It was made clear Donald Trump does not understand all within the Constitution; “The same place the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Constitution was also written during the Philadelphia Convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was signed on September 17, 1787. “
The Founding Fathers were very aware that they owed a War Debit, they were very aware how the Magna Carta Tax by England was entered into the Constitution. This agreement between England and the Founding Fathers, To Pay All Debts Foreign Or Domestic, which allowed Treaties, such as the Magna Carta of England to be written in, plus others amended in.
They had no choice, funds depleted, both side suffered casualties, but England had money and a population close to 10 Million People. The Colony had close to 2.5 Million People. The Magna Carta, was allowed by the King Of England, as a Declaration Of Independence for the People of England. The Colony, felt betrayed, because this treaty, was to protect the rights of the British Colony in America. It was used as punishment, because the Colony started making their own money. It never accorded to the King Of England, the intent was to allow growth, and not as a attempt to violate the treaty.
The Preamble "The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen States Of America July 4, 1776" , by William Floyd, was a Declaration Of War Against England. Floyd , became wanted by England, for Treason Against the Crown. And he, with his family fled New York. This has been confirmed in the, “ Journals of Congress : Containing the proceedings from Sept. 5, 1774 to [3d day of November 1788] by William Floyd, a Founding Father of America." This will be repeated again below.
We also found this, we are looking into it to see if Donald Trump can use this as well as the violation of the Magna Carta from the 1200”AD- 1- “UCC 1-207 and claim UCC 1-103, Jul 1, 2012 - Important : UCC 1-207 has been moved to UCC 1-308 to hide it from the public“: https://www.google.com/search?q=+UCC+1-207+and+claim+UCC+1-103&...
The Founding Fathers had a plan, they gave each State a Independent Constitutional Right, and they wrote their own Constitution for each State, placing the States in authority over Congress. Article V Of The Constitution, allowed each States, to maintain sovereignty, over the Federal Government. According to Convention Of States, in and for the United States Constitution.
Final Closing Arguments, will be on the bottom of the page.
Center for American Political Studies Harvard University & Professor Danielle Allen wrote the following.
Last month, we debunked John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence. Often assumed to depict the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Trumbull actually chose to immortalize the moment when the Committee of Five presented their draft of the Declaration to John Hancock and the Continental Congress.
So, when was the Declaration of Independence signed?
Danielle S. Allen (born 1971) is an American classicist and political scientist. She is a professor in the Government Department at Harvard University and at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, as well as the Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Prior to joining the faculty at Harvard in 2015, Allen was UPS Foundation Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. As of January 1, 2017, she is also James Bryant Conant University Professor, Harvard’s highest faculty honor.
Allen graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University with an A.B. in Classics in 1993. As a Marshall Scholar, she went on to earn an M.Phil. degree (1994), and a Ph.D. in Classics (1996) from King's College, Cambridge University. She then pursued graduate studies at Harvard, earning an A.M. in 1998 and a Ph.D. in 2001. From 1997 to 2007 she served on the faculty of the University of Chicago, rising through the academic ranks to become a professor of both classics and political science, as well as a member of the Committee on Social Thought, and she served as Dean of the Division of the Humanities from 2004 to 2007. She organized The Dewey Seminar: Education, Schools and the State, with Rob Reich.
After several days researching this document, once again I state this for the record, they lied.
The Preamble "The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen States Of America July 4, 1776" , by William Floyd, was a Declaration Of War Against England. Floyd , became wanted by England, for Treason Against the Crown. And he, with his family fled New York. This has been confirmed in the, “ Journals of Congress : Containing the proceedings from Sept. 5, 1774 to [3d day of November 1788] by William Floyd, a Founding Father of America."
Professor Danielle Allen Emily Sneff of The West Sussex Record Office "Lied": “The Sussex Declaration”
At, Center for American Political Studies Harvard University CGIS Knafel 1737 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02138
Unsullied by Falsehood: No John Trumbull, but you will find the name of George Clinton the great great grandfather to Bill Clinton, he worked on the document, but did not sign it. This may share why this document ended up in England ? https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/blog/trumbull
We offer that this, "The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen States Of America " by William Floyd a official Preamble of our Founding Fathers rejected by Professor Danielle Allen, 200 years ago they hid a message, that in The Willing To Hope that one day Americans will find the truth.
The list of abuses reflects the colonists' belief that their rights as British Citizens had been slowly eroded ever since the French and Indian War ended in 1763. Although the Declaration does not name the specific legislation passed by Parliament, its listing of the abuses and usurpation effectively covers the history of the King and Parliament's attempts to gain more power and control over the colonies. The list crescendos with the most offensive actions, aimed at total suppression of the colonies, that were put into effect just prior to the signing of the Declaration.
Many of the acts that the Declaration criticizes were intended to tighten royal control over the colonies. The history of Parliament's acts unfolded over a period of 13 years during which royal attempts to squash the civil liberties of colonists met with heightened colonial resistance. Beginning with The Proclamation of 1763, Parliament stripped colonists of the right to settle in the land between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This meant that although many colonists had given their lives to defend that land from the French, they would not be permitted to reap the benefits. Shortly after the proclamation, Parliament decided that the colonies would help repay the war debts, and enacted laws such as the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Tax (1765), the Townshend Acts (1767) and the Tea Act (1773). When the colonists protested against these acts, the King and Parliament responded by further suppressing the rights of colonists. Legislation in 1774 referred to by colonists as the "Intolerable Acts" struck especially hard at the civil rights of the colony of Massachusetts.
The Intolerable Acts differed from previous legislation. These acts struck not only at the economic freedom of the colonies, but at their political rights and legislative independence as well. Not only was the port of Boston closed to all trade, but a military governor was also appointed and the people of Massachusetts no longer had the right to elect their representatives, select jurors, or hold town meetings. Additionally, British soldiers accused of crimes would be tried in England, not in the colony, and a new Quartering Act forced colonists in Massachusetts to feed and house British soldiers. The passage of the Intolerable Acts indicated to many colonists, even those not living in Massachusetts, that the King and Parliament were more interested in asserting unconditional control than in preserving the civil liberties of the colonists.
The basic principle upon which the Declaration rests is that colonists, as British citizens, believed they were entitled to the rights and privileges granted by the Magna Carta, and the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Among other things, these documents established that the King was not above the law, that the people, represented in parliament, had a right to endorse or reject taxation, and that citizens were entitled to a trial by jury of their peers. Additionally, the Declaration relied on precedent: most British colonies had enjoyed self-rule and had been governed through their own legislative bodies since their founding. By 1774, most of the colonists that had once protested "no taxation without representation" found themselves without any representation whatsoever, neither in Parliament nor in any colonial house of representation.
Towards the end of the list of abuses, the Declaration focuses attention on a few specific incidents that demonstrate the King's disregard for colonial life and liberty, the danger of colonists remaining divided on the issue of independence, and the preparations being made by Great Britain for an all-out war. These statements served, in many cases, to convince moderates in the Second Continental Congress to see that reconciliation was not a possibility and to cast their vote in favor of independence.
The British attack on colonists and the loss of American lives at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April of 1775 and the Battle of Bunker Hill in June of 1775 demonstrated the King's "waging war against us" and his disregard for American lives. In December of 1775, Parliament withdrew British military protection from the colonies and enacted a policy of seizure and confiscation of American ships and sailors ("...[King George] has plundered our seas...he has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas..."). This action also left colonists living on the frontier, especially those in Georgia, with no military protection from Native American attacks ("...he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages..."). Furthermore, the heightened tension between colonists and the King began to overflow into hostile relations between those colonists loyal to the king (Tories) and those seeking independence (Whigs). This tension actually erupted into an armed battle between colonists in early 1776 in the Battle at Moore's Creek Bridge ("He has excited domestic insurrections among us...").
It is interesting to note that the Declaration reserved his most scathing language to describe the King's use of mercenaries. Accusing George III's mercenaries of cruelty "scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation, "the Declaration aims to evoke support from moderates within the colonies by revealing that the British civilization in which they took pride was no more than a cruel and tyrannical monarchy.
Interestingly, Jefferson devoted approximately one-fourth of the abuses in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence to the topic of slavery. Jefferson held the King accountable for maintaining and protecting slavery as an institution in the colonies. Not surprisingly, the moderate congress, already fearful of being too radical, removed all references to slavery from the document. It remains a source of historical debate why a slave-owning man like Jefferson would have devoted so much intellectual energy to criticizing slavery and to attempting to remove it from the colonies.
Up until this declaration, colonists have used non-violent means, such as petitions, to protest the abuses of King George III. Each attempt to request peaceful negotiations was met by neglect and more abuse.
Additionally, colonists tried to appeal to Parliament and other British citizens for help. These attempts were ignored. Colonists appealed to British citizens' sense of justice, to their shared heritage and culture, and to their economic connection. These attempts failed, however, and the colonies have no other choice but to declare separation. In doing so, the new separate nation will view British citizens as enemies during wartime, and as friends in peacetime.
Between 1763 and 1776, American colonists made many attempts to organize in protest against the acts of Parliament. The Declaration of Independence represents the last in a long chain of declarations that began with the declaration of the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, which stated colonists were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen. This document also affirmed that taxing the colonists without their consent was a violation of their rights as British Citizens and that Parliament had no right to tax colonists. In 1774, after the passage of the Intolerable Acts, these themes would surface again in a document written by the First Continental Congress called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. This document clarified the Stampt or Stamp Act Congress declaration by stating only colonial legislatures had the right to tax the colonists. Additionally, this document declared the Intolerable Acts unconstitutional and criticized the King and Parliament for dissolving colonial assemblies, maintaining a standing army in peacetime, and for enforcing heavy taxation. Meeting again as the Second Continental Congress in May of 1775, the delegates understood that things had only worsened between the colonists and the British government. Although fighting had already broken out between minutemen and British troops, many delegates still pressed for a peaceful reconciliation. This congress issued a Declaration of Causes of Taking-up Arms and sent an Olive-Branch Petition to the King to humbly request that he negotiate a peaceful reconciliation. Once again, the King ignored the requests of the colonists and responded instead by sending an additional 20,000 troops to the colonies.
Throughout the struggle to assert their rights, colonial leaders understood the importance of maintaining unity between the 13 colonies. Samuel Adams knew that the people would have to be persuaded to view an attack on one colony as an attack on all colonies. To help maintain a unified protest, Samuel Adams organized Committees of Correspondence in 1772 to ensure that colonies could stay informed about new developments regarding the British King and Parliament. This information network proved crucial when the First Continental Congress agreed to boycott trade with Great Britain and to refuse to use British goods until a resolution was reached. During the Second Continental Congress, patriot leaders carefully waited to declare independence until all delegations unanimously supported it. Although the colonies were technically at war with Great Britain for most of the time the congress met, it took them 14 months to write the formal declaration of war. After the rejection of the Olive Branch Petition, the publication of Thomas Paine's Common Sense, and the hiring of German mercenaries, all of which took place in early 1776, the themes stated in earlier declarations were finally put to use to justify separation rather than reconciliation.
The Declaration of Independence relied on the content and claims of earlier declarations, but firmly stated that ten years of peaceful political and economic actions had failed to reach the desired effect. Therefore, as concluded in this section, the King and Parliament left the colonists no other choice but to seek separation through military means.
The Second Continental Congress represents the people of the new nation called the United States of America. This declaration informs all the people of the world that the 13 united colonies are free from British rule and any political connections with Great Britain. The declaration also serves to appeal to the people of the world to understand the reasons why this separation is justifiable.
The independent states claim the power to levy war, make peace, make alliances with foreign nations, conduct trade, and to do anything else that independent states have the right to do.
The newly independent states believe that God will protect them in their venture to establish a just government. The citizens of each colony have pledged their loyalty and lives to the cause of the newly independent nation.
The conclusion is important in clarifying the identity of the new nation, as well as defining the powers granted to the new government. Many of the delegates to the Second Continental Convention saw the Declaration of Independence as important because of the message it would send to foreign nations. They were especially concerned with enlisting the military help of the French in their war against Great Britain. They therefore thought it necessary to assert clearly that they had no allegiance or connection to Great Britain.
The new nation is not only named in this conclusion as the United States of America, but its authority is defined as well. The conclusion serves to establish the authority of the Second Continental Congress over issues of international affairs, war and peace, and trade. With these powers in hand, the Congress is empowered to run the affairs of government related to the declared war.
However, the conclusion is unclear regarding the individual states' responsibilities to each other. The Declaration describes itself as a union of colonies, each of which is a free and independent state. This is problematic because the statement indicates that the colonies are one united whole, while simultaneously stating that each state is free and independent. A few sentences later, the Declaration states that the former colonies, " as free and independent states, ... have full power to levy war," thereby indicating that each state, individually, has the right to levy war, make peace, etc. This inconsistency would later turn into a debate about the nature of the government of the United States. Was the United States a loose confederation of independent states, each of which could act on behalf of its own interest? Or, was the United States a strong centralized nation in which the powers of the whole were stronger than the powers of each individual state? The Declaration states that the colonists have pledged mutual allegiance, but does that mean the pledge will continue beyond the war effort?
On this day in 1776, in his first speech before British Parliament since the leaders of the American Revolution came together to sign of the Declaration of Independence that summer, King George III acknowledges that all was not going well for Britain in the war with the United States.
In his address, the king spoke about the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the revolutionary leaders who signed it, saying, “for daring and desperate is the spirit of those leaders, whose object has always been dominion and power, that they have now openly renounced all allegiance to the crown, and all political connection with this country.” The king went on to inform Parliament of the successful British victory over General George Washington and the Continental Army at the Battle of Long Island on August 27, 1776, but warned them that, “notwithstanding the fair prospect, it was necessary to prepare for another campaign.”
Despite George III’s harsh words, General William Howe and his brother, Admiral Richard Howe, still hoped to convince the Americans to rejoin the British empire in the wake of the colonists’ humiliating defeat at the Battle of Long Island. The British could easily have prevented Washington’s retreat from Long Island and captured most of the Patriot officer corps, including the commander in chief. However, instead of forcing the former colonies into submission by executing Washington and his officers as traitors, the Howe brothers let them go with the hope of swaying Patriot opinion towards a return to the mother country.
The Howe brothers’ attempts at negotiation failed, and the War for Independence dragged on for another four years, until the formal surrender of the British to the Americans on October 19, 1781, after the Battle of Yorktown.
1775 King George refuses Olive Branch Petition
Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, representing the Continental Congress, present the so-called Olive Branch Petition to the Earl of Dartmouth on this day in 1775. Britain’s King George III, however, refused to receive the petition, which, written by John Dickinson, appealed directly to the king and expressed hope for reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain.
Dickinson, who hoped desperately to avoid a final break with Britain, phrased colonial opposition to British policy this way: “Your Majesty’s Ministers, persevering in their measures, and proceeding to open hostilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defense, and have engaged us in a controversy so peculiarly abhorrent to the affections of your still faithful Colonists, that when we consider whom we must oppose in this contest, and if it continues, what may be the consequences, our own particular misfortunes are accounted by us only as parts of our distress.”
By phrasing their discontent this way, Congress attempted to notify the king that American colonists were unhappy with ministerial policy, not his own. They then concluded their plea with a final statement of fidelity to the crown: “That your Majesty may enjoy long and prosperous reign, and that your descendants may govern your Dominions with honor to themselves and happiness to their subjects, is our sincere prayer.”
By July 1776, though, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed something very different: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” In fact, Congress insisted that Thomas Jefferson remove any language from the declaration that implicated the people of Great Britain or their elected representatives in Parliament. The fundamental grounds upon which Americans were taking up arms had shifted. The militia that had fired upon Redcoats at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 had been angry with Parliament, not the king, who they still trusted to desire only good for all of his subjects around the globe. This belief changed after Congress learned that King George refused to so much as receive the Olive Branch Petition.
Americans had hoped that Parliament had curtailed colonial rights without the king’s full knowledge, and that the petition would cause him to come to his subjects’ defense. When George III refused to read the petition, many Americans realized that Parliament was acting with royal knowledge and support. Americans’ patriotic rage was further intensified by the January 1776 publication by English-born radical Thomas Paine of Common Sense, an influential pamphlet that attacked the monarchy, which Paine claimed had allowed “crowned ruffians” to “impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears.”
The Deleted Passage of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY
When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776. Jefferson's passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document. It was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George's incitement of "domestic insurrections among us." Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Jefferson's original passage on slavery appears below.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Closing arguments, Magna Carta, was used in 11 treaties, one noted is NAFTA. NAFTA was not intended to allow Canada or the USA prosper, its intent was a 15% Tax by the UK, a 30% tax against Canada, information found here,NATO NAFTA Agenda, North Atlantic Treaty Organization .
Lincioln could not end the Federal Reserve System it did not exist when he was President... the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress in 1913... long, long after Lincloln was assasinated and burried. However, he did want the Treasury to print all our currency using gold and silver to support it. He wanted to end the debt sysrtem of currency management... and he created the GREEN BACK to do it... which was repealed after his assasination.
The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States of America. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises. Over the years, events such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession during the 2000s have led to the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System... a debt based system of monetary management. They print our currency and charge us interest on Treasury Bonds used to support the value of our currency... it is a fiat system, it is not supported by gold or silver, the full faith and credit of the US is all that backs it..
It must be noted that both Kennedy and Lincoln wanted the US Treasury to print our currency... without inolving a Central bank... debt free currency, backed by Gold and Silver... eliminating the roll of central banks... It is alleged that Central Banking interests were involved in the assanation of both Kennedy and Lincoln. However, several conspiracy theories exist as explinations for the assasination of Kennedy and Lincoln... the removal of the roll of a Central Bank being just one theory... hard evidence to prove these conspiracy theories has not been produced.
Racism -> Emergency Medical Doctor Rails Against Whites: “White People Can Be Exhausting” – ‘Racism Towards Whites Doesn’t Exist’
Esther Choo (pictured above), an emergency medical doctor and professor in Oregon, took to Twitter to rail against white people and after getting called out for her racism, she asserted that it’s impossible to be racist towards whites.
According to Choo’s bio, she’s an emergency physician and associate professor at the Oregon Health & Science University.
Choo is the daughter of Korean immigrants and uses social media to talk about racism and sexism in healthcare, according to her bio.
“White people can be exhausting. Just an observation,” Choo said in a tweet on Friday.
White people can be exhausting. Just an observation.
— Esther Choo MD MPH (@choo_ek) June 21, 2019
When she received backlash for her racist tweet, Choo continued to taunt and disparage whites.
“Observation #2: white people are going to prove my point on this very thread,” Choo said responding to the backlash.
She also bragged that Twitter took her side when people reported her tweet.
“Observation #3: when people try to convince Twitter that white people are experiencing reverse racism, Twitter understands that is not a thing.”
Observation #3: when people try to convince Twitter that white people are experiencing reverse racism, Twitter understands that is not a thing.
— Esther Choo MD MPH (@choo_ek) June 21, 2019
Twitter may not have a problem with racism against white people, but what about the medical community?
Dr. Choo received huge backlash on Twitter.
Joe Biggs ✔@Rambobiggs
This is coming from an Emergency Medicine Physician who is considered a "leader" in her field. She's scheduled to be a speaker at the American College of Emergency Physicians in October. She runs a website called FeminEM prompting Feminist causes in EM and a racist.