The Manta.com website includes a database of over 63 million US and foreign companies. That database info is provided by Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B). Manta.com will provide preliminary information on each of these millions of companies for free. If you want more “in-depth” info, there’s a fee.
But since this article is about “funny” stuff, and paying fees isn’t fun, let’s run a few free searches and see what we can find. You might be surprised.
For example, if you type “Government of the United States” into the Manta.com search engine, you’ll be whisked to a list of “7,666 matching US companies”.
The first “company” on the list is:
“Government of the United States (US Government) HQ
“the u.s. Capitol Washington DC” The “HQ” stands for “headquarters”.
If you scroll down the list of other companies below the “Government of the United States,” you’ll find “branches” like “Executive Office of the United States Government” (6 entries), “United States Department of the Air Force (US Government),” “The Navy United States Department of (US Government Naval Reserves),” and “United States Court of Appeals For The 11th Circuit United States Courthouse”. Apparently, the Navy, Air Force and Courts are “companies”.
That’s kinda “funny,” doncha think?
If you click on the “Government of the United States HQ” link, you’ll see another website page with some fairly detailed—and possibly bewildering—information.
For example, you’ll see that this “Government of the United States” has its address at: “the u.s. capitol “Washington, DC 20515-0001”
Its phone number is “(202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 224-3121 end_of_the_skype_highlighting”. Business Hours are “24/7”.
You can click the “map” link and see a graphic indicating that this “Government” is located on “Capitol Hill” (same place as Congress) in Washington DC.
None of that seems particularly surprising (other than the idea that our “Government” might be a “company” and/or a conglomerate of “companies”). But the Manta.com report does begin to seem a little strange under the heading “About Government Of The United States” where we read:
“government, owner archbishop deric r. mccloud of basilica shrine michigan and 4th ne street washington,dc”. Say whut? Does that abbreviated text really indicate that the owner of the “Government Of The United States” is an archbishop named Deric R. McCloud? Who could be dumb enough to think (or even mistakenly write) that the “Government of the United States” was owned by an archbishop?
A: Apparently, Dunn & Bradstreet was dumb enough.
And just in case you think we can’t be talking about the “Government of the United States,” take a gander at the “Additional Information” heading and you’ll read (as of August 6th, A.D. 2010):
“all receipents [sic] of federal funds that have any kind of criminal case or felony federal, state, local or served time in prison federal, state, benefits terminate 7/26/10 by barack obama administration.”
The reference to “barack obama” shows that this entry for “Government of the United States HQ” does, indeed, describe the very same “Government of the United States” that we all so love and admire. (Don’t forget that this “Government” and all its various “branches” are being reported by D&B to be individual, private companies.)
OK, OK—maybe this article isn’t really all that “funny” (ha-ha!), but it’s still pretty “funny” (strange).
• Go back to the top of the “Government of the United States” page and click the “More Info” tab. Under “Employees (Estimated)” you’ll read:
“2,768,886 “At this location “3”
2.7 million federal employees sounds about right. This enormous number of employees confirms that we’re viewing information on the “Government of the United States”.
But if only “3” of those millions of employees are “At this location” (the “HQ”) who are the “chosen 3”? And where, precisely is “this location”? Capitol Hill? Yes—but where on Capitol Hill? In the Senate chamber? The House of Representatives? If there are only “3” people at the HQ, that HQ might be as small as some cloakroom.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Under “State of Incorporation” you’ll read “Information not found”. This could mean that this “Government of the United States” was never formally “incorporated”. Or it might mean that the information concerning that incorporation is intentionally concealed.
However, we can see a clue to the possible date of incorporation for this “Government of the United States” under the heading “Years in Business” which reads “223”. If the “Government of the United States” began 223 years ago, there should be a constitution or charter to mark its creation at that time.
This is A.D. 2010, so “223” years ago would be A.D. 1787.
But that’s odd.
Why? Because our current “Government of the United States” should have been created by “The Constitution of the United States” and therefore could not have existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution.
In A.D. 1787, the Constitutional Convention completed the final draft of the Constitution on September 17th. That proposed Constitution for a new “federal government” was then submitted to the Congress that already existed under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in A.D. 1781). The Confederation Congress quickly “approved” the proposed Constitution under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation and then sent it out to We the People for ratification.
Article VII of the Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I.e., the Constitution (and resulting federal government) could not become effective and operational until it was ratified by at least nine of the States of the Union.
Thus, while the Constitution may have been “approved” by the existing Congress in A.D. 1787, it could not have been established and ordained by We the People until ratified by at least 9 States. But the 9th State (New Hampshire) didn’t ratify until June 21st, A.D. 1788.
Wikipedia article “Unites States Constitution” reports:
“Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire’s ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the new Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, the [new, federal] government began operations.” [Bracketed insertion mine.]
Since the Constitution created the federal “Government” and could not have been ratified by We the People before A.D. 1788 (when the 9th State ratified), D&B’s report that the “Government of the United States” began “223” years ago (A.D. 1787) can’t be true. The earliest that the Constitution could’ve been deemed ratified and operations was A.D. 1788—222 years ago. Similarly, given that the new federal “Government” was not actually operational until A.D. 1789, the D&B report that this “Government” has been “in business” since A.D. 1787 also seems mistaken. Under this criteria, the earliest that the federal Government might become operational was A.D. 1789—221 years ago.
Big deal, hmm?
Who cares?
Aren’t I merely making a mountain out of data entry error mole hill? Didn’t the D&B clerk responsible for the data entry simply write “223” when she meant “222” or even “221”?
I doubt it. If I’m right, it is a “big deal”. Here’s why:
In A.D. 2008, I first learned about the Manta.com reports that suggest our government is some sort of conglomerate of “companies” and “branches”. When I first read the D&B “Government of the United States” report two years ago, Manta.com had a different website format. In that earlier format, Manta.com reported that “Government of the United States” started in “1787”. (Today, they report “223” years in business.)
In 2008, when I first saw “1787,” I knew that either: 1) the D&B data entry clerk made a mistake; or 2) the current “Government of the United States” is somehow presumed to have started at least one year before the Constitution itself was ratified and two years before the resulting federal government became operational.
If so, whatever currently passes for our “Government of the United States” is not based on the authority of We the People, but on some other “authority”. Thus, this is a potentially “big” deal.
I also knew that if the D&B clerk didn’t make a data entry error, that the Manta.com website might be changed to eliminate evidence that today’s “Government of the United States” is not be the same “Government” created by the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788. So, in A.D. 2009, I downloaded and retained complete copies of about 25 Manta.com website pages for safekeeping.
As I’d anticipated, the Manta.com website has since been modified and some information found two years ago has been changed or “disappeared”.
For example, where Manta.com used to report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now reports that it’s been in business for “223” years. That’s not a big change. It’s still possible that the numbers “223” and “1787” simply reflect some persistent data entry calculation error. But given the differences between “1787” and “223,” the probability of a mere data entry error is reduced. It therefore seems increasingly possible that the current D&B report on “Government of the United States” may correctly declare that that “Government” started the year before the Constitution was ratified by the People.
If so, as crazy as it sounds, it is therefore conceivable that there might be two editions of our “Constitution”: 1) one approved by the Confederation Congress in A.D. 1787; and 2) another, ratified by We the People in A.D. 1788. The text of both of these “editions” of the Constitution would be identical, but the underlying authority would be completely different.
Under the Constitution ratified by People in A.D. 1788, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would (consistent with the principles of the “Declaration of Independence”) be We the People. As individual sovereigns, We the People would enjoy the “republican form of government” guaranteed at Article 4 Section 4 of the federal Constitution.
However, under the possible Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787, the enacting authority and national sovereigns would be the Congress.If Congress were the constitutional sovereign, our form of government would be an aristocracy of 535 men and women. Worse, under such aristocracy, you and I would be presumed to be subjects or even slaves. If the Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787 were in effect today (rather than the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788), you and I can’t be free.
Yes, this conjecture sounds like another howling conspiracy theory. But even so, since the Constitution wasn’t ratified until A.D. 1788 and the resulting government didn’t become operational until A.D. 1789, D&B’s report that the government began “223” years ago and/or began in “1787” can’t be accurate. So, it seems at least “odd” that an entity as professional a D&B would make such a peculiar error.
It’s also curious that D&B describes the “Government of the United States” as a company and “HQ” over a number of other “branches” (like the Army, Navy, Air Force and courts) that are also deemed to be “companies”.
Somethin’ funny’s goin’ on here.
• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, enter “Nancy Pelosi” into theManta.com search engine. You’ll be taken to a list of “2 matching U.S. companies”:
1) “United States House of Representatives (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her San Francisco address; and
2) “Representative Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi) BRANCH” at her Washington DC address.
Click the #1 link, look for the heading “About United States House of Representatives,” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, National and located in San Francisco, CA . . . .”
Whut th’ . . . ?!
The US House of Representative is “a private company”?! And it’s “located in San Francisco, CA” (the home of the Speaker of the House)?
More?
Look under the heading “United States House of Representatives Business Information” and you’ll read:
“United States House Of Representatives also does business as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.”
The House of Representatives not only “does business” but does so “as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi”? Is “Nancy Pelosi” something like a trademark, alter ego or registered agent for the “private company” we call the “House of Representatives”? Is she the CEO and/or D/B/A for the House of Representatives, Inc.? Incidentally, the 2009 edition of Manta.com’s report on Nancy Pelosi (that I recorded and saved) declared that the US House of Representatives was “also traded as Nancy Pelosi”.
Also traded as?! What does that mean? Are we talking about packages of bubble gum that include government “trading cards” featuring photos of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi? Or is the House of Representatives and/or Nancy Pelosi some sort of stock? If so, who’s buying, who’s selling? Who owns that “company”?
• Enter “US Social Security Admin” into the search engine. Scroll down a bit and you’ll read:
“US Social Security Admin is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Social and Human Resources and located in West Branch, MI.”
So-So Security is a “private company” . . . ? That’s not located in Washington DC, but rather in “West Branch, MI” . . . ? I don’t know what that means, but I can’t help but laugh. Somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.
• Try “Internal Revenue Service”. Manta.com will produce “41,632 matching U.S. companies”. Some of these are clearly private entities that have no governmental pretense, but many or most are “governmental”.
If you click the link to “Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Dst Council,” you’ll read “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Goverenment-Finance and Taxation and located in Portland, OR.”
Click the “Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center . . . . Andover MA” link and you’ll read that “Internal Revenue Service is a private company categorized under Federal Government-Finance and Taxation and located in Andover, MA.” Two different locations indicate two different “private companies”. These reports (and scores more) suggest that each individual IRS office may be a separate “private company”. Therefore, if you’re contacted by an IRS office in Austin, Texas, you may be dealing with one “private company”. If you’re subsequently contacted by another IRS office from, say, Provo, Utah—you might be dealing with a completely different “private company”.
What’s your obligation to talk to several different “private companies” about your income taxes? Are there privacy concerns in sharing your tax information with several private companies? And given that there are at least several score (and perhaps several thousand) “private companies,” operating as an “Internal Revenue Service,” who are you really paying your income taxes to? H&R Block?
There are a host of additional “private companies” that you might want to research. I collected website pages for about two dozen in 2008 and 2009. I’m not sure how many of those can still be found, but if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be fascinated. Search for: “United States Court of Appeals,” “District of Columbia,” “George W Bush,” and “Supreme Court of the United States”. All were listed by D&B as “private companies”. You may find other D&B reports that are similarly fascinating or bewildering. What does D&B have to say about the CIA or Homeland Security? Inquiring minds wanna know.
• What’s it all mean? I’m not sure. Perhaps D&B is merely guilty of gross negligence when it comes to entering data on governmental entities.
Or, maybe the entire structure of what currently passes for “government” is actually a conglomerate of “private companies” run by an aristocratic Congress that’s owned by . . . who? The world’s bankers?
If so, the true nature of the “Government of the United States” might not be that of a “republic” or even a “democracy,” but rather a combination of governmental and corporate interests (“private companies”) that’s usually described as “fascism”. If so, we no longer have “government of the People, by the People and for the People” but instead have “government of the people, by the Congress, and for the Corporations.” Whatever the explanation, somethin’ funny is goin’ on here.
Today, when it comes to government, an appearance of reality appears to have been substituted for reality. Our government is not what it appears to be; not what it professes to be—and that’s not funny at all, is it?
Written at arm’s length and at my political choice of venue within The United States of America,
Name & Registered Office: BARACK OBAMA UK LTD 13 VULCAN ROAD WIGAN LANCASHIRE WN5 0RQ Company No. 06797143
Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 21/01/2009
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 9999 – Dormant Company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/01 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) Next Accounts Due: 21/10/2010 Last Return Made Up To: 21/01/2010 Next Return Due: 18/02/2011
Last Members List: 21/01/2010
BARACK OBAMA LIMITED CHARTER COURT MIDLAND ROAD HEMEL HEMPSTEAD HERTS HP2 5GE Company No. 06745126Status: Active - Proposal to Strike off Date of Incorporation: 10/11/2008
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
6,230 U.S. companies matching "The United States President of America"
1899 - The United States of America has been changed to United States and the American Empire.
Reference: First Circuit Court Case - Peacock vs. Republic of Hawaii, HAWAIIAN REPORTS (1899)
1912 - The Territory of Hawaii which became the State of Hawaii in 1959 through executive order signed by President Eisenhower, declared that they were "the successor of the Kingdom of Hawaii". Identity theft is documented in this court case.
Reference: First Circuit Court Case - Pa Pelekane Case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS (1912)
1915 - The Territory of Hawaii officials supported by the United States government, placed Queen Liliuokalani on the throne for a Day - she became Queen for a Day to celebrate Balboa Day or the Pan Pacific Day recognizing nations who did not Treaty with the United States and had agreements with the American Empire.
Reference: Added byAmelia Goraat 3:30am on December 31, 2013
w Article Stats (12 comments) Empires Then and Now Become a Fan SAVE AS FAVORITE VIEW FAVORITES By Paul Craig Roberts (about the author) Become a Fan (253 fans) -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)opednews.com This article cross-posted from Paul Craig Roberts IPE Great empires, such as the Roman and British, were extractive. The empires succeeded, because the value of the resources and wealth extracted from conquered lands exceeded the value of conquest and governance. The reason Rome did not extend its empire east into Germany was not the military prowess of Germanic tribes but Rome's calculation that the cost of conquest exceeded the value of extractable resources. The Roman empire failed, because Romans exhausted manpower and resources in civil wars fighting amongst themselves for power. The British empire failed, because the British exhausted themselves fighting Germany in two world wars. In his book, The Rule of Empires (2010), Timothy H. Parsons replaces the myth of the civilizing empire with the truth of the extractive empire. He describes the successes of the Romans, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Spanish in Peru, Napoleon in Italy, and the British in India and Kenya in extracting resources. To lower the cost of governing Kenya, the British instigated tribal consciousness and invented tribal customs that worked to British advantage. Parsons does not examine the American empire, but in his introduction to the book he wonders whether America's empire is really an empire as the Americans don't seem to get any extractive benefits from it. After eight years of war and attempted occupation of Iraq, all Washington has for its efforts is several trillion dollars of additional debt and no Iraqi oil. After ten years of trillion dollar struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Washington has nothing to show for it except possibly some part of the drug trade that can be used to fund covert CIA operations. America's wars are very expensive. Bush and Obama have doubled the national debt, and the American people have no benefits from it. No riches, no bread and circuses flow to Americans from Washington's wars. So what is it all about? The answer is that Washington's empire extracts resources from the American people for the benefit of the few powerful interest groups that rule America. The military-security complex, Wall Street, agri-business and the Israel Lobby use the government to extract resources from Americans to serve their profits and power. The US Constitution has been extracted in the interests of the Security State, and Americans' incomes have been redirected to the pockets of the 1 percent. That is how the American Empire functions. The New Empire is different. It happens without achieving conquest. The American military did not conquer Iraq and has been forced out politically by the puppet government that Washington established. There is no victory in Afghanistan, and after a decade the American military does not control the country. In the New Empire success at war no longer matters. The extraction takes place by being at war. Huge sums of American taxpayers' money have flowed into the American armaments industries and huge amounts of power into Homeland Security. The American empire works by stripping Americans of wealth and liberty. This is why the wars cannot end, or if one does end another starts. Remembewhen Obama came into office and was asked what the US mission was in Afghanistan? He replied that he did not know what the mission was and that the mission needed to be defined. Obama never defined the mission. He renewed the Afghan war without telling us its purpose. Obama cannot tell Americans that the purpose of the war is to build the power and profit of the military/security complex at the expense of American citizens. This truth doesn't mean that the objects of American military aggression have escaped without cost. Large numbers of Muslims have been bombed and murdered and their economies and infrastructure ruined, but not in order to extract resources from them. It is ironic that under the New Empire the citizens of the empire are extracted of their wealth and liberty in order to extract lives from the targeted foreign populations. Just like the bombed and murdered Muslims, the American people are victims of the American empire. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He was awarded the Treasury Department's (more...) The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the authorand do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q…
-u-s-a-operates-two-2-government-bodies Did You Know that the U.S./U.S.A. Operates Two (2) Government Bodies: U.S./U.S.A. and the American Empire "....questions of the application of various provisions of the Constitution of the United States to territory belonging to the United States and, whether "Territories" strictly speaking or mere possessions, forming part of what Mr. Chief Justice Marshall called the American Empire and yet not a part of the United States, in the more restricted meaning, as composed of the several States proper. It is perfectly clear, from their subject matter or their express language, that some provisions of the Constitution of the United States apply to the States proper only and not to territory merely belonging to the United States."…
1959 - The Territory of Hawaii became the State of Hawaii through executive order signed by President Eisenhower.
The United States of America changed to United States in 1871 through the secret banker's Constitution and in 1899 was documented as being the heads of two nations: 1) the United States, and 2) American Empire.
1993 - Admission of some of the criminal acts were made and signed into law by U.S. President William Clinton as P.L. 103-150.
The United States of America is "...admitting that the invasion, overthrow, occupation, annexation, starting in 1893, on up, violated all the treaties, violated basic norms of international law, and the United States Constitution... the overthrow of a lawful government... Under international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution." "...now the United States government, after one hundred years, has finally and officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the Independent Nation State that you had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. And also then that as a matter of international law the Native Hawaiian people have the right to go out now and certainly proclaim the restoration of that State... this resolution clears up all these matters... You don't need to petition Congress to do it. Congress has given you everything you need right here to do it, if that's what you want to do. The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it." "Congress is effectively conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and United States domestic law. So you're not bound by it. Rather I'm suggesting you're now free to determine your own fate pursuant to the principal of self-determination." "The State of Hawai'i, the federal government, are... the civilian arms of the military occupation authority, and... do not have sovereign powers. The sovereigntyresides in the people." "Who's land is it? Well, from what Congress seems to be saying, it's the land of the Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people still have sovereignty... You can't trespass on your own land. The trespassers then become the State of Hawai'i, and the land developers, and the golf courses, and the resorts. You are simply the Native Hawaiians asserting your rights under international law... this reversal of positions, between who is the criminal and who is the victim, who is asserting their rights and who is violating their rights, has been effectively conceded by Congress." "... these are official findings of fact and law, by the Congress of the United States. These findings bind all state and federal courts here in Hawai'i." "As a litigator before the International Court of Justice, I would be able to take this law to the World Court, and say, 'The United States government has now officially conceded that it illegally invaded and occupied the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and for this reason the native people of Hawai'i would be entitled to a restoration of their independent status as a sovereign nation state.'" "I could not predict how long this would take, what would be the consequences, how many states will recognize you, but I take it that the plight of the Hawaiian people is generally well known in the world, and there's a great deal sympathy ...it might be that you would be able to obtain recognition quickly. And especially if you pursue this process in accordance with principals of peaceful, non-violent struggle. And I submit that's the most effective technique you have today... Gandhi threw the mighty British Empire out of India without using force. People power, what we call it today. And I submit that the Native Hawaiian people would be able to do the same thing, moving in this direction and adopting the techniques of peaceful, non-violent action, which is what Gandhi called for." "I would certainly caution you against trying to seek the same type of treatment that the federal government has doled out to the Native Americans. Moreover, on the basis of this statute, you're entitled to a lot more..." "...an Independent Sovereign Nation State is one way a people who are threatened with extermination by means of genocide can attempt to protect themselves... What is the best way to protect the existence of your people, as a people? ...to proclaim your own State, and then ultimately seek international recognition and finally UN membership..." "...it's your future and that of your children and your children's children that is at stake." What are the Criteria ... How can it be done? Territory "First, a fixed territory, and clearly we have the Hawaiian Archipelago... Who's land is it? Well, from what congress seems to be saying, it's the land of the Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people still have sovereignty. The sovereignty inheres in you. And now it is for you to decide what to do with this sovereignty... the title to the land rested and still rests, under international law, with the Native Hawaiian people." Population "Second, a population, a distinguishable population of people, the Native Hawaiians, those who would trace their ancestry back before the appearance of Europeans on these lands... Certainly the Hawaiian state could take the position that you'll set up a procedure to provide citizenship to all people who are habitual residents of the new State of Hawaii as of a certain date... on a level of equality with everyone else." Government "Third, a government, and here you have ... the Kupuna (Elders) Council, that you've traditionally had. You don't need a government along the lines of the federal government of the United States or the State of Hawai'i to have a government. Rather what you need is a way to organize your people to govern your relations among each other, and clearly you have that." International Relations "And fourth, the capacity to enter into international relations, to deal with other states, and to keep your commitments. As I understand it, there are already states in the Western Pacific region that support the Native Hawaiian people and probably would be prepared to give you diplomatic recognition as an independent state... You would probably obtain recognition in that capacity from a fairly large number of states."
1998 - In Williamson B. C. Chang's brief in Civ. No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) dated July 29, 1998 on page 2 with Affidavit: " Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7 , 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation." 1 1 See Exchange of remarks, Senators Allen and Stewart, 55th Cong. 2 d Session. 31 Cong. Rec. 6369 (Senator Stewart taking the position that the resolution was mere "puffing," in that the United States can "annex the world" if Congress so chose.) No nation has that power and not nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by " joint resolution ." It is not simply an illegal act - it is an impossible act. See Statement of Senator Foraker admitting Joint Resolution cannot annex Hawaii. 55th Cong. 2d Sess. 31 Cong. Rec. 6585. Page 5: "No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States". The following is regarding "The legislative history is more than clear: Congress deliberately sought to deny the Courts of the State of hawaii in rem jurisdiction."3 " Public Law 86-3 is the sole basis by which this Court derives its very existence, let alone its powers." "3 Leaders of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States were well aware of this fact. See Correspondence of Sanford Dole, President of Hawaii to A. Hartwell, dated November 15 , 1899 from the State Archives of Hawaii ("A reference to the joint resolution of annexation and the treaty shows clearly the untenable position of the President's order in that it attempts to affect land transfers made between July 7, and August 12 , 1898; for the treaty by Article 1st agrees that the Hawaiian Islands be annexed to the united States under the name of the Territory of Hawaii ;") the joint resolution changes this in a most radical way in the first paragraph by annexing the Hawaiian islands "as a part of the territory of the United States." The Treaty agreement having been departed from in this important particular by the joint resolution, it cannot be of course contended that the letter has an authority in relations to the Hawaiian Islalnds until it was accepted by us which acceptance took place on the 12th of August 1898." The protracted debate over the Joint Resolution had brought this fact to public attention. No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States." Professor Williamson Chang under penalty of perjury stated the following: He is licensed to practice in the State of Hawaii and before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and that he is now the attorney for Rachel B. Painter and appears on her behalf in the above entitled matter. That he as filed a complaint in the United States District court for the District of Columbia that relates to this case. Said action is titled, Painter v. The United States of America , LCIV98001737 and was filed on July 10, 1998. That said action is related in that it seeks declaratory relief as to the scope and meaning of the Act of Admission, Section Two. That Section Two of the Act of Admission excludes the Island of Palmyra from the State of Hawaii. That such was the intent of section two. That the same section two also excludes the island of Oahu , on which the property here is located. That the legislative history of section two supports this plain reading of section two. That said section two states that: "The State of Hawaii hall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters , included in the Territory of Hawaii, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant waters and territorial reefs, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, San Island (offshore of Johnston Island) or Kingman Reef , together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters." That the area within the Territory of Hawaii was set by section two of the Act of april 30, 1900, which states: "That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July seventh eighteen hundred and ninety eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii." That he is aProfessor of Law at the University of Hawaii , William s. Richardson School of Law. That among his duties as a Professor of Law he has been required to develop courses in Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History. That he received a grant from the National Science foundation to study the evolution of property rights in Hawaii. 14. That he shall attach, when certified by the Library of Congress , copies of various documents relating to this motion. That said certified documents should be available within two weeks. That in the course of fulfilling the terms of the above grant, and in the course of his duties as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, assigned to Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History that the following documents have come to his attention: The records of the debates on the Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands, from the debates on that resolution of the United States Senate , particularly those pages of the Congressional Record, volume 31 pages 6331-6369, 6634-6634 and 6585-6572 chich contain statements of numerous senators that the Joing Resolution was not a treaty, and could not have any effect on Hawaii. Records of the debates on the Act of april 30, 1900, which show that the Joint Resolution, as viewed by the Senate two years later did not incorporate Hawaii as territory of the United States. Those statements are on various pages of volume 33 of the Congressional Record , such as 2385-2391. The supreme Court Record as found in the Library of Congress, the Law Library thereof,for the case Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). The decision itself, together with the record of briefs of appellee and appellant in that matter show 1) that the Supreme Court ruled that the Joing Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States and that 2) the Appellee, then Territory of Hwaii took the position that the Joint Resolution did not make Hawaiii part of the United Sttes. (See brief of appellant Edmund Dole, Attorney General of the Territory of Hawaii.) Other documents, such as volume 23 of the Opinions of the Attorney General of the United States, numerous opinions of the Attorney General state that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate Hawaii as part of the United States. In particular, Hawaii remained separate and independent for numerous purposes identified only with the rights of a sovereign and independent nation: to wit Hawaii was permitted to lay a tonnage tax on shipping between Hawaii and the United States, Hawaii was deemed separate and sovereign for the purposes of claims by British subjects arising from torts allegedly committed against them by the Provisional Government of Hawaii and Hawaii was not "the United States" for the purposes of the existing laws of the United States excluding Chinese. House Report 305 pf the 55th Congress which shows that the ceremonies held on August 12 , 1898, in Honolulu, Hawaii had no legal effect. That is also the opinion of the United States Attorney General as stated in volume 23, relating to the "Public Lands" See pages 628 et seq. Documents that show the intent behind section two of the Admission Act: That in the deliberations on the Statehood bill, S.49 in 1953-54, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee rejected the language defining the boundaries for the future state of Hawaii, as then proposed in the draft of the State Constitution approved by the people of Hawaii November 7, 1950. That the reasons for such rejection are partly stated in a "confidential memo" of Clark Clifford to Senator Earle Clements. That such memo notes that the definition of the State, as proposed by the people would differ from the definition of the State as set forth by the Senate in S. 49. That the Senate must reject the definition as proposed by the State Constitution. That the people of Hawaii must affirm the changes as demanded by the Senate. That, according to Clark, if the Constitution is not amended, either by reassembling the Constitutional Convention , or by a vote specially held prior to statehood, then Hawaii should not be admitted as a state. That numerous proposed alternatives to the present boundaries of the State were considered by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and that such alternatives would have included the Palmyra Islands as well as the Island of Oahu. That such alternatives were rejected in favor of the present language. That the present language is identical to Committee Print 6 of S.49. Committee Print 6 adopts the approach of Committee Print 5. Committee Print 5 differs substantially from all earlier versions as committee Print 5 states that the area of the State shall consist of that of the Territory, except the atoll known as Palmyra. That Print 4 and earlier prints, contained such language that would have included all islands within a certain designated parallelogram as defined by reference to longitude and attitude. That such approach was recommended by the Department of Justice , in a letter of J. Lee Rankin of January 11, 1954. Those approached would have affirmatively included islands within the new state. Thus, the adoption of the prsent language displays conscious intent to exclude all islands. That said approach continued the existing policy of Congress whereby the Territory was defined by reference to the legal effect of the Joint Resolution. That certain Senators on the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee were well aware that the Joint Resolution did not acquire for the United States either the island of Palmyra or the Island of Oahu. That such knowledge can be imputed from the transcripts of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee, as to a non-public hearing of March 17, 1953. Such knowledge can be imputed to Senator Clinton Anderson who was so informed that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands by memorandum in April of 1954. That the plain meaning of section two is supported by the available legislative history. That this motion is brought arising from counsel's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to zealously represent his clients. That said grounds for this motion are basic and elementary. The boundaries of the State are within the knowledge of those who practice beforee the Bar of the Courts of this State. That said counsel is not bringing this motion for the purposes of delay or harassment. Rather, the failure to raise this issue, in the course of representation would be possible grounds for incompetent representation. Under Pentaly of Perjury, I, Williamson Chang states that such are true and correct, the documentary evidence referred to does exist and was found and examined by myself, in various archives and libraries, including the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT. (Signed) Williamson B. C. Chang Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me: This Wed . Day of 29 July, 1998. (signed) NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF HAWAII My Commission Expires: 9-5-99
2011 - Why Hawai'i is Not a Legitimate State: What the Birthers Missed By THOMAS NAYLOR CounterPunch.org June 10 -- 12, 2011 In the brouhaha over whether President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, few seem to realize, that in the eyes of many historians and legal scholars, Hawaii is not a legitimate state of the United States of America. If the government of Hawaii had not been illegally overthrown in 1893 by the U.S. Marines through a classic act of Manifest Destiny and American-style gunboat diplomacy, Hawaii would still be an independent, sovereign nation today. Notwithstanding a series of clever illegal moves by the U.S. government, Hawaii cannot be considered a legally bona fide state of the United States. In 1898 the United States unilaterally abrogated all of Hawaii's existing treaties and purported to annex it on the basis of a Congressional resolution. Two years later the U.S. illegally established the so-called Territory of Hawaii on the basis of the spurious Organic Act. After a period of prolonged belligerent occupation by the U.S., Hawaii was placed under United Nations Charter, Article 73, as a "non-self-governing territory" under the administrative authority of the United States. Then in 1959 the U.S. falsely informed the U.N. that Hawaii had become the 50th state of the United States after an illegal plebiscite. Among those allowed to vote in this invalid election were members of the U.S. military and their dependents stationed in Hawaii. In other words, Hawaii's occupiers were permitted to vote on its future. In November 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103-150 apologizing to the 140,000 Native Hawaiians, who call themselves Kanaka Maoli, for the January 17, 1893, invasion of Hawaii deposing Queen Liliuokalani which led to Hawaii's illegal annexation by the United States and eventually to statehood in 1959. This apology implicitly recognized the unrelinquished inherent sovereignty and right of self-determination of the Native Hawaiian people. Whether it was his intention or not, President Bill Clinton clearly raised the expectations of the Kanaka Maoli that one day Hawaii might once again be viewed as an independent nation-state. The downtrodden Kanaka Maoli, who make up less than 12 percent of Hawaii's population, "die younger, earn less, go to jail more frequently, and are more likely to be homeless than any other ethnic group in the islands," according to the Honolulu Weekly. If Barack Obama were born in Hawaii, and his birth certificate says that he was, then why has he shown so little interest in the plight of Native Hawaiians? Bill Clinton has done a lot more for the Kanaka Maoli than Barack Obama, even though Obama pretends to be a compassionate liberal. At one level, it matters not whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia. The real issue is how does he behave. Therein lies the rub. Not unlike his friend Donald Trump, Obama has a very strong predisposition towards violence and war, caters almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, and palls around with the right wing government of Israel. Hawaii became an alleged state of the United States as a result of a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch -- the same foreign policy employed by Obama over a century later in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine. President Obama's benign neglect of the Hawaiian victims of American nineteenth century imperialism says more about who he is than the name of the country on his birth certificate. Thomas H. Naylor is Founder of the Second Vermont Republic and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University. His books include: Downsizing the U.S.A., Affluenza, The Search for Meaning and The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html
2011 - Tane Inciong:
Reasons Why We Are Not Part of the United States of America...
Using their own U.S. and fake-State of Hawaii constitutions and laws and their Apology Bill, we can see where they "shoot themselves in their feet". Add to that the much discounted and over-looked Ku'e Petitions against annexation (Sept. 1897) whereby approximately 96% of the bona fide subjects of the Kingdom of Hawai'i responded against it which can be considered a plebiscite of its citizens. This Ku'e Petitions answers the Turpie Resolution of 31 May 1894.
The fact that U.S. Secretary James L. Blaine's advice, supported later by then U.S. President Benjamin Harrison and others within the U.S. government and community, was to destabilize the Kingdom of Hawaii without setting international precedent culminated in 1887 and conspired to overthrow and take control of the Kingdom of Hawaii for the purpose of annexing its territory to the United States of America for dominance within the Pacific Ocean for its Imperialism and Expansionism. This led to the active invasion and belligerent occupation unlawfully executed in 1893 by settting up a puppet "Provisional Government"/Republic of Hawai'i.
After the Treaty of Annexation was twice rejected, first withdrawn by newly-elected President Cleveland from U.S.. Congress and Executive Agreement established; then another treaty that was rejected by U.S. Congress, The Presidential-successor, McKinley allowed Congress to internally create the unlawful Newlands Resolution to annex Hawaii on 12 August 1898. This blatantly ignored the Presidential Agreement and the contested Ku'e Petitions of September 1897 and continued setting precedence in the international arena and double-standard justice.
It is noteworthy to review the Organic Act of 30 April 1900:
Section 4. Citizenship. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12 , 1898 are hereby declared (!) to be citizens of the U.S. and citizens of the Territory of Hawai'i.-U.S. citizens that reside in Territory of Hawaii for one year on or since 12 August 1898 shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.(This secured U.S. citizens who came to tip the population count for U.S. control to remain as permanent residence without losing their nationality and freedom to travel between the U.S. and Hawaii without a passport. The Ku'e Petitions of 1897 confirms that the bona fide subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii did not support the Republic of Hawaii and therefore not citizens of the ipso facto government.)
- Chinese Ban was applied. - Puerto Rican did not lose political status by removing to Hawaii in 1901 but became U.S. citizens, hence, entitled to vote in Hawaii. -24 March 1934 - Filipino placed on quota basis as aliens. Specifically inapplicable in Hawaii and immigration is determined by the Department of the Interior on basis of industrial needs. Filipino national in Hawaii became alien by proclamation of Philippine Independence. - A person born in the Kingdom of Hawaii of British parents domiciled there was held to be a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii although he was registered at birth at the British consulate and had never renounced allegiance to the British Crown nor sworn allegiance to the Hawaiian government. (you can see U.S. preference for caucasians.)
The Admission Act (18 March 1959):
Section 19. Nothing contained in this Act shall operate to confer United States nationality nor to terminate nationality heretofore lawfully acquired, or restore nationality heretofore lost under any law of the (U.S.) or under any treaty to which the (U.S.) is or was a party.
(Since we were never lawfully citizens of the Republic of Hawaii as deemed by the Ku'e Petitions, U.S. belligerent occupation and never relinquished our rights as Hawaiian subjects, the U.S. breaches of the treaties, the U.S. violation of the law of occupation, law of neutrality, violations of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment , the Constitution and Laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the treaties between both countries; we are still Hawaiian subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii.)
A Hawaii patriot,
Tane
****************************** 2014 - November 25 -
Russia's Leader Vladimir Putin blew the whistle on the U.S. by informing all Americans that their government usurped them....Banker whistleblowers Karen Hudes of the World Bank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgH14gCBfeAand Alayne Fleishmann has gifted All with the Truth http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-b... see recent Vladimir Putin's speeches whereas he said Americans were usurped, etc. and see other info at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2014/11/vol-v-no-52... ---WAR MONGERS have immense WAR DEBTS..... fyi C(h)attle ----- GOYIM Awaken! reckless, racketeering documented ...the offenders: treasonous persons moving to create WARS AGAINST INNOCENTS..........!!! All-Out War in Ukraine: NATO’s ‘Final Offensive’ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this a… INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE.INFO
SUMMARY
The United States President Harrison and Congress did premeditate the takeover of a friendly, neutral nation headed by Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.
Premeditation evidence has been found by researchers over time.
England sees the United States as a "colony of the Crown".
The Rush-Baggot Treaty with the United States also affects the connection to the United States.
Both United States and England became bankrupt due to the American Civil War which ended in 1865.
It was a period of bankruptcy and getting bailed out by the J.P. Morgan bankers who invested in Wall Street for both bankrupt nations.
The move to make Slaves out of Americans occurred from 1865 to 1871 when the Secret banker's Constitution was made.
The dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani, the conspiracy(ies), piracies, pillaging, frauds engaged in by bankrupt nations occurred in 1893 with monies of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii/ Ko Hawaii Pae Aina/He Mokupuni Pae Aina o Hawaii/Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago./Hawaii being assumed by the United States President Benjamin Harrison and Vice President Levi Morton who was an expert in international money transfers.
Morton returned to his bank after losing the elections and sold his bank to the J.P. Morgan bankers who invested monies for the benefit of the United States (and American Empire) and England.
The manipulations of the legalese was made by attorneys, and bankers who are Masons/Freemasons an entity created by England.
Hawaii was not legally annexed, oppositions were documented by Queen Liliuokalani and her subjects in 1897.
Queen Liliuokalani was made Queen for a Day in 1915 and signed illegal contracts. The Queen and her subjects remained under duress, stress, usurpation, coercion, intimidation since 1893.
The entity that is problematic to both the American and the Hawaiian/kanaka maoli are the bankers. The article AGAINST MONARCHY which was found in Queen Liliuokalani's saved documents shows the bankrupt, corrupt, pirate, pillaging, fraud entities that has affected the United States since 1871 and the Kanaka Maoli/Hawaiian subjects, including Queen Liliuokalani from a neutral, friendly recognized nation.....in 1893......... the bankers, through the Secret U.S. Constitution, an illegal U.S. Constitution affecting unknowing Americans.....
The changes made over the years are superseded by the contractual agreement called the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America which legally bound the "most favored nations", the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii, the United States of America and others.
... friendly recognized Nation that was wrongfully usurped by the United Stateswho created ... articles, posts, researches by Amelia Gora ... of the Crown Lands and ...
... and the American Empire Committed Since 1893! ... Why the State of Hawaii is Illegal. by Amelia Gora, ... and Not the United States of America which was ...
Articles/References Affecting ALL LANDS in the Hawaiian archipelago/Hawaiian Islands/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina/Hawaiian Kingdom/ Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian government from the time of Paiea/ Kamehameha, including Coral Reefs, etc.:
What the state is doing now and has a November 01, 2011 deadline for 2012 submissions of toxicology of pollutions at their facilities (which I also had listed in my 'Hawaii water pollution and hazards' article): http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/env-planning/wqm/wqm.html
The following videos are good to watch. Although I just recently found these videos after the fact that I wrote my articles, it's great to see that I can relate in Environmental studies. :)
IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web www.theiolani.blogspot.com yahoogroups.com see hawaiian genealogy society and http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/ GORA8037 http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037 and other websites including OPED News, etc. **************************************************************************** Multiples of Affidavits/Liens filed at the Bureau of Conveyances, Honolulu, Oahu; Documents served to the DLNR, AG's, et. als. pertaining to the Crown Lands, etc. as one of the Owners, descendant/heir of the Crown Land Owners whose ancestors resided in the Hawaiian Islands for 3,000+ years, etc. Oppositions documented over time recorded in Affidavits/Liens, Letters filed, delivered, served on the Occupiers who have no title or ownership of lands, etc. Oppositions documented in court cases; Fraud documented in court cases as well by myself, family(ies). Multiples of Letters to the U.S. Presidents Clinton, GW Bush, Barack Obama, Governors Lingle, Abercrombie, Cayetano also thru the Attorney General's office, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, et. als. ********************************************************************* Some Research by other researchers: http://maoliworld.ning.com/profiles/blogs/information-concerning-the ********************************************************************* Once again, costs for rents and leases are due and owing to our Royal Families and Rents, leases due are 500 Trillion Dollars in Gold Coin per year, retroactive to 1893; land use, water, resources, etc. and knowing, recognizing that you are NOT the Hawaiian government, but an entity as documented by Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 which was supported by the U.S., et. als. (includes England, and the Morgan bankers, International bankers/Bank of England, etc.). And repeating what was posted above in part: This is to inform you opposition to S.B. No. 1520, S.D. 2, H.D. 3, as amended; S.B. No. 1520, S.D. 2, H.D. 3, C.D. 1, etc. includes SB1555 CD1, quietly signed into law by the governor on May 20 as Act 55, will create a potentially very powerful Public Land Development Corporation to implement Lim's strategy for privatizing public resources, etc. is hereby documented, along with all or similar bills, laws similar or likened to, the Akaka Bill, etc.
Because Kamehameha's descendants exist, King David Kalakaua's descendants heirs/exist, and Queen Liliuokalani descendants/ heirs exist.
Premeditation of assuming the Hawaiian Islands are on record.
Placing Queen Liliuokalani under duress, stress, coercion, usurpation, etc. is on record.
Queen Liliuokalani documented that the U.S. breached the Law of Nations/treaty(ies) broken.
Placing Queen Liliuokalani's subjects /citizens numbering 40,000 under duress, stress, coercion, usurpation, etc. is on record.
Genocide activities has been discovered, uncovered in research and is on record. Includes Kalaupapa the leper colony, etc.
Criminal greed is on record, includes criminal conversions, fraud, deceit, treason, etc.
Criminal claims to Pearl Harbor made by American businessmen, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates Trustees, the U.S. government, etc.
Failure to protect the lives, health, safety of all in the Hawaiian Islands are on record. See attached articles about GMO/Genetic Modification Organisms; cell phones; water; toxins in the environment,
Continued activities intended to affect the true land owners, Sovereigns, descendants/heirs of Paiea/Kamehameha, Liholiho/ Kamehameha II, Kauikeouli/Kamehameha III, Alexander Liholiho/Kamehameha IV, Lot Kamehameha/ Kamehameha V, William Charles /King William Lunalilo, Kalakua/Kalakaua/ King David Kalakaua, Kaeha/Makaeha/Kamakaeah/Queen Liliuokalani and their loyal subjects/citizens will be cause for legal action through the Honolulu Police Department based on Genocide Activities file, etc.
The perpetuation of lies, deceit, criminal activities, genocide, piracy(ies) is not acceptable.
OHA/Office of Hawaiian Affairs; the claimed Royal Societies; Hawaiian Homes organizations are but agencies set up by an entity supported by the U.S. government with designs on lands, resources, etc. of good, pono, neutral nation's subjects/citizens whose ancestors did support Queen Liliuokalani who did no wrong.
The Wicked entities were set up by a premeditating, agressive, bankrupt, greedy bunch of thieves with wicked desires to aid their WARMONGERING ways.......intending to maintain everyone as SLAVES since the American Civil War because the debt was not paid for until 1934.
The Hawaiian Kingdom did go "under ground" and it is here.
Oppositions have been maintained and recorded over time by our families, friends of Queen Liliuokalani, Kamehameha's descendants/heirs, et. als.
Sincerely,
Amelia Gora, a Royal person, a living human being, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Royal Families House of Nobles/Hulu Manu, One of the Representatives of the Hawaiian Genealogical Society
• If you’re up for even more funny stuff, 
No comments:
Post a Comment