You have been told that Social Security is an insurance program run by the federal government. You were led to believe that your income would be taxed at a certain rate for the cost of the program. Then in times of medical emergency or upon retirement you would be eligible for Social Security benefits. On the surface, this would seem to be an equitable arrangement.

But the federal government failed to fully inform you as to all of the other ramifications of applying for a Social Security number. For instance, did you know that you became a federal employee? Well, you did – specifically you became a member of the Merchant Marine. You also became an employee of a corporation that is involved with importing to and from the U.S. possessions. Another consideration is that if FICA is based upon a percentage of your earnings, then the government has somehow been granted the right to know the amount of your income and the sources of your income – this is not a hallmark of freedom. These statements and more will be evidenced by the actual federal statutes and regulations further on this page.

Like all great magicians, the federal government has you looking at the obvious while hiding the basis of the trick that the magician is performing right in front of your eyes.

Lots of Americans have questioned the legitimacy of the personal income tax, but it seems that everyone just loves the Social Security program. Social Security is the sacred cow that no one is ever supposed to criticize. Oh, sure, some claimants of Social Security find fault with what claims are denied or only partially funded. And lots of people are now pointing out that Social Security is not going to be solvent in the near future. But up till now no one has questioned the legitimacy of the Social Security program. Well, that time has come.

Americans now live in a country with the largest government in the world. Since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal”, why would free, equal people need such a large government?

How did a country in which “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) end up subservient to a multitude of federal government agencies? If all Americans are created equal, how can some bureaucrat from the EPA regulate how an American’s land is to be used? How can some bureaucrat from the FDA regulate what an American can choose for healthcare? How can some bureaucrat from the SEC regulate how an American can invest money? How can some bureaucrat from the IRS regulate how much of an American’s money the federal government can take? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Labor dictate what an American may pay his employees? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Education determine what an American’s children must be taught?

A real crime consists of a victim and a perpetrator. The perpetrator has either initiated force or fraud against the victim. This means that the victim’s rights have been violated. The two sides are drawn in this type of scenario and the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. are clear. A court action may be initiated and the jury may deliberate after hearing all of the testimony. This upholds the premise that “all men are created equal”.

But when some federal government agency files a complaint against an American, what is the basis of the crime? The federal agency simply cites some regulation that the American violated – no victim is identified, no one’s rights have been violated. This does not uphold the premise that “all men are created equal”, but presumes that the federal government, through some bureaucratic agency, can force an American to do its bidding. How did this happen? The answer is buried deep in the Social Security scam. Applying for a Social Security number is tantamount to begging to be subservient to the federal government.

The following is somewhat complicated because it is the actual basis of the federal laws. After all, it’s not easy to subjugate an entire nation of free, sovereign people. But everything that I’ve written above will be legally verified and the actual basis of the regulations and statutes will be evidenced.

This site will forever end the conflict between the various “tax honesty movement” groups and the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. First of all, when dealing with the federal government of the United States, one must learn the definitions of the government’s legal “terms”. So let’s start with the definition of the term “taxpayer”.

From the regulations that implement the Internal Revenue Code, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), are the following:

“26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) The terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.”

“26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1, Definitions

(a) As used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise expressly provided –

(1) Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 27)

(2) Section means one of the sections of the regulations in this part.

(5) Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.

(b) Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”

Now since the regulation above at 26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) states that the terms used in this section have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of the term “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. And since 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(b) states insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, the definition of “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations that implement the Code.

The number “26” from the cites above is the number of the title, in this case title 26 is “internal revenue”. The number before the “.” from the cites above is the part number under the title, in this case “2”. The first number after the “.” from the cites above is the section number, in this case “1”. Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, referenced within the first of the above regulations, has to do with income tax.

The definition of the term “taxpayer” proves that a “taxpayer” is a federal employee, specifically within the Merchant Marine. Federal employment taxes only apply to federal employees. Did you know the definition of “taxpayer”? You must understand that when the government defines a “term” it no longer has anything to do with the original definition of the word as found in a dictionary.

The only definitions of “taxpayer” within chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are at 26 USC Sec. 1313(b) and 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(14). Both of these definitions vaguely define a “taxpayer” as someone subject to an internal revenue tax, but what “internal revenue” itself is remains unsaid.

