There is no Constitution, Part I

Introduction
This is the final version of this paper. It was released in a limited fashion before
that it could be checked for errors by numerous people. That has been done, and the
additional information that has been added is a result of the comments that were
returned to me. It should be noted here that while there were more than a few
complaints about the information contained herein, there were no factual errors
detected. This paper is now ready for general distribution.

In the comments that were made, I admit to being shocked that most of them concerned
the Masons, the Thirteenth Tribe, and, even more so, how few people understood-
understand what constitutes the Empire; i.e., England. To clear up some of the
misunderstandings, the information that has been added herein is about these three
subjects. And my apologies; my original intent was to write an educational paper that
was about ten pages long. Unfortunately, this intent was overshadowed by the needs
expressed by those who first read my efforts.

THE CITY

When people think of England such terms as 'Great Britain,' 'The Queen,' 'The Crown,'
'Crown Colonies,' 'London,' 'The City of London,' and 'British Empire' come to mind
and blend together into an indistinguishable blur. They are generally looked upon as
synonymous, as being representative of the same basic system. During the 1950s and
1960s the author lived in England (London for five years) without even beginning to
realize the vast difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms.

When people hear of 'The Crown' they automatically think of the King or Queen; when
they hear of 'London' or the 'The City' they instantly think of the capital of England in
which the monarch has his or her official residence.

To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our
terms:

When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation -
or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in
the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is
listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32
boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent
sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is
not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the
Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial
world.

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
1
The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a
Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britian's great financial and commercial
institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled)
Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of
most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid
you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and
publishing worlds.

TWO MONARCHS

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As
Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The relation of this monarch
of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much." It certainly
is and certainly does !

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at
Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter
his private, sovereign State. During such State visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes and
chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can
dress up no further than service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his
city.

The reason should be clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject!
The monarch always leads the way. The subject always stays a pace or two behind!

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to
do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close
advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running
the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy
characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of
England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'israeli wrote: "So you see... the world is
governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not
behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The Prime
Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance,
while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected to understand
them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanent officials of the
Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the
government will [back-fire]... it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it
is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador complained to
me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that.

"The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime
Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this
happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden...
launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be
known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would
collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
2
Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more
behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard" (p. 18).

History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the "invisible
and inaudible" force centered in the City.

The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance
to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of all
the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

HISTORY of the 'CITY'

From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the
British Monarchs ruled supreme - their word was law. They truly were Sovereign in
every sense of the word.

As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the
wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the City also grew - only at a
faster pace. In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was
established to finance the profligate ways of William III. The bank was financed by a
group of City merchants who used William Paterson as a 'front.' The names of the
founders have never been made public.

It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and
control the affairs of Britain. Their influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the
century that followed. "The Illustrated Universal History," 1878, records that "Great
Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national
glory. Her Empire was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the
sea was undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased... But with all this
national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in extreme
wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle of the previous
twenty years.

It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British
economy, the Bank of England and the City - and, through their other branches, control
of the other European nations.

Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches
of the globe. Having been thrown out of the Western Hemisphere, Britain now
concentrated on acquiring and developing additional possessions elsewhere.

During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade
was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or
commissions for the 'privilege' of doing business on the high seas. During these years
'Britannia Ruled the Waves' through the domination of the most modern and powerful
navy known up to that time.

TWO SEPARATE EMPIRES

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
3
To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two
separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the
Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire.

All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign - i.e. under the
authority of the British government.

Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were
governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who
made up the inhabitants of the British Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Eqypt, Bermuda, Malta,
Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Sinapore, Hong Kong and Gilbraltar (those areas
inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies.

These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.
They were privately owned and ruled by a private club in London, England known as
the Crown. The Crown's representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and
death over all the people under his juristiction. There were no courts and no method of
appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown.
Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was subject to the
Crown law. He couldn't appeal to British law as it didn't apply.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no
problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the
Crown's supremacy in these areas. Any revolts were met with terrible retribution by the
British navy at no cost to the Crown.

(My Note; does anyone detect a faint hint of present day military conflicts here?)

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of
the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and British wealth. The
international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were part
of the 'City' machine accumulated vast fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their
pursuit of prestige and standing in British Society. Had the wealth been spread out
among all the people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. [I am not
suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited should never
have occured to begin with - ralph].

In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British
people were barely making ends meet.

