Dismantling The Two-Party System & A Potential Solution To American Political Gridlock 2025

Dismantling The Two-Party System? The United States has been politically dominated by two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans, for most of its existence. However, growing dissatisfaction with this binary system, coupled with a severe polarization of political beliefs, is prompting a call for change. This article explores the potential benefits of dismantling the two-party system and introducing a multi-party system in the United States.

Show more

The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda.

The Current American Political Landscape
According to recent surveys, an increasing number of American voters feel disillusioned with the current two-party system. A December 2020 Gallup Poll indicated that only 31% of people identified as Democrats and 25% as Republicans, with a striking 41% considering themselves independent.

The United States is currently experiencing a concerning level of political polarization. The divide between Democrats and Republicans on topics such as the economy, racial justice, climate change, law enforcement, and foreign affairs has been growing. This polarization fosters an environment of legislative gridlock and extremism, leading to many Americans becoming politically disengaged.

The Two-Party System: History and Challenges
The two-party system in the United States is a result of the simple-majority election method, where votes for third parties are often considered "wasted". This system inadvertently forces voters to align themselves with one of the two major parties, even if their views do not completely align with either party.

One of the most significant challenges of the two-party system is that it often fails to fully represent the diverse political views of the American populace. With only two choices, voters are often forced to choose the lesser of two evils, leading to a misrepresentation of voters' true political preferences.

The Influence of Extremism and the Duopoly
The increasing extremism in both parties is one of the major issues with the current two-party system. Extreme views, coupled with an unwillingness to compromise, have led to a malfunctioning duopoly. This duopoly tends to prioritize party-primary voters, special interests, and donors over ordinary citizens who should be its customers.

The presence of extremist factions within both parties significantly influences the legislative process. For instance, on issues where a bipartisan solution has broad support from the general public, the incentive of each side is to draw a line in the sand and refuse to compromise. This unwillingness to compromise further fuels the political gridlock.

The Case for Multi-Party Systems
One potential solution to the problems plaguing the two-party system is the implementation of a multi-party system. In countries with multi-party systems, such as Ireland, Germany, and New Zealand, it is much more difficult for a single party to obtain a legislative majority on its own.

In a multi-party system, parties represent smaller slices of the electorate, which incentivizes cross-party cooperation to create legislative majorities. This system not only fosters moderation but also empowers moderate candidates and banishes the extreme elements to the fringe.

The Potential Benefits of a Multi-Party System
A multi-party system could provide several benefits, particularly in the United States where there is a strong demand for a third party. For one, it would allow for a better representation of the diverse political views of the American populace. Voters would no longer be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, leading to a better representation of their true political preferences.

Moreover, studies have shown that government tends to work better in multiparty proportional systems. Voter turnout is higher as voters have more viable candidates to choose from, and people report greater satisfaction with the government. Minority populations also get better representation.

Reform Proposals: Proportional Representation and Ranked-Choice Voting
Several reform proposals are being considered to dismantle the two-party system in the United States, with the Fair Representation Act being among the most prominent. The Act proposes to create multi-member House districts in states with more than one representative, require those districts to be drawn by independent commissions to minimize gerrymandering, and allow voters to choose representatives in those districts using a ranked-choice voting system.

Challenges to Implementing a Multi-Party System
Despite the potential benefits, implementing a multi-party system in the United States faces some significant challenges. For one, it would require the support of a majority of members of Congress, a tall order considering the current level of political division.

Additionally, certain state laws pose significant hurdles to third-party candidates. For example, Georgia has some of the most restrictive ballot-access laws in the country, particularly for local Congressional races.

While dismantling the two-party system and implementing a multi-party system in the United States could potentially solve many of the current problems plaguing American politics, it is a complex issue with no easy solutions. However, the growing dissatisfaction with the current system indicates that it may be time for serious consideration of alternative political structures.

The future trajectory of American politics depends largely on the willingness of political leaders to consider and implement reforms. As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers to listen to the voices of the American people and look for innovative solutions to the challenges facing the nation's political system.

True Titles Of Nobility Our early legislators were so concerned regarding the "still" close relationship with the British Crown hence Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 which is included in the Constitution. The Titles of Nobility Amendment was proposed in 1810 and submitted to the states for ratification. By early 1812, eleven states had ratified the amendment. However, it required ratification by thirteen states to become part of the Constitution. On February 27, 1818, President James Monroe communicated to Congress that the required number of ratifications had not been reached. The amendment was rejected by Virginia (February 14, 1811), New York (March 12, 1812), Connecticut (May 13, 1813), and Rhode Island (September 15, 1814). No other state legislature has completed ratification action on it.

Titles Of Nobility Amendment To 'Restore' legitimate 13th Amendment To The U.S. Constitution - https://rumble.com/v6hk6od-titles-of-nobility-amendment-to-restore-legitimate-13th-amendment-to-the-u..html

The amendment would have stripped United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from an "emperor, king, prince or foreign power". It was introduced in the Senate by Democratic–Republican Senator Philip Reed of Maryland and passed by Congress on May 1, 1810. The amendment was intended to prevent U.S. citizens from accepting titles of nobility from foreign powers, reflecting concerns about European influence on the young republic.

The amendment's text states: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Despite claims by some individuals known as "Thirteenthers" that the amendment was actually ratified and became part of the Constitution, official records and communications from the U.S. government confirm that it did achieve the necessary ratifications to become law.

13. Virginia ratified the amendment on February 7, 1812. The state's official records were burned when the British set fire to Washington and Richmond during the War of 1812, but numerous other records prove the amendment was ratified. Nevertheless, the federal government insists the amendment never became law. Of course they do!

In 1789 Senator Tristrain Dalton (MA) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for ANY American accepting a "title of nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed.

1810 - 1810 - twenty years after the original suggestion of an Amendment referring to "title of Nobility", Senator Reed proposed another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Understanding the reasoning behind the Original 13th Amendment is very important. Even in the 1700 & 1800's, most of our federally elected representatives and senators were lawyers by profession. It is true, the principle intent of the Original 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in the government.

When first reading the Original 13th Amendment, with its references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king" would lead most to dismiss the amendment as a petty document carrying no weight.

In 1812, the votes of 13 states were needed to ratify an amendment.
The federal government admits the Titles of Nobility Amendment was
ratified by 12:
1. Maryland (December 25, 1810)
2. Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
3. Ohio (January 31, 1811)
4. Delaware (February 2, 1811)
5. Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
6. New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
7. Vermont (October 24, 1811)
8. Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
9. Georgia (November 22, 1811)
10. North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
11. Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
12. New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)
13. Virginia ratified the amendment on February 7, 1812. The state's official records were burned when the British set fire to Washington and Richmond during the War of 1812, but numerous other records prove the amendment was ratified. Nevertheless, the federal government insists the amendment never became law. Of course they do!

http://www.americasdirtylaundry.com/original-13th-amendment1.html

http://www.americasdirtylaundry.com/uploads/7/9/1/7/7917170/1819_united_states_constitution_attested_a.pdf

http://www.americasdirtylaundry.com/uploads/7/9/1/7/7917170/the_revised_1819_code_of_the_laws_of_virginia_663_pages.pdf

The Move to 'Restore' the 13th Amendment. If there is an aspect of the human condition that is unaddressed by the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted last month at the state convention in Des Moines, you'd have to look awfully hard to find it. Its 387 enumerated planks and principles range widely over politics, culture, and economics, from sweeping statements of belief ("America is good") to the fine nuances of agricultural policy ("We support the definition of manure as natural fertilizer") and touching on the mythical "North American Union" (against) and the gold standard (for). Even so, it's a little startling to come upon section 7.19, which calls for "the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th amendment in today's Constitution." Since the existing 13th Amendment bans slavery, while the "original" one was about something else entirely, the wording might give the impression that Iowa Republicans wish to reverse emancipation, which is not at all the case, according to state GOP Communications Director Danielle Plogmann. Like many aspects of Republican politics this year, it's actually about embarrassing President Obama. But you have to wonder whether the delegates knew what they were getting into. In making common cause with "Thirteenthers," as those who seek to restore the long-lost amendment are known, the party has ventured beyond the far fringes of conspiracy theory, into a mysterious lost land without lawyers or taxes. Maybe they knew what they were doing after all.

Return with us now to the tumultuous years leading up to the War of 1812, when fear of "foreign influence"—by England or France, depending on whether you were a Republican or Federalist—was a dominating issue in American politics. Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, had recently spent several years in the United States, where he married Elizabeth Patterson, the beautiful, ambitious daughter of a wealthy Baltimore merchant. In 1810, Jerome was on the throne of Westphalia, while Elizabeth was in America with their son, Jerome Napoleon. (The couple would never see each other again.) According to historian Michael Vorenberg of Brown University, having a nephew of the emperor of France growing up on American soil might have made the pro-British Federalists uneasy, or, just as likely, suggested to them a way to tie the Republicans to the French Legion of Honor, the Trilateral Commission of its day. Desiring to get out in front of the issue—or possibly seeking to score points against the Federalists, who had their own embarrassing ties to the British aristocracy—Republican Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland introduced an amendment meant to strengthen the existing "emoluments clause" in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution.

This clause reads:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Reed's proposed amendment extended the ban from office-holders to "any citizen of the United States" and made the penalty loss of citizenship:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Reed's bill passed both houses easily, and as of Dec. 9, 1812, had been ratified by 12 states and seemed headed for adoption, at which point war intervened. Here, histories diverge. The mainstream view is that the "Titles of Nobility Amendment" (TONA) never achieved the necessary 13 ratifications—three quarters of the 17 states as of 1810—and fell further behind as more states joined the union. That ought to have been the end of it, says Jol A. Silversmith, a lawyer in private practice who has written the definitive account of the "missing amendment." And so it was until the 1980s, when a conspiracy-minded researcher named David Dodge came across an 1825 copy of the Constitution including this provision. Further research led Dodge to conclude that TONA had been ratified by Virginia no later than 1819 and was an accepted, if largely unnoted, part of the Constitution from then until its mysterious disappearance around the time of the Civil War.

If you find it hard to believe that an amendment to the Constitution could have been in effect for four decades and then mysteriously excised and forgotten, well, the times were different. There was no single reference copy of the Constitution to which scribes with quill pens ceremoniously added amendments as they were ratified. Dodge claims to have turned up numerous pre–Civil War copies of the Constitution containing the missing amendment, but that doesn't add up to proof. Even Congress was confused about the status of TONA and requested clarification from President James Monroe, who turned the question over to Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who reported that it had not been ratified. The evidence that Virginia ever did approve TONA is circumstantial, but, as Silversmith points out, it's also irrelevant, because already by April 30, 1812, with the admission of Louisiana, ratification required 14 states (of 18). To hang the argument on what Virginia may have done in 1819 assumes that adoption required ratification only by three quarters of the states in the union at the time the amendment was submitted in 1810, i.e., 13 of 17. That view has had its adherents over the centuries, but apart from its inherent illogic—surely the high hurdle the Founding Fathers erected to Constitutional amendments wasn't meant to shrink as the country grew—we now have a clear precedent that establishes the opposite. That's the 27th Amendment (on Congressional pay), which was proposed in 1789 but was deemed ratified only in 1992 when it was passed by 38 states—three quarters of 50, not of 13.

In the world of the Thirteenthers, though, it's all a conspiracy, and the leading suspects are those shady characters who put "esquire" after their names. To quote the Web site Constitutional Concepts, "This Amendment was for the specific purpose of banning participation in government operations by attorneys and bankers who claimed the Title of Nobility of 'Esquire.' These people had joined the International Bar Association or the International Bankers Association and owed their allegiance to the King of England." In other words—well, we're not sure how to explain it any better, but Constitutional Concepts CEO Jim Barrus says in an e-mail that enforcement of the 13th Amendment would strike a blow against "the elected politicians who have grand plans of ruling every facet of America," and would essentially delegitimize virtually every act of the federal government since 1819. Who wouldn't want that?

Naturally, most lawyers see it differently. "The esquire thing is ridiculous," says R. B. Bernstein, a professor at New York Law School and author of Amending America. "'Esquire' is not a title of nobility. Back then, they were worried about people accepting literal titles of aristocracy that convey land or privileges, things you can leave to your kids." Lawyers obviously command certain privileges, but they are not inherited.

There are, of course, other implications of Thirteenthism, such as ensuring that the United States never again suffers the humiliation of having a president win the Nobel Peace Prize. That was just what the Iowa Republicans had in mind, according to Plogmann, who wrote in an e-mail that the plank "was meant to make a statement about the delegates' opinion about Mr. Obama receiving the prize." (Presumably they didn't mind if, in the process, they were also making a statement about any American scientist or writer unlucky enough to win a Nobel.) Unfortunately for them, the Department of Justice looked into whether Obama needed Congressional approval to accept the Nobel under the existing emoluments clause, and based on the meaning of "foreign state" (which would not cover the Nobel Prize Committee) concluded that he did not.

But they could be playing with fire. "We're in a constitutional silly season," says Bernstein, "and whether you are of the left or the right, if you take the Constitution seriously, it's very troubling." The threat posed by the 13th Amendment is remote; as far as can be determined, no other state has followed the Iowa GOP in calling for ratification, and no bill of ratification has been introduced into the Iowa legislature. As far as their platform goes, we should all be willing to defer to Iowa Republicans on the definition of manure as natural fertilizer. So long as they keep it on the fields, where it belongs.

http://www.thirdamendment.com/8SCIDLJ577.pdf

The case of the missing 13th amendment to the Constitution.
Republicans claimed the legitimate 13th Amendment to the Constitution was “missing.” The debate is part of a historical detective story with some surprising twists that is still taking place.The Daily Beast did a fairly extensive feature on the missing amendment in 2010, which didn’t feature a cloaked Freemason stealing the amendment because it had a secret treasure map printed on it.

Instead, the debate between historians and conspiracy buffs is about an amendment that was almost ratified in 1812 that would have been the 13th Amendment, bumping back the current 13th Amendment--which was ratified on this day in 1865 and abolished slavery--to the position of the 14th Amendment.

Writer Jerry Adler’s 2010 explanation of the “Thirteenthers” controversy is pretty detailed and covers both sides of the issue—which isn’t new but got a big burst of publicity thanks to the Iowa GOP’s 2010 platform.

The Iowa Republicans didn’t want the current 13th Amendment banned; they just wanted the “original” one reintroduced for approval. That "missing" proposal was called the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (or TONA). It sought to ban any American citizen from receiving any foreign title of nobility or receiving foreign favors, such as a pension, without congressional approval. The penalty was loss of citizenship.

It was an extension of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which doesn’t allow a public office holder to receive a foreign title or similar honors without the consent of Congress.

Today, the idea of a constitutional controversy about the royals may seem kind of silly, but in 1812, the United States was fighting the British and had a rocky relationship with France. The fear of both nations using noble titles as bribes, along with pensions from a foreign government, was persistent. And both the Senate and the House easily passed the TONA and passed it on to the states. By late 1812, a total of 12 states had approved the 13th Amendment and ironically, it needed a 13th state to become ratified. As the War of 1812 escalated, the TONA faded away as an issue and was never ratified.

Or so we think.

In the 1980s, Adler says a researcher started finding copies of the Constitution from the pre-Civil War era that had TONA listed as the 13th Amendment. The premise was that Virginia’s legislature had approved the amendment in 1819, but somehow, it was never listed as accepted by the federal government. Further research revealed that President James Monroe asked his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to confirm that the TONA was never ratified, which he did.

A law journal article from 1999 by Jol A. Silversmith, an attorney, explains how the TONA appeared in widely published versions of the Constitution for more than 30 years, including the official United States Statutes at Large (an official compilation of laws published by the government in 1815). His well-documented article of the “missing” amendment has more than 200 footnotes and a lot of interesting stories about how the Founding Fathers couldn’t keep track of new amendments they had just passed.

As the story goes, the editor of the 1815 book of statutes, John Colvin, couldn’t determine if the TONA amendment has been ratified, so he included it in the book with an explanatory note. Then, an official version of the Constitution was given to Congressional members that included the TONA as the 13th Amendment, as an apparent misprint. That triggered a request for Monroe and Adams to verify that the amendment hadn’t been ratified. The United States Statutes at Large wasn’t reprinted until 1845, so the mistake became part of textbooks, state publications, and newspapers, Silversmith said, for decades.

So a whole generation of Americans lived during a time when the “phantom” 13th Amendment existed, in some publications. (And with any kind of luck, you can probably find a TONA version of the Constitution at a flea market.) Silversmith also said Virginia's Senate rejected the TONA on February 14, 1811, based upon information in its records. But an official letter or note from the Virginia legislature couldn't be found several years later.

But how could the Founding Fathers and their heirs become so confused by a handful of amendments? President John Adams waited three years to acknowledge the 11th Amendment as law, and it took Secretary of State James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") three months to recognize the 12th Amendment as an effective law.

Part of the issue was the lack of a process for states to communicate to the federal government that they had voted in favor of an amendment. Also, the number of states kept changing, which added more confusion to the ratification process.

Today, TONA supporters have made several legal challenges to get the “original” 13th Amendment recognized. The issue hasn’t been taken up by the Supreme Court, and Silversmith wrote that a 2005 U.S. district court ruling said that based on Article V of the Constitution, the inclusion of TONA in published documents doesn’t make it an amendment.

That hasn’t kept the debate over TONA off the Internet, as there are many websites that claim it is the legitimate 13th Amendment. And there is no expiration date for the TONA amendment, which means that it can be introduced to 35 more states that didn’t vote on it originally.

It may seem that preposterous that an amendment from the early 1800s could still become a law today, but the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789 and finally approved in 1992.

The Missing Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Since the ratification of the Constitution, thousands of constitutional amendments have been proposed, but only 27 have survived the process of Article V. Out of these, the most well known are the first 10, also known as the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, 12 amendments were originally proposed, including one on congressional compensation. This proposal later became our 27th amendment, which celebrates its 20th anniversary today. This amendment boasts the longest ratification process of any amendment—200 years!

Under the Compensation Clause, Congress has the power to control its own salary. The Anti-Federalists and others at the state-ratifying conventions rightly objected to the danger of allowing this power. In response, James Madison proposed a compensation amendment stating that pay increases would apply only to the next Congress. It read: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

This change allowed the voters to force Congress to justify their pay increases through an election. Both the House and Senate approved the proposal and sent it (along with 11 other proposed amendments) to the states. The states ratified only 10 of these, now known as the Bill of Rights, but the compensation amendment remained in limbo until the 1980s.

In the early 1980s, a Texas undergraduate student’s term paper renewed the ratification effort. Arguing that the amendment’s ratification was still pending, the student raised support across the country on the amendment’s behalf. At the beginning of his campaign, only seven states had ratified the amendment, but thanks to his efforts, Michigan became the final 38th state to ratify the amendment in 1992. Not only do his efforts illustrate how one citizen can make a difference in the political process, but it also ensures that Congress remains accountable to the people.

https://www.newsweek.com/move-restore-13th-amendment-74391

This One Also Is Most Important Video You’ll Ever Watch Today In 2025.
America's Shocking True Secret Political History & Great American Real Sovereign Citizens - https://rumble.com/v5iytz9-americas-shocking-true-secret-political-history-and-great-american-real-sov.html

Yes We The People's Republic Of United State Of America Act of 1871-1917-1933 Fully Exposed America's Shocking True Secret Political History And As A Great American You Are The Real Sovereign Citizens Of U.S.A. Right Now America's Shocking Secret Political History.

https://dn720005.ca.archive.org/0/items/the-great-american-adventure_202203/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf

We at this channel would like to add this quote for everyone to open your own mind this year: Your body diet is not only what you eat. It is also what you watch, what you listen to, what you read, the people you hang out with and the things you subject your mind, body and soul too. Always be mindful of the things you put into your body emotionally, spiritually and physically. Thank You Everyone Who Watch Our Video's To Help Other In 2024

People's Republic Of United State Of America & International Maritime Admiralty Law - https://rumble.com/playlists/ahtzhGqa5vE

We hold that the American People Created a Constitutional Republic for the United States of America and never gave permission for a foreign controlled corporation to govern Us. As a soldier sworn to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the USA, what do you know about these newer movements such as "Sovereign Citizens", people that sign a "Declaration of Sovereign Intent" and/or belong to the "Republic for the United States of America?" Some of these people may honestly believe in what these movements stand for and they enjoy the rights that our Constitution provides, but there are a number of domestic extremists and criminal activities associated with those groups as well.

People's Republic Of United State Of America & International Maritime Admiralty Law - https://rumble.com/v2ef8n2-peoples-republic-of-united-state-of-america-and-international-maritime-admi.html

As a soldier sworn to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the USA, what do you know about these newer movements such as "Sovereign Citizens", people that sign a "Declaration of Sovereign Intent" and/or belong to the "Republic for the United States of America?" Some of these people may honestly believe in what these movements stand for and they enjoy the rights that our Constitution provides, but there are a number of domestic extremists and criminal activities associated with those groups as well. This is an open-ended question so please feel free to comment.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 41st US Congress Sold Out the Republic - https://rumble.com/v27tdu5-the-district-of-columbia-organic-act-of-1871-41st-us-congress-sold-out-the-.html

It was February 21, 1871 that the 41st US Congress sold out the Republic. On this date, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." Also known as the "Act of 1871."

Congress, illegally acting on it's own behalf, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.

Congress realizing that our country was in severe financial difficulty, cut a deal with the international bankers, in the process incurring a debt to those bankers.

The international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

Instead, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia. The new government consisted of an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city. The Seal of the District of Columbia features the date 1871, recognizing the year the District's government was incorporated.

The Act did not establish a new city or city government within the District. Regarding a city of Washington, it stated that "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington". In the present day, the name "Washington" is commonly used to refer to the entire District, but DC law continues to use the definition of the city of Washington as given in the 1871 Organic Act.

People's Republic Of United State Of America Act of 1871-1917-1933 Fully Exposed - https://rumble.com/v2ehok8-peoples-republic-of-united-state-of-america-act-of-1871-1917-1933-fully-exp.html

We hold that the American People Created a Constitutional Republic for the United States of America and never gave permission for a foreign controlled corporation to govern Us. THIS VIDEO IS SAFE TO WATCH but do not click or link To (( anticorruptionsociety )) Talked About In This Video At All... The U.S.A. Government Add A Computer Virus - Your Computer Has Been Locked - To Source Documents In This Video To Stop You! Thanks From The New World Order !

How Can We Stop or Start To Build An Anti Corruption Society ? A society is built on a structure that must have certain principles to stand firm and strong on the grounds of culture, ethics, and morality. In terms of the mentioned aspects, corruption is undoubtedly one evil that should be eliminated from a thriving society.

Moreover, corruption is a factor in the system and exists in all cultures, but this phenomenon has only begun to be seriously discussed in the last 20 years. Several heavily pro-corruption reforms and initiatives have indeed been proclaimed effective, but still, no state so far has managed to control corruption through global support requirements.

What is Corruption and Where Does it Exist ? Basically, corruption is the misuse of privileged status in any of the departments of government (judicial, executive and legislative) or in governmental or other organizations for the purpose of acquiring personal benefits that are not flagrantly unconstitutional for themselves or else.

The culture of corruption, however, is in stark contradiction to the earliest stages of law-making as well as the state and had been regarded as immoral in the ancient times, negatively impacting the public institutions and the flourishing of the political structure.

Oath Of Allegiance For New People's Republic Of United State Of America Act Today. - "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Arm Forces of the United States when required by law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law; and that I take this obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

From: How to become a U S citizen by Sally Schreudin 5th Ed. (For what should be in an oath, read 8 U.S.C.A. §1448.) This is the oath that people take to become US citizens, the underlined clause is interesting, sounds like voluntary servitude. This gives a guide as to what has to be in an oath, the rejection of former allegiances with the pledge of fidelity to the nation of choice.

No Oaths Of Office In The Federal Government Today & Link To Top Info Wars Video's - https://rumble.com/v4w7sxh-no-oaths-of-office-in-the-federal-government-today-and-link-to-top-info-war.html

No Oaths Of Office In The Federal Government And Are Enemies Destroying US Government From Within As Planned On January 10th Of 1963, Forty Five Current Communist Goals Were Submitted To The Congressional Record. Number Thirteen Was, “Do Away With Loyalty Oaths.” Know One In U.S. Government Have Signed And Or Notarized Copy Or Certified Copy Of Their Oath Of Office For Over 60 Years Now.

The People of the Republic for the United States of America do not now, nor have we ever supported any intent of over-throwing the corporation acting as the de facto United States government. We advocate peaceful, non-violent methods to restore and maintain a republican form of governance as guaranteed by the constitution. We will never advocate or take part in the kidnapping of, or violence against, any public official; nor do we affiliate with any hate groups; nor would we participate in any terrorist attack against the U.S. corporate government or any public or private official. We love our fellow man, America, its People and the Republic for which our flag stands. We believe that the rule of law should be applied justly and equally to all, both small and great without regard to race, gender, color, financial status, handicap, or religious affiliation. In short, we believe in treating our fellow man as we would like to be treated. We show tolerance and respect toward corporate law enforcement officers even when those officers, through lack of knowledge, may violate or infringe upon our unalienable rights. We are not tax protesters or “Sovereign Citizens” as defined by the UNITED STATES and Homeland Security. We believe in conducting the business of Republic governance in the open, not in secret meetings. We hold that the People intend to thoroughly research the Law and the intent of the founders. We are willing to assist the corporate local, state, or national leaders, such as governors, congressmen, senators or representatives in coming to a clearer understanding of their constitutional duties and obligations to the American People.

Any information you provide to the Republic for the United States of America is kept strictly private, unless you have given express written permission for any of those details to be made public. Contact details are used to keep you updated by email or other electronic message. If you provide a phone number or mailing address it may be distributed to a contact in your State for purposes of keeping you informed of local assemblies or a personal contact to answer any questions you may have about assisting with the restoration of the republic. Your information is never rented or sold or otherwise released for any purpose.

Documentary Of All Documentaries JFK To Sept 9/11 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick. - https://rumble.com/v4gdc4u-documentary-of-all-documentaries-jfk-to-sept-911-everything-is-a-rich-mans-.html

Documentary Of JFK To Sept. 9/11: Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick is a popular, or alternate, history of some significant components of the 20th Century. “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

"The powers that have taken over our country will do anything in their sorcerer’s bag of tricks to distract us and keep up the illusion that they are protecting us so as to maintain power. These banking and corporate pirates are willing and more than ready to intimidate, buy off, or destroy any and all critics. It is important for us to realize the depth of evil we are dealing with here – they are willing to kill as many people as needed to accomplish their aims. It is shocking to realize that the very entity that is supposed to be protecting us – our government – is the very thing from which we need protection. It is shattering to realize that our leaders are genuine psychopathic criminals who are trying to take over our planet, impose full-spectrum dominance, enact a new world order and centralize power and control. Instead of this being a conspiracy theory, the evidence is all around us, as it is everywhere we look if we have the eyes to see beyond the carefully crafted and disseminated spell that is being perpetually woven all around us....

Sept. 9/11 Controlled Demolition Actual Collapse Twin Towers World Trade Center - https://rumble.com/v3gu5z4-sept.-911-controlled-demolition-actual-collapse-twin-towers-world-trade-cen.html

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11-facts

Hoax National Terrorist Attacks Controlled Demolition Actual Collapse Twin Towers - https://rumble.com/v3i3ccq-hoax-national-terrorist-attacks-controlled-demolition-actual-collapse-twin-.html

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the United States and killed almost 3,000 innocent people. A terse and information packed summary of exactly who was involved in the 9-11 2001 attacks, what they did, and what motivated them. Truly an amazing piece of research, the result of monumental effort on the part of investigators who just wouldn't let it go. The people who think 9/11 may have been an 'inside job' 22 years ago today.

https://911planeshoax.com/
Yes its true conspiracy theory that “controlled demolition” caused one, if not all three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings to collapse on 9/11, has been steadfastly denied via various government investigations. U.S. officials have concluded the buildings collapsed due to fire-induced structural failure. Of the 2,996 deaths terror attack related deaths on Sept. 11, 2001.

This is an incomplete collection of copies of the Dan Smoot Report, published by far-right, anti-civil rights, conservative activist Dan Smoot. This particular collection was primarily published during the 1960s, and was first published online at https://federalexpression.wordpress.com/ or at - https://archive.org/details/Dan-Smoot-Report-1960s/dan-smoot-report-386-the-fourteenth-amendment/

Within 30 days of appointment to public office, all public officials are legally required to have a signed and notarized copy of their oath of office. And it appears as if no elected officials in the Federal government have one. They are either non-existent, incomplete, or fraudulent. The fraudulent ones are missing signatures, are not notarized, and in most of them, the words “SO HELP ME GOD” are in all caps. In the US Constitution, “So help me God” is not in all caps. And this matters. As many have been telling us for decades, including the great Jordan Maxwell.

United States is a Corporation and Corporate Origins of Modern Constitutionalism - https://rumble.com/v29quxm-united-states-is-a-corporation-and-corporate-origins-of-modern-constitution.html

Birth Certificate Equals Slavery Bondage Understanding How Admiralty Maritime Laws - https://rumble.com/v2dau7c-birth-certificate-equals-slavery-bondage-understanding-how-admiralty-mariti.html

"Today, the entire world of mankind operates under a world law which is referred to as the law of the high seas or, International Maritime Admiralty. When you were born, you came out of your mother's water. Since you came out of your mother's water, you are a maritime product. This is why, when you were born, the doc (dock) has to sign your birth (berth) certificate. It’s a maritime Admiralty manifest showing that your mother brought you into the world and you are going to make money. Anything in this country, if it's a lawful legal document of any kind, your name must be, according to maritime law, be in all capital letters. Why? Because you do not own your body. You do not own yourself. All capital letters name implies that you are a maritime admiralty product. You are not a human. You're not a living entity. You're a product.

Your living entity person, the actual you, is represented under law by upper and lower case name. So you are a corporation, whether you know it or not. But you are merely a subsidiary of a larger corporation called UNITED STATES. This is the way the law works." ~ Jordan Maxwell

A notarized copy of a document is a certified copy of the original document that has been verified and authenticated by a notary public. The notary public will typically stamp the copy with their seal and signature, indicating that they have verified the authenticity of the document and the identity of the person signing it.

In some cases, a notarized copy may be acceptable as evidence in court or for official purposes, but it’s always best to check with the relevant authorities or institution to confirm their specific requirements.

It’s also important to note that a notarized copy is not the same as a signed copy. A signed copy is a copy of the document that has been signed by the person who created it, but it has not been verified or authenticated by a notary public.

In summary, a notarized copy is a certified copy of a document that has been verified and authenticated by a notary public, while a signed copy is a copy of the document that has been signed by the person who created it.

I am a scholar of both law and politics. Here are four important questions for readers to consider on these important concepts.

What is the presidential oath of office?
The presidential oath of office comes from the U.S. Constitution. It requires that the President recite the following statement upon taking office: ( “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” )

Some legal observers believe that the presidential oath reflects a unique personal duty to shield the Constitution from external and internal threats to its integrity and sustainability.

It could be argued that this presidential duty extends beyond preserving the Constitution itself to preserving the constitutional governmental order that it creates, the liberties it protects, and the nation and people it serves.

Can violations of the presidential oath be prosecuted or legally enforced?
The Constitution may impose a duty on a particular governmental officer, in this case the president, but that doesn’t mean the president’s failure to fulfill that duty can be punished or remedied by a court.

The sheriff, in other words, can’t go arrest the president for not following his oath, nor could the president be indicted for failure to uphold the oath. This isn’t an isolated instance: There’s no legal remedy through court action available for a perceived violation of a number of constitutional provisions.

For example, the Constitution’s Republican Form of Government Clause requires that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and … against domestic Violence.”

Yet the Supreme Court has held, in a 19th century case involving a rebellion against the existing Rhode Island government, that the courts have no authority to require the U.S. government to comply with the Constitution’s Republican Form of Government Clause. The Court ruled that the question whether a state government is “republican” in nature and thus valid under the Constitution is a political choice to be made by Congress, the representative body of the states.

This “political question doctrine” has also emerged as a defense to recent lawsuits claiming that President Trump violated the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign officials at Trump businesses. That clause prohibits government officers from accepting presents from foreign heads of state without Congressional consent.
According to this argument – made in motions to dismiss the lawsuits against Trump – enforcement of the Emoluments Clause is vested in the political branches, perhaps through impeachment, rather than in a court.

The same analysis would apply to alleged violations of the Presidential oath of office. The oath contains vague obligations to protect or preserve the Constitution and appears to apply those duties to the President’s honorable discretion. It seems unlikely, just as with the Republican Form of Government Clause, that a court would be the place that alleged violations would be tried. Rather, it would more properly be considered a political question to be solved by the legislature. In other words, if people feel that Trump has violated the Oath of Office, they can encourage the House to impeach him.

Welcome To The New World Order - The Year Zero - The Real Origin of the World - National Anthem of the United States of America and Confederate States of America National Anthem and New World Order National Anthem Is "The Ostrich" Lyrics by Steppenwolf from the album 'Rest In Peace' 1967-1972 A.C.E. The Conspiracy to Rule Your Mind chronicles how the ruling elite have established global domination and the ability to effect the thoughts, decisions, and world view of human beings across the globe by systematically infiltrating the media, academia, industry, military and political factions under the guise of upholding democracy. Learn how this malevolent consortium has dedicated centuries to realize an oppressive and totalitarian rule through any means necessary, not limited to drug trafficking, money laundering, terror attacks and financial crisis within the world economy.

Worldwide tyranny is already in full effect, the food we eat and the air we breathe are not off limits. Will we be able to stop this madness before we become an electronically monitored, cashless society wherein ever man, woman and child is micro chipped? We live in the world where sex is free and love costs, where losing a phone is scarier than losing morale, where it is fashionable to get drunk and using drugs, because if you don’t do that, you’re old and out, where men cheat on their wives with girls and if they don’t, it’s for fear of being caught, where girls are more afraid of being pregnant than getting AIDS, where pizza delivery is faster than an ambulance, where clothes decide a person’s value and money is more important than friends and family... This is not my world. Where has my true world gone? The New World Order Is Upon Us - Preserve Your Liberty By Being Prepared ! - We The People of the New World Order Thank You.

The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. God, guns and gays are phony "issues" to bolster the illusion of "difference" between the parties. The only thing that makes all this possible is that people aren't aware of the scam. Just knowing they are either "Team Red" or "Team Blue" liberates them from the responsibility of having to actually know or think anything. Then they feel righteous when their team wins, or despondent when they loose. It's no coincidence that the system works exactly like sports. There comes a point when ignorance and apathy become treason. We are past that point, people.

Everything you want to know what could be more terrifying than being trafficked for sex? Being murdered in a ritual sacrifice. And even worse than that would be being murdered in a ritual sacrifice so wealthy elite cabalists can harvest your adrenal glands to get the compound Adrenochrome they need to prolong their decrepit lives! It's so easy to be overwhelmed and feel beaten by the amount of negative and discouraging information being spread by the mainstream (fake stream) media. There are truly awful people in WEF and WHO, who want to reduce us to the level of serfs or chattel, but we can resist, indeed, we must resist. Be calm, be objective and be positive. Right is Might. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Nobody Is Safe From People's Republic Of The Tyrannical We The Sheeple People of The United States of America and A Real True Bill of State Rights Of Government July Forth 1776 The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which limit the power of the federal government and guarantee certain freedoms and rights to all colour of people and for the citizens of All America.

Thanks For Calling and Remember the U.S. Government Leave No Witnesses Alive Behind Them. If You See Fraudulent or Criminal Activities by U.S. Government. Please Call Us (ASAP) So We Can Send Someone Out To Kill You! Thanks Again For Calling.

A symbolic example of this secret truth is contained within the National Bird of the United States. Many Americans and people around the world think that our National Bird of the U.S. is an eagle. They are wrong. The symbolic bird you will find on the Great Seal of the United States is actually the mythical bird known as a Phoenix. The scroll in the beak of the Phoenix is the Latin motto of 13 letters, E Pluribus Unum, meaning in English, ” Out of Many, One”. Later an olive branch and a bundle of 13 arrows (representing peace and war, respectively) were included in the claws of the phoenix. Over its head there appears 13 stars that are arranged in rows of 1-4-3-4-1, forming a six-pointed star. The Star of David and symbol of Israel.

Your Birth Certificate Equals Slavery Bondage Understanding How Admiralty Maritime Laws Work And What Is And Why Is U.S.A. Laws Are Under A Gold Fringe Flag? So have you ever walked into a court room and notice a gold fringe flag hanging in the room? Did you ever wonder why every single flag in court rooms and government buildings is a gold fringe flag? And do you remember how many times you pledged your allegiance to that flag?

“I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

Reciting the pledge was the first things we did in school every day, from day one of first grade, to the last day of eighth grade. So, after eight years of repetition, the neuro-pathways are grooved in deep into our brains. And our loyalty so strong to the red, white and blue. Then, one day, we wake up in our adult world, and guess what? The flag now has gold fringe around it and we NEVER asked why? Why is this flag different than the one we were taught to love and be loyal to? We never questioned it. We just assumed it was the same, dear old stripes and stars, and went about out busy little lives.

So, the flag in the court room is a gold fringe flag. Who cares? That doesn’t affect me, right? You should care and yes, it does affect you. The gold fringe flag is a clear sign of a system being in place that is not the system we are taught to believe is in place. A gold fringe flag was historically used during times of war in maritime admiralty law(which we are in right now as well).

The gold fringe flag is not the same flag that is approved for our Constitutional Republic in USA code Title 4 Ch 1 & Ch 2. The fourth color (yellow) is not approved in the code. Also, you will notice the tassels hanging from the flag. These are also symbolic of admiralty law, which is the law of the sea.

So, wait a minute? Our flags that hang in our government buildings and court rooms are actually representative of war-time in the law of the sea/admiralty law?? Yes. We are in fact, functioning in maritime admiralty law, and our court system is actually upholding a corporation that goes by the name of UNITED STATES. In other words, we are not in a republic, and we are not dealing with the constitutional United States of America. Well, actually, the UNITED STATES does have a constitution but it is not the same as the original Constitution that was drafted for the republic. This is why the gold fringed flag controversy is such a big deal, because it symbolize.

So, now it is up to us to figure out how to navigate our way through the law of the sea, in order to find our remedies. The possibilities for this are endless. But it basically boils down to either mastering the current system and learning how to navigate your way through it, without incurring personal liability for anything. Or, separating yourself completely from the system, and moving yourself back to common law. In other words, you can go as far as expatriating yourself from the UNITED STATES so that you no longer belong to that corporation. Therefore, their rules would no longer apply to you. Cool, huh?

What Is Maritime (aka Admiralty) Law, and Why Is It Important ? What Is Maritime Law?

Maritime law, also known as admiralty law, is a body of laws, conventions, and treaties that govern private maritime business and other nautical matters, such as shipping or offenses occurring on open water. International rules governing the use of the oceans and seas are known as the Law of the Sea.

The Presidential Hotline Pedophile and Secret Human Trafficking and Child Sex Ring Etc. Call 1-866-4-5455-968 ( 1-866-I-Kill-You ) should be used when all your attempts to get assistance from a government department, province, municipality or state agency have failed. It is not only a complaints line. You can call to share your views or provide solutions to the challenges in your community. We also list the help line numbers of non-governmental organization's working with government. You may call at 987-654-3210 ext. new world order!

In 1984 Tried To Warn Us We The People About Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. This Information Is For Everyone To See The Real Truth Today. This Channel Is Up For 666 Day Now And Rumble Said We Have Made In Ad Money A Total Of $682 Dollars As Of Nov. 12, 2024 So Our Ave. Money Is $1.02 Cents A Day. Yes This Channel Is Not About Making Money At ALL. Thank You Everyone For Over 5 Million+ Views And For Watching All Of Our 872 Video's In 2022 - 2024.

We hold that the American People Created a Constitutional Republic for the United States of America and never gave permission for a foreign controlled corporation to govern Us. As a soldier sworn to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the USA, what do you know about these newer movements such as "Sovereign Citizens", people that sign a "Declaration of Sovereign Intent" and/or belong to the "Republic for the United States of America?" Some of these people may honestly believe in what these movements stand for and they enjoy the rights that our Constitution provides, but there are a number of domestic extremists and criminal activities associated with those groups as well. This is an open-ended question so please feel free to comment.

All religion is a tool to have more control over the people's thoughts and behavior. Now religion is basically a pyramid scheme making the few at the top rich. Why does a church need a 15 million dollar compound with multiple buildings? Why does the pastor usually drive a nice new mercedes or BMW while the flock struggles and still gives the church money every week? Don't people join the church to change their life and help others the same way? It's like politicians, they should almost be volunteer jobs or just low paying. Otherwise you just keep getting people who want more money regardless of how they get it. Take from the poor and keep it doesn't sound like caring for the people. For the most part big churches were corrupted centuries ago with power hungry people. Now it's greed, a larger flock or church means they get more money every week!!

The only way to attack illegal activity is to focus on the illegal activity and its perpetrators, former President Reagan argued in a 1983 speech.

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time,” he said.

all gun laws are unconstitutional therefore illegal and void. no government official anywhere in the united states of America has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any form of gun laws whatsoever anywhere in the united states of America under the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment shall not be Infringed clause,9th amendment enumeration clause,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined anyone passing or enforcing any form of gun laws anywhere in the united states of America are guilty of felony crimes in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section §241 conspiracy against rights, Title 18 U.S.C. section §242,if they are working with or on behalf of any anti Gun organizations, association, movement, group they are guilty in violation of Title 5 U.S.C. section §7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5), they are guilty of Perjury in violating oath of office swearing false oath, insurrection and rebellion against the constitution of the united states of America, and Treason. Yes that's what our second amendment exists for to take down terrorist tyrant traitors calling themselves government.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time." - President Reagan

The natural right to keep & bear arms protects all of our other natural rights. Two of the very few reasons government exists is to protect the country and protect the natural rights of its citizens. However, the government, fed and state, have abandoned their purpose and have made themselves the enemy of America and Americans. They not only fail to protect our rights, they steal our wealth to spend Attacking our natural rights and trying to replace them with socialist welfare & subsidies like murdering babies & state-mismanaged death care.

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting…. It is about our rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from ‘All Enemies Foreign and Domestic’. This includes protections from a possible Tyrannical Government.”

We at this channel would like to add this quote for everyone to open your own mind this year: Your body diet is not only what you eat. It is also what you watch, what you listen to, what you read, the people you hang out with and the things you subject your mind, body and soul too. Always be mindful of the things you put into your body emotionally, spiritually and physically. Thank You Everyone Who Watch Our Video's To Help Other In 2025.

Show less