The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see the state of our nation today.
They built a republic where God is above all and where the people, created in His image, are sovereign. The people in turn created their government to serve under them; it was to be small, frugal, and limited—as we would expect our contractor to be. Looking at today’s sprawling administrative state overreach though—with vaccine mandates, endless spending, and leaders who think they are God—something doesn’t jive.
So what happened?
The answer is sequestered but simple: the republic was colonized by commercial law. This obscure fact was swept under the rug and kept shuttered in the dark for over 150 years. Yet, a burgeoning subset of Americans is uncovering this controversial chapter of American history, while also reclaiming their freedom by readjusting their status from “U.S. citizen” to “state national.” The status of state national is both old and new. Now, it denotes one who owes allegiance to the state they inhabit. But it also harks back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned a sovereign people to be.
Today, state nationals have been revealing a hidden history: In short, the British never lost the Revolutionary War; they just deployed corporatocracy. The powers of Europe bid their time: the spat between the Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists was merely an entrée for a grand usurpation that began during the Civil War. Through legal chicanery, agents of the Crown managed to recast Americans as British subjects lost at sea. America was hijacked by commercial law and became the “United States of America Inc.”
It sounds far-fetched, but one state national, Ann Vandersteel, 55, a reporter and chairwoman of the Zelenko Freedom Foundation, shared her experience after reclaiming her freedom. In 2021, she got a call from former congressional candidate Bobby Lawrence, a state national guru, who laid out said history and supplied her with her freedom bundle, the legal documentation she needed to readjust her status. She dove in and spent a year verifying and cutting through red tape, before emerging a free woman on the other shore. She shared some of her journey with The Epoch Times.
A group of treasure hunters is suing the Department of Justice over “several tons of buried Civil War-era gold” that they claim the FBI may have found and made off with. The haul was supposedly lost or stolen during the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, according to local lore.
The group is called Finders Keepers – and they they wrote in a court filing last week that the FBI has failed to turn over records on its search for the gold. Previously, these records were said to have included 17 videos, but the government is now claiming only 4 such videos exist.
The FBI took part in a March 2018 dig at the supposed site of the gold, but claims they came up with nothing.
Anne Weismann, Finders Keepers’ lawyer, told CBS: “This raises the obvious question of whether videotapes were destroyed in the interim.” Weismann is trying to have a court order the FBI to explain the discrepancy in videos.
The creator of the revisionist ‘1619 Project,’ Nikole Hannah-Jones, who has long argued that pretty much all complex modern issues – from obesity and traffic jams to capitalism itself – is the result of racism being at America’s core, apparently has yet to grasp the simple dates for the Civil War. With the recent release of the much anticipated book formed out of her popular essay series, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, academics and educators have hailed it as laying the groundwork for upending and transforming the way the United States’ foundational story of its beginnings as a nation is told, even down to impacting how elementary school teachers present America’s founders to school children.
The book assures us that “the inheritance of 1619” – that is slavery, racism and social injustice – “reaches into every part of contemporary American society, from politics, music, diet, traffic, and citizenship to capitalism, religion, and our democracy itself.” Given her outsized influence as a New York Times writer, and now that she’s being held up in mainstream media and even establishment academia as an ‘expert’ on American history, it’s not too comforting to know that she doesn’t know the basic dates for the Civil War.
“…until 1865, when the North was reluctantly drawn into a war that ultimately ended slavery.” The woefully misinformed and ignorant of basic facts response which claimed the Civil War began in 1865 came during a Monday Twitter spat with William Hogeland, who himself is a widely published author of United States history.
A number of commenters were quick to point out in the wake of Hannah-Jones getting a basic fact which is taught to school children across the country wrong that the error is inexcusable. “Why would we expect you to know the correct year,” one quipped sarcastically.
Biden Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin performed some pathetic pandering to the LGBT community during “Pride Month.” He actually implied that transgenders fought in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars.
“Throughout American history, LGBTQ+ citizens have fought to defend our rights and our freedoms, from the founding of our nation to the civil war, from the trenches of two world wars, to Korea and Vietnam, and from Afghanistan to Iraq,” Austin said, celebrating the enduring American values of sodomy and endless war.
“They fought for our country even when our country wouldn’t fight for them. And even as some were forced to hide who they were or to hang up their uniforms,” he continued.
“And today we reaffirm that transgender rights are human rights, and America is safer and better when every qualified citizen can serve with pride and with dignity. Now that’s real progress,” Austin added.
Extension of slavery in the territories was for Lincoln an entirely different matter, and on this issue he refused all compromise. Here we confront a paradox. If Lincoln thought it more important to preserve the Union than to oppose slavery, why was he unwilling to compromise over slavery in the territories? If he thought slavery’s extension was too high a price to pay to preserve the Union, why was he willing permanently to entrench slavery wherever it already existed? It is hard to detect a moral difference between slavery in the states and the territories.
DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery, because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers that he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States, and throughout his life Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, had human rights but not political rights.)