from Democrat or Republican to another association, listen carefully to what is spoken to you. I personally heard from State officials "You will not be allowed to vote in the primary" (they did not not know who I was other than a person inquiring about joining another party besides Democrat or Republican.).
The statement made to me should not be permitted, the State should not be permitted to express that comment to anyone who is changing their choices in party association. It is a deceptive statement that can be taken the wrong way by the voter of an "alternate party". It can also be taken as an act of intimidation to the voter by the State. Though the State may argue they are educating the voter- (the voter is giving up a right to vote in a primary election). Unless the State fully informs or educates the voter during that conversation, and the State is fully aware the voter they are speaking to knows and understands the difference in a "Primary Election" and a General Election", and the voter understands their choice has no bearing on voting in a general election for any candidate of their choice, before the State begins making that statement, they are knowingly creating a danger not only to the voters but the party that voter wishes to be associated with other than the Democrat or Republican Party.
This is a diversionary tactic: A threat to the voter, to pressure them from joining any other party besides those which hold Primary Elections, to ones that are only permitted by the State to hold conventions, which the voter may understand as they will not be allowed to vote at all.This is especially the case if they are registering to vote for a party that is not on that States list of party's who are qualified to have a candidate on the ballots, under the rules imposed by that States rulling factions, who also control the law making process; who are responsible for causing so many ill feelings and the lack of voter confidence in their government, who are deciding to quietly seek alternate choices, but afraid of being labled publicly by the State, and having their right of privacy infringed upon by the very system they believe has divorced them and destroyed their trust.
When you have fear of your government, the government (actually the party associations controling government,) has control of you. And many people are afraid of their government (again; afraid of the combined factions controlling government), they are too afraid to make any open statements they disagree at the risk of false imprisonment, persecution, and even loosing their jobs, unless they know they have a lot of people to associate with, most will say they are non political or Independent.
Courage, like cowardace, has more room to successfully function when there are more people to hide behind. Any faction which holds power, also holds knowledge of this fact. They also use their power, with that knowledge to their advantage- to remain in power.
What harm is their in being a part of a faction or an association? Can't one or two people play a role in keeping that group from becoming corrupt?
According to the history of mankind, the answer continuously has been absolutely not.
When George Washington was giving his farewell address he brought out several topics that needed to be addressed. Not soley to that generation, but to future generations as well.
"...combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Mr Washington described what threats lurk in party associations to liberty. Though he understood how vital a union was, he also recognized how the dangers a union or a couple strong unions were inside of a union, and the needs of preventing another war, one which he actively participated in, and witnessed so many men and women die while he commanded the Continental Army.
What is the definiton of this "liberty" Mr Washington Spoke of ?
"Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. " -George Washingtons Farewell adress
Clearly the liberty that was being spoken of by Mr. Washington was already at risk with an association of two controlling organizations or unions in place in the very government he was Presiding over in the White House.
It is often heard, people will address any other party other than the Democrat or Republican Party as a "third party". Yet, In Delaware, there are over 25 registered political party's you can register to vote under. however, in 2012 only four of those associations are able to have their candidates placed on the election ballots, for voters to choose from, unless a person seeking to be elected obtains the State required number of signatures to be placed on the ballot as a candidate for an elected office.
What happens if a person who belongs to an unqulified party that has only a hand full of registered voters in the State, but are capable of being placed on the ballots because of having enough signatures? Are they now the "Third Party"? or are one of the other two party's besides Democrat and Republican the third party? Who is third, fourth, sixth? or twenty-sixth? And what does it really matter? And what happens a Democrat Changes to a Republican or vise versa. Are they still any different? or the same? and why is there a law to restrict what party's can be on the ballots but there is no law that restricts a person from changing party affilitaion and then being able to run on that party's ballot?
Both are equally wrong!
I have never really dedicated myself to a party. And though I am the state chairman for a political party. I still reserve myself from becoming too influenced by any one party, including the one I belong to. The reason for my reservation is based upon what risks George Washington percieved would occur, that would eventually destroy the preservation of the rights of person (life, and ethically responsible for ones own actions) and the ownership of property.