(My Note; Ummm, sound familiar?)

Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendor. The
poor British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action.

Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M.P.," drew his readers' attention to the
"total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy" towards the British
people. He also asked, "What part do the colonial people play in the battle for
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
4
democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing
class refuses to grant such rights" (pp. 114,115) [we all know the difference between
democracy and republics I hope - ralph]

David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its
total contempt for the "wretches" who were not part of the 'club.' In a 1910 speech he
stated: "We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international trade -
probably ten times more - than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely. The
international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing. As a matter of fact, our
shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that
wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the foreigner for all I know... You've heard a good deal
of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which
we can make the foreigner pay more... We get the foreigner in four ways by that. The
first way we leave to Lord Rothschild..." ("Better Times", published 1910).

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that "...financiers in reality
took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of
controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between
one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to
foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought
whatsoever of the nation's welfare but soley in order to increase indebtedness upon
which the City thrives and grows rich... This national and mainly international
dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through
ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private
opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be
permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a
glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public interest to
divulge'..." (E.C. Knuth, "Empire of 'The City'", p. 65).

All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of
"Pan Germanism," written in 1913:

"The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available
resources of the world at any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or
prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred
million dollars actual value..."

The international bankers "own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of
the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and South America are probably
owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment of interest on
these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries,
and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the
hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. In addition, a very large share, if
not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by
those two nations and the policies of many of the world's enterprises dictated by their
financial heads. The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the
morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making
them still wealthier."

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
5
In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: "The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its
ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility
to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and temporal statesmen
of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity,
have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence. Obligated to show action
and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and outwaited, deluged
with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few
who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end,
but many, who served them well, have also profited well" ("Empire of 'The City,'" p.
65).

END of CHAPTER 6 from the book "DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des Griffin You
have just completed reading the sixth chapter of ""DESCENT into SLAVERY", by Des
Griffin.

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion, Part I

It is difficult to begin a subject such as this, simply because it flies in the FACE of what
we have all been raised to ‘believe.’ But then, perhaps understanding ‘belief’ is a place
to start.

In Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, we are told that ‘belief’ is opposed to knowledge and
science. Perhaps it is with that thought that we should continue. After all, we ‘believe’
that which we have been told, BUT, how many of us have bothered to check the public
record in order to confirm those beliefs? And that, my friends, is exactly what we are
about to do.

What we believe, because we have been told/taught this, is that we live in a

Constitutional Republic, where certain ‘natural rights’ are acknowledged to exist. This
is an important distinction that exists nowhere else on earth, this acknowledgment of
‘natural rights.’ In all other nations of the earth, all so-called rights are granted by all-
powerful governments as privileges, i.e., as civil rights, which is why the word ‘right’ is
modified by the adjective, ‘civil.’ That which governments grant can be and often are
taken away. This can not be done with natural rights, and this put America instantly at
odds with all of the other powers of this earth, and especially with kings, such as the
King of England, who supposedly rule by divine right. I would think that would be
better stated as ‘divine privilege.’

And the people of that time, around 1780-1795, understood these principles much better
than the average American of today. This is why, when the Constitution was written, it
focused on RESTRICTIONS on the powers granted (i.e., privileges granted) to the
government to be formed according to the Constitution.

However, the Constitution was written in secret. There was no open debate about it,
and, if you understand that the majority of the writers/framers of the Constitution were
Masons, then some things become clearer as we go along. Especially if you understand
that one of these Masons, Benjamin Franklin, also printed a book on Masonic
Constitutions; http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
6
“… in 1734 … he (Franklin) ushered into print the first Freemasonic book to be
published in America, an edition of Anderson's Constitutions...the Bible for English
Freemasonry. …”

A copy of this book, Anderson’s Constitutions, is available in the Library of Congress.

In addition to this foundation of Masonic connections to the Constitution and to the men
who wrote the Constitution, you can take the Masonic influences as far as you wish,
always, in totally different manners than what we have been taught to ‘believe.’

