Tag Archives: Founding Fathers

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans

According to my mother, in the U of Chicago and Radcliffe “slang” parlance of her college days, a “MUGWUMP” was a mythological bird that flies backwards because it doesn’t know its mug from its wump…

Some “Patriot Mythmongers” just have to be government agents who infiltrate the Patriotic, Traditional, Pro-Constitutional, Anti-Communist movements and give not just misinformation but suicidally bad advice to otherwise decent people who find themselves crosswise with the law: They advise and counsel being rude, disrespectful, and “sassy” to the Court, engaging in unmannerly behavior which (not in the legal but in the common, everyday sense) shows true “CONTEMPT” (i.e. disdain and disregard) of the Court and its proceedings.  

To say this is bad advice, let me give this example:  Imagine that you are in Germany in the 1930s and summoned to a GESTAPO inquiry about whether you have lied about your status as an Aryan when you are in fact Jewish.  The “Patriot Mythmongers'” to which I refer here give the equivalent of the following advice: “Just tell the GESTAPO Gauleiter that your Rabbi tells you that that fact that you were circumcised and Bar-Mitzvahed by him does not make you any less of an Aryan.”  That would have gone over like a lead balloon and probably led to immediate deportation, and what some “Sovereign Citizen” Patriots advise people to do in Court is absolutely no better.

Case in point that just came to my attention in an official transcript from Florida (but it is a tragic scene that is played out OVER and OVER again all around the USA):

(1)     Court called to Order at 9:00 AM

(2)     The Court: “We’re here in the case of the State of Florida vs. (Defendant’s Full Legal name).  Is there a Mr. (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present? If there are [sic, even judges apparently use bad grammatical constructions, mixing singular and plural, come forward, please, sir.  

(3)    The Defedant: “No Audible Response.”

(4)    The Court: Is there a (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present?  If there is, come forward please, sir.  

(5)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m here to speak to that matter.”

(6)    The Court: Are you Mr. (Defendant’s Full Name)

(7)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m a living, breathing—”

(8)    The Court:  Is there a (Defendant’s Full Name) present?

(9)    The Defendant:  “No audible response”  

(10)   The Court:  If there is a (Defendant’s Full Name) present, have him come forward.  If not, I will be issuing a capias for his arrest.  Is there a (Defendant’s last name) here?  

(11)    Unidentified Speaker: “For the Record—”  

(12)   The Court:  Let the record reflect—

(13)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter

(14)   The Court: Let the record reflect—

(15)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter.

(16)   The Court: Let the record reflect (Defendant’s last name) has not appeared.  Capias will be issued for his arrest to be returned to the Court, no bond.  If there’s a surety bond — was the bondsman noticed?

What the judge did here was: he put the “Defendant” in jail for 21 days without hearing or bond.  This was arguably an overreaction, but why did the Defendant do what he did?  Why did he try to open up with the ridiculous formulaic statement “I am a living, breathing person?”  It’s because s/he got idiotic advice from a Patriot Mythmonger—“Defendant” who told me this story would not tell me who (perhaps because I offered to put said Patriot Mythmonger on my “to kill” or at least “deserves to die later” list).  

Now what were the Judge’s options here: (1) well he could have said, “I’m glad to hear you’re a living and breathing person, but what’s your name you stupid Mo-Fo?”; (2) the Judge could have said, “Will the bailiff please cause Mr. (Defendant’s full name) to enter and stand before the court?  You may use all such force as appears to you reasonable and necessary to cause (the Defendant) to do so (that would have been the same as the CAPIAS, but with more immediate results); (3) the Judge could do what he did, which was to have the Defendant arrested and jailed (effectively punishing him for Contempt of Court, although nominally it was merely an order compelling the Defendant to appear by admitting his name in Court where he had already appeared by body in person); (4) the Judge could have let the Defendant ramble on about being a living breathing person and not a fictitious ALL CAPS Corporation created without his consent.  

But as my great-grandfather, a Louisiana State Court Judge and later Justice used to say, “We are brought into this world without our knowledge and taken without our consent.”  This is relevant, because another one of the Patriot Myths is that “All Law Proceeds by Contract”—sometimes specifically under the U.C.C., or else under Admiralty Law—and these are the most misleading and pernicious lies of all….. and have cause many, including but not limited to my dear old Texas friends Daniel Marion Swank, Drs. Kamil Kreit and Jacques S. Jaikaran, to lose some liberty and a great deal of property in what should have been very important cases.

Anyhow, in the transcript excerpt above, the lines attributed to an “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were spoken in open Court by the same person.  About twenty-five people witnesses this.

The “Unidentified Speaker’s” comments may be quite mystifying to anyone who has not kept up with certain quasi-underground legal-activist elements of the (Mostly Conservative, Traditionalist, Constitutionalist) “Patriot” movement in the United States of America  over the past 25-30 years.

A certain brand of “Patriot” believes that we do not own our names, especially if they are written in capital letters.  If this sounds absurd to you, it sounds absurder to me, because I have seen the consequences.

If the “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were in fact the same person in the exchange above, it is pretty clear that “neither of these individuals” admitted to having the Defendant’s full name (even if that was his/her/its legal name).  

Now I despise bad Judges who disregard civil rights and the Constitution.  You might say I’ve dedicated my life to fighting them. But listen people: A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT THE VERY LEAST, IS DESIGNED TO BE A CIVILIZED ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHTING IN THE STREETS AS A WAY OF RESOLVING DISPUTES.  

Whatever information we have about judicial corruption or disregard for law, rules of procedure, or the constitution, it does NOT justify being rude to a judge in Court.

When I was 11 I left Dallas to go to school in Los Angeles.  When I came back to Dallas at 14, at the local Highland Park Swimming Pool, I saw a guy I thought was my friend from 5th grade and earlier, three years before, but at that age, kids are growing up fast and changing very quickly.  So I wasn’t sure.  I asked my friend, “Hey, are you John T.?”  He looked at me like I was crazy, as teenage boys kind of like to do, and said, “No Charlie, I’m Michael Jackson of the Jackson Five, don’t you recognize me?”  (It’s irrelevant to this discussion that I could truthfully respond, “No, I was in school with Mikey out in LA, and you don’t look anything like him, ’cause he was kind of black…”)  This kind of behavior might be perfectly appropriate among teenagers at a public pool, but it has no place in Court.  And adults should know that.

Being polite is the first step towards being respected—because we all know that to get respect you have to show respect.  Kind of a “Golden Rule” type of thing.  But still the Patriot Mythmongers go around telling people to show their CONTEMPT OF COURT and COURT RULES visibly and audibly—and they should all be taken out by friendly fire.  

It is NOT appropriate in ANY legal proceeding to say, “I am a living, breathing, person.”  It is NEITHER true in any sense nor appropriate to say that your name WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS (e.g.: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III) is not the same legal individual as your name written in Title Format (Charles Edward Lincoln III).  

BUT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT TRUE TO SAY THESE THINGS, WHEN YOU SAY THEM, YOU PAINT A RED BULLSEYE ON YOURSELF AND TELL THE COPS AND THE COURTS “OK, SHOOT ME, BECAUSE I AM A REAL MUGWUMP”—by which I mean, you are (like the bird) so stupid you really don’t know your mug from your wump, you don’t know which way is up, and you basically deserve to die (ok, not really—I’m not advocating shooting of ALL people who believe this stuff–though I am advocating their radical re-education).

For all the corruption in this country, I have seen no evidence in the 30 years since I first became acquainted with the “Republic of Texas” and other “sovereign citizen” movements, that we have special corporate accounts set up at birth by the government matching our social security numbers and these (non-existent) accounts cannot be accessed by writing weird negotiable instruments.  I have seen people go to jail for trying.  I have seen other people get by with such things, at least temporarily.  

But I ask you, in the spirit of our founding fathers:  what can there possibly be that is legitimate or patriotic about (1) being rude in court, (2) refusing to acknowledge the name which your parents gave you, and by which you presumably have lived all of your life, (3) trying to get something for nothing, i.e. by trying to draw on these non-existent social security birth accounts, filing 1099-OIDS, using Fred & Nina Gutierrez EFT process, or anything else that passes for “brilliant insight” in the Patriot Movement?  

NO, let’s stick to the Constitution AND Civilized Manners of our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and let’s NOT act like MUGWUMPS in Court or anywhere else…

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.