Dear Friends, Patriots and Warriors of Truth:

The assertion has been made that Great Britain and its rulers now "administer" northern America for the benefit of the Pope in the Vatican: this assertion fails the test of logic in several important regards, and News Agents can access the original posting by using the following URL:

http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=8682

From The Catholic Encylopedia comes the following historical analysis of the time of King John Lackland -- "it was the work of John's lawless and despotic rule, especially after the restraining influence of Hubert Walter was withdrawn by death ... to unite all parties against himself. In this the action of Pope Innocent III, culminating in the Interdict and the sentence of deposition pronounced against John, played a most vital part."

Curiously, the cultural history of England in this modern era has always represented Richard Coeur d'Lion as the great leader of Merry Olde England, while he was, in fact, mostly occupied with crusading or being held hostage. There is no doubt that the events of 1213 described in Tenavision's post (and its links), are considered to be factual, lawful and real. So is the Magna Charta factual, lawful and a reality in western society (after John died, it was reconfirmed by Honorius III in the recognition of the new king). Turning again to the Encyclopedia:

"Under stress of the Interdict and of John's exactions, the old feudal lords, the clergy, and the new "ministerial" nobility gradually drew together. John found that he had none but a few personal partisans upon whom he could count, and Philip of France with a great following threatened invasion to enforce the pope's sentence of deposition. Under these circumstances John made his submission to the legate, Pandulf, promising to receive all the exiled bishops and to make restitution for the injuries and losses the Church had sustained.

"A few days later, on 13 May, the vigil of the Ascension, 1213, he went even further, for he surrendered his crown and kingdom into the hands of the legate to be received back from him as a fief which he and his successors were to hold of the pope for an annual rent of one thousand marks."

It is difficult to calculate just how much money a medieval mark might represent now, but if it is taken as being eight ounces of silver in coinage, and if silver fetches approximately $5.25 per ounce in recent days, then a mark would equal $42.00 and the current "rent" on the monarchy of England would be $42,000. The problem lies in the factual repudiation of the Bishop of Rome by King Henry VIII. Turning again to The Catholic Encylopedia:

"From [Thoms] Cromwell ... the idea came that the king should make himself supreme head of the Church in England and thus get rid of the imperium in imperio. This was ingeniously contrived by the outrageous pretence that the clergy had collectively incurred the penalties of Prĉmunire by recognizing Wolsey's legislative jurisdiction; though this, of course, had been exercised with the royal knowledge and authority. Upon this preposterous pretext the clergy in convocation were compelled to make a huge grant of money and to insert a clause in the preamble of the vote acknowledging the King as "Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England, as far as the law of Christ allows".

That the Catholic authorities are contemptuous of Henry VIII is unquestionably appropriate from the point of view they embrace, which is to bulwark the authority of the Papacy: it does not alter these historical facts or their meaning for the sovereignty of Henry's own royal powers, i.e., his kingdom. He exercised all of those powers in effecting a final separation with Rome.

"To bring pressure to bear on the pope, the king caused Parliament to leave it in Henry's power to withhold from the Holy See altogether the payment of annates, or first-fruits of bishoprics, which consisted in the amount of the first year's revenue. By such gradual steps the breach with Rome was brought about, though even as late as January, 1533, application in a form most discreditably insincere was still made to Rome for the Bulls of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, who had been elected on Warham's death, and who took the oaths of obedience to the pope, though he had previously declared that he regarded them as null and void. Almost immediately afterwards Cranmer pronounced sentence of divorce between Henry and Catherine."

Having obtained the long-sought after divorce, Henry proceeded even more vigorously.

"The climax of the whole work of disruption may be considered to have been reached in November, 1534, by the passing of the Act of Supremacy, which declared the king Supreme Head of the Church of England, this time without any qualification, and which annexed the title to his imperial crown."

Then began what the author of this entry, Herbert Thurston, called a "reign of terror." Those who could not be bought, as many clerics of the day were bought, were bullied into submission and those who would not submit were tried for treason and then executed. Chantries and monasteries were pulled down or seized.
That would seem to constitute as complete a break with the lawful authority of the Bishop of Rome as can be imagined! Wherefore, then, can the argument be made that the Kings and Queens of England after Henry and then Elizabeth, continued as vassals of the Papacy? They repudiated the Church at Rome in both law and in practical action. The assets of the monks were seized. Their icons were smashed, burned or packed away and forgotten.

"If ever a moral and religious cataclysm was the work of one man," wrote Thurston, "most assuredly the first stage of the Reformation in England was the work of Henry VIII."

The question of whether or not the Jesuits were the secret engineers of the American Revolution, which had its roots in the French and Indian War some two hundred years after the death of Henry VIII, cannot be examined here. In general, there are few who consider the Jesuits or any of the principal societies of the Catholic Church to be true friends of "the Republic," as either an ideal concept or a functional form of governance. However, considering that the impetus of both British Zionism in the 20th Century, and the Irish-Catholic Democracy which took root here in the United States some 150 years ago, is for more and more "democracy," the argument can be made that this is the way to "reverse-engineer" fascism or national socialism. The purpose of bringing either communism or its "kissing cousin," Nazism into the mainstream of the United States is purely to benefit the royalist posse loyal to the British crown. Create disorder, disdain for the republican virtues of self-reliance, and then massage the people into believing that their rights come from their government -- and the stage is set for a New Henry to rise and to implement a new Act of Succession -- and to reunite the straying colonies with the Motherlands, etc., etc., et cetera.

Whatever happened in the Revolution, it is clear that the colonial States separated themselves from British authority, and if they did not repudiate British debts or land patents, it was because their own sovereignty rested upon their own lawful ownership of lands. The States as organized after the revolution were not corporations as we know them now, and were not simply extensions of the chartered companies by which the colonies were founded. They were something new in human experience.

So, too, the early years of the government of the union -- made possible by the Constitutional convention and the ratifications by Conventions of the Delegates of the People in the States, and not by the actions of "corporate boards," or by the State legislatures, required a resolution of the debts owed in France.

Many citizens of these new States owed money to either British or Dutch factors (merchant/brokers), and to repudiate all of these debts would have created an impossible situation for the economics of the new union. Alexander Hamilton recognized this, and although he was clearly in favor of having a monarchial presidency, the two other factions at the Convention worked to restrain him and certain others in the Federalist faction.

By the end of the Jeffersonian regime, many of these debts had been settled. The country was growing very quickly and only the interminable wars in Europe -- and the controversies engendered by Napoleon Bonaparte and his crew -- threatened the new union.

The men who sat in the Senate in 1809 and early 1810 looked out on this world of turmoil and tumult, and acted decisively to protect their union of republican States. That is why the original Thirteenth Amendment was passed by such overwhelming votes in the Senate (26-1), and then in the House (87-3), and sent to the States for ratification. That is why the prohibition of titles of honour was included -- to defeat the designs of the Napoleonic dynasty and win the votes of Federalists -- and that is why "presents, pensions, offices and emoluments" are also put under the control of Congress, which resulted in the Legislatures of Ohio and Georgia giving this amendment their approvals.

Their unanimous approvals!

The Amendment was well on its way to ratification when the War of 1812 broke out: even after that fact, New Hampshire voted to approve it, but as public sentiment in the New England region turned against Mr. Madison, so too the Federalist enclaves there began to reject all things Madisonian. The rejection of the original Thirteenth by New York was predictable, as their merchant class was most closely-tied to British factors and their Senator (John Smith), had provided the sole vote against it.

The disapprovals by Connecticut (1813), and Rhode Island (1814), reflect much more of the 'hard-headed Yankee' philosophy of that day and age, and the bitter animosity held towards Madison and the whole crew of Jeffersonian democrats abroad in the land. But following the brilliant victory of Andrew Jackson and his motely army of western militia, free men of color, Haitian refugees and Choctaw warriors -- at New Orleans in 1815, it can be said that any true links of ownership remaining between the King of England, Scotland, etc., and the United States were broken.

Jackson went on to rout the British from Florida and to secure, in his own somewhat Draconian way, the western frontier against the non-stop agitation of British spies and provocateurs. The country survived the banking crisis and financial panic of 1819, and in the midst of all that tumult and change, the legislature of Virginia issued the Revised Code of its laws, with the original Thirteenth printed as being lawfully approved. Which is precisely what it was, having been considered, tabled, and then "pretermitted" for later action. Virginia had the right to vote in "en bloc," and that is apparently what they did.

The benefits it brought to the union of sovereign States were immediate and long-lasting: James Monroe was made stronger and his Doctrine stands as a triumph of American diplomacy; John Quincy Adams -- a great thinker and diplomat -- passed through his term without the major achievements which he would later gather. The article was printed as being lawful numerous times by States in both the north and south, and Adams raised no objections to any of these printings. Nor did any member of Congress question the validity of laws issued by Illinois, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island or Maine, which contained the original Thirteenth Amendment and the Constitution ... intact.

Andrew Jackson then came into the presidency, and with the help of certain key men from the north, he weathered the Nullification Crisis and defeated the Bank of the United States. Martin Van Buren was elected following Jackson and many of the same policies were continued, as they were also under John Tyler. Again the States repeatedly issued their Laws with the original Thirteenth Amendment included, as is, and intact. No controversies!

If King Henry the VIII had not broken completely with the Bishop of Rome, then the argument could -- perhaps -- be made that land ownership which proceeded from royal grants was continuing into the new era of the united republics. But since the colonial States were devoid of their own credit, by the maxims of British policy in the previous sixty years or so, they had to obtain it somewhere. To borrow from the French and the Dutch and then to refuse to repay them would only corrupt, weaken and then ruin the new republican confederation. Whatever his other faults, Alexander Hamilton knew this very well. The union of States was founded by men who were once British-Americans and who had all the foibles and fancies characteristic of that time. Nearly 25% of the population remained in sympathy to the Crown at the time of revolution, and many of these people fled afterwards.

Had they been sure of their property and their possessions, by some "trick" of accounting or some Papal Bull, these Tories would have returned to the States soon after the founding of the new government. Most preferred to remain in Canada or in England.

The final point of logic rests on the proper issuance and ratification of the original Thirteenth Amendment: it was and is the eleventh plank of the Bill of Rights, a guarantee of free and fair elections in the States and a proviso against the creation of spies and traitors amongst our federal officers.

The British have labored hard and long to suppress the knowledge of this lawful act of a lawfully-elected Senate and House, and the argument that they burned the government offices in Washington in order to destroy the evidence of its passage is one that has many merits. But they could not move against it for more than another full generation, following the events of 1815.

Not until Andrew Jackson was dead and buried could they enact the careful, well-crafted plans for its suppression, which they accomplished with the help of pro-slavery politicians and the lawyers/attorneys paid by the slave-traffickers themselves. Even so it has taken the British oligarchy -- drunken, blundering and stupidly crass beyond belief -- fully another 124 years to get their most ambitious plan drafted and passed, which is NAFTA.

The so-called North American Free Trade Agreement is the device which the British intend to use to dissolve the sovereignty of the States which formed and still remain the body of the union.

The argument that they already own everything here and are running the U.S. for the benefit of the Papacy fails because of the rejection by Henry VIII of the Pope, and the two hundred + years of independent rule which follow. The States which made up this federal union claimed their sovereignty by right of revolution and by success in war. Any subsequent claims on the political life of the country were quashed by the issuance, ratification and public printing of the original Thirteenth Amendment. The fact that the British laid a trap for this union with the connivance of pro-slavery lawyers and attorneys does not validate a claim to their ownership of us, our lands or waters.

If we have voluntarily given it away to them, since, that is yet another matter for another time. The Constitution was done in a lawful manner. The Bill of Rights was approved in a lawful manner. The original Thirteenth Amendment and the Anti-Slavery Amendment of 1865 were passed in a lawful manner and ratified. So too was the Fifteenth Amendment. These things taken together are a legal framework for resistance to all forms of British aggression and subversion. They are the patrimony of all who consider themselves to be lovers of freedom and certainly the property of all citizens of these United States.

Free men can sell themselves into slavery, it is true. But at the present time the people here are being held as hostages to a debt which was not created by them and which is being collected from them without their direct knowledge or assent. Debts which cannot be explained and which can never be paid off are not really debts, now are they? But what are they?