Submitted By B --- Thanks
WE DO NOT HAVE
A 'REPUBLIC' OR THE 'CONSTITUTION' OF THE 'REPUBLIC'
WE ARE 'GOVERNED'
BY AN ENORMOUS CORPORATION THAT
CALLS ITSELF THE USA
THE REPUBLIC WAS TAKEN OVER BY A
COUP MANY YEARS AGO AND IS BEING RUN AS A MONEY MAKING
(huh???) DICTATORSHIP BY THE LIKES OF THE MICROSOFTS,
IBMS, WAL-MARTS, ETC ONLY IT IS CALLED THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (CORPORATION) - HOW ABOUT WAGING
'WARS' AND RUNNING DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION AND HUMAN
TRAFFICING AND MIND CONTROL AND TAKING OVER ALL THE
FORMER 'GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES, THE MILITARY, THE
POLICE, THE NATIONAL GUARD, ETC. AND MAKING THEM ALL
IN TO ONE HUGE CORPORATION OWNED AND OPERATED KILLING
MACHINE??????????
READ BELOW FOR YOUR PROOF.
I
wish I could claim to have compiled this report, but I
cannot. Whoever did, many many kudos to you. Wish your
information had been included so I could personally
thank you. My 'Notes' are in purple.
****************************** **********************
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”.
Pretty
funny, hmm?
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 ” It’s 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”). But
the report begins 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? 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: “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. And bear in mind that this “Government”
and all its various “branches” are being reported by
D&B to be individual, private companies.
(Note: I have been
trying to inform Americans for many years that
WE DO NOT HAVE A VOTE. THEY WANT US TO CONTINUE
TO BE DECEIVED - MAKES ALL THIS MUCH EASIER
FOR THEM TO PULL OFF - SO THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT
WE ARE ACTUALLY IN CONTROL WHEN WE VOTE!!. THE
PRESIDENT AND THE SENATORS AND THE CONGRESS CRITTERS
DO NOT WORK FOR YOU AND ME. THEY WORK FOR THIS PRIVATE
'CORPORATION,' AND THE TOP OFFICERS OF THE
CORPORATION ARE PRE-SELECTED AS TO WHO WILL BE
OCCUPYING THE OFFICES OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT,
SECRETARY OF STATE AS WELL AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE. EVEN JUDGES ARE SELECTED. WE DO NOT
HAVE A VOTE.
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? But where? In the
Senate chamber? The House of Representatives? Some
cloak room? Curiouser and curiouser.
Under “State of Incorporation ”
you’ll read “Information not found”. This could mean that
this “Government” 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. The 9th State (
New Hampshire ) did not 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.”
Since the Constitution created our
modern federal “Government” and could not have been
ratified by We the People before 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. Similarly, given that the new
“Government” created by the Constitution 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. 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 “221” or even “220”? 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”. 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 (and probably two) before
the Constitution itself was ratified and the resulting
federal government became operational. 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 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 used to
report that the “Government” began in “1787,” it now
reports that it’s been in business for “223”
years. That’s not 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 ” is correctly declares
that it 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. (Note: I
have been trying to inform Americans about this for
years. Wish to heck I had written this report.)
Under
the Constitution ratified by the People in A.D. 1788,
the
enacting authority and national sovereigns are We
the People. 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,
then you and I are subjects or even
slaves. If the
Constitution “approved” by Congress in A.D. 1787 were
in effect (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 1788 and the resulting government
didn’t become operational until 1789, D&B’s report
that the government began “223” years ago and/or began
in “1787” can’t be accurate. It seems 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,
the “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 or D/B/A for the
House of Representatives, Inc.?
The 2009 edition of Manta.com’s
report on Nancy Pelosi 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 the House of Reps 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?
• 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 Social
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 on the link to “Internal
Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Dst Council,” you’ll
read, “Internal
Revenue Service is a private company categorized under
Federal Government-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
the IRS, who are you 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 you’ll still find today, but
if you can find ‘em and if you read closely, you may be
fascinated: “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 be able to 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”. 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 subjects,
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
seems 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?