And for those of you who have doubts about the Masonic connections and what they
mean;

"Weishaupt aimed at nothing less than the complete overthrow of authority, nationality,
and the whole social system, in a word, the suppression of property... As to his
principle, it was absolute and blind obedience, universal espionage, the end justifies the
means. This system of conspiracy so strongly organized which would have upheaved the
world, spread through Germany, where it seized almost all the Masonic Lodges.
Weishaupt sent to France Joseph Balsamo, so-called Comte Cagliostro, to illuminize
French Masonry. Finally he assembled a Congress at Wilhelmsbad in 1782, to which
he convoked all German and foreign lodges... (Masonic report, l'Ordre de Nantes, April
23, 1883; Marie-Antionette et le Complot Maçonnique (1910), Louis Dasté; The Rôle
of Freemasonry in the XVIIIth Century, F ... Brunelière; The Trail of the Serpent, Miss
Stoddard, p. 70-71).

----------------------------------------------------

“France has known, and she has not forgotten the rule of the Masonic Terror. She will
know, and the world will know with her the rule of the Jewish terror." (Copin
Albancelli, La conjuration juive contre les peuples. E. Vitte, Lyon, 1909, p. 450; The
Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 145-147)

----------------------------------------------------

B'Nai B'Brith and Program statement of Trotsky. Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (Trotsky),
1879-1940, is one of the most accomplished and significant destroyers of Russia. In
that he is equal to Lenin himself. In the wake of his activities he left deep and bloody
tracks in the living body of Russia. On the tablet of history Trotsky would stay branded
forever as a political criminal - a Zionist...During the years of Trotsky's second
emigration H.G. Rakovskiy recruited him into Austrian Intelligence.

There he served as a secrete agent from 1911 through 1917 but from 1917 through
1918 he was also known as a German agent. He became a member of Masonic and
Zionists organizations of Europe (Lodge of "Misraim-Memphis") and of the USA
(B'Nai Brit" on January 1917). (Secrete Forces in History of Russia. U.K. Begunov
1995, pp 138,139)

-----------------------------------------------------

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
7
"The Jews should welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should
show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not
an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with
the progress of Judaism and the Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi
Harry Waton, p. 148).

-------------------------------------------------------

"But whence comes this sinister marvel (the progressive Judaic Power)? It comes from
the failing of the Christian faith...from the progress of secret societies, filled with
apostate Christians who desire what the Jew desires; that is to say, Judaic civilizations
given to us by our teacher and master the philosophic Jew, the Jew of the 'Alliance
universelle.'" (des Mousseaux; The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard,
p. 93).

Now to continue, as a for instance, at the same site as noted above;

http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html

• “The 13 arrows in the left claw of the Eagle represent the 13 tribes of Israel
fomenting wars and revolutions throughout the world.

• In its right claw, the Eagle carries an Olive Branch which has 13 leaves. The
Olive Tree represents the House of Israel and House of Judah (Is. 17:6, 23:14,
Jer.11:16, Rom. 11). The 13 leaves represent the 13 tribes of Israel and Judah.

(What's behind Shock N Awe [shekinah sounds like Shock N Awe.... I would suggest that you do some
investigation into shekinah. You will be properly educated into some events of this day and age.)

The Shekinah ['Shock N Awe'] is also that cloud around the Star of David/Seal of
Solomon on (Jew) CorpUSA's $1 bill:

"....Looking just above the eagles head you will see 13 pentagrams within a cloud. The
pentagrams are arranged in the shape of a hexagram - or greater Seal of Solomon. The
hexagram is a powerful tool used by pagans and sorcerers to invoke Satan. It is also the
sign of Anti Christ with 6 points, 6 angles and 6 planes ( 666). ) The 5 pointed
pentagrams multiplied by the 13 stars equals 65, the same cabalistic number as
mentioned above. This makes one wonder with whom or what, we are to dwell in unity!
...."

http://www.gemworld.com/US-Symbol-1dol.html -- I would suggest that you read this

site, carefully, and consider the ramifications of what is revealed.

The above has given some people trouble because they do not understand the
reference to 13 tribes (FREE on-line book HERE);

The Thirteenth Tribe; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
8
This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost
forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to
Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but
evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the
cradle of Western Jewry. . .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Mr Benjamin Freedman, a Jewish industrialist born in New York, wrote in the
Economic Council Letter published there of October 15 1947: "These Eastern
European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their
ancestors were not inhabitants of the Promised Land. They are the direct descendants
of the people of the Khazar Kingdom.. The Khazars were a non-Semitic,
Turko- Mongolian tribe.." Mr Freedman was challenged, unwisely, by a Zionist
objector...he invited his challenger to go with him to the Jewish room of the New York
Public Library. There they could together examine the Jewish Encyclopedia volume I
pp. 1-12, and the published works of Graetz, Dubnow, Friedlander, Raisin and many
other noted Jewish historians, which, as well as other non- Jewish authorities,
"establish the fact beyond all possible doubt".’ (Somewhere South of Suez (1950)
pp349-350)."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, page 179, [GCP pg 68]: "ASHKENAZI,

