Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 5100 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted.


Saturday, February 8, 2020

Ben Fulford, George III and "the" Republic


By Anna Von Reitz

Ben Fulford recently lobbed this factoid at America: 

"To get from here to there in concrete terms is the task that now lies ahead.  A senior member of the secret space program has in his possession the original secret treaty between King George III and the Republic of the United States of America.  He says a condition for unveiling the secret space program and the 5,000 patents hidden for “national security reasons” is the restoration of sovereignty to the American Republic and its people.  Another condition is the replacing of admiralty law with Common Law for the People, he says." 

Please note that King George III ruled from 1760 to 1820 --- a period of 60 years that included the aftermath of The French and Indian War and all the way through the American Revolution, the Treaties of Versailles, Paris, and Westminster, the adoption of the Constitutions, the War of 1812, the Treaties of Ghent..... George III is one of the longest reigning British Monarchs in history and he was in power throughout the entire saga that founded our nation and cemented Britain's role in our affairs--- all of it, beginning to end, bears his impress. 

So when someone says there is a "secret treaty between King George III and the Republic of the United States of America" one must ask----  exactly when was this "secret treaty" penned and who or what was acting opposite of King George at the time?  

And from there, either prove or deduce what was actually going on and with what authority it was transpiring? 

Then, as now, when we have various organizations of differing kinds and differing constituents pretending to be "the" American States, there was a great deal of confusion, some of it deliberate--- and it requires more than a passing glance to discern who is acting in what capacity,  where we are in terms of jurisdiction, and even who is involved in the conversation at any given time. 

As we have seen, there is a tremendous difference between The United States of America --- the Unincorporated Government of this country --- and "the" United States of America --- the British Territorial United States Government, and again, between "the United States of America" and "The United States of America, Inc." --- a Scottish Commercial Corporation set up after the so-called Civil War..... and  the "United States of America, Inc." --- a Roman Catholic Church non-profit corporation set up in 1925 in Delaware...... 

You get the point.  There is a Federation of American States occupying the land and soil jurisdiction of this country.  There is an unincorporated government of the British Territorial United States doing business as the United States of America.  There are, at this point, multiple commercial corporations and mercantile companies claiming to be some variety of USA..... and it was the same way back then.  

Take no wooden nickels, accept no foreign offices of person-hood. 

It's not only that the same or very similar names are used for all sorts of disparate entities over time, but the names in use change over time and come to apply to different entities entirely. 

Thus, something called the "Republic of the United States of America" in 1778 is a very different entity and functioning on a different level and with different authority than something called the "Republic of the United States of America" in 1795, after the formation of the Federal Republic.  

Before we can respond to Fullford's information or evaluate what such a document portends, we have to be able to examine it and know the dates and the signatories that acted upon it.  

At one point, there were not only numerous immediate post-Colonial organizations formed among the "estates" on the American side of the issues, but numerous Tory organizations vying to represent American interests, too. 

Some of the Tory organizations sounded remarkably similar in demanding concessions from the King and the Parliament --- only stopped short of  formal separation from England.   

The Papists were also in full hue and cry, and talk of "Republics" and naming things "Republics" was very much more in their line of thinking.  For them, the Roman Republic was a much more present and viable template for the building of a new nation, and Classicists like Jefferson and Adams readily adapted this vocabulary, too. 

The code name for George Washington was "Cincinnatus" --- after the Father of the Roman Republic. 

Washington did indeed repeat the performance of Cincinnatus in refusing to rule as a dictator once the war was over, and upon his return to Mt. Vernon after serving as President, was similarly wreathed in immortal glory despite being King George's Cousin.

The Pope's men had been busy, too, in the years preceding the Revolution and had already selected a site for the new capitol on the border between Virginia and Maryland on the Potomac River and called it "Rome" many years before it was re-named "Washington, DC"-----so you can see that none of this was happening in a vacuum or without prior consideration and planning.  

So exactly what  or which "Republic of the United States of America" is Fulford talking about?  

A British Tory organization of the time, approaching the British King with a "performance dependent" settlement offer?   A  Papist delegation of the same kind seeking a separate resolution to the hostilities?  Or something that concerned the early British Territorial Government calling itself a Republic?  Or does it hail from a later time period, after the formation and adoption of the Federal Republic?  Or is it actually an agreement validated by the Federation of States?  

There's no way to say without having the document in front of us, and so, no way to know if: (1) the document is a fake or part of some sidebar action taking place contemporaneously;  (2) the document concerns the actual Federation of States; (3) the document concerns the Federal Republic in operation from 1787 to 1860; (4) the document concerns some unofficial Successor organization.

Perhaps the Senior member of the Secret Space Program -- which isn't secret and never really has been in some circles -- will come forward and produce the document for public examination, and we can then determine whether or not it raises new and legitimate points of discussion ---- or is just more British Wind. 

You must all forgive me for -- apparently by turns -- expressing an idealism that is foreign to your assumptions ("She really believes we can stop a pandemic with our thoughts and some weird water?") and skepticism of an almost cynical kind.  

This is the result of being party and witness to many things that you would readily agree are "miracles" and also being witness to many scams along the way.  

It is entirely possible that King George III signed a secret treaty with agents of the actual Federation of States.  Or with agents of the Federal Republic.  And either one could be valid and recognizable as "the" Republic of "the" United States of America at any given time.  Could be.  

The time period and the names of the Signatories will tell the tale, and will also tell us: (1) the authority with which they acted; (2) the jurisdiction in which they were acting; (3) the impact -- if any -- on us, today. 

----------------------------

See this article and over 2200 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here. 

6 comments:

  1. Sounds kinda odd off the get go. Like who cares that the holder is employed as a space officer? Are we to think secret high alien involved? Thats a spin isn't it? Like John a 20 foot tall basket ball giant announced he has been holding or obtained a document of great importance. So is it the document or the holders job title of some real importance?
    So what? No witnesses or backing reasonable credible evidence such documents exist means only the someone said so. Does that mean I must believe it? What if it is wrong and someone is hurt due to lying? I explained so someone younger about their having to be an unicorporated country for any corporation hiring out for government services like United States to have any contracts at all. They acted as though they had found out some things but said "Yes but they changed it" and elsewhere I have heard that said. With no proof or evidence and in fact opposite like "I don't care" or "I don't want to know" some think that corporations can simply say "Oh we changed it your country is not around any more poof.
    Blind followers states of awake, navigating the maze sensing the change, the sails are up, the spirit quickens, like the wind we know not where it comes or where it goes but only that the power of love surrounds all and is waiting in your heart for you to say hello, I love you too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches ... appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -- Thomas Paine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet my last dollar that if he could come back from the dead now to tell the absolute truth about what he knows he would tell a completely different story.

      Delete
  3. I enjoy following who I call Benny Bullford. He claims the sisterhood of Sorcha Fall in Russia are his ears & eyes. I sometimes post what grabs my attention for feedback from my "smart friends". It is thru social media and sharing, explanations exactly like Anna has taken time to address from whom we learn collectively. This is meaningful to me. I Thank you Anna and those willing to comment. Thank you also for tackling CoronaVirus thru Alex Jones. I am tickled to see Trump is still following him. And you too Anna. Blessings to all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dunno… at some point the narrative just starts becoming a fairy tale. There is no reason to treat anything as real that takes from self and gives to others, when one wasn't engaged up front free of guile to agree to whatever is being called due. Theres just no reason to defer. And Fek them ones that wanna pretend that those one-sided contracts (setup by automated REGISTRATION processes) stand so they can take it all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On Fulford - Ben is admitted jew. Below is a comment from Ben stating he wants our children to have a choice in whether or not to have SEX with OLDER MEN. He then says Society needs to address this, take a stance.
    => STAY AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN.
    But the JEW PERSISTS & PERSISTS & PERSISTS unceasing in their DESTRUCITON OF OUR CHILDREN. There is No "NO" to a FRIGGIN FRUCKING JEW, especially when it comes to HAVING SEX WITH OUT CHILDREN.

    This is WHAT JEWS DO. See how JEWS DO IT. This is why BEN FULFORD is to be recognized for the PEDOPHILE PUSHING JEW he is his very CORE.

    In the comment he also admits to sodomy & enjoying it, thus EVERYONE should embrace SODOMITES & their (((RITES/rights))).
    When the typical argument is said that SODOMITES do not all desire children, within the same conversation will appear the issue of PERMITTING CHILD SEX, that some children desire it.

    This is DISGUSTING. Ben Fulford is promoting SEX WITH OUR CHILDREN.
    Ben also says the Catholic Church is to allow SODOMY aka "same-sex Love" is how Ben calls it.
    IF anyone has ever researched HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIORS, finds that in their own SODOMITE WODS it is nothing at all whatsoever to do with LOVE &.... Ben promotes this as LOVE.

    Read the whole thing LEARN HOW JEWS DO IT:

    https://benjaminfulford.net/2018/09/page/2/ "...A big issue that still needs to be addressed is the whole issue of older men having sex with teenage boys, a widespread but highly taboo practice. In many cases, older men use a position of power to sexually abuse young boys. In other cases, it is completely consensual. Society needs to openly discuss this and figure out what sort of stance to take on this issue."

    >>> KNOW THE JEW <<<

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
DO NOT COMMENT USING THE HANDLE "Anonymous".or "unknown" YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY.