Proof that governments continue war against their own people: If you are not a government agent then you are a terrorist

Hello and thanks for reading this weeks Ucadia blog for Wednesday 28th August 2013 entitled: Proof that governments continue war against their own people and If you are not a government agent then you are a terrorist. My apology there is no audio this week, but because of limited time it was impossible to record.

If you have been listening to the last few Ucadia blogs then you will know that for the past four weeks beginning on Wednesday the 31st of July (2013), I have been trying to distill what appears an intimidating and voluminous amount of information associated with the Ucadia model and websites into a distinct and clear set of concepts, beginning with the recent legal pronouncement by Pope Francis called a Motu Priorio and why Rule of Law means no one is above the law.

I will come back to the series of articles a little later in this chat, but the reason I raise it now is that with all my abilities, thought, skill and effort, I have tried to give anyone and everyone who takes the time to read these blogs or listen to these audios a clear step by step overview of why real law is never occult, why if judges or magistrates or politicians deny fair hearing, or due process then there is no justice and above all if the laws are secretive, if they are selective, if certain people claim immunity but everyone else is fair game, then there is no evidence of the golden rule in place and no one can honesty and sensibly argue there is any kind of rule of law in that community, or state or nation.

There is so much disinformation, so much white noise, so many false and half false claims, that I realize for many that just getting your bearings on what is versus what is not – before you even begin to consider historical information on law, or anything else can be a massive undertaking.  That is not even taking into consideration that the vast majority of people who know something is wrong, who know what they are told through the media doesn’t add up still choose to sit on the sidelines, or bury their head in the sand, hoping that like some bad dream it will all go away.

In any event, three things happened today and in the past week since we last spoke, which is why I chose the topic Proof that governments continues war against their own people and If you are not a government agent then you are a terrorist. (1) The first is that extraordinary inspirational speech by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in front of 200,000 people spoken from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC on 28th August 1963; (2) The second was the horrendous evidence telegraphed around the world the murdering innocent women and children through the use of chemical weapons midst the awful civil war in Syria; and (3) The third is a concerted campaign by the infamous anti Semitic and civil hate promoters known as Anti-Defamation League through sympathetic media in the United States and Canada against the Sovereign Citizen movement and trying to use extreme one off cases as the argument that anyone who seeks to restore rule of law or justice are considered by the government to be terrorists. 

So how did I come to frame the topic this week concerning these three events? Simply because these events, two well known around the world and historic and the third also significant in terms of its long term historic consequences calls us all to question where we stand in the face of oppression and barbarity? No one can claim merely to be a spectator in history any more. Either you are a willing participant, a supporter of the status quo and a government agent as the line says in the film trilogy The Matrix, or you are standing for change, for restoration of law, for justice, and so along the way may be branded a great many things including but not limited to be accused of being a terrorist, or a lunatic, or a liar, or a criminal or any manner of falsities by the system.

The three events I mentioned and the topic this weeks calls to question each and every one of us, and everyone who listens to these blogs and everyone with whom you speak – are you prepared to take a stand against the barbarity and cruelty we continue to see at the hands of global banks out of control and of political leaders and officials acting with seeming impunity or are you so cowardly, so fearful, to run away and choose then to be a silent supporter of evil? 

There is no middle ground anymore, there is no more excuse like I didn’t know, or I couldn’t. or I was only following orders or for the sake of my family, or I was scared, or any other pathetic argument. Nor do the excuses that I did not have time, or I found it too hard or complicate wash up as excuses for not reading, for not being discerning and abandoning those innate skills each of us possess in order to function and survive.

As I said last week, what are you going to do now? It is your choice. The time for being passive and running away is over.

So lets start then with the first event and its relevance to the topic tonight.

I have a Dream

If you haven’t read or listened to the full speech of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. from 50 years ago, I urge people on this 50th anniversary of this historic moment to re-read the speech. In truth, the first two thirds of the speech is largely pedestrian, predictable, the same message, highlighting negatives and a few facts a few references and the classic imagery of emancipation and the long suffering history towards equality.

