Do Users Here Understand What Happened To The Old Republic?

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm sure many do, but I do not see overt, plain descriptions in summary and timeline. It is quite simple, but surprisingly hard to find simply stated. I'm sure users here can add some pertinent details.

Following the 1787 constitution the republic operated fairly consistent with the constitution. A division between the north and the south developed. This had far more dynamics than are commonly known. The obvious slave issue, the economics of the debt of England in the French English war, cotton are are valid. However there was more and that won't be discussed here. History before Plymouth rock is deficient and conceals factors that led to the war which England saw as an opportunity to divide and conquer.

Which happened, but it was not a full victory because it was covert. America, mostly, believed, or was led to believe, that it was still under the 1787 constitution when it was not. A set of statutes created what is referred to the corporate united states, and our social contract became referred to as "The Constitution of the United States of America", when the original is written "the Constitution for the united states of America". Subtle legal differences which are an effort to accumulate legitimacy to perhaps the largest fraud on the planet.

Lincoln before the war was trying to avoid the war by causing an Article V convention under the 1787 constitution. This is fairly proven by one excerpt from a speech in his home state of Illinois in 1859. "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the government, but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution."

The only way the people become "the rightful masters" is through their states at an Article V convention. There simply is no other explanation for his statement.

At the end of the war he was assassinated because he was going to continue with that effort rather than put the repayment of massive English financing to the north needed to defeat the south which was much more powerful at the head of his agenda. And, it appears the souths effort of Secession from the union was also constitutional, but England wanted a war and managed to inflame sentiments in the north enough to cause support for war.

After Lincolns assassination Grant was made president. Careful research into the public sentiments show that many Americans knew what was going on and were outraged. So much so that there was official orders for fairly large numbers of union snipers at observation points all over DC in case any efforts to revolt were started.

Essentially, England regained its colony. From that point on empire building became an unspoken American purpose. Meanwhile, Americans were induced to forget all of the above.

Corporate person hood happened in the 1880's. Then in 1911 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention to stop the federal move away from the gold standard. On April 15, 1912, 40 of the wealthiest Americans against America leaving the gold standard died when the Titanic sunk. The details of that are shocking. I suggest in depth research and a thread here some where to share the facts. I can contribute.

But most disturbing since the civil war is what has happened to our soldiers. It really bothers me when I see how they are sent to wars which violate their, our sensibilities and the 1787 constitution. Essentially their treatment as soldiers conditions them to be soldiers of the British Roman Empire for its purposes. Defense of the constitution and American soil has almost nothing to do with military service. To prove this point, I drafted a fully legal approach for a soldier to lawfully and peacefully defend the constitution. Which it turns out, must be lawful and peaceful in order to be constitutional.

Not one active duty or veteran has been able to discuss this with me the fears are so great. BTW, a constitutional scholar commented upon it as being "Ahead of the curve". Meaning it is legally valid and something which might be used in the future. That was two years ago. That no discussion occurs upon it indicates we are in much deeper trouble as a nation with our sentiments and conditioning than we are even able to know.

A .pdf can be downloaded at this page, but the page has hyperlinks to all the evidence a soldier needs to justify such an action. However, our soldiers are conditioned to fear their command more than they love the constitution. Which is not very difficult because no one knows very much about it, OR its principles, which is really what it is about.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

To substantiate that America knows very little about its constitution, examine a thread about free speech, basically our second constitutional right which we can use or engage, which focuses on its purpose. Our first right is to "alter or abolish" abusive government from the Declaration of Independence but codified in Article V.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ricans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

You will find that the thread documents and demonstrates a very serious threat to our constitution, our rights and freedoms, and our lives IF we cannot overcome the learned social fears disabling us from unity.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

There are a number of things happening which are so obviously against the old republic and what it stands for, that Americans lulled to complacency are actually starting to notice something is wrong.

The question with boiling frogs is, when can they no longer jump out of the pot, if the lid is removed?

People are different so the analogy is not quite adequate at this point in the "cooking" process, if that is what it will be.

People can be taught fears through their social structures that frogs will never know. When the lid comes off the pot, a frog sees the light. If it can still jump it will. People are different. They might see the light find a fear socially installed, then cover their eyes and think its better to wait until later.

That fear is not a reasonable fear, but they do not know this because there is a group of people that have worked to create the fears and will act to invoke them to keep anyone from taking any action.

Of course in a democracy, the prevention of a majority from forming and taking action is all that need be done. So that is what you see happening with my thread on the purpose of free speech where I try to induce enough reason upon a subject which is commonly known to motivate people to take a stand for an obviously common sense position on a cherished right. A right that happens to be of prime constitutional intent.

Constitutional intent is what controls and limits Article V, your first right.

Alright cognitive infiltrators, this is your cue to bury this thread, again

 

[phill4paul]

I can sum up what happened to the Old Republic in one name. Jar Jar Binks.