ASHKENAZIM...constituted before 1963 some nine-tenths of the Jewish people (about
15,000,000 out of 16,5000,000)[ As of 1968 it is believed by some Jewish authorities to
be closer to 100%]"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You should note from the above information that the so-called Jews themselves
understand exactly what they are, what the thirteenth tribe is, and their history and
standing in this world. We, their victims, are the only ones who are confused.

And given how the so-called ‘Jews’ were regarded in much of the World, and still are
today, for that matter, how, exactly, did George Washington and his brethren treat
them?

From the Christian Science Monitor,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0915/p12s01-lire.html

“George Washington's lasting gift to generations of Jews.

… After centuries of persecution in Europe, Jews welcomed Washington's message of

equality, which set the stage for the US to become home to the largest, most prosperous
Jewish community in the world. …”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
9
I should not need to discuss the First Bank of the United States, the Bank of England
and the Rothschilds here, so I will not. There is no question about the money power
that controlled/controls England and most of the world, and the deeper we look, the
more we find the evidence of this within America as well. For instance, George
Washington’s great gift to the Jews was given in 1790. Here is a contemporary quote
from the time period;

MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 - 1789): "Henceforth no

Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written
permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which
impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money- lending and commits all
deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and
excluded from here as much as possible."

Can we take another step forward on this subject, as we attempt to achieve better
understanding as to why we have arrived at where we are? I think so. Please examine
this flag (http://www.bookrags.com/British_East_India_Company);

The above was the flag of the British East Indies Company from about 1707 onward. I
am not sure just when they stopped using it (after 1800, I think), however, each of us
needs to be aware that the British East Indies Company was a British Crown Company;
that is to say, it did not belong to the King of England, but to the members of the
committee that controlled the London financial district. In other words, the
international bankers, who were and still are the power behind the throne of the
King/Queen of England. And, the British colonies in America were Crown Colonies;
not colonies of England.

Why is this flag important? Count the 13 bars, realize what is the significance of that
number to the international capitalists of the era (and today!), and you can finally begin
to see how the new United States was nothing more than an extension of the Crown
Colonies of Britain; simply another possession of the Crown of England. Just
remember; this flag is simply one piece of information, which fits in with so much other
information, if we will but look for the proof as to why things have gone so wrong in
America.
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
10
There are other locations where you can find information similar to this, but it is only
now, after the fruit of the Constitution and of the United States has become clearer, that
we begin to look for answers.

Now, to continue with information about the ties to the Masonic Orders;

http://watch.pair.com/GW.html “…Washington's close ties to Freemasonry, but his

position as Grand Master of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 of Virginia. …”

http://bessel.org/bkrevs.htm Masonic Book Reviews (This is a Masonic site, with an

internet copy of Anderson’s Constitutions.)

Of course, anyone can find the Masonic layout of Washington, DC. Just type that
request into any search engine and you will find all of the information that you could
wish to pursue. Such as the following;

http://freemasonrywatch.org/washington.html Freemasonry and Washington D.C.'s

Street Layout

http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/dc_symbolism/index.htm Masonic and

Kabbalistic Symbols In the Washington D.C. Map (This one is quite interesting.)

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1040.html MASONIC SYMBOLS OF POWER IN

THEIR SEAT OF POWER -- WASHINGTON, D.C.

Now that we have begun the search for facts, what, exactly, does all of this mean?

Simply put, that WE were not there when the Constitution was written, the flag(s) were
adopted and the United States formed, nor have we the opportunity to personally visit
with men who were there. That leaves us only the option of examining the papers
relevant to the Constitution and the United States that we may learn the Truth of what
occurred. Actually, if we wish to understand what has happened to our country, we
have no choice but to undertake this endeavor.

Why is this important? Because the Constitution and the papers relevant to the
Constitution and the United States reveal the ACTIONS of the men who we think of as
the Founding Fathers. And in all cases we are cautioned that we know a man by his
actions, and not by his words, for all men are liars. Therefore, if we truly wish to
understand where America went wrong, we have no choice but to examine the
ACTIONS of the men responsible for the United States government.

Please, permit me to take this a step further. There is a joke about lawyers that I have
often used; 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. People laugh at this, but it is a
strained laugh, because they realize that while it seems funny, it is too painfully true to
be truly funny. And the point that is most painful about this joke is that Washington,
DC, was designed by and for lawyers, and by and large, others need not apply. It is
estimated, today, that as much as 95% of all elected and appointed people working in

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
11
Washington, DC, are lawyers. That percentage is high today, but it has always been a
very high number. We have another source to tell us something about lawyers;

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against
themselves, being not baptized of him.

Luke 11:45-46 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus
saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye
lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens
with one of your fingers.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye
entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Now, to begin our search, and, where do we begin? With the Constitution, of course.

Here is an Internet copy of the Original Constitution;

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-
experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I will be using this copy of the Constitution when I/we quote from the Constitution. I
do this for a very good reason. If you will check this copy of the Constitution from the
government archives, you will probably find that the copies of what you were told is the
Constitution, both in school books and in reference books, are not verifiable copies;
they probably are different. More on this in Part II.

In what I am going to tell you, we are going to find that there was a Trojan horse put
into the Constitution. That Trojan horse is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17;

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the
Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and
to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of
the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-“

In the above, the operative phrase is; exclusive Legislation, which means exclusive
jurisdiction. And which, as it turns out, means that the Constitution DOES NOT apply
to Washington, DC, EXCEPT as Congress decides that it does. Of course, that means
that the RESTRICTIONS of the Constitution do not apply to Washington, DC, because
those restrictions on the power of the government built into the Constitution and that we
spoke of before do not apply to the Congress when the Congress legislates for the
District of Columbia. AND, when the Congress legislates for the territories of the
United States as well. THIS is the Trojan horse that was introduced into the governing
law of the United States. Deliberately, as we shall learn.

Now, I have had enough discussions with different men to know that this information is
going to cause a difference of opinion with many of them. Especially with those men
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
12
who state that the Constitution irrevocably attached to the District of Columbia once the
Constitution was adopted because the district was a part of a state at that time. And,
without the specific consent of the state(s) which gifted the land to create the district, to
all intents and purposes, this clause in the Constitution does not affect the restrictions.

All of that is well and good, until we examine what happened with the gifting of the
land, and, this illustrates why it is so necessary to examine all of the paperwork that
comprises the foundation of the United States if we truly wish to find the Truth.

As it turns out, the only state which actually finalized the gift of the land for the District
of Columbia was Maryland. The gift of the land from Virginia was never
consummated, and the land was returned to Virginia in the 1840s.

I had trouble finding the information for Maryland, but it finally turned up in a Supreme
Court case;

U.S. Supreme Court

BEATTY'S ADM'RS v. BURNES' ADM'RS, 12 U.S. 98 (1814)

Md Laws Nov. 1791, ch. 45, Sec. 2

'Be it enacted,' &c. 'that all that part of the said territory, called Columbia, which lies within the limits of this
state, shall be, and the same is hereby acknowledged to be, forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and
government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as of
persons residing, or to reside, thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eight section of the first article of
the constitution of government of the United States; provided that nothing herein contained shall be so
construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the rights of individuals
therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States; and
provided also that the jurisdiction of the laws of this state, over the persons and property of individuals
residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease or determine until congress shall by law
provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner provided by the article of the
constitution before recited.'

Note this wording well; “…forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the
United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction …”

By this clause, Maryland confirmed that Congress held the District of Columbia in
Exclusive Jurisdiction. We find, with further research, that this is confirmed by the
federal judiciary, which, I am sure, has never had any doubt about the exclusive nature
of the jurisdiction of the Congress over the District of Columbia;
United States v. More

3 Cranch 159 1805

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...s/a3_2_2s8.html

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
13
“Mason.--When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution.
If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same
observation will also apply to Louisiana.”
NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution....

Now, let us take a close look at another case from 1819;

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s16.html

United States v. Cornell

25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819

… It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive
jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia …

Story, Circuit Justice, in summing up to the jury, said:

“The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to
exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by
the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a
purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the
state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very
terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and
the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive
jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state
legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound,
and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the
place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. It is under the like terms in the
same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress
in the District of Columbia; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not
import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the
purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction …”

The above makes it pretty clear that Congress does have Exclusive Jurisdiction over the
district of Columbia, but we do have other evidence, because this is confirmed in other
cases as well. The most important (in my opinion) being DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182
U.S. 244 (1901).

In this case, we find;

“…In one of those opinions it is said that 'the Constitution was created by the people of
the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the
states;' also, that 'we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the
territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon
the power of Congress in dealing with them.' …”

We will find later that this reference to the territorial clause of the Constitution is very
important. In addition, in Downes v. Bidwell, in the Dissent of Justice Harlan;
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
14
“…that as the states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves
possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory, and therefore none to
delegate in that connection, the logical inference is that 'if Congress had power to
acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the
constitutional provisions;' that if 'we assume that the territorial clause of the
Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then
possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in
dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions;' and that
'the execuive and legislative departments of the government have for more than a
century interpreted this silence as precluding the idea that the Constitution attached to
these territories as soon as acquired.'

These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous
character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive
the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system
of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of
constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of
legislative absolutism.

Although from the foundation of the government this court has held steadily to the view
that the government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no
one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise
powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly
granted (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326, 331, 4 L. ed. 102, 104) we are now informed
that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new er-
[182 U.S. 244, 380] ritory, acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other
nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. …

The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we
have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be
maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained
by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as
other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a
latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by
Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its
provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed
outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of
government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people
against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument
may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the
people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. …”

Overall, Mr. Justice Harlan is a very competent Justice, but he was speaking of
something that had become engrained within the laws of the United States; the
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Congress over the territories of the United States and over
Washington, DC. If you wish, look up Downes v. Bidwell and enjoy, but, I warn you, it
is a very dry read filled with self-justifications for what they were doing.

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
15
And this brings us to the question as to exactly what the men who wrote the
Constitution understood about what it was that they had created. For this, I think it best
to first turn to a very famous quote;

"Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?" "Madam, we have given you a Republic, if you
can keep it!" – Benjamin Franklin (1787)

Think about this quote and what was not said; Franklin DID NOT say, ‘WE have
created a Republic if WE can keep it.’

He said; ‘WE have given YOU a Republic, if YOU can keep it!’ Given the observable
results of the Constitution, as we see them in operation today, I do not think that there is
any doubt about what he meant when he used the royal we.

However, is there any other information from the same time period that we can use to
ascertain if the people responsible for the Constitution really understood that the
restrictions within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC? Why, yes, there
is.

On the internet, at 'http://civil-liberties.com', is a very interesting on-line book

previously mentioned in my writings titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great
Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a summary section in which I found the
following information:

"In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-1897, I
discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last
day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad
and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States,
and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the
following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of
Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the
district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to
consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of
New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the
district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to
consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of
Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the
district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of
Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99).

In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of

Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

"And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present
month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States..."
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
16
 This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally
known as the States of... . This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the
United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of..., but is actually the
District State. Subjection of the States of... was complete, all that was necessary was
for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke
statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because
enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief,

that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you
know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the
Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union,
Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War
Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

A simple reading of the Constitution will reveal that there is no authority/privilege

granted either to Congress or to the President of the United States to create anything
overlaying the union states of the Republic. From this, it is not difficult to determine
that the then President of the Untied States understood very well that the restrictions on
powers within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC.

A study of this time period also reveals that Washington created this overlay of the
several states in order to permit the First Bank of the United States (basically, the
Khazarian family the Rothschilds abd their minions) to operate within the several states
under the flag of the federal district and prey upon the people of the nation. More on
this in just a moment.

To complete this study, is there yet another indication that we can find in the history of
the beginning of the United States that would reinforce what we are finding? Yes, there
is. And it offers what is unquestionably the strongest evidence of all that everything we
have been taught and hence ‘believe’ about the Constitution and the United States
government is nothing but a smoke screen; a smoke screen, which hides the real nature
of the United States government.

And this strong evidence is the so-called Supreme Court. See;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/45.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES

..Part VIII. Disposition of Cases

Rule 45. Process; Mandates

• 1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/resources/lp_today_choosingjustices.htm

The Judiciary Act of 1789

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
17
September 24, 1789.

An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States
shall consist…

Now, we need to look at the Constitution; Article 3, Section 1:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in
such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, …”

Since Congress was ordered to establish and clearly did establish the supreme court of
the United States, as an inferior court, BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS NOT
COMMANDED TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER COURT, the Supreme Court is an
inferior court to the one supreme Court established by the Constitution. That court, the
one supreme Court, has never sat, has never decided a case, and there exists no case law
from that court.

PLEASE NOTE; Again, people object that I do not understand. Therefore, PLEASE
note the word establish in Article 3, Section of 1 of the Constitution. Then, please look
at the judiciary Act of 1789; An act to establish….. It is difficult to be any clearer than
that! But of course, as you continue to read this paper, you will find that this is far from
all of the evidence that we need to consider.

It is also important, and interesting, to note the close similarity of the names of the two
courts – supreme court & one supreme Court. It is difficult for me to separate such
deceptive practices out of my considerations about who is behind such things when I
also know the names of the privately owned Bank of England and the privately owned
Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.

Clearly, the Senate and the Congress established the so-called Supreme Court of the
United States, and what they create, they control. It should also be noted that the
process of this court issues in the name of the President of the United States, rather than
under its own authority, and this is because this court, the so-called Supreme Court, has
no authority on its own; it is not the court detailed in Article 3 of the Constitution. It is
an administrative court created by Congress.

And yes, I know very well what many are going to say: that I have misread the
Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789, so, do we have further proof of what I am
saying?

Yes, we do. For various reasons, what are called the SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES
are considered to be important cases. Part of this is because they were some of the first,
if not the very first cases, called before the Supreme Court, which addressed the issue of
citizenship after the so-called passage of the 13th & 14th Amendments (more on this later
in Part II). These cases, Slaughter-House Cases, (1873), are important, but what is more
important is the U.S. Supreme Court -- IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 77 U.S.
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
18
273 (1869), where it was determined if the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to
hear the cases.

Here, we find; “7. What power, then, has the Supreme Court of the United States in the
premises?“

“2. The power given to this court by the Act of 1789 …”

“…Controversies determined in a State court which are subject to re- examination in this court,
are such, and such only as involve some one or more of the questions enumerated and
described in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act …”

“…and the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act provides to the effect that …”

“…complied in each case with all the conditions prescribed in the act of Congress …”

And why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case?

“…. But it is equally competent for this court, in the furtherance of justice, to do the
same …”

The entirety of this case IN RE is an admission that the Supreme Court only has the
jurisdiction and power given to it from the Congress, and that it’s power does not flow
from the Constitution. And, with this case, we can take things even further forward.

For instance, if you want a further shock, try these further quotes from that case IN RE;

“Independent of statutory regulations, the term supersedeas has little or no application

in equity suits, as the rule is well settled in the English courts that an appeal in
chancery does not stop the proceedings …”

“3d. That the judgment of the court remits the practice on this subject substantially
back to the practice of the English courts of equity, …”

“Footnote 9 See General Order in House of Lords in 1807, …”

The above is added in here just in case you are in doubt as to who was behind the
Constitution and the establishment of the courts of the United States.

If you understand what was being said, this decision of the Supreme Court is using a
decision made in an English court in order to affirm what the United States court has
decided to do.

There is one more thing that you need to understand; this information makes it very
clear that the judicial system within the United States is a complete fraud and a lie. It is,
more than anything, identical to that system used 200 years ago in every Crown Colony
that existed. We will go into this more in Part II and in Part III as well.

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have read the information about the so-called Supreme Court, think back
to what George Washington did in forming the federal district states as an overlay of the
union states of the Republic. Why did he do that, and, what made him think that he
could get away with doing it?

As to why he did it, it was necessary for the operation of the First Bank of the United
States within the republic, and, it extended the power of the president of the Untied
Sates over the states in union as well. For reference, see the Whiskey Rebellion.

As to what made him think that he could get away with it, what recourse did the people
have? There was no one supreme Court, and he knew very well that there never would
be, therefore, the so-called separation of powers within the federal government simply
did not and never would exist. The only court, the so-called Supreme Court, was under
his control. For reference, see:

SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES

..Part VIII. Disposition of Cases

Rule 45. Process; Mandates

• 1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

All processes of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.
Pretty clear, that.

Before we move on, I want to bring out a couple of cases that are important. For
instance;

“In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as
when it is legislating for the United States. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of
the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and
legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only
as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the
United States, has made those guarantees applicable.

[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]”

The above case is particularly important because it falls after 1938. A little later on, in Part III,
you will understand the importance of that reference.

The following is also important, and comes from an unpublished memorandum for this case;

“Knox v. U.S., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio,
Texas, Case #SA-89-CA-1308

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory with
citizens of the United States belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of
the Constitution was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v.
There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…
Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
20
 Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 (EXHIBIT #4) where that Court affirmed that the Constitution
does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union at page 305 quoting
Downes, supra and De Lima, supra. That under Article IV, section 3 the "United
States" was given exclusive power over the territories and their citizens of the "United
States" residing therein. …”

When you read papers such as this, you must always keep in mind the extension of the federal
districts by George Washington over the several states, thus extending federal
jurisdiction well beyond any intent written into the delegated powers described within
the Constitution.

As we move forward to Part II, we need to look at something else; we need to look at what had
happened, and what the only possible result could be. In the book, The Cure for All
Diseases, by Hulga Clark, we are told how parasites invade and attack the weakest of
the organs in our bodies. Always, they attack the weakest. In the plant kingdom, this is
also how insects and disease choose which plants to attack; always the weakest. Either
plants which were damaged by wind or hail, too much sun, not enough water, some
poison, cold, or any reason that put the plant in distress. This is a general rule of nature,
in that the weakest is always the first to be attacked, and, it is something that all of us
basically understand. We just do not like to think about it very much because it violates
our sense of fair play.

Fair play or not, what was necessary for America is that the center of the power in America, the
United States government, HAD to be where the strongest chains were placed on the
powers exercised by that government…… or…… that is where the parasites would
congregate and attack the principles that stood between them and the fortunes that were
to be had by the control of that power. I do not believe that there is anyone who will
read this who does not understand that this is exactly what has happened. Stay tuned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

HOW THIS PAPER IS INTENDED, BY THE AUTHOR THEREOF, TO BE USED:

This is an educational paper, and it is intended to be used as such. It is not a legal paper, and is
not intended to be used in ‘their’ courts. It is intended to be used as a wake-up call for
the people of America, that we may begin the process of healing our nation and our
people.

The first thing that you, the reader, needs to do is to read this paper at least three times, that you
may begin the process of detoxifying your system of the beliefs that you have carried all
of your life. Especially those beliefs about the Constitution and the so-called Founding
Fathers. This is a very necessary first step for you in accepting that the information
contained in this paper about the so-called Supreme Court is THE smoking gun which
shows WHY America has gone so far wrong over the last 200 years.

There is no more room for a continual debate about where the problems lay; there is no more
need to hear about 1933 and Roosevelt, 1913 and Wilson, 1861 and Lincoln. I went
through all of that, just as many of you have. I spent the time, looked over the
problems, endured the endless opinions of ‘If only…’ I finally decided, after years of
reading and research, that if things are wrong today, then those things which are wrong
are a fruit of the Constitution, therefore, the problem HAS to lay with the Constitution,
and with the men who wrote the Constitution, and formed the United States

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
21
 government. That is where I concentrated my search, and I was correct.

Now that we, as a people, know where the problem lies, the necessary next step is in the
education of our people….. and that is where you come in.

After you have read this paper, and absorbed the information, then it is your turn to use this
paper to make a difference. How do you do that? You accomplish your part in this by
circulating this paper to your friends, your family, and to everyone who wants to know
what the problem is. That, my friends, is pretty much EVERYONE who considers
himself/herself an American. And that includes the police and the military;
EVERYONE knows something is wrong. It is our job to make them aware.

If you will submit this paper to only one individual a day, and ask that they read the paper and
do the same as I have asked you to do (and follow up with them!), those who care will
see to it that this information is known to most of America within a year. That, my
friends, is what is needed. Now, the next step is up to you.

Note this; if you truly wish to see things change in America, nothing is going to happen unless
you help circulate this paper. I did my part over the last 7 years; now, it is up to you.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is

a merger of state and corporate power: Benito Mussolini

"Fascism will come to this country and it will come disguised

as Americanism." -- Governor Huey Long.

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who

controls the energy can control whole continents; who
controls money can control the world." -- Henry

NEXT; There is no Constitution Part II The Civil War

this article posted with permission of author by

http://www.brainwashington.info

There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…

Updated Sept. 12th, 2007
22