People that day were also aware the speech was pedestrian and not firing to the crowd.  You can hear the Martin Luther King Jr actually losing the crowd by the noticeable increase in background murmur as some of the 200,000 people presumably started to chat among themselves than listen to a whole bunch of rhetoric. Then suddenly, inspirationally, and I might suggested by divine intervention, the Famous gospel singer Mahalia Jackson shouted over a crowd of 200,000 to Martin Luther King Jr “Tell them about the dream, Martin!”

She must have been a formidable woman. I mean, you can hear her voice clear as day on the audio and old television footage of the event.  To the credit of Martin Luther King Jr, his heart instantly got the message his head was fighting against. He trusted in his faith in divine inspiration, he trusted if he just opened his mouth and spoke honestly then the words that needed to be said would be said. So he did and this is the portion that we all remember. The last 1/3rd of the speech.

And in honor of that man who had the courage to trust in the Divine and his calling, I would like to read out the four phrases he spoke just after that fateful intervention by Mahalia Jackson to him to speak of the dream.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Apart from the passion, the spontaneous inspiration through the message, what did Dr King also transmit that we have been discussing as so fundamental? The first thing he did was announce the fundamental position of the golden rule- that all men and women are equal under the law.  Here, he was quoting from that great and historic work the United States Declaration of Independence.

Dr King then went on to describe examples of men and women being treated equally under the golden rule and rule of law, the application of Justice. These three follow up phrases are about Justice under the Rule of Law.

How incredible is that? One of the most inspirational speeches of the 20th Century, celebrated 50 years ago today reinforces exactly the points concerning what is Rule of Law and what is true Justice in language that most people can comprehend.

Of course at the time, the United States was witnessing openly corrupt examples of tyranny and injustice in many states. While Dr King mentioned earlier in his speech the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln on 1st January 1863, in hindsight he should have considered reciting the whole paragraph from which he spontaneously quoted as a testament to the challenge good men and women must face if evil is to be defeated. For this reason and again in honor of the speech of Dr Martin Luther King, I ask for your indulgence while I recite some of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to which Dr King referred and the document to which all public officials including the President of the United States, all members of Cabinet, all Justices of the Supreme Court, all generals, all department heads, all members of the armed services and all police and law enforcement officials claim in public they both subscribe and protect:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Fifty years ago in the face of criminal politicians, brutal sheriffs and police commissioners and insufferable torment against one group of society, Dr King did not then seek to call upon people to riot, or take up arms or change the form of government. To Dr King, as for many tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans, the United States Constitution originally formed by a confederation of thirteen states and enacted by 1787 is both a sacred instrument and one that remains perfectly suited to the needs of the modern world, if only those entrusted to protected it, actually follow its articles. 

So instead, Dr King called people to take a stand, to imagine a dream of a new world in honor of rule of law and real justice. To use one’s own knowledge and character as the catalyst for change much like many of the greatest teachers of history have shown against seemingly impossible odds.

At the end of the day, people remember the speech of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. They They feel it and it resonates truth that one man, who stands for the law in honor and humility can make a difference even against seemingly insurmountable odds.

Syria and the abandonment of any pretense of law

This brings me to the second even that took place since we spoke last week regarding Syria and the harrowing and traumatic pictures of innocent women and children dying from neurotoxin poisoning.

In Syria, we see what happens when there is a complete break down in law and order during a Civil War and a government that completely abandons any pretense or fake attempt for rule of law and those instruments upon which it claims authority from the people. 

All governments, no matter how autocratic and tyrannical reply upon key instruments to claim their authority with the most important being a constitution. The term constitution comes from two ancient Latin terms con+statuo which means literally “with (consent) I establish/erect” or reference to a founding instruments formed by an assembly of founders through mutual consent and agreement to be bound by it. Depending upon its formation and formality, a Constitution may be as formal as a Deed creating a Testamentary Trust and Estate or less formally as an agreement by which certain parties agree to perform and help found a city, or state or country.