 

[Cissy]

I can sum up what happened to the Old Republic in one name. Jar Jar Binks.

 

[FloralScent]

At the end of the war he was assassinated because he was going to continue with that effort rather than put the repayment of massive English financing to the north needed to defeat the south which was much more powerful at the head of his agenda.

I've read that the British were poised to assist the South but the Emancipation Proclamation squashed that, and that a Russian fleet was anchored at New York in case of an attempt to break the Union blockade by the either the British or the French. Is this all a smokescreen to obscure British(Rothschild) financing of the Union effort? Please cite sources as I've never heard this before.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Written history has been targeted for immoral, secret amendment since before the written word replaced whatever worked before that, which was removed from written history shortly after it was written.

But you will not find that fact recorded.

My source is my fifth grade teacher. Ater telling us about the English financing of the north, he told us he was not supposed to teach us that.

Meaning, there are no sources I can cite. There may be one you can find relating to quite a few ship loads of weapons manufacturing equipment and machinists to operate it that crossed the Atlantic when it was certain war was on the horizon. A historian, friend mentioned that when I brought up the English financing.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLe
ON EDIT: I felt there should be some traces of connection, so I searched and found something related to the spencer repeating rifle which appears to be manufactured by remington. My German is non existent. Perhaps someone that can read can learn a little more.

Remington Arms — Company, Inc. Rechtsform Incorporated Gründung 1816 Sitz Madison, Vereinigte Staaten Branche Waffenindustrie Website

Royal Small Arms Factory — The Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) was a UK government owned rifle factory in Enfield, now part of north London, which produced British military rifles, muskets and swords from 1816. It closed in 1988, but some of its work was transferred to… …

Remington Arms
forensic_science.enacademic.com/1141/Remington_Arms‎
Remington Arms — Company, Inc. Rechtsform Incorporated Gründung 1816 Sitz Madison, Vereinigte Staaten Branche Waffenindustrie Website … Deutsch .
___________
The fifth grade teacher said he felt wrong teaching civil war history leaving the English finance out because the northern victory would make no sense without it. He was right.

It's easier to show the English capacity for deception and ruse relating to history by reading the Magna Carta then reading the historical accounts of WHY the Barons and king signed a charter that guaranteed rights to commoners and Freemen (who were they) and also creating a committee of Barons to make Barons accountable for violating the charter.

The Barons were tyrants and despots, as well as the king. They would never do that unless forced. Who forced them and how?

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Bump

<belch>

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Henry Rogue]

I got to thinking, How many layers of government do we really need? That lead me to wonder, did the world have sovereign nation anarchy before the United Nations? Or was it before the league of nations?

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I got to thinking, How many layers of government do we really need? That lead me to wonder, did the world have sovereign nation anarchy before the United Nations? Or was it before the league of nations?

United Nations is not government. It's a front for the NWO to gain legitimacy, if possible. Similar to the WTO except related to diplomacy instead of trade. It's only authority comes from nations participating in NWO subterfuge, while pretending to stand for human rights so people feel like powerful organizations spanning nations are doing something to protect them.

The federal government semi-equivilant to the king and the states the barons in the post civil war structure. This is why the anti federalists have no real basis of logic promoting that states will do better without the federal. The only solution to the erosion of rights for America is to return to the old republic under the intents of the 1787 constitution.

The reason why is that it expresses and guarantees a uniform set of rights that are actually adequate.

The key is our understanding of the purposes of those rights, in order to evaluate whether they actually function. Unity around those purposes is the only way to defend them, enforce them.

Sovereignity seems to be self generated by nations ability to defend their territory in a real sense. Similar to our ability to defend our individual rights. However, a civilized nation might grant the status to another nation out of respect for its people, history or traditions.

The UN tries to do that, but it is not a nation. It exists only by nations agreeing to work together for those purposes, and, it is collusive to Americas isolationism. The League of nations could not integrate America with its isolationism which is rooted in the secrecy that begat the cold war.

The only hope for global peace, and indeed the continuity of humanity perhaps even key to evading extinction. The old republic actually had the intents for this within its observance to the constitution. These were weakened seriously by the war of 1812, which was initiated partly by Americas trade or economic fixation upon Europe.

We have more to unlearn, in some areas, than we do to learn, IF the principles of the constitution of the old republic is to be benefited from as intended.

 

[osan]

Following the 1787 constitution the republic operated fairly consistently with the constitution. A division between the north and the south developed. This had far more dynamics than are commonly known. The obvious slave issue, the economics of the debt of England in the French English war, cotton are are valid. However there was more and that won't be discussed here. History before Plymouth rock is deficient and conceals factors that led to the war which England saw as an opportunity to divide and conquer.

That's a tease and should not have been put here. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, zip it.

Which happened, but it was not a full victory because it was covert. America, mostly, believed, or was led to believe, that it was still under the 1787 constitution when it was not. A set of statutes created what is referred to the corporate united states, and our social contract became referred to as "The Constitution of the United States of America", when the original is written "the Constitution for the united states of America". Subtle legal differences which are an effort to accumulate legitimacy to perhaps the largest fraud on the planet.

"Social contract" = FAIL. Credslip fault... danger Will Robinson, danger...

Lincoln before the war was trying to avoid the war by causing an Article V convention under the 1787 constitution. This is fairly proven by one excerpt from a speech in his home state of Illinois in 1859. "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the government, but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution."

Shows what he knew... bupkis.

The only way the people become "the rightful masters" is through their states at an Article V convention. There simply is no other explanation for his statement.

Or simply shooting the bastards.

At the end of the war he was assassinated because he was going to continue with that effort rather than put the repayment of massive English financing to the north needed to defeat the south which was much more powerful at the head of his agenda. And, it appears the souths effort of Secession from the union was also constitutional, but England wanted a war and managed to inflame sentiments in the north enough to cause support for war.

Disagree. He was likely shot because he issued an independent currency. But you are correct in that the killing was likely related intimately to the debt the Brits held. Given the history, one has to view such sources of finance with a very suspicious eye from both sides of the equation.

After Lincolns assassination Grant was made president. Careful research into the public sentiments show that many Americans knew what was going on and were outraged. So much so that there was official orders for fairly large numbers of union snipers at observation points all over DC in case any efforts to revolt were started.

Essentially, England regained its colony. From that point on empire building became an unspoken American purpose. Meanwhile, Americans were induced to forget all of the above.

This seems on the money... no pun intended. Or maybe it was... I need to think on that a bit.

Corporate person hood happened in the 1880's. Then in 1911 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention to stop the federal move away from the gold standard. On April 15, 1912, 40 of the wealthiest Americans against America leaving the gold standard died when the Titanic sunk. The details of that are shocking. I suggest in depth research and a thread here some where to share the facts. I can contribute.

I'm sorry, but your paragraph is horribly incomplete. Are you implying that Capt. Smith deliberately drove the ship at high speed in the dead of night in the hope of striking an iceberg such that the presumably "unsinkable" vessel would sink, taking 2300+ people with it including the good Captain himself? This seems to be your implication, but your statements are not nearly clear on this point. But if this is what you intend, you have a tall order to fill in terms of reasoning and evidence.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

That's a tease and should not have been put here. If you have something to say, say it.

I actually stated it in another thread that had more interest. And, this is not the full issue. This forum is not ready for that.

A dynamic needs introduction. It relates to the painful fact of brothers fighting each other on opposite sides of the war. It relates to the ferocity and animus of the entire conflict.

This fact is perhaps as deeply buried on written history, or even existent by inference.

Plymouth Rock of written history was by no means the beginning of European settlement of America. The Carribean and southern states had European populations starting in about 1150.

They were primarily French refugees from the crusades. Seafaring traders and merchants which formed a society first recorded as "the brotherhood of the coast". Their settlements by the time of Plymouth Rock had spread as far north as the Carolina's.

Now, inherently the refugees of the crusades in the south, had religious differences with the Pilgrims to the north so did not help them and thereby integrate into written history. However, the eventual joining of the union by the southern states had those difference secretly set aside.

Those differences still existed in the hearts and minds of both sides, but by that time were mutually removed from the known history of both sides.

Therein is the potential explanation for the murderous ferocity of our civil war which had brothers fighting each other.

"Social contract" = FAIL. Credslip fault... danger Will Robinson, danger...

Yes, not quite correct. A series of statutes were passed which created the 10 square mile DC.

Shows what he knew... bupkis.

Lincoln was referring to Article V because that is where the people have such power, but it is through their states.

Or simply shooting the bastards.

In this situation, that strategy is designed to fail. Here is a list of what will work but it will take cooperation.
'
This post has a simple process described. You can be the first to comment upon it. I admit it is highly idealistic. It however is legally valid and sociologically acceptable.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

This is the first step. You will see there is an covertly organized effort to invoke social fears blocking that first step.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ricans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

Here is a strategy that can work with an independent ballot which is more universal with greater potential using the process of the first link above, and the first step of the link directly above.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

This is a major effect of preparatory amendment. This integrates deeply human aspects into the first amendment. The above page describes those.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ng-the-Abridging-of-free-speech-PREP-FOR-ART5

This is a test of the behaviors of organizations ostensibly working for an Article V. There is an assembly perhaps readying for the final blow to the constitution. This can put them in check, and perhaps with some Americans demonstrating social courage and legal understanding, inspire the group, COS, to recommend adopting the process of the first link aggressively.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/...icle-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

After much examination of social structure and what is required as sequential process of amendment that manifest the small government which is the basic design of the 1787 constitution, I've determined that we need to amend Article V first in order to assure time to prepare for conventions in 3/4 of the states.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Amend-Article-V-bring-it-closer-to-perfection

Disagree. He was likely shot because he issued an independent currency. But you are correct in that the killing was likely related intimately to the debt the Brits held. Given the history, one has to view such sources of finance with a very suspicious eye from both sides of the equation.