Then what exactly is “internal revenue”? “Internal revenue” is a specific part of the customs. Customs derives revenue from the collection of duties on importing (and tonnage, the impact of a vessel on the harbor and wharves) from foreign countries. Internal revenue derives revenue from the collection of duties on importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws – the U.S. possessions and the coasting trade. Any court action concerning internal revenue is brought under the statute at title 28 USC , “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, Chapter 85, “District Courts; jurisdiction”, section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties” based upon revenue from the collection of duties on imports. This is derived from the foreign commerce clause. It is from within title 19, “Customs duties”, Sec. 1317, “Tobacco products; supplies for certain vessels and aircraft”, where the location of the definition of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is cited. This section within title 19, “Customs duties”, concerns exporting certain products and states that internal revenue laws include importing. The actual citation to the definition of the jurisdiction of internal revenue laws is within the link to my court case document further along in this page. (For more information concerning “internal revenue”, see the post titled “Internal Revenue Jurisdiction” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3Z on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog).

Why would the government presume that the I.R.S. can contact a citizen and label that citizen a “taxpayer”? The definition of “taxpayer” (at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as cited above) is a federal employee, within the Merchant Marine.

This is where Social Security comes into play. The federal government only has the three types of commerce jurisdiction as granted in the Constitution from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Each of the three commerce jurisdictions is cited separately under title 28, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; jurisdiction”. The cite to section 1336, “Surface Board Transportation orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in 1995, is the interstate commerce part of the commerce clause. The cite to section 1362, “Indian tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians part of the commerce clause. And as listed above, the cite to section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties” is the foreign commerce part of the commerce clause. The free, sovereign American has no nexus with the Federal government’s commerce jurisdiction.

From the Internal Revenue Code is the following:

“Title 26 U.S.C. section 7655, Cross references

(a) Imposition of tax in possessions

For provisions implementing tax in possessions, see-

(1) Chapter 2, relating to self-employment tax

(2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.”

Thus, as evidenced in the cross-references section above, the self-employment tax and FICA are possession taxes. They are also federal employment taxes, in other words, taxes imposed upon federal employees.

Since FICA is a possession tax, a free, sovereign American is not eligible for Social Security. Only citizens having U.S. citizenship within a U.S. possession would qualify for FICA.

The next term that one needs to learn is that of “U.S. citizen”. A person born in one of the sovereign states is not subject to the federal government unless that person commits one of the federal crimes listed in the Constitution, such as treason, counterfeiting, kidnapping across state lines, etc. The fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution defines a “U.S. citizen” as “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” A person born in one of the sovereign states is not subject to the limited jurisdiction of the federal government. After all, the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land, superceding the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, and it states that “all men are created equal”. To be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States requires U.S. possession citizenship. This is confirmed in the Internal Revenue Code at title 26 USC Sec. 2208 concerning estate taxes, 26 USC Sec. 2501(b) concerning gift taxes, and 26 CFR Sec. 1.932-1 concerning income taxes. Both 26 USC Sec. 2208 and 26 USC Sec. 2501(b) define the term “United States citizen” “wherever used in this title”. The regulations under 26 USC Sec. 2501 exemplify exactly what is meant by the statutes at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c). A “U.S. citizen” is someone born in one of the sovereign states who then establishes a residence in Puerto Rico and further acquires Puerto Rican citizenship. Now I know of no one born in one of the sovereign States who would ever voluntarily acquire US possession citizenship (even if that American had a winter home there) – why would anyone give up sovereignty to become subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government? It’s obvious that the real objective of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not to guarantee anyone’s rights – it was to subjugate all Americans to the federal government’s hidden agenda by being able to use the term “U.S. citizen” in contracts and legal decisions. This also allowed the government to write laws and make court decisions that distinguish between U.S. possession citizens and “U.S. citizens”, making it appear that the federal government had jurisdiction over all Americans. But the key is that an American (anyone born in one of the sovereign States) is not a “U.S. citizen” (unless that American actually established a residence in a U.S. possession and further acquired U.S. possession citizenship). The next time you are asked if you are a “U.S. citizen”, just say “no”. For more on the 14th Amendment go to “The 14th Amendment Destroyed America’s Sovereignty” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-7B .

As stated above, “internal revenue” is a specific part of customs. Customs concerns foreign commerce. Since “internal revenue” is within the customs, the U.S. possessions are defined as foreign countries within the Internal Revenue Code, for example; 26 USC Sec. 865(i)(3), Sec. 872(b)(7), and Sec. 2014(g). This is necessary to consider “internal revenue” as foreign commerce. The federal government owns the U.S. possessions and may designate them in any fashion that suits it. However, as will be evidenced within this page and the link to the court document herein, the reason that the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries is to foment the personal income tax dispute while ignoring the cause – Social Security.

So the question remains, how could a sovereign American ever be eligible for Social Security? This is where the concept of “Agreements entered into by American employers with respect to foreign affiliates” comes into play as defined at title 26 USC Section 3121(l). An “American employer” (defined at 26 USC Section 3121(h)) is further defined under 26 USC Section 3121(l) as having a foreign subsidiary and that wants to extend the insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act (FICA) to the U.S. citizens who are employed by its foreign affiliate. The regulations under this section at 26 CFR 31.3121(l) direct to 26 CFR 36.3121(l)-0. It is here that it states that the “American employer” has made an agreement with the IRS to extend the insurance coverage of Social Security, through FICA, to employees of a foreign subsidiary of the “American employer”. This is the hidden connection between an American and the IRS. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty. The government has created the “American employer”, which is an employer of Americans, in order to initiate the Social Security fraud.

It is, therefore, necessary for an American to be both a “taxpayer” and a “U.S. citizen” to be eligible to apply for a Social Security number. By applying for a Social Security number, an American has given the federal government prima facie evidence that that person is a “U.S. citizen” and a “taxpayer”. After all, it is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The combination of the terms “U.S. citizen” and “taxpayer” is known as a “U.S. resident”. This is defined at title 26 USC Sec. 865(g). A “U.S. citizen”, in other words, a person born in one of the sovereign states who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and further acquires U.S. possession citizenship, who now resides in the United States would be a foreigner since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries. The next time someone wants to know if you are a “U.S. resident”, just say “no”. (For more information concerning the term “resident”, see the post titled “The U.S. Resident” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog).

The Internal Revenue Manual declares that “The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, … tax laws … involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements …”. So right here the government is informing everyone of the limited jurisdiction of the CID within the IRS. Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, the sovereign States are foreign to them.

The income tax was first established within an Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes”. Sections 49 through 51 established an income tax upon collectors of internal revenue. Section 49 established the income tax and stated that it applied to “the persons hereinafter named”. Section 50 then named assessors and collectors of internal revenue duties, along with other government officials. Section 51 granted the government the right to levy those who were delinquent in their payments of the tax. (For a more in depth examination of the income tax, link to “The Income Tax and the Act of Congress that established it” here at http://wp.me/pCW6e-4A on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog). The Internal Revenue Service always points to the Supreme Court case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) as their Constitutional right to collect income taxes. Mr. Frank Brushaber was an assessor and collector for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, acting as their fiduciary (agent in trust). He was therefore legally subject to the income tax. This is why the Supreme Court stated that the federal government always had the power to implement income taxes – of course the federal government can implement income taxes on its revenue collectors/assessors. Please note that the Act of Congress that initiated the income tax is based upon revenue from importing.

Part of the definition of “taxpayer” concerns section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Within section 511 is the definition of a controlled foreign corporation. This matches with the scenario of an “American employer” that consists of a domestic corporation that has a foreign subsidiary. Within the Internal Revenue Code at 26 USC Sec. 902 is the provision for a domestic corporation to treat income taxes paid by its foreign subsidiary as a dividend. The actual internal revenue code sections that are the basis of an income tax return are more fully evidenced in the link to my court case papers further along in this page.

The definition of “taxpayer” also states that it may include a partnership. A Social Security number is a person’s membership number in the partnership that is the “taxpayer”. The definition of “net earnings from self-employment” at 26 USC Sec. 1402(a) defines such earnings as including the distributive shares from a partnership, whether or not distributed. The regulations under the self-employment statute, 26 USC Sec. 1402, allow for a partnership to be treated as a corporation without affecting the self-employment directive in the statute concerning the distributive share of the partner. This is evidenced at 26 CFR 1.1402(a)-2(g).

Therefore, by applying for a Social Security number one has become a “U.S resident”, a term within the Internal Revenue Code that includes the definitions of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen”. A free sovereign American that applies for a Social Security number has unwittingly applied to become an employee of a foreign affiliate of an “American employer” that itself is the “taxpayer” and that holds an undistributed dividend for each of its partners, said dividend being derived from income taxes paid by its foreign subsidiary. This is, therefore, self-employment income attributed to the individual partner who applied for a Social Security number and now, since the dividend is derived from revenue from importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, subject to the income tax. In other words, the “U.S. Resident” is a federal tax collector of revenue from importing duties within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.