Similar to any deed or agreement, Constitutions can be suspended, altered and even dissolved, depending upon the position of the party undertaking the action and the nature of the instrument. In the case of Syria, there have been three different constitutions since 1950 with the second in 1973 and the third as recent as 2012. However, the 1973 version of the Constitution did not provide for free or fair elections and centered all power with the Ba’ath Party. The 2012 Constitution was hastily written and seeks to imply elections and limitation of terms, but without clear and definitive mechanisms. 

The most serious is when the founders of a Constitution fail to continue to obey and follow the rules of the Constitution causing a catastrophic breach of trust and the collapse of the Constitution. This is precisely what has happened in Syria where the Assad family and its supporters founded the latest Constitution and then proceeded not to follow the law in respecting the rights of its own people.

In Syria we see what happens when a regime that is obsessed in power for nothing else but power itself is exposed, finding itself cornered and then uses everything within its means, including chemical weapons to either defend what little it has less, or destroy everything as a final act of evil.

The problem for this case of mass murder by chemical weapons is that it happened when UN Inspectors were in Damascus and within 15 minutes drive of their hotel. So, legitimately there are many people questioning whether the attack was by the Assad regime or a deliberate attempt by the rebels to invoke international attacks against the Assad regime. What is certain is that both sides are capable of attrocities in the name of their cause and the Assad regime have plenty of mentally insane people on their side capable of doing such an act. The public disclosure by the US Defense Department of intercepted and desperate calls within the Syrian military to chemical bases does more to indicate a false flag attack more than a deliberate act by the regime. In any event, we may never properly know.

Sadly this is not the first time, nor may it possibly be the last when ruthless dictators and their supporters are willing to kill any man, woman or child or destroy anything and everything to keep power.  Yet in a world that claims international law exists and that there are basic principles of justice, such behaviour must be considered utterly unacceptable and so the international community must act.

Like the break up of Yugoslavia, like the internal struggles in post war Iraq, Syria is a potent and brutal reminder of what happens when constitutional law collapses and any resemblance of the rule of law and justice is completely abandoned.

Of course, the United States itself suffered a terrible, bloody, horrific and costly Civil War from 1861 to 1865 followed by a prolonged period of punitive and inhumane actions from 1865 to well into the 1870s that saw the losing states lose any resemblance of suffrage, rights, materials, food or basic civilized behaviour.

More than 600,000 people died during the fighting of the United States Civil War yet more than double that number died in south in the ten years that followed from starvation, disease and maltreatment by the Washington government.

In any event, the United States Constitution as enacted from 1787 ceased to exist as a lawful, legal, enforceable or in effect instrument from March 11th 1861 upon the signatures of the states of Georgia and South Carolina along with five other states to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. Just in case this immutable and undeniable fact didn’t register, let me say it a different way- the original United States Constitution ceased to exist, one two of the original thirteen colonies that founded it, abjured it and then pledged themselves to form a new government and Constitution under the confederacy.

In historic legal terms, that is about as severe a breach as is possible. To claim then that the United States Constitution did not cease to have any legal and lawful effect after the 11 March 1861 then becomes a bit like the Monty Python “dead parrot” joke sketch – ultimately futile. The constitution has no legal enforcement other than as a wonderful historic document and the fact that successive regimes choose to pretend it still works. This of course is the source of confusion and I will explain the anomaly of why it served the regime that assumed power to pretend the Constitution could carry on as if nothing happened, even after such a fatal catastrophe as the Confederate Constitution. 

In the meantime, so it is as clear as clear can be, let me put the argument of the US Constitution another way. Let say you get married and exchange vows. Then you divorce, similar to abjure as the states of Georgia and South Carolina did in 1861 along with other states. Then you get re-married.  So providing you follow the steps, please tell me how on earth you could argue the divorce never happened, the second marriage never happened and the first marriage is still operating? That’s the analogy for the US Constitution. It wasn’t just a misunderstanding, or a separation, the states got divorced and re-married. So the original marriage of 1787 is dead, dead, dead and has been dead for well over 100 years.

Now, in case you think this is an isolated example of members of the Inner and Middle Temple of London and the Bank of London and the former Bank of Amsterdam which became the Bank of New York and later the Federal Reserve Bank of New York being involved in some kinds of far out conspiracy, there is a much older example in the form of the United Kingdom itself.

Look at any site referring to law and you see the claim that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. OK, so which instrument specifically is the constitution?  This is where the road starts to get rocky. First, you will be directed to the argument that there is no single defining document called a constitution but that the great bulk of statutes and laws of the realm beginning with the Magna Carta of 1214 then the Bill of Rights of 1688 and so on represent collectively the constitution. I have read the collective statutes from 1216 to the 1970s and I can tell you that in my life there are few more farcical and absurd and blatant lies.

First off on the question of the Magna Chartas ceased to be followed from the time of Henry VIII onwards. Secondly, England had a civil war in the 17th Century rendering all law prior to such date, null and void.  Third, the Secession Act of 1701 and 1707 made the privy council as the government a perpetual and immortal body above the monarch. There is no constitution in the United Kingdom, other than a corporate franchise granted to the Bank of England to pretend to be the Crown as the Crown Corporation from 1801 onwards. There is your template and model for what then happened in the United States through the Bank of New York funding the north.

So why the charade? Well it is easy. Use the illusion there is rule of law and justice by demanding all officers of the military regime follow the constitution as "due process" or the "appearance of justice" - but if ever threatened by real law, simply act as the tyrants you really are. Brilliant! And why power has been so successful for the past 150+ years for these few banking families of Wall Street and London.

Sovereign Citizens as enemies of the Government

The third event since last week was the launch of a new dedicated campaign across newspapers, television programs, blogs and syndicated online new sites that a handful of con artists, criminals and mentally unstable people represent the vast majority of people who believe something is not right when the government ignores the will of the people such as the United Kingdom, Canada and especially the United States and that anyone who seeks to expand their knowledge of the truth is to be labeled a sovereign citizen and a terrorist.

The campaign seems to have been started around August 22nd by the writer Ken Ritter who has worked for the Times of Israel and the Associated Press. He published a hit piece about two anti-government extremists arrested in Las Vegas on the allegations that they planned to kidnap and execute police officers. A Las Vegas lieutenant is quoted as making the connection to what is called the “sovereign citizen philosophy” and that these people watched and/or read some material, of which it is not clear what it was and who wrote it.

In any event, the tenuous connection made by the spin piece was to imply that these people in Las Vegas by merely reading and viewing material from as yet unnamed sources magically became somehow the representatives of the truth movement and therefore anyone who studies history and the law is a terrorist and a criminal.

Now, should dangerous people be arrested, yes. Should people obey fundamental rules of law and order- absolutely yes as we stated clearly last week as these are the fundamental laws that have stood as the pillars of civilized decency for every city, state and empire for thousands of years. But should people be allowed to be labeled by logical fallacy, and straight out lies simply through guilt by association? No. It is like saying anyone found to have a Bible in their home who has committed a crime is a dangerous Bible Believer and all Bible Believers are terrorists, or that anyone who has an American flag in their home is as Flag Enthusiast and all Flag Enthusiasts are bad.

Let me put the concept of sovereign citizen even clearer: If the golden rule is honored by a government, then all are equal under the law, therefore ALL PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN AND ALL PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS.  So the only group that can logically be threatened by the golden rule and the Rule of Law and Sovereign Citizens are tyrants and moneylenders!

