Do We Live in Democracies or Corporations – What is Your Vote?

Published Sunday, 7th August, 2016 | By Susan AKA Peacefull

The postings below are very interesting. Do we really have a democracy? Are you open to a diversity of ideas, different opinions or do you see threats in something you don’t agree with? Do we shutdown those we don’t agree with or do we engage in debate or discussion like the Greek Agora forums? What does real democracy actually look like, what is the real philosophy beneath it, and do we live it? I wonder how it would change our world if like Voltaire’s famous quote (actually Evelyn Hall’s quote) we lived:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Your challenge is: Can you truly defend the right to freedom of speech or is it lip service?

Here in Australia an Australian citizen challenged the government over import duties on a luxury car to discover he was dealing with a Corporation. This raised issues for him of what is a representative government? what is democracy? Who has control if a corporation is parading as the government?

In my recent experience with government and its use of compliance language rather than democratic practice, has made me focus intensely on what is democracy? Do I have a right as a citizen or consumer? What are those rights? Am I heard? Does that require a response or am I ignored? Do i want a corporate framework operating over social welfare or social services given the public good (public ownership) nature of these services. They are typically cross subsidisation to ensure equality over populations and distance (geography). We call it giving a fair go to everyone. There is a strong streak of egalitarianism in Australian social history.

So, if the government becomes a incorporated business then they tend to regard welfare as mutual obligation not social responsibility or obligation under the Australian Constitution. Increasingly they may consciously or unconsciously (changing norms) regard social services as a waste of public money as they are not generating profits. They may view the unemployed, not as a result of the inability of market forces to ensure full employment, they may accord to these people a status that is ‘taking’ from society not ‘giving’ or paying their way standing on their own two feet, hence a drain on the public purse. I’d just like to say whilst I am on this topic that unemployment benefits are the same as pump priming in the sense that the money paid to welfare recipients gets injected into the economy through their expenditure (gives a boost to economic growth). It gives people freedom to choose what they buy rather than choosing for them with food stamps (I don’t agree with the latter treats people as children). So economically speaking, they buy food, pay rent and essentials given the low amount of income. So it is actually really important from the perspective of keeping money in the country and generating wealth through the multiple propensity to consume. They spend locally. Very important. Those with higher incomes tend to purchase more from overseas. In addition, we have a Goods and Services Tax (GST) here so everyone pays tax, everyone is contributing, voting with money, so there are no bludgers just those who do not fit Human Resource or training criteria of business. I realised the negativity towards the unemployed had its roots in jealousy. It comes from media and social conditioning designed to make people feel guilt for not working as the system needs workers. Moreover, those working felt jealous as deep down they wanted freedom and didn’t want others to be not working. So there are psychological issues in this. We aren’t facing our unhappiness, most saying I have no choice, yet they live in a democracy. They can change that. Together we can problem solve and envisage what we truly want.

Returning the topic of democracy. I am observing that mainstream society is losing its sense of what this means. Young people have no idea. As it is not generally role modelled. We notice on computers people accepting terms and conditions with a tick about conditions they don’t know, they get used to waiving their rights, as they want to keep on. Recordings of our voices are now stated that this is happening, before they asked for you to say if you didn’t want it. Slight of hand removing the thought of a right to say no. We see people just saying yes to things that obligate them legally without full knowledge. In addition, subtly people do not believe they have a say as the government or corporation is the authority. There are studies like the Milgram Experiment that shows how some people blindly comply with authority and can be influenced to violent actions without consulting conscience or self determination. They disregard their common sense putting their trust in the authority. People who stand up have been seen as trouble makers or whistle blowers, yet in a democracy every citizen has the right to freedom of expression (providing not inciting violence) and free to contribute to their society. Politicians get influenced by political action groups (PACs), lobbyists, media, party heavy weights, faceless faces influencing affairs behind the scenes that the public is not privy to. There is a pragmatic mindset behind this – accepting business as usual, or this is the way we get things done, group think, fear of standing out etc. As this continues there is a loss of real respect for the public they represent as the public don’t say anything. They mostly don’t know or feel apathy and allow it. You can see that play out through government standard letters that don’t address specifics of your letter. There is the feeling of non-engagement, connection with representatives until election time, even then you don’t know who they are, most don’t care. Even at the ballot box there is all these names and faces few know but are forced (in Australia) to vote for. The ballot paper is not constructed as a survey where all the issues are rated on what the citizen prefers and levels of agreement or satisfaction. As a market analyst myself I’d like to see voting in this way so that we statistically calculate what do people want from their government and what they are truly voting for. We need to know there preferences not in personalities but in subject matters that affect their lives. Here in Australia it would be Medicare, education, health care, aged care, welfare, less working hours, higher wages, standard of living, employment and measures to create harmony and social order etc. That is what I’d prefer if I had a real vote.

So turning to the issue, the corporatisation of government. This is a very important subject and may well be mirroring the complacency and ignorance around real democracy – real choice and real representation that reflects the population not special interests or party preferred actions. Let’s start with this video – What the FUQ? It highlights the issue of an Australian and his realisation of the corporatisation of our government, it has been brilliantly put together, highlights the power of a citizen asking questions, perhaps we all should ask more questions, what do you think? Then we will look at the Americans.

I am just looking over Google for articles. Now what is interesting is some say legally it is not a corporation. Others talk about the influence of billionaires in terms of choosing candidates etc. So I sat there and thought you have to ask the right question. Are the citizens of a country (named…) representated by their elected representatives? That is, are the views, opinions, wishes, preferences of the majority of citizens informing national policy, laws and culture, hence influencing and being actioned by decision makers? Another important question is do I live in reality in a democracy? Well if I spend most of my time at work I don’t. If I am in a family do they vote? No. What about sports clubs? no! So I look at the reality on the ground and it appears to me that we don’t. Corporations are dictatorships they have a long history, just go back to mercantilism, the trading companies. The idea of ‘he who owns the gold rules the world’ tends to tell me the state of play. Al Gore comes to mind “the planet or the gold bar?” We do have choices and that can not be taken from anyone, we may self censor. We have complied by not owning our democracy, perhaps that is closer to the truth. I could easily go further and look into what shapes public opinion e.g. media, experts, education, families, friends, social pressure, customs, tradition, history etc. Does that truly make citizens independent in their opinions.

However, as a market analyst I can see that people in focus groups get to reflect which they normally don’t. They sit with a group of their peers and it is interesting to see them contemplating what things mean. I see community forums as another way of empowering people to share ideas, compare, contrast and then ask better questions. So organisating a real democracy will take time and money and citizens views valued. I know from my own experience they have excellent ideas and there is a collective wisdom. I trust our society to creating a better future, they will think of their kids and they naturally want better. That is why they work hard for their future, much sacrifice out of love. I really respect citizens and I know they have lots of challenges, I’ve seen incredible courage in ordinary people trying to survive and keep it together. I just want a moment here to honour them.

A form of democracy process I personally prefer is deliberative democracy whereby both sides are presented, not by insiders, but by respected experts/experienced persons (in the subject area) as a means of educating the public so they can make better decisions. If we are talking specific news networks I’d say opinion pieces given airplay to support the political interests of media moguls does not provide informed decision making, it is biased and it does play the public as mindless. In truth they are not educated to be discerning, they are not stupid. I know that as I was uneducated before university and I had no idea, now I know. Some media is designed to influence opinions, hence being political not educational. There is a real difference. One is self interested the other in the best interests of people.

Okay so let me paste an article here and you decide. I’d ask you to go into your own truth not the truth of others. Ask to be shown my inner wisdom for the highest good of myself and others. I usually frame it that way if I need guidance. Then ask a few questions is this what I truly want? Listen to feeling inwardly. Is this beneficial for my children? Will this be beneficial for my own future? Inner truth usually will illuminate for you what is in your own highest interests. Others seldom know. They operate from their own worldview.

Here is an interesting perspective, tongue in cheek.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/the-united-states-of-america-inc_b_5110348.html

The United States of America, Incorporated
04/08/2014 09:17 am ET | Updated Jun 08, 2014
280

Barry Levinson
Academy Award-winning director, screenwriter and producer

Now that the Supreme Court has decided that elections can be played with by the high rollers, it’s time to admit that anything that we value can be bought for the right price. It’s time for a change of name as well: The United States of America, Incorporated. It has a nice, greedy ring to it. Very direct, and the intentions of the country are clear. No more false dreams.

I have a proposal that supports this commercialism of America and will raise enormous sums of money. Lease the rights to government buildings, much like we do with sport stadiums throughout the country. Met Life Stadium, Fed Ex Field, AT&T Stadium, Sports Authority Field, Bank of America Stadium. I am not sure where these stadiums are anymore, but they are football stadiums. You can look it up if you have nothing better to do.

The Sports Authority Senate Building has a nice ring to it. If Gillette Stadium works for the New England Patriots, why not the Gillette FBI Building? Not to leave out some of our billionaires who contribute enormous dollars to the candidates they choose, how about a few high-profile monuments? The Koch Brothers Washington Monument? That should receive a high rental!! The Sheldon Adelson Lincoln Memorial? Or The Lucas Oil Lincoln Memorial? Lucas Oil could be looking for higher visibility since they have a stadium that most people can’t remember. Lease it to the highest bidder. There is a lot of money out there for the thoughtful entrepreneur who wants to increase the government coiffeurs.

The bottom line is paramount to this new America and it’s time to put our money-making hats on. Forget that it lacks dignity or decorum. Money talks. The big lease that should pull in the big bucks is the naming rights to the White House. Hefty dollars for that choice piece of real estate. Think of it: Every time a newsman stands in front of the White House, the leasing rights buyer gets to hear the company name: “This is Brian Williams at the Walmart White House…” “This is Wolf Blitzer at the Miracle Gro® Rose Garden.” Every corporation or billionaire will see dollar signs dancing in front of their bottom-line eyes!

This is a bonanza for our treasury. The Supreme Court has freed up our sense of propriety. Our democracy is for sale.

The Supreme Court may already be sold, but the naming rights are available.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Here is a legal perspective, then a controversial perspective below. Take on board all views, but you be the final authority not those of us saying our part. We all have equal wisdom

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm

Dear Friends,

For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,

there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.

There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating

either the “United States” or the “United States of America”.

In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District

of Columbia, but D.C. and the “United States” are not

one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also

expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),

the Supreme Court wrote:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html

“We may say in passing that the argument that the

United States may be treated as a corporation

organized under its own laws, that is, under the

Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained

as not to merit serious consideration .”

Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have

originated in the definition of “UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union

See Paragraph 5 quoted here:

“5. The United States of America are a corporation

endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey

and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.

But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought

against the United States without authority of law.”

Note that the plural verb “are” was used, providing further

evidence that the “United States of America” are plural,

as implied by the plural term “States”. Also, the author

of that definition switches to “United States” in the second

sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the

term “United States” has three (3) different legal meanings:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states

However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,

and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again,

be very wary of courts attempting to “legislate” in the absence

of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the

statute defining the required enacting clause:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html

And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:

“no suit can be brought against the United States

without authority of law”. That statement is not only

correct; it also provides another important clue:

Congress has conferred legal standing on the “United States”

to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html

Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing

upon the “United States of America” to sue, or be sued,

as such.

Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term

“United States of America” is the “stile” or phrase that was used

to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States

of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence

Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and

Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

“The United States of America.”

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,

and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,

which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated

to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

[end excerpt]

When they came together the first time to form

a Union of several (plural) States, they decided

to call themselves the “United States of America”.

Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished

“United States of America” from “United States”

in Congress assembled. The States formally

delegated certain powers to the federal government,

which is clearly identified in those Articles as the

“United States”.

Therefore, the “United States of America” now refer to

the 50 States of the Union, and the term “United States”

refers to the federal government.

The term “United States” is the term that is used consistently now

throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled

in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the

term “United States of America” is used, and there it is used

in correct contradistinction to “United States”:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html

Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,

the consistent use of “United States” to refer to the federal

government carries enormous weight. Title 28 is the latest word

on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law

on June 25, 1948. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates

Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.

To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,

the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”

incorporated twice in the State of Delaware:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp

The main problem that arises from these questions is that

United States Attorneys are now filing lawsuits and

prosecuting criminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic]

but without any powers of attorney to do so. Compare

28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent

the “United States” and its agencies in federal courts):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html

They are NOT “United States of America Attorneys”, OK?

First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney

to represent Delaware corporations in federal courts;

Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so

and Congress never conferred any powers of attorney

on them to do so either.

Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented

by their respective State Attorneys General; therefore,

U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent

any of the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies,

either.

They are “U.S. Attorneys” NOT “U.S.A. Attorneys”, OK?

Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney

to attempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf

of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic]. And,

such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act

at 28 U.S.C. 530B:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html

There are quite a few “activists” running around the Internet

claiming that the “United States” and the “United States of

America” are both corporations. These claims are not correct,

for the reasons already stated above.

A similar error occurs when these so-called “activists” cite

the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only “proof”

that the “United States” was incorporated by Congress.

Here’s the pertinent text of that statute:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html

As used in this chapter:

…

(15) “United States” means —

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or

other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

[end excerpt]

First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition

is limited to “this chapter” i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 –

Federal Debt Collection Procedures. Overlooking the

limited scope of such definitions is a very common error

among many, if not all self-styled experts. At best, this section

cannot be used as evidence that the federal government

should be treated as a valid corporation for all other intents

and purposes. It takes a LOT more text than this one limited

definition to create any federal corporation! Compare the

original Statutes at Large that created the Union Pacific

Railroad Company, for example.

Secondly, from the evidence above it should already

be clear that the “United States” (federal government)

is not now, and never has been, a federal corporation.

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the

term “United States” to embrace all existing federal

corporations. Because the United States was not

an existing corporation when Congress enacted

section 3002, that statute did not create and could

not have created the United States as a federal

corporation in the first instance.

Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court

told Congress that it was barred from re-defining

any terms that are used in the federal Constitution.

“United States” occurs in several places, because it is central

to the entire purpose of that Constitution. Therefore,

the legislative attempt to re-define “United States” at

section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because

it violates the Eisner Prohibition.

Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,

which render it null and void for vagueness. Here they are,

The United States is a Corporation

Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.

“Hey, wait a minute! First of all, America is not owned by Great Britain,” you may way. “That’s what the War of Independence was all about; to free ourselves from British tyranny. We are free from Britain and we have our own Constitution. Our Founding Fathers helped out with that!”

If this is what you think, it is incorrect, and I will tell you why. We have never been free from Britain; the power only changed from overt power to covert power. They gave us an illusion of freedom, and they have succeeded well to keep their little secret. Thus, the Founding Fathers, who most of them were Freemasons, had no intention to give us any freedom. They worked hand in glove with the British Crown all the time, but the only way to establish a “New World” in America was to fool the people and tell them that they were fighting for freedom. This is the plain truth in a nutshell, but now it’s time to back up and explain the above a little deeper…

Corporation of the People, by the People, for the People

(The following section is an excerpt from David Icke’s book, The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy [and how to end it] pp. 231-233. I strongly recommend this book, because it gives you a brilliant overview of how this conspiracy works. You can order the book at www.davidicke.com)

The United States ‘government’ is actually the United States Corporation. It was created behind the screen of a ‘Federal Government’ when, after the manufactured ‘victory’ in the American War on ‘Independence’, the British colonies exchanged overt dictatorship from London for the far more effective covert dictatorship that has been in place ever since.

In effect, the Virginia Company, the corporation headed by the British Crown that controlled the ‘former’ colonies, simply changed its name to the United States of America and other related pseudonyms. These include the US, USA, United States of America, Washington DC, District of Columbia (Samurais) and the President of the Corporation is known as the President of the United States. This is an accurate title given that one is the names for the Corporation is the ‘United States’. He or she is not the President of the people or the country as they are led to believe – that’s just the smokescreen.

This means that Bush launched a ‘war on terrorism’ on behalf of a private Corporation to further the goals of that Corporation. It had nothing to do with ‘America’ or ‘Americans’, because these are very different legal entities. It is the United States Corporation, not the ‘government’, which owns the United States military and everything else that comes under the term ‘federal’. The privately-owned Corporation called the United States is the holding company, if you like, and the fifty states are its subsidiaries.

You may have noticed that the national flag of the United States always has a god fringe when displayed in court or federal buildings, and you see this also in federally-funded schools and on the uniforms of US troops. Under the International Law of the Flags, a gold fringe indicates the jurisdiction of commercial law, also known as British Maritime Law, and, in the US, as the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC. The gold fringe is not part of the American flag known as the Stars and Stripes, but it is a legal symbol indicating that the court, government building, school or soldier is operating under British Maritime Law and the Uniform Commercial Code; military and merchant law.

For example, if you appear in a court with a gold-fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended, and you are being tried under British Maritime (military/merchant) Law. If it seems strange that a court or building on dry land could be administered under Maritime or Admiralty Law, look at US Code, Title 18 B 7. It says that Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable in the following locations:
1) the high seas
2) any American ship
3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state. In other words, mainland America.

All this is founded on Roman law, which goes back to Babylon and Sumerian law; because the Illuminati have been playing this same game throughout the centuries wherever they have gone. The major politicians know that this is how things are and so do the top government administrators, judges, lawyers and insider ‘journalists’.

Americans think that their government and legal system is pegged in some way to the Constitution, but it is not. The United States, like Britain and elsewhere, is ruled by commercial law to overcome the checks and balances of common law. It’s another monumental fraud. The US court system does not operate under the American Constitution, but under corporate law. It is the law of contracts and you have to make a contract with the Corporation for that law to legally apply to you.

The scam has been set up so that when you register with the ‘Federal Government’ in any way, by accepting a Social Security Number, driver’s license, or any of the other official federal documents, you are, unknowingly, contracting to become an asset-employee of the United States Corporation…Every word, or use of lower/upper case, is making a legal statement. Have you noticed that when you receive correspondence relating to government, law and anything to do with finance, including taxation, your name is always spelt in all upper case, as in BILL JONES?

But your upper case name is not you. It is a corporation/trust set up by the ‘government’ Corporation through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born a corporation/trust is created using his or her name in all upper case. So BILL JONES is what they call a ‘straw man’, a corporate, not human, entity. They do it this way because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not to living, breathing, flesh and blood, sovereign, free men and women spelt in upper and lower case, or all lower case, as with Bill Jones, or bill jones. The living, breathing sovereign man and woman is subject to common law, not eh commercial law introduced by governments through legislation.

Using commercial law makes it much easier to install an ‘elected’ dictatorship. Unlike common law, you are not subject to precedents built up over centuries. You simply have to get a majority to vote for a bill in Parliament of Congress, or have the US President sign a document, and the law is imposed. What you also have to do – clearly not difficult – is to keep from the people the knowledge that their name in all upper case is not them. They will then pay you taxes and be subject to your jurisdiction and control in all areas of their lives, by unknowingly standing surety for the corporation – ‘BILL JONES’ – that they don’t even know exists.

All court documents have the person’s name in all upper case because under the law of contracts the living, breathing being cannot be tried under corporate law, only a corporate entity can. It is so crazy that Americans pay personal income tax to the government (corporation) via the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when the law to introduce personal income tax was never passed. Ask anyone from the US government or IRS to produce the law that says Americans must pay income tax on their wages and they will not be able to do it. Many have tried and the law has never been revealed because it doesn’t exist…A $50,000 reward was offered by the We The People organization to anyone who could produce the law and IRS agent, Sherry Jackson, thought it would be easy money. She then found out that there was no law and resigned to become a campaigner against this fantastic hoax…

…Yet, when people don’t pay taxes, which they do not legally have to pay, the IRS takes their property, puts them in jail, and ever more often sends in the armed goons in the black masks. It’s fascism, nothing less…If anyone thinks that without personal income tax there would be no education and other public services – it’s not true. They are paid for by state and property taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, fuel tax, booze tax and all the other endless taxation that we pay besides income tax. In fact, personal income tax in the US is roughly the same as the money paid by government to the banks in interest on loans.

Resources:

Military Flag:

See HERE

United States as a Corporation:

See HERE

Also, see HERE

An etymology of the word “corporation.” HERE

HERE

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/1997

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62). Act 1871 allows the “Corp US” to control the country in the place of the natural Government HERE and HERE

Posted in Corporate, Corruption, Democracy, Law