What is "The United States Government"?

[Jim Holmes]

A friend of mine pointed me to this article by Alfred Adask and I have
to share it. Great piece to share with those that deny the truth.

Somethin' Funny's Goin' On

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". 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
the Manta.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,

Alfred Adask

--

Marc H. Fishman
mfis...@osrservice.com

There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since
1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive
Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464,
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)