How stupid is the Anti-Defamation League and the banks?  How utterly facile and insane is such pathetic attempts to use the term Sovereign Citizen and make it bad ? Unfortunately, the government spokesperson network doesn’t think, doesn’t have a conscience and has duly published it far and wide, so now the words sovereign citizen are back in the public mind.

Yet the Anti-Defamation league didn’t stop there, a follow up piece to Ken Ritter was then published by ADL sympathizer Erica Goode a couple of days later on painting the behaviour of a few con artists and government agents themselves as a general reflection of the broader truth movement and those who choose to identify themselves as sovereign, or Sovereign citizens.

Now the label Sovereign Citizens, which itself is the ultimate oxymoron, is the brainchild of the Wall Street Funded mouthpiece known as the Anti Defamation League which seeks (in part) to hunt down and repudiate any attempt to expose those people who have wrecked the economy and the world, most recently in 2009 to account. I am referring to all those Wall Street Bankers responsible for the Global Financial Crash which destroyed the lives of billions of innocent people of which none, I repeat none of these bankers have been charged or gone to prison.

Before we get to the specifics of the hit piece by Erica Goode on August 23 (2013) and the New York Times, lets just recap something pretty fundamental regarding sovereignty in the United States. Article 1, Section 9 (Limits on Congress) of the defunct United States Constitution 

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

To put this plainly, by the constitution, there is forbidden to be any class structure and no one may claim a title of nobility such as Your Honor, full stop.  Why? Because all citizens are sovereign.  Or to put it using the term invented by the Anti Defamation league, all the people of the United States of America are effectively sovereign citizens.

Now the importance of citizens being considered sovereign or “sovereign citizens” was so important not only to the founding fathers but those that followed that after the attack against Washington funded by the Bank of England in 1812, the Congress and all the states passed a 13th Amendment to make clear no one could function as a foreign agent and hold a position or office.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States as ratified by all states prior to 1819:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, 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 other words, this double reinforcement of Article 1, Section 9 made it crystal clear no one could work for a foreign power or corporation and obtain any position of authority as all citizens of the United States are to be considered sovereign, or simply sovereign citizens. It makes the importance of recognizing all the people of the United States as truly sovereign citizens absolutely fundamental and one of the most important historic elements to the founding of the United States.

It also meant that if any foreign power was to take control of the United States then it would have to architect the conditions whereby the original 13 colonies would find themselves at war with each other and destroy the original Constitution.  The task wasn’t easy for them. But after 50 years and unlimited funds, the banking families of Wall Street finally succeeded through the Civil War.

Now before we go on, and before people think this is far fetched, despite the best attempts by the US government to seize and destroy every last copy in reference to the 13th Amendment, there exists today still some several thousand original books verifiable as being in print prior to 1876 containing the true and original 13th amendment and verifiable scans, copies of original books in the hundreds of thousands of the true 13th amendment, So anyone who acts as a government spokesperson and says it is all a conspiracy, should at least declare they are a government agent or at least a mindless lunatic for ignoring the overwhelming evidence.

Why would the Anti-Defamation League be so stupid to continue to use a label that so clearly draws attention to the United States Constitution?  Why not paint people as something like Freedom Fanatics or Paper Terrorists?  I mean either of these labels are far better for propaganda in the long term than sovereign citizens and they don’t risk encouraging people to dig into history. It doesn’t make sense. It is almost like, some lazy group of people sat around and came up with a label and they simply won’t update or change their positioning.

But people are waking up, they are learning and they are seeing the truth for themselves. That the government has no authority but the use of propaganda, fear and force. That the government has openly and clearly declared war on the people and that the people are indeed are deciding to take a stand.

Where are you? Are you someone prepared to stand peacefully, competently for rule of law and true justice, or are you just another government agent in the matrix?

To all who choose wisely, who choose to help and support, Thank you.

Until next week, please be safe, be well. Cheers Frank