Why doesn’t the individual have to list the income from this undistributed dividend? Well, the IRS Form 1040 is actually a foreign tax credit form. The income from the undistributed dividend is offset by a foreign tax credit – FICA. Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, FICA is a foreign tax.

The government has slowly brainwashed Americans over many generations to believe that an American’s earnings are somehow a federally taxable item. But the income tax only applies to collectors and assessors of internal revenue taxes. So by selecting Frank Brushaber to be the government’s poster boy for the Supreme Court ruling, everyone believed that earning income somehow was now under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Yet other Supreme Court rulings have consistently ruled that the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing authority to the federal government. The Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) Supreme Court decision stated that the “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”. Also the Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 237 U.S. 165 (1918) Supreme Court decision stated that “The Sixteenth Amendment… does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”. Since the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, then the revenue being generated from the income tax must be taxable under one of the existing commerce jurisdictions granted to the government by the Constitution. As evidenced within this blog, that jurisdiction is foreign commerce. (For more information concerning the Supreme Court decisions, see the post titled “The Supreme Court decisions concerning the 16th Amendment” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3a on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog).

It is obvious that the government never intended that Social Security should be a benevolent insurance program. By hiding the definitions of “taxpayer”, “U.S. citizen”, and “U.S. resident” the government is able to use common, ordinary words to hide their true intentions. When an American hears the word “taxpayer” the meaning is “a payer of taxes”, while the government means a federal employee in the Merchant Marine. Then to use an undistributed dividend to export the necessary income to all the partners within the partnership (the American employer that is the true “taxpayer”) in order to make it legal from the government’s viewpoint to enforce the income tax laws upon all Social Security applicants is truly beyond the scope of any kind of honest credibility. The government’s machinations behind the Social Security scheme are truly malicious and hateful.

I am now involved with the most important federal tax case in history. The government has become the “tax protester” in my case and refuses to obey the law. The courts have actually failed in their most basic duty, that of ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, specifically the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791. (For more information concerning my constitutional challenge to this Act of Congress, see the post titled “The Whiskey Rebellion” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-1b on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog). As such, it has become my duty pursuant to the Declaration of Independence to inform all free sovereign Americans of the Social Security fraud being imposed upon them. The Declaration of Independence states “But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. The long convoluted trail to the personal income tax through the Social Security scam certainly qualifies as evincing a design to reduce Americans under absolute despotism. Ever since the Declaration of Independence inked the words “all men are created equal”, the government has been slowly, deliberately, and surreptitiously planning the Social Security fraud.

Here is the link to the latest document that I have filed in my federal tax case: Federal Case #08-273 (WDPA) Defendant’s Reply. Please note that any unsealed document on the court’s docket is public domain. Outside of the Department of Justice and it’s subordinate Federal Judiciary, I don’t believe that anyone else actually knows the underlying law. I have been involved in a federal court case wherein the judge relied upon the representative of the Department of Justice for instructions! Don’t expect your local IRS to understand any of this – IRS employees are just other people who have been brainwashed their entire lives. However, I find the people who work as agents and officers of the IRS don’t even understand the concept of freedom.

The above Defendant’s Reply exhibits the actual statutes and regulations behind Social Security (FICA) and the personal income tax. There is one typo on page 19 of the Defendant’s Reply. The reply mistakenly prefixes the USC title for “Bankruptcy” as 26 when it should be 11. The same is true for the associated CFR, 26 CFR should read as 11 CFR “Federal elections”. This, by the way, is the legal evidence that the federal government is bankrupt; Title 11 USC “Bankruptcy” is implemented by Title 11 CFR “Federal elections”. The international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve System) bankrupted the federal government in 1933 and wrote the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 to collect money from all free Americans by combining the previous internal revenue laws, Social Security, and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. By applying for a Social Security number an American has given away all sovereignty (freedom from external control) and become a slave for the government, which itself is a bankrupt entity owned by the international counterfeiters. To see more about the bankruptcy and the reasons that Social Security was created, see the Post “The Fed Owns the Gov’t – The Gov’t Controls its Employees – Social Security Makes Americans into Federal Employees” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-5J on the “Posts for Freedom” page of this Blog.

All IRS indictments hide the actual charge by simply labeling the defendant (victim) as a “resident”, referring to the term “resident” as defined at 26 USC Sec. 865(g), which includes the definitions of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” along with the implied reference to importing (the cite to 26 USC Section 911). Once this understanding reaches the general population, there can be no convictions of any American for personal income tax crimes. (For an in depth examination of the actual charge of willful failure see the post titled “Title 26 USC Sec. 7203, Willful failure to file” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-1y on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog).

I will be Blogging more about my case as the days go forward. The Congress has reconvened and it is time that we free, sovereign Americans start to pay attention to what is going on in Washington, D.C. And we should not simply pay attention to what is going on there, we should be directing it! We Americans are the sovereigns and the government is made up of public servants. The only way that the government can claim sovereign immunity is based upon Americans applying for Social Security numbers and, thus, declaring themselves to be “U.S. residents”. This is why the government claims that the income tax is voluntary – each of us voluntarily applied for a Social Security number (although nowadays it is the custom to register an American’s children at an early age to qualify for exemptions). The very first law that established Social Security for state employees uses the term “voluntary” – title 42 USC Section 418, “Voluntary agreements for coverage of State and local employees”. In the eyes of the federal government any American who has applied for a Social Security number has waived all sovereignty and has volunteered to be subject to the personal income tax and, thus, no better off than the serfs of old England.

The internal revenue laws have been intentionally misconstrued in order to bring about the plethora of federal alphabet agencies that are now regulating all “U.S. Residents”. To see more concerning the aggrandizement of the government’s powers go to the Post titled “The Medicine and Drug Laws are Internal Revenue Laws” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-4M on this Blog.

One further item should be noted. The personal income tax upon free, sovereign Americans is based upon the Social Security fraud. However, the corporate income tax is probably legal since a corporation is a government creation and if the government wishes to consider a corporation as a “U.S. resident”, which it does in the definition at 26 USC Sec. 865(g), then that is fine. Any true foreigner may be subject to an income tax if the government so desires. But the government’s Social Security fraud upon free, sovereign Americans to subject them to an income tax is patently malevolent and purely evil. Income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Inheritance tax is the third plank of the Communist Manifesto. Having the government controlling education is the tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto. It was in high school that I was told that I had to have a Social Security number.

The ultimate conclusion behind the Social Security scam is that the federal government is fully aware that all Americans are free, sovereign individuals because the Declaration of Independence is the organic and fundamental first law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal”. We Americans can simply reclaim our status and abolish the concept of Social Security as a federal insurance program since it only applies to “U.S. residents”.

If you have downloaded my court document from this Page of this Blog then you have seen some of what exactly F.I.C.A. is in reality. For an in depth examination of F.I.C.A. go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-5i – it’s a railroad tax that is applicable to seamen!

I have written a Post that incorporates all of the information from this Page in “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-6N – the liability for filing income tax returns is exposed by the actual statutes and regulations.

THERE IS MUCH MORE FOR ALL AMERICANS TO LEARN!!

THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS BEING PAID FOR BY “TAXPAYERS”!

NOTICE TO ANYONE WHO HAS ORDERED MY CD TITLED “THE UNITED STATES DOESN’T OWN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER” – PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION – http://wp.me/pCW6e-6B – THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT !

There is a movie available on Google titled “The Money Changers – How the International Bankers Gained Control of America” that will reinforce everything that has been written on this Page. It is approximately 3 1/2 hours long, but well worth the view.

To see what’s behind the scenes, go to “The Bankers’ Blueprint to Destroy American Sovereignty” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-7h .

I have written a memorandum titled “The United States Doesn’t Own the Mississippi River” which exposes the entire history of the New World. What Americans have been taught is a fairy tale. It starts with the Post of the same name on this Blog, but goes much, much further. I have cited the actual statutes, regulations, and other official documents of the United States. What you will read will educate you and, at the same time, anger you.

You will learn that the Civil War was preplanned long ago. You will understand what the “Union” actually means. Find out why Social Security is headquartered in Baltimore while all other federal headquarters are in Washington, D.C. See for yourself that the “taxpayer” paid for 9/11. Nearly everything that has happened during America’s history was preplanned long ago.

Here’s the order form:

================================================