- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


Robyna Choleton

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

June 9k, 2016

Greetings to all

Schools in America continue to teach students that the government of the United States was established as a constitutional republic, meaning that the tenets of the Constitution for the united States of America would hold officers, employees and elected officials as accountable to perform their public duties within constitutional limitations.

Now that the chuckles (or even guffaws) plus the thoughts of "Yeah, right!" may have subsided -- from having read the possibly humorous statement above, one has to wonder if the ostensibly "public" school system, in teaching students about American history, has condescended towards cluing-in students to the fact that when the War Between the States (aka the Civil War) commenced, c. 1861, then US president Abraham Lincoln, once faced with having no Congress assembled for any subsequent legislative action (because all representatives packed up and went home, following the southern states' secession from the Union), preceded to operate the United States as a dictatorship, illegally.  The former constitutional republic up to 1861 morphed into what became a legislative democracy, that still exists today, but with important additional distinctions.

In addition to the Constitution for the united States of America becoming usurped when Lincoln ruled with his Congress missing in action, his adviser Francis Lieber (a Prussian by race and nationality) drafted up what became called the "Lieber Code".  Article 100 of the Lieber Code identifies conditions for a country that's operated under conditions of martial rule and martial law.  The condition called martial rule has thus existed since Lincoln's presumption of becoming a dictator, and has never changed, even up to the dictators in the current US administration -- operated now as a corporation and a de facto "government", but in name only -- and still under martial rule.

Does the now incorporated private school system (formerly public) teach students of American history not only what's identified in the foregoing paragraph, but also the fact that in 1871, the then recalled Congress (now subordinate to the sitting president) passed into law the Act of 1871, which created a corporate form of government for the District of Columbia?  A substitute constitution was then floated by criminally acting attorneys to make it appear to the hoi polloi as the same one as before, albeit with important distinctions.  The title of this substitute constitution was called The Constitution of the United States, but not followed by "of America".  This bogus document failed to show the prior ratified 13th Article in Amendment that prevented attorneys from holding any public office, and referred to as the Titles of Nobility amendment.

It may thus be argued that if the "government" (in name only) of the United States is operated as a corporation, and the replacement "constitution" represents the corporate bylaws for itself, then it may well be assumed that a private corporation exists in lieu of the de jure constitutional republic.  If this private corporation thus wishes to bend its rules, that's strictly a matter for the corporate officers to deal with, but should be of no concern for the American people at large.

'Trouble with this thinking is that the American people were never properly apprised of the fact that Washington, the District of New Columbia (DC) became a foreign corporate city-state, with absolutely no obligations to the American people whatsoever.  However, does this realization substantiate as valid this usurpation of the American people's will to have a representative- and thus republican form of government located in DC?  Of course not.  So the American people, still possessing sovereignty upon their land -- have now experienced the fruition of a renegade "government", now in name only (albeit attending to some governmental services), that's treasonous to the American people, and its actions are wholly insurgent and renegade.

'Coming full circle, we have an imposter and a proven liar in the White House, who is NOT an American by his own prior admission, and yet his political party found no objections in vetting him notwithstanding this important and unconstitutional criterion -- that all candidates for president of the United States whom are nominated by their party to run for this office shall be naturally born Citizens, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Plausible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, is not an American by birth in this country, was uncovered via an ID card that was issued to Soetoro from his attendance at Columbia University, located in New York City.  Adding to the evidence is a likeness of Soetoro's face from his photograph shown on the ID card.  Please see the forwarded exhibit that offers this impression.

Some would argue that this detail of Soetoro's foreign birth "makes no difference" to use a hackneyed quip from another scalawag on Capitol Hill called Hillary Clinton, who is another wannabe whom is categorically unqualified to run for the office of president of the United States (let alone even become the president of the United States), even if the US is incorporated.  All Americans who support Clinton for president should become candidates for psychiatric evaluation.

Since the selection of US president by the powers that be, of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), all presidents of the corporate United States with the one exception of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK), are hardly the American people's will, even if one gives credence to the interface of the Electoral College as acting appropriately.  United States citizens as voters may only accrue three (3) electoral college electors (as the maximum electors allotted for the District of Columbia).  'Small wonder why the American people's will is hardly reflected in any election for the US president

The fact that the ostensible chief executive officer as president of the corporate United States is a foreigner, and who does not meet the constitutional criterion of being naturally born in this country, means that Americans possessing the sovereignty of the people have no legitimate government for the United States.  Incorporation of DC in 1871 to be called the "United States", plus permitting a foreign national to occupy an office that's for a private corporation, but one purporting to be public, means that Americans in whom rests the sovereignty of the nation, have no obligation whatsoever to honor anything or anyone who comes from this private sector corporation called the United States, that's masquerading as legitimate, when it's merely de facto in legality.

A movement to self-actuate a revocation of the phony voter "right" should become the honorable step to take for any American who wishes to politically distance him- or herself from having anything whatever to do with the governance of a private sector corporation, regardless of what the corporate owners wish to call it.  An illegitimate body that pretends to be legitimate, is not going to fool the American people all of the time.  And since corporate subsidiaries have been made of every formerly sovereign state of the former Union, and extending this corporate network to the county level in any state, means that the American people whose political will and franchise have been usurped cannot and should not tolerate a status quo of being presumed to be US citizens, when in fact Americans have by and large never been US citizens in fact.

The correct title for Americans who possess the sovereignty that can never be traded away, is state national.  Just because the former states of the Union decided to relinquish their national status by becoming corporate subsidiaries to DC does not and cannot constitute subordination of the American people to become a mere corporate status.

Robyna Choleton