Yes, the currency issue was certainly another matter. At the pinnacle was the that English wanted their colony back. Lincoln wasn't capitulating.

This seems on the money... no pun intended. Or maybe it was... I need to think on that a bit.

Yes, even the Union soldiers did not like it.

I'm sorry, but your paragraph is horribly incomplete. Are you implying that Capt. Smith deliberately drove the ship at high speed in the dead of night in the hope of striking an iceberg such that the presumably "unsinkable" vessel would sink, taking 2300+ people with it including the good Captain himself? This seems to be your implication, but your statements are not nearly clear on this point. But if this is what you intend, you have a tall order to fill in terms of reasoning and evidence.

It is really another thread. There is a great deal to it. Very deep.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I actually stated it in another thread that had more interest. And, this is not the full issue. This forum is not ready for that.

A dynamic needs introduction. It relates to the painful fact of brothers fighting each other on opposite sides of the war. It relates to the ferocity and animus of the entire conflict.

This fact is perhaps as deeply buried on written history, or even existent by inference.

Plymouth Rock of written history was by no means the beginning of European settlement of America. The Carribean and southern states had European populations starting in about 1150.

They were primarily French refugees from the crusades. Seafaring traders and merchants which formed a society first recorded as "the brotherhood of the coast". Their settlements by the time of Plymouth Rock had spread as far north as the Carolina's.

Now, inherently the refugees of the crusades in the south, had religious differences with the Pilgrims to the north so did not help them and thereby integrate into written history. However, the eventual joining of the union by the southern states had those difference secretly set aside.

Those differences still existed in the hearts and minds of both sides, but by that time were mutually removed from the known history of both sides.

Therein is the potential explanation for the murderous ferocity of our civil war which had brothers fighting each other.

Fascinating.

You have a link to back that up?

In all my reading and understanding of European colonization of North America, there was no European presence in what is now the southern US until the early 16th century.

A good 475 or so years later than what you are claiming here.

Now, it has been well established that there was Norse presence from the 10th to 15th century,, but that is much further north, in what is now Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Maine.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Fascinating.

You have a link to back that up?

In all my reading and understanding of European colonization of North America, there was no European presence in what is now the southern US until the early 16th century.

A good 475 or so years later than what you are claiming here.

Now, it has been well established that there was Norse presence from the 10th to 15th century,, but that is much further north, in what is now Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Maine.

Right here in this very forum is a thread linking to documentation of fort Caroline.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ment-ever-found-in-North-America-ScienceDaily

They don't know anything except that the French historical archives had record of it. You can be sure it was not created by France with that minimal of a record.

Search for brotherhood of the coast and you will find a couple of pages like I found. I used different search terms on a hunch and found those pages with that name.

My guess is they were fortifying their northern borders because the English were coming. I do recall Jamestown sent a party south seeking a settlement. The story recorded was they found none. I bet they were chased off.

Look at history of the mound builders in the south east into the mid west a ways. Big battle with original history and recent analysis of old digs and then new digs. Celtic crosses. Old history will not recognize because it is around 1500 years old. Vikings were moving them. And yes, there were later settlements in the far north by Vikings.

Our past is a mess because of lies written down.

ON EDIT:
I found this from religious history on another forum that is supportive just because of the time frame. Basically people running from roman crusade.

The Trail of Blood (1931) is a booklet by the Baptist minister, Dr. James Milton Carroll. It is a collection of five lectures he gave on the history of Baptist churches, which he presented as a succession from the first Christians.

http://en.wikipedia...._Trail_of_Blood

The full title is The Trail of Blood -: Following the Christians Down through the Centuries - or, The History of Baptist Churches from the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day.[1] Carroll presents modern Baptists as the direct succession of a strain of Christianity dating to apostolic times, which was a Landmarkist view first promoted in the mid-nineteenth century by James Robinson Graves. He started an influential movement in Tennessee and the western states. The Landmark controversy divided many Baptists, and ultimately led to the formation of the American Baptist Convention in 1924, as well as Gospel Missions and unaffiliated churches.

Carroll claims a descent by modern Baptists from such earlier groups as the Waldensians, the Cathari, the Paulicians (a sect of Adoptionist heretics), and the Donatists. Carroll acknowledges a number of other writers, including G.H. Orchard and John T. Christian. The title is taken from James Robinson Graves' The Trilemma.[1] The book was published in the year Carroll died. Today the copyright to Carroll's book is held by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky.